Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thright (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 17 March 2008 (Adding report for User:Circuslife. using TW). 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. |
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
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). This has recently been updated and therefore administrators should read over the minor changes that have happened.
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 sockpuppeteer
- Circuslife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Lighthouse hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Markmacanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Sipmagazine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Thright (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Revision history of SIP Magazine - new account removing spd tag
- Comments
- Any, editor is able to remove the speedy tag if they don't feel that speedy deletion is warranted. This is not proof of sock puppetry. -Djsasso (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the accounts has one edit, hardly evidence. The Dominator (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this: [1]
And I have no reason to believe that user is lying. The Dominator (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lighthouse hero (talk · contribs) admits here to being Mark Macanas, so it's pretty clear SPA accounts Markmacanas (talk · contribs) and Sipmagazine (talk · contribs) should be included in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Sipmagazine : username hardblocked for be blatantly promotional
- All the remainder are clearly either sock or meat-puppets (the distinction is pretty narrow in this instance).
- Circuslife : Blocked for sockpuppetry
- Lighthouse hero : Blocked for sockpuppetry (they did request account deletion, but this is the next best thing)
- Markmacanas : Blocked for sockpuppetry.
The public face of GBT/C 12:55, 19 March 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
Soccermeko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Deenaharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Kww (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deenaharp
- Comments
Same style writing as Soccermeko, same obsession with non-notable albums by Nicole Wray. Soccermeko has already been found to have several sockpuppets, all editing the same article the same way.Kww (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Sock blocked indef by Metros. Moreschi (talk) 17:05, 17 March 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
Greg Jungwirth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
70.181.24.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.200.176.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
158.123.179.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.93.25.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--treelo talk 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Due to the persistence of this vandal in blanking user talkpages from various IPs I'm requesting that an autoblock be in place on the mentioned addresses. 72.200.176.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) already has an autoblock in place thrugh use of the address for ban evasion and vandalism but as he uses a pool of IP addresses (and one from a public library though that already seems prone to use by vandals) all of the socks must have autoblocks in place in order to prevent further disruption. --treelo talk 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Not sure what you mean by "autoblocks". Autoblocks occur automatically when a logged-in user is hard-blocked. Do you mean you want a hard-block on all of these IPs? It seems only one user talk page is being vandalized - and even that fairly seldom. WP:RBI seems the better approach - or semi-protection if it gets more frequent. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would want a hard-block on these IPs as clearly I've used the wrong term. More than one talkpage is vandalised by these IP addresses consistently. RBI seems the right choice to make to me over a hardblock and more permanent semi-prots for the talkpages should it continue as it'd pretty much kill the vandal's modus operandi of glory-seeking. This SSP case could easily be feeding the fire also, might come back to dealing with it with hard-blocking should RBI do nothing if not increase it. --treelo talk 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Main user account has been indef blocked, and talk page protected. IPs have been blocked, where relevant (with a long-term block on the worst IP). Long term blocks on the other IPs is inappropriate as they appear to be dynamic. If issues continue then use WP:AIV or WP:RFPP accordingly.
Archiving because this is relatively stale by now. The public face of GBT/C 12:36, 2 April 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 sockpuppet:
- RaderZer0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected masters
- Skele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Sillygostly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
User:JAF1970 14:20, 14 March 2008
- Evidence
Just entered Spore (video game) out of the blue to support a position, using much of the same dialog as a previous debater.
- Comments
You need to fill in the name of who you think is the sock puppet. If you get the master and the sock backwards, that is not a big deal. We will fix that. Additionally, please cite diffs showing the two accounts advancing the same position. Thus far, I do not think you have a case, but if you can find evidence, I might change my mind. Jehochman Talk 15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following comments are copied from my talk page. Jehochman Talk 18:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never posted a suspect sockpuppet. RaderZer0 is the suspected sockpuppet. I suspect either User:Skele or User:Sillygostly as the puppeteers. JAF1970 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
So far, this person has done nothing but post to the Spore (video game) talk page to support Skele's claims. Either a sock puppet or a person recruited to back up their position, basically parroting everything they say. JAF1970 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is relevant to this case or not, but JAF1970 also accused me of sockpuppetry on Talk:Spore (video game), as seen in this diff (though he didn't open a case for it), just two weeks prior to opening this case. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 08:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no sockpuppet to anyone and I also think that no one else is a sockpuppet(including RaderZer0, Nanobri, Sillygostly, JAF1970 and Dansiman). JAF1970 has been insulting other people from the start. RaderZer0 is just telling his own POV. Nor I ain't any puppeteer. I've been in Wikipedia for five years and I have no intentions to cheat in debates. It would be weak. Skele (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow... just wow. JAF1970 has been insulting anybody whose edits/opinions conflict with his own (he's called me an "idiotic 16 year old twit", and has accused me of harrassment, being a "belligerent troll", abusing so-called "admin powers", and now of sockpuppeteering). Short answer, I'm not a sockpuppeteer, and I believe beyond reasonable doubt that nobody else here is one either. Sillygostly (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Not enough conclusive evidence to warrant administrative action. Jehochman Talk 02:47, 27 March 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
Dmits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Rattus nonnus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
David Underdown (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I had the following instances of vandalism on my talk or user pages by user:Dmits[2] (an apparently brand new user), all of which attempted to redirect the pages elsewhere and which I reverted basically immediately. Then another "new" user pops up on my talk with a supposed "Content warning" [3].
- Comments
timing is such that the users all almost certain to be one and the same, there was no chance (and no particualr reason) that 2 brand new suers should come to my talk page in such a short space of time, and that the second should actually have managed to do so whilst the redirect was in place.
Please file a request for checkuser with reason F, block or ban evasion. The two accounts are likely to both be sock puppets of a banned or blocked user. Please cite Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dmits as your evidence, and in the explanation note that I have endorsed a request for checkuser. You may want to add the following to your request:
Redflag The first edits of both accounts are harassment directed at you. [4][5]
Request the entire sock drawer emptied and you want these accounts tied to the puppetmaster, if possible. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
User:Dmits - was previously blocked for 48 hours. I have upped this to indef on the basis of a vandalism-only account. User:Rattus nonnus - almost certainly a sock, but I agree with Jehochman - take it to WP:RFCU to get some laundry done. GBT/C 14:05, 18 March 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
- Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Sillybilly2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 90.209.117.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Mayalld (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Puppetmaster created article on Darren M Jackson which is going through AfD as a nn bio, and has strenuously defended the article. Puppet was created yesterday as a new account, and immediately created a copy of the article at Darren 'Jack' Jackson. Both users display a similar habit of signing talk page posts with only 3 tildes.
Both articles have been edited by User:90.209.117.4, in each case the IP appears to be the same user as the logged in user editing. (RFCU filed)
- Comments
What crap, some one is hell bent in the Darren M Jackson article being deleted due to its enthnic back ground of Romany decent, so another editer as sock puppeted article, Darren M Jackson proves notable, due to this fact , others have created or copied artcile to dicredit author total crap more injudice for Romany folk on wikipedia. All or most people sign off with 3 titles, and sock puppet can copy my title. This does not prove a thing total rubbish. Editer just want Darren M Jackson to be deleted any any way, could not do through wikipedia criteria of notability, so have created a sock puppet.Diamonddannyboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, MOST people sign off with FOUR tildes, and signing with three is quite unusual. You make several claims above;
- I am hell bent on deleting the article due to its ethic background
- Nonsense, and I resent the unfounded playing of the "race card" here
- Somebody else created the copy of the article
- Somehow that is difficult to believe. You have a history of creating this article (see an old version of your talk page for details), and it being deleted, and a history of being suspected of using socks to do so. Strangely enough, these other accounts only spring up at about the same time as you are actively trying to get an article on this guy created. Do you seriously expect that people will believe that somebody else just happened to create a new account, and immediately make a copy of the article that is up for deletion.
- I just want the article to be deleted an will stop at nothing.
- Untrue, and I resent the accusation. Despite my opinion that the subject is not notable, I have bent over backwards to help you to improve the article so that it would have the fairest possible consideration at AfD. In any case, the outcome of this case will have no effect whatsoever on the Outcome of the AfD
- Mayalld (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Sillybilly2 has already been blocked and tagged by UltraExactZZ following the positive CU result. Diamonddannyboy blocked one week for disruption. GBT/C 17:53, 18 March 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
Patkirkwoood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
90.198.115.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.194.141.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.194.141.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.198.115.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Carom (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Patkirkwoood has uploaded a number of unfree images of celebrities and images lacking any copyright information whatsoever, and that user and the two IP addresses consistently add those images to the relevant articles, even when better quality, free images are available. On Beatrice Arthur, both the user and the two IP addresses have frequently reverted other users who restored free images. User:Patkirkwoood has been blocked on at least one occasion; it is possible that the IP addresses are being used to evade the block. For what it's worth, both IP's are located in Brighton, England; no information on where User:Patkirkwoood is located.
- Comments
See also Talk:Mickey Rooney, Revision history of User talk:Patkirkwoood diff for edits by same anonymous IP 90.198.115.130, and Revision history of Jane Boulton for edits involving all three. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a couple of other IPs. This editor is also active on Judy Cornwell, Ringo Brown and repeatedly vandalising 114. You've got vandalism, repeated violations of fair use policy, and edit warring to keep large amounts of unencyclopedic information in articles (see here). Even right after the block on 9 March you've got edits like this that violate fair use policy. One Night In Hackney303 04:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a notice, I've blocked 90.198.115.130 for continued disruption for 24 hours, sockpuppet or not. Cheers, CP 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And unsurprisingly, back causing more disruption after the block.... One Night In Hackney303 09:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to remarkable similarity of edits, I would also link this with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want to officially wrap this up then, seeing as you've already wielded the banhammer? I think WP:RBI might be the best way to deal with this editor in future? One Night In Hackney303 09:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Comparing the style of edits, I've blocked all these IPs for three months as sockpuppets of WJH1992 (talk · contribs) It would have been indef but these IPs may be reassigned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Rodhullandemu also indef blocked Patkirkwoood. GBT/C 17:57, 18 March 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
- Bald Eeagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Midnightcrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
~~ [Jam][talk] 08:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Midnightcrow seems to share a similar "rant" style to Bald Eeagle and Lightedbulb (both of whom have now been blocked for sockpuppetry) - see here for any example of a rant. User also directly refers to Thumperward/Chris Cunningham [6] as Bald Eeagle did [7].
- Comments
- Conclusions
Clearly a sock - indef blocked and tagged accordingly. GBT/C 13:27, 19 March 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
Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
72.234.254.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RobertTheSmall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
98.26.120.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zsabreuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
206.162.204.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Nori198 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Per AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Final_Fantasy_VII_(Famicom)
AN/I discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Final_Fantasy_VII_article.2C_AFD.2C_and_sock_puppets (which was oddly created by the puppeteer himself)
- User:Kung Fu Man has proceeded to vandalize both my IP page and my user page in succession and created an edit war, while ignoring the three reversion policy, [[8]], [[9]] and [[10]] with a spurious abuse of tags. A quick look at the revision history shows further instance of this particular reversion. User has been reported to both AN/I and AIV on seperate instances of vandalism, and will likely be temporarily blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nori198 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Seems to be a strong case of article ownership. Suspected user elected several meatpuppets by his own admission, before deploying a number of keep votes from suspicious IPs. (most of which have no edit history outside of the AfD discussion) One of these accounts, 72.234.254.153 has a connection to many other articles upkept by the sockpuppeteer, and may possibly be a proxy or alternate account.
- User Krator appears to be a single-purpose account for AfD discussions. Contribution history is chock-full of evidence, as well as warnings against AfD etiquette on the user's talk page. Nori198 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I'm the person who is more commonly known as 72.234.254.153 (didn't log in out of forgetfulness). Regardless, to say that I am a sock puppet of Kung Fu Man is ridiculous. It is true that I know the individual and am involved in one of the communities he is in, but upon closer inspection of the M.U.G.E.N article, you would notice that under that IP (as well as this account), I argue with him on several points. I'd also state that I know the individuals RobertTheSmall and ZSabreuser, and neither of these are sockpuppets for Kung Fu Man. If you wish for proof that we are all different people, I will gladly provide it. EvilThouther (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Convenient that you should stumble upon this page, as well as some of the other suspected accounts making an appearance in the AN/I discussion. Nori198 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you posted about it in a section he already commented in. Also, people can see back contributions for people. Including your own, Nori198, so they should start questioning why your account seems to have been generated only for this purpose.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just found this page when I was looking up sock puppets because I kept hearing it and didn't know what it meant until I heard it being repeated. Also, what I find interesting is that I'm offering to supply proof that most (if not all) users here aren't sockpuppets, and you're blatantly ignoring it. EvilThouther (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're doing an awfully poor job of substantiating this claim you're implying against me. A single-purpose account is not a violation in and of itself, assuming it serves a legitimate purpose. (i.e., clean-up, moderation, database management and other general tasks) Your use of single-purpose accounts was a violation of Wikipedia's policy against sockpuppetry -- they were applied to disrupt an AfD discussion and distort the consensus of an article's fate. My choice to not adopt a permenant acocunt is within the legal guidelines of editing, and allows me to avoid senseless conflicts spilling over into my edit history and talk page, such as the one you're attempting to start with me now. Unfortunately, I see you've already began to vandalize my talk page. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. An article you worked hard on was nominated for deletion, and I am sorry that you risk losing that hard work. However, as already pointed out, part of contributing toward Wikipedia also means taking away. The subject of Chinese ROM hacks is not encyclopedic in nature, and is a difficult subject to verify. Thus, it fails to register proper notability and verifiability. I encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, and ask that you leave this issue alone and move on. This is the only response you will hear from me regarding any such matter you wish to make personal. Thank you. Nori198 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow you talk too much in one shot. Anyway to cut it short, the response to your talk page does not constitute as vandalism. Additionally it is my belief that your account and that of your fellow IP are sockpuppets for the individual named. Your behavior has been rude, disruptive, and shown a complete lack of faith and more interest in outright deletion of an article based solely on your personaly WP:POV. To deal with this I point out the following:
- One, that the game is not a hack but coded from scratch as the article cites.
- Two, any subject can have equal notability on wikipedia if notability can be proven.
- Three, two major gaming sites, one american and one japanese, both did coverage on the game.
- Four, after discussion with an administrator, Kotaku, Boing Boing Gadgets, InsertCredit, and Joystiq were all presented in a discussion with an admin to see if they could warrant as official information. His response was thus: as they have editors and structure behind them in the form of an online magazine, they count as e-zines and thus escape persecution of blogs and can be counted as citable resources on wikipedia.
- And that's just getting started.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're doing an awfully poor job of substantiating this claim you're implying against me. A single-purpose account is not a violation in and of itself, assuming it serves a legitimate purpose. (i.e., clean-up, moderation, database management and other general tasks) Your use of single-purpose accounts was a violation of Wikipedia's policy against sockpuppetry -- they were applied to disrupt an AfD discussion and distort the consensus of an article's fate. My choice to not adopt a permenant acocunt is within the legal guidelines of editing, and allows me to avoid senseless conflicts spilling over into my edit history and talk page, such as the one you're attempting to start with me now. Unfortunately, I see you've already began to vandalize my talk page. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. An article you worked hard on was nominated for deletion, and I am sorry that you risk losing that hard work. However, as already pointed out, part of contributing toward Wikipedia also means taking away. The subject of Chinese ROM hacks is not encyclopedic in nature, and is a difficult subject to verify. Thus, it fails to register proper notability and verifiability. I encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, and ask that you leave this issue alone and move on. This is the only response you will hear from me regarding any such matter you wish to make personal. Thank you. Nori198 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Convenient that you should stumble upon this page, as well as some of the other suspected accounts making an appearance in the AN/I discussion. Nori198 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This complaint is ridiculous and should be speedily closed. JuJube (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Kung Fu Man apparently took it upon himself to put in a spurious check-user request on my IP under the baseless accusation that I was a sockpuppet of User:Eyrian. The claim was of course closed as stale, as Kung Fu Man yet again has trouble substantiating any of the spurious counter-claims he pulls out of thin-air. His only supporting "evidence" of this claim is that I reverted his abuse of tagging on talk pages, indentified as vandalism. Sounds like someone isn't too happy that I endorsed the deletion of his article. Going over his contribution history, he seems to be getting the word out that I'm "out to get him." 68.209.235.149 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone close this please? User:Krator (t c) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Closing, no action. Jehochman Talk 19:45, 29 March 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
Nationalpb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Ationalpbn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oxygen49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oxygen50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oxygen51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oxygen52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oxygen53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oxygen54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.153.53.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.77.166.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tionalpbna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ionalpbnat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Onalpbnati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Snigbrook (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Ationalpbn is almost the same username as the blocked user, the others were all created within a few minutes of each other (Oxygen49 and Oxygen50 have edited, the others have not). The first IP address, 81.153.53.243 has already been blocked three times for similar sneaky vandalism and is editing again. The second IP is possibly another user but edits the same articles at the same time, this has happened before - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nationalpb, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ctx1 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ctx6 for similar editing patterns. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another three, created the same time as Nationalpb and Ationalpbn. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
my sister makes me acounts so i can edit wikipedia so whats a sockpuppet sorry i am autism (wheelchair). for help? Oxygen54 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that explain this edit? And whatever your reason using multiple accounts for vandalism is sock puppetry. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating a new account to avoid a block is also sock puppetry. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Ationalpbn : Blocked and tagged.
- Tionalpbna : Already blocked and tagged by Stifle.
- Ionalpbnat : Blocked and tagged.
- Onalpbnati : Blocked and tagged.
- Oxygen49 : Blocked (as VOA account, not necessarily as sock, although looks likely).
- Oxygen50 : Blocked (as VOA account, not necessarily as sock, although looks likely).
- Oxygen51 : Blocked (as VOA account, not necessarily as sock, although looks likely).
- Oxygen52 : Already blocked (VOA) by FisherQueen.
- Oxygen53 : Blocked (as VOA account, not necessarily as sock, although looks likely).
- Oxygen54 : Blocked (as VOA account, not necessarily as sock, although looks likely).
- 81.153.53.243 : Already blocked (two weeks) by CKatz.
- 81.77.166.91 : IPs a bit stale, so no block warranted.
GBT/C 18:19, 18 March 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
Mangogirl2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Skimaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Giuliopp (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Mangogirl2 is the main contributor to Trajectory optimization; his last edit to it was done at 03:12, 11 March 2008 [11]. New user Skimaniac's first two contributions to WP were done to the same article five minutes later [12]. All the changes in question follow a similar pattern (improved wording and typo fixing).
- In his two-line user page, Mangogirl2 presents himself simply as dealing with trajectory optimization and also as a "mediocre alpine skier". Skimaniac defines himself a skier, and out of a total of seven contributions by him, five pertain directly or indirectly to trajectory optimization, including an edit summary that says "I have been doing trajectory optimization for years". [13]
- Skimaniac posted [14] on a lengthy discussion between Dolphin51 and Giuliopp, in which Mangogirl2 had been requested to comment. The comment by Skimaniac mirrors Mangogirl2's views of the matter, expressed here (where 'Gman' refers to Giuliopp).
- Comments
I did not know it was a wiki-crime to change your name. I throw myself on the mercy of the wiki-court. I had two people sharing a name (both of whom are skiers) and I decided to split into my own name. I will remove the one comment that I believe upset Gman. Besides the static pressure debate was long dead at that point. According the page on sock puppetry-- it is only an issue if the second name affects a vote. If a voting scheme were used it was already 2 to 1. So 3 to 1 would not change the outcome. Besides there was not "voting scheme". Dolphin51 made his changes and Gman chose not to respond. I did not think it would affect anyone. It apparently did affect someone which I did not anticipate. So I apologize to Giuliopp for upsetting him enough to take the time to work through all of this.Skimaniac (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. The problem with the discussion on static pressure (which I don't consider dead yet) is not strictly about vote counting, it's about the distortion of the actual consensus on the topic. Anyway, I'm happy that the matter has now been clarified. I invite Mangogirl2/Skimaniac to update their user pages according to WP policy on alternate accounts, after which I would invite an admin to close this case. Giuliopp (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- No significant breach when one assumes good faith. User has clarified position on their current user page, and I'll sort out redirects for their old user and talk pages with them in due course. GBT/C 13:37, 19 March 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
- Erwin Morland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- R. Lon Hubbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- T. Q. Goodman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Paul Z. Barton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- K. R. McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- K. R. McGee II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 221.139.50.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Roleplayer (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29] (that last one bearing in mind I had not come across that user at that point).
- Comments
- Conclusions
- User:Erwin Morland already blocked indefinitely by Picaroon.
- User:R. Lon Hubbard already blocked indefinitely by Gogo Dodo.
- User:T. Q. Goodman already blocked indefinitely by Gogo Dodo.
- User:Paul Z. Barton already blocked indefinitely by Gogo Dodo.
- User:K. R. McGee already blocked indefinitely by Daniel Case.
- User:K. R. McGee II already blocked indefinitely by, erm, me.
- User:221.139.50.83 blocked one week for vandalism.
GBT/C 13:45, 19 March 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
Kingbobbeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Kingbobbeth007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kingbobbeth4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Easy to see that this passes the WP:DUCK test. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Quack! Block the socks but not the main account. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Both socks already indef blocked for vandalism. Master was blocked for 48 hours, but hasn't edited (under that account, anyway) for 11 days now. GBT/C 17:12, 19 March 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
Amalanindia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Amalanindia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chezhain.cdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Creation of Christian Democratic Front (India) by User:Amalanindia
- Creation of Christian Democratic Front Founder President Prof S.Clement Arulnathan For more info hrsquare@gmail.com by User:Chezhain.cdf
- Comments
Creation of the two articles within two hours and the inclusion of their organization's contact information in its exact wording has led me to believe that these two user accounts belong to the same person.
- Conclusions
I agree with you, but there's no breach of the sock policy as far as I can see. There's nothing to stop people having multiple accounts, and whilst in this case both accounts have limited purpose (introducing the same contributions on nn-individuals / companies), it's not a good-hand bad-hand situation, nor is it block evasion. Neither have made any contributions other than these (bar posting spam information on their talk pages, which I have subsequently deleted), and their contributions are now over a week old. If they start up against, which I sincerely doubt, then give them the {{uw-create2}}, {{uw-create3}} and {{uw-create4}} warnings accordingly. Other than that, there's not a lot to be done - it doesn't merit a block on either account at this stage in time. GBT/C 17:09, 19 March 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
- Weareallone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Papillonbleu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 76.170.67.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 71.53.27.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Edits largely confined to Marilyn Monroe-related topics, and anything to do with Mark Bellinghaus. Similar edit style, language, and lack of formatting on talk page edits. Currently involved in alternating, rambling edits in this AfD discussion.
In this edit, User:76.170.67.99 self-identifies as Mark Bellinghaus.
User:Weareallone makes the exact same revert as User:71.53.27.42 did, on the talk page of a known antagonist of Mark Bellinghaus.
- Comments
This is a ridiculous accusation. I am not User:Weareallone. How can one person make two edits almost simultaneously as in this history?
- (cur) (last) 05:27, 9 March 2008 Papillonbleu (Talk | contribs) (20,044 bytes) (→The U.S. and Monroe) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 05:26, 9 March 2008 Weareallone (Talk | contribs) (18,991 bytes) (minor punctuation correction, posted more info about class action lawsuit press coverage, added link to CBS News article) (undo)
As I noted, User:Delicious carbuncle also appears to have interests in Marilyn Monroe, Mark Bellinghaus and Lee Strasberg, considering this user had started by revising my edits on the latter two of the three.
I have also contributed to other topics including Pinkberry, Kenneth Cole and The Hotel Del Coronado, not just topics indicated by User:Delicious carbuncle.
--Papillonbleu (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Absolutely impossible, because how could I be 'Papillonbleu,' if I had several run-ins and editing conflicts while adding links and reference links to the page on which papillonbleu was working on at the same time as I was. It simply doesn't make sense, or does it? You can easily check on that. Why would I have as 'delicious carbuncle' is claiming two IP addresses and three user names? This is absolutely outrageous and I already filed against delicious carbuncle, since I can now also suspect that user to be someone who posted hate and slanderous and false accusations on her Wikipedia discussion page. PEACE Weareallone (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe User:Weareallone has reconsidered their position that I may be a sockpuppet of user:mafhoney. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only edits (two) to Mark Bellinghaus were to add tags and to nominate it at AfD. I had been unaware of Bellinghaus' existence until his name was inappropriately added to an article on my watchlist. Any comment on your connection to either of the IPs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For completeness sake, 76.171.186.171 (talk · contribs) appears to be another Bellinhaus account (only contributions are adding links to Bellinghaus YouTube videos), now stale. Same ISP and geographic area as 76.170.67.99 (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world?!?!!! Yes, I did undo the talk page in good faith of User talk:Hilljayne. This is because Hilljayne has attacked me and other Jayne Mansfield Fans outside of Wiki and invented lies about Mark Bellinghaus, which were carried over by Hilljayne to Wiki. Hilljayne tried to get the whole article deleted for copyright infringement about Mark Bellinghaus, then got a reprimand for violating WP:BLP, and Hilljayne tried to cover tracks by deleting the editor's warning and false speedy deletion report from own talk page. What Hilljayne did appeared to be deceptive to me, which is why I did this revision and returned it back, and did so in good faith for the Wiki community. Why is Hilljayne's action being condoned when that user in particular is being deceptive? Why am I being penalized for assisting the community here?
I am not anyone's sockpuppet either. Remove me from this argument immediately. Thanks.
--71.53.27.42 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case anyone actually ever looks at this, I'll add in another of Bellinghaus' older accounts, Mmmovie (talk · contribs). Bellinghaus self-identifies here. Same pattern of adding Mark Bellinghaus to lists as Weareallone (talk · contribs) and self-identified Bellinghaus IP 76.170.67.99 (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just by going through the edit history of Mark Bellinghaus, I found another earlier IP account 76.168.210.190 (talk · contribs). Bellinghaus again self-identifies here. So that's three self-identified accounts doing COI edits, plus the suspected sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Delicious carbuncle: You appear to have issues based on this (talk)with being overbearing as an editor. You seem to be wikistalking people and harassing them based on the notes on your user page. You wikistalked me by following me from Lee Strasberg to Mark Bellinghaus and then reverting edits that I put in, and then when I put them in, re-reverted them based on your own personal opinions. I am not a sockpuppet. This is the second piece of evidence that I am not. How can I make an edit practically simultaneously as the editor that you are claiming is my sockpuppeteer? We are working on two totally different subjects.
Here's more proof that I'm not a sockpuppet of Weareallone. Some was already furnished before. Here's more:
User:Papillonbleu • 00:37, 17 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Kenneth Cole (designer) (Add source to marital information, moved placement of information about residence) User:Weareallone • 00:38, 17 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Peaches Geldof (→Peaches Geldof: more thoughts) --Papillonbleu (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am clearly not wikistalking you, as a quick check of our contributions will show. I'm not sure what, specifically, you're referring to on my talk page, but I am not wikistalking or harassing you or anyone else, nor is this the place to debate it. If you feel my actions are questionable, report me. Accusing me of something is not "proof" that you are not a sockpuppet. Getting back to the sockpuppetry case, sockpuppets and meatpuppets are considered the same for the purposes of sockpuppetry cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets second paragraph). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Insufficient evidence to take action at this time, though the situation deserves further monitoring. If there is sock puppetry, sooner or later more evidence will appear. Jehochman Talk 01:20, 27 March 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
- 62.47.215.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 62.47.220.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 11:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The same edit to Udo made by both IPs, the latter after the former was blocked.
- Comments
I've blocked the latter for being an abusive sockpuppet – it's clearly the same person (especially given the comment at the bottom of my talk page, and I hope that block was in order —αlεx•mullεr 11:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I should mention that I blocked before seeing this SSP, just to avoid any confusion here —αlεx•mullεr 11:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Dealt with by αlεx. GBT/C 13:56, 18 March 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
JScott06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Flash94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Faz90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fairlane75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.158.227.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Strongbad1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Atub1 (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They all have the same subjects of interest (racial issues, Maryland, Köppen climate classification, Humid subtropical & continental climate, User:Auno3); JScott06, Flash94 and IP have been making near identical edits. I have looked around their history pages and I have found striking similarities in their reverts. Fairlane75 and Faz90 ended editing on 13 February. Flash94 first appeared on 14 February. Similar names for Flash94, Faz90, Fairlane75; same blanked or non-existent userpages[35],[36]; Flash94's userpage suddenly appeared after I filed this report.[37]
Here are a few examples:
- JScott06: Edit warring: [38], [39], [40], Racial issues: [41], [42], [43], [44], Climate: [45], [46], Temperature chart: [47]
- Fairlane75: Racial issues: [62], [63], [64], [65]
- Strongbad1982: Racial issues: [66], Climate: [67], [68], Temperature chart: [69]
- 66.158.227.79: Edit warring: [70]
- Comments
I am in fact User:JScott06. I scrambled my password with the intent on taking an extended "hiatus" from Wikipedia, although it didn't last as long as I hoped. I have never used multiple accounts to edit war nor have I used them to evade blocks, as User:Auno3 and User:Jack.Hartford have done. If my behavior still falls under abuse of alternate accounts, then I will happily submit to a block or ban.
That said, I am not any of the other names listed above. This is a retaliatory accusation for my suspicion that Atub1 is a sockpuppet of User:Jack.Hartford.
Strongbad1982 reverts edits by Faz90 here[71], JScott06 here[72] and here[73]. He posts a comment on JScott's talk page here[74]. Unless you think I like to revert my own edits repeatedly, it's clear that Strongbad and I are not the same person.
Faz90 and I do seem to share an interest in climate and Maryland. However Faz90 also focused on articles relating to Islam (Islamofascism, Islamophobia, Anti-Arabism, etc.), whereas I focus on articles relating to African Americans and white nationalist organizations. Faz90 also uses multiple exclamation points and question marks at times. See edit summaries here[75], here[76] and here[77]. Also note that Faz90 has been making climate-related edits since day one (December 2005). JScott's first such edit wasn't until late in 2007.
While Fairlane75 and I have edited common articles (interracial marriage and miscegenation), Fairlane is more history-oriented (anti-miscegenation laws, Reconstruction, court cases, etc.) while I focus on modern white nationalist-related topics (racial realism, Occidental Quarterly, New Century Foundation, Jared Taylor). Fairlane has never edited climate-related articles.
Note that unlike the other users, Flash94 and JScott06 have used reversion tools (popups and Twinkle). Also, the other users have almost exclusively edited the main space. A much higher proportion of JScott's and Flash's edits are to the project namespace. Flash94 (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Faz90 and I are truly the same person, it would be pretty tough to make simultaneous edits like these:
- Faz90: 17:33, September 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Humid subtropical climate (→Characteristics and variants)
- JScott06: 17:38, September 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short actors (deletion discussion for List of short actors)
- Faz90: 17:38, September 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Humid subtropical climate (→Characteristics and variants) (with popups, you can see that this edit was made 17 seconds after the previous edit by JScott)
- JScott06: 17:39, September 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 22 (adding List of short actors)
- Near-simultaneous edits here - more inexplicable logging in and out between accounts:
- Flash94 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Atub1/Jack.Hartford/Bloodhol/Viperes/Elpom claims that the IP has "been making near identical edits", but it has just a single edit where it removed material from rape statistics. Given the inflammatory nature of the paragraph they deleted, it's not surprising that someone would take issue with it. The IP traces to Orlando, Florida - why would someone from Florida have so many edits to Maryland-related articles? Flash94 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please...I wasn't aware of this sockpuppet case when I edited my userpage, and that part wasn't even listed as evidence at the time. Also JScott did, at one time, have a userpage.[78]
- For Strongbad1982...again, near-simultaneous contributions, undoing each other's edits, and posting on each other's talk pages:
- ...
- Strongbad: 01:11, November 18, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:JScott06
- JScott: 01:13, November 18, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Baltimore, Maryland (Revert. It's a fact, it's sourced. Don't see how it's unencyclopedic.)
- Strongbad: 01:14, November 18, 2007 (hist) (diff) Atlanta, Georgia (→Climate)
- Strongbad: 02:11, November 18, 2007 (hist) (diff) Baltimore, Maryland (Undid revision by JScott06 (talk)An opinion based on viewing a picture does not qualify as encyclopedic under Wikipedia standards.)
- Flash94 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Atub1/Jack.Hartford/Bloodhol/Viperes/Elpom claims that the IP has "been making near identical edits", but it has just a single edit where it removed material from rape statistics. Given the inflammatory nature of the paragraph they deleted, it's not surprising that someone would take issue with it. The IP traces to Orlando, Florida - why would someone from Florida have so many edits to Maryland-related articles? Flash94 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Checkuser shows that Flash94 is the puppetmaster of a dozen troll accounts; all now blocked, along with JScott06. Faz, Fairlane and Strongbad are Unrelated to JScott06 and to each other. Thatcher 03:41, 15 March 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
Spitzer19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Reazzurro90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ssavelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.150.18.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as an anon
- Report submission by
BigHairRef | Talk 07:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- 1. edit warring deletion by Spitzer19
- 2. edit warring deletion and POV by Spitzer19
- 3. edit warring deletion by Spitzer19
- 4. edit warring deletion by Spitzer19
- 5. Identical edit warring shortly after by "Reazzurro90"
- 6. Continuation of identical edit warring by "Reazzurro90"
- 7. Continuation of identical edit warring by "Reazzurro90"
- 8. Continuation of identical edit warring by anon
- 9. Continuation of identical edit warring by anon
- Comments
- Allged puppetmaster was recently blocked for edit warring on a similar page (New Force (Italy)). On a brief view the puppetmaster appears to dispute consensus as to validity of sources. Personally some of the sources seem a little 'dodgy' but the general consensus was to reliability.
- A recent checkuser suggested that there may not be a link between the usernames but that an anon IP may be related. The IP named comes from a dynamic source and therefore I suspect the checkuser may have revealed similar as as such had to come out as a negative. This is only my opinion and Thatcher may be able to provide more information.
- Edit summaries in edit warring on Neo-Nazism very similar to one another.
- I do not believe the user flouted the block placed by using either IP or user names. BigHairRef | Talk 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I suspect that it would be highly coincidental for for three users to use such similar edit summaries in articles where edit waring took place and additionally each additional user made only two edits :before they stopped and they haven't been used since. I believe in this case the puppeteer clearly tried to avoid the 3RR by using anons and other usernames.BigHairRef | Talk 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Spitzer19 was unrelated because these users are on different ISPs in different cities that are some distance apart. This does not rule out some type of coordination, but it is very unlikely they could be the same person. Thatcher 12:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what's the reason of lying about this person??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.31.122 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions from closing administrator
- Unlikely. After reviewing the material provided, it is clear that insufficient evidence is present, linking the accounts in questions to a single individual. Whilst I will not rule out meat puppetry, off-Wiki co-ordination, or a common ground with regards to disruptive intent, I cannot block the accounts for sock puppetry on the basis of the evidence cited. I would encourage supervision of the situation at Neo-Nazism, however, to ensure that disruption does not exceed reasonable levels; WP:RFPP and WP:AN may be utilised to request administrator intervention in the future.
—AGK § 19:18, 22 March 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
- Shortperson5555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 4.156.111.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Removal of CSD tags on articles created by User:Shortperson5555, edits only on related articles, Boston-area IP (articles related to Boston are school)
- Comments
Articles in dispute have been deleted and neither account seems active, so this case seems unnecessary now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Not sockpuppetry - assuming good faith, the most likely answer is that the user logged out, then made the subsequent edits whilst logged out. GBT/C 13:53, 18 March 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
Kehrli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
84.72.45.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cernms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Kkmurray (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Summary: Accounts may have been used to circumvent an Arbitration Committee sanction.
September 2006: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli
February/March 2008: [81][82][83][84]
User Kehrli has a history of POV pushing in mass spectrometry and related articles regarding symbols and units. User was subject to arbitration related to a content dispute and inappropriate behavior at Mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and Mass spectrum. The arbritration was closed 17 September 2006 with the results 1) Kehrli was banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z. 2) Kehrli was prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation. A further 24 hour ban was imposed for editing Mass-to-charge ratio [85] and M/z [86] on 24 September 2006. An anonymous sockpuppet reappeared in December of 2007 and admins were notified,[87] but a warning was sufficient to stop the behavior.[88] More recently Cernms has been making changes to symbols in the mass spectrometry article related to m/z that are inconsistent with a large number of existing articles. For example, Mass_spectrometry#Mass_analyzer has been changed so that the notation is Q in contrast with the existing Lorentz force article that has a lower case q for the same quantity. The notation m/q that is used in some places instead of m/z in the mass spectrometry article is now m/Q. The argument given by Cernms is one that has been given by Kehrli previously,[89] namely that ISO 31 standards trump Wikipedia consensus. This POV leads to notation is not the consensus of the wikipedia community as can be seen by inspection of electromagnetism and related articles. Further, a global notation change from q to Q should be argued in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics.
- Reply
I am not Kehrli even though I know her and we are working in the same building. She has convinced me that she has been baned for wrong reasons from Wikipedia. While Kkmurray does a lot of good for the mass spec community here, unfortunately he also makes very grave mistakes. And the disapointing thing is: he even seems to be aware that he is making mistakes, but continues to make them with historical reasoning.
To the facts in dispute: Q is currently the accepted symbol for a charge quantity. q and e are historical symbols which should no longer be used in a encyclopedia even though they are both still used in publications. Proof: [90]. You see clearly: IUPAC (the organization which Kkmurray is member of) is saying Q is the proper symbol. The same holds for the IUPAP red book and the ISO 31 standarts. This means: the three most relevant organization say Q. q and e are both things of the past. Also, q is in no way a Wikipedia consensus, as Kkmurray claims. It is quite the opposite: Wikipedia is using Q as the symbol of Electric_charge. Check yourself. Or look at the List_of_physical_quantities. Again, Q is in use. It seems to me that if anything it is Q that represents the consensus. Concerning the issue of a global notation: I also favor a global notation because this would make Wikipedia more consistent. This is why I changed it.
This issue, BTW, is a good example of the harm Kkmurry is doing to Wikipedia: he is changing modern and current notation and replaces it with old outdated notation which he finds in old papers and probably in his old textbooks from back in college. It is ok to mention the old notation in an article. But Wikipedia should be based in the current knowledge, and not in the past.
Cernms (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I submitted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kehrli. -- Kkmurray (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The result of the checkuser was that it could not be performed due to the time that has expired since Kehrli last edited. However, the above admission of Cernms suggests that this is a case of meatpuppetry with the goal of evading the Arbitration Committee limitations on Kehrli's edits. Additional support for this are recent edits to mass-to-charge ratio: [91][92], Thomson (unit): [93] [94] [95], and electric charge: [96] where POV edits and nomenclature changes have been made with no discussion. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
This is an admitted case of meatpuppeting, which is disruptive in that it's a clear attempt to circumvent an arb com ruling. However, Cernms makes a good point about the upper case Q may be more accepted. Therefore, I'm blocking Cernms for 48 hours for meatpuppeting and disruption but also STRONGLY recommending the parties use a TALK PAGE to settle this. If agreement can not be reached, user the WP:DR process. I'm also noting this in the arb case log.11:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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
- 224jeff6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Ketchup krew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Only a few edits so far, one was to give 224jeff6 an award, and then lie about his health status, pretending to be his brother, to a few users he knew. Also, his sockpuppet added a note to a user talk page (diff 1 below) that defended his images of his "cars" that he allegedly owned. Some of these images were recently marked for deletion, and the user probably wanted them back. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- 224jeff6 was a friend of mine and then when he lied about being in the hospital I went to look at his "brother's" talk page. He had the exact same signiture style and nobody had even given him the welcome message yet. Then I knew he was a sockpuppet.
--Carerra 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This user is NOT a sockpuppet! I just started a little while ago, and I haven't been on much because I have a job in real life. But why would someone lie about someone's health condition? I feel offended that people want to deny that my brother is dying, laying there unconsious in this hospital bed that is sitting right in front of me as I type this! I'm not the one doing anything wrong! They are! They're the ones that think this is some kind of cruel joke! Well it's not! They have no right to say whether my brother is alive! His heart stopped beating for 2 minutes last night, and he had to be revived! You are all horible people to just call me a liar about something like this! It sickens me! -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are my responses to all of the evidence against me, even the ones made on talk pages, not here:
- Awards given to 224jeff6: That was my first day on ikipedia. I thought his user page was cool woth the navbar at the top, so I gave him a userpage barnstar. I thought that Image:Dodge copperhead.jpg was good so I gave him a photographers barnstar.
- Message left on The359's talkpage: He left a lot of photo copyright messages on 224jeff6's talkpage. I stated in the message that his messages were not needed because jeff was in the hospital. And I explained why they were copied from the internet. It as because jeff wasn't good with cameras, or digital cameras, at least.
- Message left on Carerra's talkpage: Carerra and jeff were friends on Wikipedia, so I breifly said what happened.
- How I learned to make custom signatures so fast(this point was made on my talk page by Carerra): This is probably the best evidence against me, in my opinion. But I simply copied and pasted from jeff's signature on his talk page. I changed the names to fit my username. I knew to do that because I read some of the earliest messages on jeff's talk page when he was learning to make signatures.I knew to do this because I used to design websites.
- Why my signature was the same as 224jeff6's(this point was made by Carerra on this page): See "How I Learned to make Custom Signatures so fast" That was because I copied and pasted the code from 224jeff6's signature, so obviously it looked the same as mine. After I changed my signature successfully, I changed the font from "impact" to "bauhaus 93". I was going to change the color, but then the sockpuppetry case came up.
- Why I didn't yet have a userpage(this point was brought up by Carerra on my talk page): This is not very good evidence of anything, but I still have a reason. It is because I'm not on very often so I didn't make one. I've signed up for someone to make one with me via the Trading Spaces program. I'm not on very often because I have a job. I own an auto body shop.
- Why I had not been welcomed yet (this point was also made by Carerra, on my talk page and this page): This provides evidence of nothing. 224jeff6 was not greeted until 5 days after the account was created.
- My real name (this was asked on my talk page by Carerra): This also won't provide evidence to support the case against me. I think it may have been possible evidence because 224jeff6's real name is Jeff, as stated in his username. My name is Nick, and I'm the oldest of 4 children. The order of the siblings in my family starts with me, Nick, and I'm 23. Like I said, I'm the oldest. I look after my little brother Jeff, a.k.a. 224jeff6. After me comes Jeff, who is 19. Jeff is friendly, yet naive. He is somewhat of a showoff, and he is also very paranoid and very gullible. Then comes the youngest ones, the twins, Ryan and Paul, who are both 18. They each have just moved out of our parents' house.
Both StormTracker94 and Carerra make excelent claims to support their case, and I do respect that. If any more evidence against me surfaces, I will respond to it here. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this user is in the hospital, why did he have time to leave this message on his user page after he was notified that his images were up for deletion? Certainly doesn't sound like someone who is going to the hospital to me. These accounts seem to serve little purpose on Wikipedia in regards to expanding or improving the Encyclopedia. They are, quite frankly, being used as social networking pages to "chat" with their buddies. 224jeff6 and Ketchup Krew seem to have identical editing patterns: Giving/receiving awards, signing guestbooks, signing up for Wikipedia programs which never come to fruition. Ketchup Krew had almost no edits to Wikipedia until his "brother" apparently ends up in a hospital, at which point Ketchup Krew suddenly becomes a regular editor, picking back up his conversations in a similar tone with User:Carerra. The359 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also cannot help but find this edit to be blatantly distasteful if your story is true. A brother is in the hospital and you want him to live so you can inherit his cars? The359 (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This message was just before it happened. And I don't know what you mean about the inheritance. A living will means what will happen to his stuff if he slips into a coma, which happened at about 10p.m. last night, or something like that. And I also don't know what you mean by "picking back up his conversations in a similar tone with User:Carerra". I told Carerra what happened to Jeff, I tried to Start being friends with him, and then I was accused of sockpuppetry. Then when he made claims on my talkpage, I responded to them. I'm editing more now because I have some time off because of everything that's happening right now. Also, Jeff's and mine's editing patterns are alike because we are brothers. Like I said before, what kind of cruel person would make this stuff up? -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If your brother is in the hospital, and as you describe, incapacitated, how did you know that I was leaving him messages on his talk page after he had "left" Wikipedia? You claim you came to Wikipedia to tell 224jeff6's friend, Carerra, about what had happened, yet your first message was actually to me, to tell me not to respond to his talk page anymore and to explain his uploading of copyrighted pictures under a false claim. In fact, you did not even message Carerra until 17 hours after you had messaged me. Why would the first thing you do on Wikipedia, supposedly after your brother is injured, be to try and explain some photographs to me when you really had no real knowledge of the situation.
- I also cannot help but point out that Ketchup Krew is now searching out User Secret Pages, exactly the same thing 224jeff6 had done previously. The359 (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had known that The359 was leaving messages on 224jeff6's talk page because I looked at it. And the secret page I found was one I just stumbled upon. I was on penubag's userpage, and when I moved my mouse, I noticed a link, which was to his secret page. I did not claim that I came to Wikipedia to inform him of what happened. I was on Wikipedia before anything happened. And my first message was not to The359, but to 224jeff6, giving him 2 awards, which I explained on this page. I did not message Carerra until 17 hours after I messaged The359 because I had Internet troubles, since I'm using wireless Internet on a laptop. I do have real knowledge of the situation. It appears that The359 doesn't have complete knowledge of the sitation, since he says that I claimed my sole purpose of coming to Wikipedia was to inform Carerra, and that my first edit was to his talk page. Both of those claims are proven untrue by the content of this page. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I find one thing strange. The359 was the first to accuse 224jeff6 of sockpuppetry here on Jeff's talk page. Then, Stormtracker94, a completely different user who has never even had contact with The359, or at least not on user talk pages, brings up this case almost out of nowhere. I'm not making any accusations, I just find that a little bit strange. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, Ketchup Krew should be blocked for including personal information. Wikipedia is not the place to tell another user that your brother is in the hospital. And besides, if your brother got in the hospital, I don't think the first thought going through your mind would be "oh, lemme go create an account on wikipedia and quickly tell that stranger guy over there that he's in the hospital." DiligentTerrier and friends 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the account BEFORE anything happened! I already said that on this page! I told User:The359 because I wanted to give a breif reason why the messages he left on User talk:224jeff6 were unneeded. And I told User:Carerra because Jeff and he were friends on Wikipedia. Gosh, this thing is getting annoying. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also worth noting that Ketchup krew asked for help using the {{helpme}} template, something which is basically only mentioned in welcome messages. Ketchup krew never received a welcome message, and should never know about that template. However, 224jeff6 has used that template before. DiligentTerrier and friends 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, right here on Carerra's talkpage, User:Stormtracker94, the accuser, asked User:Carerra to comment on my sockpuppetry case so Stormtracker can "have a backup". And now Carerra has provided the most evidence against me. Also, Stormtracker left this on Carerra's talk page and claiming things when he had no proof they were actually true, like that Jeff "isn't hurt" and that Jeff "probably lied to Carerra as long as he knew him". This can't be acceptable, can it? And, yes, the {{helpme}} template is only mentioned in the welcome templates, but User:Carerra greeted me just before the sockpuppetry case started. And also, I want to know why I wasn't the first one to be notified about this case. Stormtracker94 started the case, then told Carerra before me, because I should've been notified before Carerra, when he is just a friend of the accuser, and I'm the accusee! Unlike Carerra, I'm actually involved in the case! It was unneccessary for him to even be notified AT ALL! -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! You sure know a lot for a newbie! DiligentTerrier and friends 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also worth noting that Ketchup krew asked for help using the {{helpme}} template, something which is basically only mentioned in welcome messages. Ketchup krew never received a welcome message, and should never know about that template. However, 224jeff6 has used that template before. DiligentTerrier and friends 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the account BEFORE anything happened! I already said that on this page! I told User:The359 because I wanted to give a breif reason why the messages he left on User talk:224jeff6 were unneeded. And I told User:Carerra because Jeff and he were friends on Wikipedia. Gosh, this thing is getting annoying. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, Ketchup Krew should be blocked for including personal information. Wikipedia is not the place to tell another user that your brother is in the hospital. And besides, if your brother got in the hospital, I don't think the first thought going through your mind would be "oh, lemme go create an account on wikipedia and quickly tell that stranger guy over there that he's in the hospital." DiligentTerrier and friends 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say that everyone is doing great here. I wonder, is your "brother" still in the hospital? Well anyway, there is a new idea here. On my talk page, Ketchup Krew mentions that he is the oldest sibling, while there is also Jeff and twins. Now that we know this, Ketchup Krew could be anyone of these people, but that doesn't matter. He could be Jeff and making this all up. We really need some real proof that Jeff has all those cars, that he isn't Ketchup Krew, and that he really was injured and in the hospital. If someone could bring us that, this might come to an end. But for now we should really block Ketchup Krew for revealing personal information and because he has no importance to Wikipedia.(unless he starts making some real edits)!!! --Carerracarerra 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, there needs to be some evidence that this user is causing a disruption of some kind. It is not against Wikipedia rules to have more than one account unless they are doing it for purposes of inflating votes, starting arguments, or otherwise being disruptive. I too find this user's stories to be a bit incredulous, but he's not putting it into an article. I recommend no action in this case as no sockpuppet rules have been broken. If the accuser has evidence to the contrary they should place it in the "evidence" block with diffs. — BQZip01 — talk 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before this began, I sumbitted to WP:AN that 224jeff6 was using his account for social networking, with little to no editing of Wikipedia articles. I would, at the very least, suggest that Ketchup Krew be warned that he should be editing Wikipedia more than he is trying to make a lovely User Page or create User boxes. The359 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, you cannot talk about other (non-famous) people's private personal information on Wikipedia (like going to the hospital). However, I am afraid that Ketchup just slipped and basically gave himself away when he said that Carerra welcomed him, which he did only he welcomed the Jeff account and not the Ketchup account. Ketchup, I suggest you just plead guilty to the admins and hope you can settle for a temporary block, as supposed to a permanent block. If you continue fighting on, you will get permanently blocked. DiligentTerrier and friends 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, both users seem to be finding the same secret pages. And both users have a habit of inserting lines in between their comments. DiligentTerrier and friends 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only found one secret page which I already explained. I already said why I said Jeff is in the hospital. And Carerra welcomed Ketchup Krew right here. And it wouldn't prove anything if it was verified Jeff owned those cars. I know a lot for a new user because I've done a little bit of reading in the tutorials section. But User:BQZip01 is right. No sockpuppet rules have been broken. Even though all of the users giving evidence have made good points, there is nothing that can verify that User:Ketchup krew is a sockpuppet. The only thing that there is actually concrete evidence of is me giving personal information, since I said Jeff was in the hospital. And Carerra asked this, but yes Jeff is still in the hospital, but is getting better. But even if that is personal information it doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of "personal information" very well. Wikipedia's definition is "any non-public information about a living person that is factual in nature that would negatively impact his or her personal life if it were to become public." People on Wikipedia knowing he was in the hospital couldn't really affect his personal life at all. If I said why he was in the hospital, that would be different. But that's only because of the particular thing that it was. But anyway, BQZip01 is right that I I haven't caused any disruptions at all. It feels like this whole case is just going in circles, and we're not really getting anywhere with it. And I'm trying to make my userpage look good so I can look more professional, like I know what I'm doing when I edit, less beginnerish. I rcently haven't made many edits because this case is taking up most of my time I spend on Wikipedia. I'm just glad it'll be over in a few days, and I'm sure it's the same with everyone else involved. It seems like everyone is making a big deal about nothing. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't had a chance to read all of this but I like to point out that if the two are brothers, 224jeff6 could have helped his brother set up the account. If this were so, it would seem logical that the first brother would offer the second brother the HTML code for the signature. The HTML code for my signature was adapted form SorryGuy which was adapted from Pedro but all three of us are not the same person (at least I hope so). Also just because they never got a welcome message at the beginning doesn't mean much, some editors have been editing for years under an IP address as well as have been trained in HTML before using wikipedia. I personally never received a welcome message when I made my account back in April of 2006, but I still learn how to do some changing in HTML. Two brothers if raised similarly can (not always as with my brother an I) turn out with the same habits. This can also happen if the have the same teacher or mentor in the same subjects. Lastly, If two brothers were to share an apartment, there would be a great chance they would have the same IP address(If they don't, there is almost no bases in my opinion with my current understanding of IP address although I don't know everything) hope my ever so humble opinion helps--Pewwer42 Talk 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sockpuppet rules have been broken. What about the personal information one? You should not use Wikipedia to notify some stranger that your brother is in the hospital. And has anyone read your userpage? This whole time I've been getting the impression you both were kids or at least under 18 (and I think Jeff and/or Kecthup said that he was somewhere along the line). However, in your userpage (permanent link), you claim to drive a whole bunch of nice cars and own a body shop. Your entire userpage 'about me' stuff seems to be a hoax. DiligentTerrier and friends 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This whole thing started when I ran across pictures which 224jeff6 uploaded, in which he claimed he took pictures of cars he owned (A Lamborghini, a "Gemballa" Carrera GT, etc). However, they were all copyrighted pictures I was able to find through simple Google searches, and they were all deleted. Following 224jeff6's "leaving" of Wikipedia, quickly followed by his "accident", Ketchup Krew appeared and attempted to explain that 224jeff6 uploaded the pictures simply because he owned the cars, but was somehow unable to take pictures himself. How that excused taking someone else's pictures then claiming they're your own, and entering into public domain when uploading to Wikipedia, is beyond me...
- Yes, sockpuppet rules have been broken. What about the personal information one? You should not use Wikipedia to notify some stranger that your brother is in the hospital. And has anyone read your userpage? This whole time I've been getting the impression you both were kids or at least under 18 (and I think Jeff and/or Kecthup said that he was somewhere along the line). However, in your userpage (permanent link), you claim to drive a whole bunch of nice cars and own a body shop. Your entire userpage 'about me' stuff seems to be a hoax. DiligentTerrier and friends 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 224jeff6 also did not seem to actually know what the cars were that he was uploading, since the picture he claimed to upload of a "Gemballa Carrera GT" were in fact of a standard Porsche Carrera GT, and not the highly modified and quite different looking Gemballa Mirage. The359 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at both pages and their claims. The problem is that no evidence (i.e. diffs) have been presented here. I think it is highly probable that these two users are one-in-the-same...but that doesn't prove anything. Users can start over if they wish, provided they are in good standing with Wikipedia. That he is or isn't telling lies is beside the point. Is he evading a block? Is he attempting to circumvent some policy? Are they attempting vote stacking? Are they disrupting any articles in the same manner? Near as I can tell, neither one is.
- Both are apparently new users. As such they may not understand all of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines (especially picture use). Simply correct these errors in judgement and move on; there is no need for such a case in WP:SSP (perhaps WP:AIV would be a better venue should problems like these continue to occur). Their lack of ability to identify cars they say they own makes me believe they are just bragging/making up stories to inflate themselves, but of course that has never happened before. So what. This is the web. I pretty much don't believe anything anyone says online unless published in a reliable source...which is the whole point of referencing everything on Wikipedia: to make it more credible. If you were to believe everything you saw online, I'm pretty sure I'd have to tuck my ***** into my sock...
- If they are just editing their user pages, so what, they aren't harming anything. If they are creating user boxes, they are improving the overall appearance of Wikipedia...good enough for me to keep them on board, even if I don't trust them implicitly. — BQZip01 — talk 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in regards to Ketchup Krew's claim: "And the secret page I found was one I just stumbled upon. I was on penubag's userpage, and when I moved my mouse, I noticed a link, which was to his secret page." Did you just stumble upon the other five or six you now have blazened across your user page?
It's amazing how your user page is quickly becoming almost identical to 224jeff6's user page. Seriously, WP:DUCK. The359 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean "mine and Jeff's pages are almost identical". They're not. Mine is more organized. And I found those other secret pages because User:penubag explained how to find them on his secret page. And if Dilligent Terrier doesn't believe my "About me" section, fine, that's his opinion, but that's no evidence. Sockpuppetry cases, as well as any cases, are based on facts. Concrete, solid, proven facts. If something "seems to be a hoax", that proves nothing. If people want to prove I'm a sock puppet, opinions and interpretations and inferals will get you nowhere and serve no purpose. Sure, you may have suspicions, but if you want to make a real case, you need to back yourself up with facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I respect your opinions and points of view. But the original evidence Stormtracker94 formed this case on may spark suspicions, but that's it. I think Stormtracker had presented a weak case, and he realized it, and that's why he's made no further claims after he created the case. But most of the evidence is just interpretations, and this is the place for facts, not opinions. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Duck Test that The359 mentioned is named after the aphorism "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck....". It's probably a duck. Appearances can be very misleading, and Ketchup krew appearing to be a sockpuppet of 224jeff6 is no exception. And all of the accusers and people that are providingg evidence against me are not exactly saints themselves. I'm not saying that I am, but I do have proof. Like this. Carerra was given a final warning for personal attacks for this. That was the first one. And the reporter of that, Dilligent Terrier, is not much better. Two personal attacks is enough for a permanent ban, and Dilligent Terrier has involuntarily admitted to letting Carerra slide for two personal attacks. What a coincidence! Wait, coincidence? I think not! On Terrier's talk page, dscussing being reported for personal attacks, Carerra said this, admitting to this (which was unsigned). But then Terrier responded with this, saying he let Carerra off because he was "becoming nicer". Also, Terrier said this on his talk page as a message for Carerra concerning this. Terrier sounds like he noticed a personal attack made by Carerra, yet made no effort to take action. Carerra has actually done something wrong, and I'm the one being savagely attacked by others' words about how I'm breaking sockpuppet rules on Wikipedia. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a court of law. Evidence has been provided for others to judge on and offer their own opinions, which is exactly what we are here for. We do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the past actions of other users are not under scrutiny here, so I'd suggest you worry less about the actions of users completely outside of this case. The359 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this isn't a court of law, but it is similar. But a LOT of people are like me, and some of the people judging this might think like me, about needing enough to prove something. And I included the wrongdoings of accusers, not users completely outside of this case, but accusers to prove that I'm not even the worst person involved in this. I've not even broken any sockpuppet rules, when some accusers (Carerra) are more than qualified for a permanent ban. It's a little bit hippicritical, don't you think, that other users accusing me of sockpuppetry should be accusing themselves for even worse things? On the other hand, you have a clean record, The359. And like BQZip01 said, if I'm making userboxes, I'm improving the overall appearance of Wikipedia. So I'm actually contributing to Wikipedia, just not as much to the encyclopedia part. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 22:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a court of law. Evidence has been provided for others to judge on and offer their own opinions, which is exactly what we are here for. We do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the past actions of other users are not under scrutiny here, so I'd suggest you worry less about the actions of users completely outside of this case. The359 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ketchup Krew should be blocked anyway for not making any useful edits. Now why do you have to bring personal attacks into this. That has nothing to do with you or the case. You need a final, solid piece of evidence that will convince everybody that you are not a sockpuppet. You also need to start editing the mainspace. My personal attacks were not meant to be offensive and I have already apologized many times. Crittermations is my neighbor and best friend and I was just talking with him and we were joking around about it. That was none of your business anyway. This is a sockpuppetry case not the Supreme Court so get used to it. --Carerracarerra 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC) And one more thing, he is just making userboxes so he can stay on. He hasn't edited any real articles. He should just click on random article and start editing. I don't like social networks and that is one reason I join Wikipedia. His page might just become one. Userboxes are decoration puposes only and are of no use to the general public. --Carerracarerra 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think Ketchup Krew should be blocked anyway for not making any useful edits." That is not a criteria of WP:SOCK. If he violated another wikipedia policy/guideline, else bring it to the appropriate forum.
- "You need a final, solid piece of evidence that will convince everybody that you are not a sockpuppet." Quite to the contrary. The person presenting this case needs to provide such evidence. It is near impossible to prove a negative (especially online) and is not a requirement in this forum.
- "...we were joking around about it. That was none of your business anyway." If you are posting online in Wikipedia, it is indeed everyone's business, and you made it so by posting here. If you want a private chat room, please go find one elsewhere.
- "He is just making userboxes so he can stay on." How does this violate any Wikipedia guideline/policy? I know people who edit 1-2 times per YEAR. Time between edits or your personal, subjective analysis of the quality of their contributions is not a reason to block anyone.
- "I don't like social networks and that is one reason I join Wikipedia." You don't like social networks and you join a worldwide group? Little confusing logic there.
- "His page might just become [a social network]" If it does, bring it up then, but blocking someone because of something that may or may not happen in the future is a bit extreme, unless you are psychic...
- "Userboxes are decoration puposes only and are of no use to the general public." Actually they can be far more useful than that (such as a common box that all members of a group have so you can identify them). They can also be used to indicate who is an admin. Who likes the same things you do (and might be an expert in a subject area). Etc. Again, this isn't a criteria for blocking in WP:SOCK. — BQZip01 — talk 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
It's pretty obvious these are the same people. One of the most convincing things is the edit 224jeff6 made after he became sick and was in the hospital. Blocks on editing alone here are enough. As it's clear 224jeff6 has been abandoned, I've blocked and tagged it indef with Ketchup krew as the master and blocked KK for one week for disruptive editing, leaving a note on his page that he learn policies during this time and abide by them. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:24, 19 March 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
Merechriolus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
24.183.176.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Baegis (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Merechriolus posted this rationale for adding an NPOV tag to the AIDS article. Notice, he didn't sign his name. It was reverted by OrangeMarlin, who gives his reasoning here. Hours later, an "anonymous IP poster" agreed with Merechriolus about the inclusion of the NPOV tag, seen here, and added a comment about deleting a part of the article about conservatives being misinformed about AIDS. The anon poster also did not sign. 11 minutes later, Merechriolus made an edit which removed the very comment the "anon ip" mentioned, seen here. Here, Merechriolus edits the talk page comment from the IP. When I mentioned how doing this is not exactly looked upon with happiness, Merechriolus replies with this comment, which cements the whole sockpuppet case. For the icing on the cake, the IP made this edit in November of last year to the IKEA talk page. Today, Merechriolus made an edit where he added further to the ip's post and signed his name under it. Finally, on his user page, Merechriolus makes very clear he is here for the purpose of "De-POVing" articles. The two current projects? IKEA and AIDS. Case closed. Baegis (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Alright, I finally got around to making this. Sorry for being rude and terse before, but I fixed my other comments here to be more professional. At the time they were made, I was tired and agitated. What follows is not a rationale for why 24.183.176.163 is not a sock puppet (though I maintain that the account is not), but is instead rationale for why, whether or not the account is a sock puppet, my account should not be banned.
First of all, I would say that if 24.183.176.163 was a sock puppet of mine (and yet again, I maintain that the account is not) I have not abused it in any way. Although I suppose the rules for subsidiary accounts would be violated by me not including links to my account, the only time I have ever even referred to myself (and I maintain that THIS WAS NOT ME) would have been here. In this case, although the account did reference me, it provided definite rational input on the discussion and did not vote on anything. Other than that, the account has never been used to vote on anything else either, or anything even like that, so I see no way in which I used my account, the supposed sock puppet account, or used both accounts jointly to be disruptive or gain the system by voting twice.
Therefore, I would like to request that whether or not an admin decides that this is a sock puppet of mine, the admin assumes in good faith that no disruption will be caused, has been caused, or is actively being caused; the admin assumes in good faith that this account never has been and never will be used to "vote twice"; and the admin assumes in good faith that, by not issuing blocks, I will never use this account again (and again, I maintain that I never have). This entire ordeal has already served as a giant warning anyways. Thank you.Merechriolus (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that this is the account being used by my sibling, and not me. Anyway, we share similar viewpoints, and ended up working together on the very brief project on modifying IKEA (for the better). Go ahead and do checkuser, but we share the same IP address, given that we are on the same network.Merechriolus (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, you and your modfriend make me want to not edit articles like this. All I do is add a tag, my brother replies when he's angered by Orange, and now I'm facing this? Wow.
- Not sure who my "modfriend" is but unfortunately for you, there is a small caveat to the WP mantra. The free encyclopedia anyone can edit, as long as you follow the rules! Baegis (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like providing rationale for reverting edits when it's clearly contested? Due to the unique situation I'm in, I don't expect to be mitigated, although that would be nice. All I want is to resolve this Aids dispute before anything else.Merechriolus (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a content question to be answered on the appropriate talk page. This page is for the sock puppet case at hand. It would serve you best if you stay on point. Baegis (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was limited, and referred you to the aids article. Back on topic, though.Merechriolus (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a content question to be answered on the appropriate talk page. This page is for the sock puppet case at hand. It would serve you best if you stay on point. Baegis (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like providing rationale for reverting edits when it's clearly contested? Due to the unique situation I'm in, I don't expect to be mitigated, although that would be nice. All I want is to resolve this Aids dispute before anything else.Merechriolus (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I still maintain that I am not guilty, I recognize that the evidence is very strong. If I were to plead guilty, then I can't see how I'll have broken any rules. Therefore, if an admin decides the evidence is overwhelming and despite my rationale for not blocking me, a block is in order, then I will submit to any allegations and plead guilty if it will help at all.Merechriolus (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
This looks like a possible violation of WP:MEAT, but the user seems to understand that there is a problem and I am hopeful that there will be no more recurrences. Close family members working together on the same article may be treated as a single editor. A word to the wise is sufficient. Jehochman Talk 09:37, 19 March 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
- Tarja Lawless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Brazil 23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Collectonian (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Tarja Lawless and Brazil 23 both are Xenaphiles, making many of the same edits to articles. My suspicion greatly increased when Tarja Lawless recreated the article that Brazil 23 first created, even uploading the exact same image stolen from a website. That article, The Official Guide to the Xenaverse, was AfDed already and is now up for CSD for recreation of deleted material. During the AfD, it was also noted that Brazil 23 is a suspected sock puppeteer but a report was never made.
These may both possibly be socks of the confirmed sock User:Lykus xena, which was the suspicion in the AfD.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Obviously socks for recreation of deleted material. Tarja Lawless blocked indef. ScarianCall me Pat 02:04, 16 March 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.
User:Jack.Hartford (2nd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Jack.Hartford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Atub1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Curieux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (may be stale)
- Report submission by
Flash94 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Blodhol. Same "minimalist" userpage, single edit in which he added racial statistics.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jack.Hartford
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Viperes
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blodhol
- Comments
- I can't see anything that links them personally. ScarianCall me Pat 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the CU case, scroll down and take a look at the sea of sockpuppets. For the majority of them, their first edit is to their userpage, usually a very brief message such as "Hi",[97][98][99][100] a template,[101][102][103] or simply their name.[104][105][106][107][108] When I filed this report, Atub1's userpage was simply "User:Atub1",[109] but he has since changed it to an image. Curieux's first edit was to his userpage, where he added a single userbox. Jack.Hartford's first edit was to add "Hi" to his userpage. The sockpuppets would then immediately edit their articles of interest, which are usually related to racism, massacres, famine, etc. as noted in the CU case. Curieux, who has few edits, has edited articles such as ethnic cleansing, racism, racism by country, and slavery. Atub1's second edit was to add race-related stats to Crime in the United States. Compare that to this edit by User:Hurplan, this one by User:Totmar, this one by User:Elpom, and this one by User:Viperes, all of whom were confirmed to be socks of Jack.Hartford by Checkuser. Curieux added the similar bit on interracial crime to Racism in the United States.[110] Flash94 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
The editor filing this report has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. [111] No further action required at this time. Jehochman Talk 09:29, 19 March 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
DrATEasy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
OkBelowZero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TestEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BackspinVortex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Atedesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
None of these evidences show connection between DrATEasy and the others suspected sockpuppets. The evidence show that suspected sockpuppets have similar writing style but not with myself (DrATEasy which have different style). I've asked several people to add thier support the case for ATEasy article, they have created users and posted their comments - I did not create any users or enter these comments DrATEasy (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then those accounts are meatpuppets. From WP:SSP: For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have posted the link to this Articles for deletion/ATEasy in a Geotest Form and several people responded. I have no idea who they are other then that they are ATEasy users (and are using the Geotest M@gic form). I think you guys are more worried on policing Wikipedia then actually contributing to the KB (at least in this case). To this point I got no constructive comments. Anything in the article is inaccurate? I don’t think so. Please read the ATEasy article and the discussion page before reaching to conclusions.DrATEasy (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
The comments on the AfD are all very similar, and the suspected sockpuppets have either no other edits or very few, based around the same topic area. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to contend here with Stwalkerster as the only contributions to these accounts are the AFD. Dustitalk to me 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Meets the duck test : All socks indefinitely blocked and tagged accordingly. Sockmaster blocked one month for abusing mutiple accounts. GBT/C 13:49, 18 March 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.
User:Auno3 (4th)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Auno3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
EgraS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Verwoerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Flash94 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Auno3 was indef blocked in October for disruptive racist editing and vandalism. He has an extensive history of sockpuppetry, both before and during the ban.
User:Bubbles4sale, User:P.W.Lutherson, User:L.R.Booker, 69.107.94.241, and 69.107.81.83 are confirmed sockpuppets from previous cases.
Edits by EgraS and Verwoerd:
- Removing/replacing images from Interracial marriage and Miscegenation (EgraS: [117]; Verwoerd: [118]; Bubbles4Sale: [119][120]; P.W.Lutherson: [121]; Auno3: [122])
- Edits to Black people (EgraS: [123]; Auno3: [124])
- Talk page blanking: [125][126]. Auno3's talk page is now deleted, but there are references to blanking in the second sockpuppet case.
- Numerous edits to articles about "missing white women", including Emily Sander, Meredith Kercher, and Jana Shearer. Auno3 made substantial edits to Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis. Both have uploaded images for the articles. Each of those articles are about criminal cases involving young white female victims and non-white suspects.
- Waging a war against the concept of MWWS: [127][128][129]. Created an article called "missing black woman syndrome"; note the reference to Auno3 in the AFD. Earlier edits by Auno3: [130][131].
- Brief autobiography on userpage, usually including his alleged occupation. EgraS: "I am a proud member of the United States Marine Corps". Auno3: "I was born and bred in the United States and work as a industrial chemist". L.R.Booker: "My job is a laboratory assistant". P.W.Lutherson: "P.W. Lutherson is a biologist..." Verwoerd: "A. Verwoerd is a scientist".
- Edits to Mitt Romney-related articles (EgraS: [132]; Auno3: [133][134]; 69.107.81.83: [135])
- Use of the term "prima facie": (Verwoerd: [136], Auno3: [137][138])
- Random insertion of Confederate flag into articles: (Verwoerd: [139]; Auno3: [140])
- Identical edit to Adolf Hitler: (Verwoerd: [141]; Auno3: [142])
- Edits to Dysgenics: (Verwoerd: [143]; Auno3: [144])
- Edits to articles relating to the New Hampshire primary: (EgraS: [145][146]; Verwoerd: [147])
- Similar edits to Jihad: (EgraS: [148]; 69.107.94.241: [149])
- Edits to StarCraft-related articles: (EgraS: [150][151]; Auno3: [152][153])
- Edit to Marvin Heemeyer: [154]. See previous case: socks have made countless POV edits to this article.
- Comments
- I would note this comment by User:Verwoerd and this edit summary by User:EgraS. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidently User:EgraS shares User:Auno3's interest in chemistry [155]. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So the salt spray test shows my chemistry abilities? It was just through logic that I changed the sentence. If the salt spray test had absolutely no correlation with the actual corrosion in real life, then the test would not be used. What do I know about chemistry? EgraS (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- what i think
You mention that auno3 is a racist. None of what I said was racist, Emily Sander was not murdered by a non-white. This is just smoke and mirrors. I also never added images to Jessie Davis. Meredith Kercher's murder has not yet been solved. Saying that Rudy Guede murdered her I believe amounts to slander. I never said that Rudy killed her, but he is a suspect (even now). And count the # of people would edit massive articles like Mitt Romney? EgraS (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now look at the history. Flash is changing the evidence, that all the women were murdered by non-white men. EgraS (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the sentence in light of your concerns, if that's not such a problem. However, the suspect in the Emily Sander case is Hispanic which, to my knowledge, is not considered "white" by most Americans. I should also clarify that EgraS never edited the Jessie Davis article. My point is that both he and Auno3 appear to share an interest in criminal cases where young women are victimized. Both users have made substantial contributions, including uploading images, to their respective articles of interest. For example, EgraS uploaded Image:Chrismccuin.jpg and Image:JanaShearer.jpg for Jana Shearer, and Auno3 uploaded Image:BobbyCuttsJr.jpg for Jessie Davis (see their full logs here: [156][157]). Also it is true that Mitt Romney is a fairly high-profile article, however you and Auno3 have made edits to many of the same (or closely related) "obscure" articles, such as interracial marriage. Not only that, in your edit to that page, you removed Image:Beach-wedding-couple.jpg, which is something nearly every Auno3 sock has tried to do. Flash94 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean you removed the sentence due to my concern. You were sloppy, and people ought to know that. Hispanics are classified as any race, they can be white, black, asian, two or more, or other. I dont know the race of Israel Mireles, but I'd venture a guess that he is white. I am indeed, the opposite of racist. I dont even believe in race. On the US census, anyone can claim any race they want. Pictures showing a person that appears based on stereotype to be black, white, or asian is not enough. Indeed, it may even amount to slander. In the interracial marriage page, for example, imagine if the women who appears to be white actually lists her race as black, which she can legally do and what the Federal gov't is obliged to accept. It could be libelous if she is written as white. I am not being insane, there are lots of people who you stereotypically think is black who actually lists their race as white, and vice versa. Do I think that the women in the photo is white? Certainly. But I also think that every large corporation has done something very illegal such as murder. But if I write those two conclusions as fact, then it would be morally and legally an offense toward the person or company respectively. I am now being suspected because I wanted to break down the stereotypical barrier. EgraS (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it continues. EgraS has again tried to remove the interracial wedding photo[158] and created the article Lauren Burk, a murder case involving a young female victim and a black suspect. Flash94 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the page irrespective of race. I will not be intimidated from editing/making pages because of accusations from a conspiracy nut. EgraS (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Flash94 was blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet.[159] This report appears to be a form of disruption. No further action required.Jehochman Talk 09:31, 19 March 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
Brexx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mimibianca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Good Guy Gone Bad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Let's Migrate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
SWik78 (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Brexx was blocked on February 18 for 1 month due to copyvio issues. Most of Brexx's work was done on the article Touch My Body (a song by Mariah Carey) as well as E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) (the album from which the song is taken) and the Mariah Carey article itself. Mimibianca started editing on March 3 and, up to this point, all of his/her edits have been on Touch My Body.
The editing style between these two is very similar. This edit by Mimibianca and this edit by Brexx both contain the same characteristics:
- no capitalization of words at the beginning of sentence
- no spaces between a comma and the word following the comma
- question marks or exclamation points are trippled (???, !!!)
- heavy usage of ... as well as ending the comment with it
- no signature
Before concentrating mostly on Mariah Carey, Brexx edited some articles related to Janet Jackson including her new album Discipline (Janet Jackson album) and song Feedback (song) from the album. Both Brexx and Mimibianca have made references to that album and that song when there was a discussion about deleting certain things from Touch My Body.
Examples:
- When Touch My Body was initially deleted because it was improperly sourced, this was Brexx's rationale as to why it should be kept (janet song Rock With U doesnt have any reliable sources and is not confirmed as a single,and is kept,and not bieng deleted), basically saying that if one stays then the other one should as well
- During a current debate on Talk:Touch My Body about whether or not to include a plot description for the music video, Mimibianca used this argument as to why the plot description should stay. He/she is referring to the Janet Jackson song Feedback (song) again basically saying that if there is a music video plot description for Feedback then there should be one for Touch My Body. The interesting thing about this reference is that the plot description that Mimibianca is referring to was introduced to that article by Brexx on this edit which, coincidentally, is very similar in style and content to this edit on Touch My Body by Mimibianca. Both of those plot descriptions fail to capitalize the proper names (Janet and Mariah respectively) and use some of the same writing style characteristics.
One of the copyvio issues that resulted in Brexx's block was his uploading of screenshots taken from music videos (mostly Touch My Body) and inserting them into articles (see his talk page for numerous warnings about that). Mimibianca has also uploaded and inserted several music video screenshots for the same video such as [160], [161], [162] and more.
- Comments
A quick note regarding the reason why I bring this up: by using a sockpuppet account, Brexx would be circumventing his current block. SWik78 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, User:Mimibianca has just uploaded Image:Tn poster2.jpg and added it to the article Tennessee (film). Brexx uploaded the same image on February 18th. Brexx's image was twice deleted due to a lack of fair use rationale. It is particularly suspicious that not only was Brexx's image exactly the same as Image:Tn poster2.jpg, it is also exactly the same filename. It seems an unlikely coincidence that Mimibianca would upload the same image with the same filename as Brexx did. I strongly suspect these are the same user. Gwernol 10:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition even still, this user shares an IP with Connortt9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with whom s/he was caught up in an autoblock. Connortt9 not only exhibits only slightly better grammar ([163]) but the same propensity to revert administrators ([164] [165]), and an equally atrocious grasp of image policies (see [166]; I strongly suggest closing admin delete all these images). The second connection may be a coincidence, though it may not. The known IP (213.42.21.62) has a similar contribution record to the above addresses, but stems from United Arab Emirates, which is known to use proxies. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be confident enough to say that 213.42.21.62 is Mimibianca's IP based on Mimibianca's replacing of signatures here. SWik78 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, though I don't believe its exclusively used by Brexx/Mimibianca, see for example this edit which I highly doubt is written by the same person. Gwernol 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with you 100% that it is a shared IP between at least 2 users. One of them is Brexx/Mimibianca, the other user (or users) is/are someone who knows quite a bit about technology and Asian history. The second user has contributed quite well, I hope that he has an account and that the edits we are seeing from him as an IP are only what he contributes when he's not logged in. Knowing that the IP is shared, will Brexx/Mimibianca be able to create another account during their block? SWik78 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I feel the evidence is pretty compelling. Mimibianca is indef-blocked as a sock, Brexx's block is extended to 6 months. I'm not so sure about Connortt9, however I nuked a reposted page in his userspace and a copule of obviously copyvio images he uploaded. There are a few more his images that need to go to WP:PUI. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've also indef blocked User:Good Guy Gone Bad as a sockpuppet of Brexx. See Good Guy Gone Bad's contribution history for details. Gwernol 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also indef blocked User:Let's Migrate as a Brexx sockpuppet. Gwernol 17:55, 14 March 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
Tom.mevlie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
I.want.to.tellyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
Teg.kcab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
I.just.saw.a.face. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Moorman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alexthedude4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amenhotep XV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
165.228.1.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DangerTM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (found, blocked, added 18 Mar)
- Report submission by
Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Tom.mevlie has been using sock puppets to make personal attacks ([167], [168]) and create support for his wikiproject. He admitts to having been blocked before [169] and admits to having created Teg.kcab [170]. The other suspected socks are all SPAs that showed up to support his wikiproject (with the excpetion of Amenhotep XV who tried to start a similar project a few weeks ago [171]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Obvious connection here. Blocked main account one week with advisory to stick to one account. Blocked named socks indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 17 March 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
Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
70.13.183.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Here Cometh the Milkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
Identical edits here, and here, and here.
- <The first isn't an "identical edit"; the latter two are my reverting you and, after you undid my revert, another editor reverting you.Andyvphil (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)>[reply]
Talk page discussion here
- <Strangely, same diff as first "identical edit". Andyvphil (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)>[reply]
These edits reinforce a previous history of edit warring and tendentious pursuit of POV regarding the "pushing" of stories related to Barak Obama's cultural and religious heritage. Andyvphil has been pursuing this agenda at several other Wikipedia articles, and has been shouted down in talk page discussion for heavily POV'd edits.
Accounts show identical, single issue politically tendentious editing and talk page patterns. WNDL42 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the suspected puppeteer could be either Insight magazine editor Jeffrey T. Kuhner (under one of the folowing accounts.
jkuhner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
publishtruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- All three accounts have been trying to coatrack the Insight story angle on the Obama "madrassah" smear.
- Repeated problem at a number of sites related to both the scandal and other media properties owned by the Unification Church (owner of Insight via News World Communications)
- ~~ I've never edited any article on any media property of the Moonies, except Insight.[172] I've provided this link to Wndl42 before, but he keeps asserting I'm a SPA. Andyvphil (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC) ~~[reply]
- Comments
I welcome a checkuser on this wild assertion. WNDL42 has previously accused ME of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user:JKuhner -- oh, wait, I see he did it again here -- and has repeatedly spammed my talkpage with bogus 3RR and other warnings because of my opposition, across multiple articles (Journalism Scandals; Obama Campaign '08, etc.), to his insistance on strongly implying in Wikipedia's voice that Jeffrey T. Kuhner is known to have lied about having a source near the Clinton campaign for the assertion in Insight (magazine)'s that Clinton's opposition research had discovered that Obama had attended a madrassa. In fact, we know that Obama did not attend a madrassa, but we do not know that Kuhner lied about his source, a distinction that WNDL42 refuses to make, since he is insistent in pushing the BLP-violating POV that Kuhner smeared both Obama and Clinton at the behest of Insight 's indirect Moonie ownership. This has resulted in POV atrocities like the Kuhner entry at United_States_journalism_scandals 01:021 March 2008. I am not a sockpuppet (or a Moonie) nor have I ever edited under any other handle or ip since registering as Andyvphil, so it was hardly necessary for me to comment here, and I know all this detail is off-topic on this board, but WNDL42 is a very energetic POV warrior who seems to have more time for this than I can devote, so I could use some help. Volunteer interveners invited. Andyvphil (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don;t think anyone is a sockpuppet but I have also have problems with user:Andyvphil. He always uses weasel words and does not work towards consensus on the page or on talk. I don't really care who he is but I also have problems with his motives, on a regular and ongoing basis. Just check my history and you will see a massive number of edit rv-ing what were often anti-consensus edits by andyvphil, and which were always POV edits. I am not one for admin. action generally but i think his and mine, and wndl42's, histories all speak for themselves. I would just hope that this process would get him to stop, I have no desire to block anyone or see anyone lose their right to edit in good-faith. But andy is in constant violation of a good number of policies, and frankly I am a little sick of it- like using the talk as a pov forum- that needs to stop. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm sick of you too, but that's off-topic here. I'd like to ask, however, that when you say something like "always uses weasel words" you provide a diff or, better, a quote. That way anyone interested could take a look at what you're misdescribing and conceivably save me the trouble and aggravation of making posts like this one. Andyvphil (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well my edit history for the last 2 weeks is essentially devoted to this topic, so I don't think its a big mystery whether your edits exist or not lol. honestly I think you should consider yourself lucky I am not trying harder to get you restricted, and leave it at that. WNDL42 took it to a level I do not operate much, but I think its hilarious to see you getting lecturing on two separate WP talk pages AND two separate admin violation pages, all on the same subject- consensus- which it seems is the one concept you are not in grasp of. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- nb: Still no diffs for "always uses weasel words". And if you think that what is going on on this page is that I am "getting lectured" then what you "are not in grasp of" is any semblance of reality. Andyvphil (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well my edit history for the last 2 weeks is essentially devoted to this topic, so I don't think its a big mystery whether your edits exist or not lol. honestly I think you should consider yourself lucky I am not trying harder to get you restricted, and leave it at that. WNDL42 took it to a level I do not operate much, but I think its hilarious to see you getting lecturing on two separate WP talk pages AND two separate admin violation pages, all on the same subject- consensus- which it seems is the one concept you are not in grasp of. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm sick of you too, but that's off-topic here. I'd like to ask, however, that when you say something like "always uses weasel words" you provide a diff or, better, a quote. That way anyone interested could take a look at what you're misdescribing and conceivably save me the trouble and aggravation of making posts like this one. Andyvphil (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See related checkuser report on jkuhner here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/jkuhner WNDL42 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Denied, unfortunately. Andyvphil (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as the Scots say, "Not Proven". Andyvphil (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My evidence is that both Andyvphil and the new user "Here Cometh the Milkman" have identical tendentious editing patterns, and both are warring over the same section of the Bill Moyers article. Also, the diction and casual offensiveness and aggression are identical. ► RATEL ◄ 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]