Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd)

User:Fredrick day

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fredrick day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Allemandtando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.105.116.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (June 22 vandalism)
90.241.224.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (July 6 vandalism)
Killerofcruft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (for completeness, Koc --> Allemandtando, legitimate name change)

Report submission by

Abd (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Fredrick day was blocked for vandalism and gross incivility, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (with lists of used IPs), and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd). Fd has continued to vandalize my user and talk pages with lowered frequency, as well as to stalk me. Latest incidents were April 29,[1] June 11,[2] June 22,[3] and July 6.[4]. (Bold is presumptive, other is likely). There was also an edit to User talk:Shapiros10 or User talk:Xp54321, I'm not sure which, which seems to have been deleted, possibly by Alison, and which may have been made in the last month.

My suspicion was originally aroused by the behavior of User:Allemandtando, which resembled that of Fredrick day in its level of confrontation. This editor registered as User:Killerofcruft and quickly became involved in an AfD, as well as in controversy following the AfD, and I previously noted the similarity to Fredrick day. What I had not noticed until today was ~~(1)~~ that I edited that AfD at 20:00, 19 June 2008.[5] Koc registered at 20:32, 19 June 2008, thus suspicion that this was related to my edit is enhanced. and then the first edit by Koc was a minute later, to Midnighter‎, which could seem unrelated, except that "Stormwatch" would be a likely search for someone researching Donna Upson, the subject of the AfD. When the AfD closed merge, Killerofcruft immediately engaged actively in handling the merge, showing high interest, and became contentious when the closing admin reversed his decision.

See a report on Koc's earliest edit history at User:Abd/Allemandtando.

Killerofcruft was the subject of an AN/I report where the appearance of sock puppetry was discussed, but, except for my comment,[6] other puppet masters were suspected.[7].

Note that the AN/I report was closed with a note that it stood as a warning to Koc, but Koc later dismissed it as "crap."[8] Very much like Fredrick day. If this is not Fredrick day, it would appear that, unfortunately, he's been cloned. Because of Fd's extensive use of open wireless routers and proxies, this may not be conclusive, but, at least, it should be checked.

RFCU would appear warranted, and urgent because of expiring CU records.

Comments

This is nonsense and a fishing trip, some of the comments are truely bizzare - for example "first edit by Koc was a minute later, to Midnighter‎, which could seem unrelated, except that "Stormwatch" would be a likely search for someone researching Donna Upson".

The Midnighter is a comic book character own by DC Comics, he is a member of the superhero team The Authority, previously to this, within his fictional universe, he was a member of Stormwatch another superhero team written by Warren Ellis (it's very good by the way and worth picking up). I know all of this because... em.. I'm a comic book collector. Why stormwatch is related to Donna Upson is beyond me - is she a superhero as well?

This user has been warned on his page by administrators a number of times not to harasses other users - most recently in his conduct (from first glance) towards some administrators. Why he has such an interest in me, I just don't know. I have asked him on a number of occasions to fill a request for user comment and bring this before the community, but it seems that's just too much hard work. I consider this sock puppet case an abuse of process - I spend my days cleaning up articles and adding scholar sources, I've never been warned, I've never been blocked, I've never been warned that I'll be warned! nothing! The editor should be directed to use the correct process and file a Request for user comment - I will comply with any judgements put down by the community in such a process - no questions asked. On the evidence presented here, the intrusion into my identity presented by CU is a fishing trip and abusive. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm guessing this abuse of process was prompt by the MFD of a watchfile he keeps about me - see here. Note, when this was nominated it looked like this as it had done for two weeks or so - it's only purpose was to let me know he was watching me.

I have a further problem in that I have been advised off site not to communicate with Abd in any form (which this does) for reasons I cannot explain here because they might constitute WP:LEGAL but I will be willing to discuss via email with an admin. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(scratches head. Huh? I have a fertile imagination, and it came up with zilch on this one.) --Abd (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allemandtando, for almost a month, begged me and taunted me to provide an actual "complaint." Well, here it is. About a very narrow issue. Is he or isn't he a sock of Fredrick day? Suspicions of sock puppetry dogged Killerofcruft from his first days after registration. It certainly was not just me, see the diffs and refs above. He claims he has never been warned. If it were relevant, I'd provide diffs of warnings, but.... it's not relevant. This is an SSP report, not an RfC/U. Whether he was warned or not is moot. Whether he is a useful editor or not (he's certainly been useful in some ways) is likewise moot. --Abd (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I became confused between Stormwatch and Stormfront.org, which is an American National Socialist site. My apologies, I'll strike that.--Abd (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears totally circumstantial. Some claim could be made that those IP's are socks of frederick day, but no claim aside from vague behavioral relation (and an emphatic denial) links KoC to frederick day. This looks like a fishing trip. See what a checkuser results in, but if it is anything other than the exact same IP as Fred day at the moment of account creation, there isn't much else to go on. Also, for circumstantial evidence, this SSP is woefully short on diffs of KoC's behavior and long on allegations. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The IPs are socks of Fredrick day, the first highly likely, the second possible. Direct connection between those IPs and Allemandtando is possible, but unlikely; rather, confrontational and uncivil edits, in connection with certain issues, coming from a certain ISPs are very, very likely Fredrick day, and connection and identification of Fd socks has been made in the past on this by administrators. It used to be that the most common IPs for him were in the range of 87.112 - 87.115. See the SSP talk page referenced above. What may be legitimate edits from other users do show up for those dynamic IPs; however, they are quite rare. Fd has repeatedly taunted Wikipedia administrators with, more or less, "I'm going to edit how I want to and there is nothing you can do about it." This, of course, is about Fd, not Allemandtando. If Allemandtando is editing from a normal IP, not one known to have been used by Fd, then he isn't likely to be Fd, and further procedure to deal with actual editor behavior would then become necessary, or the matter would be dropped. However, because checkuser information that "might" show something will be expiring very shortly, it became necessary to file this immediately. And when I saw the connection between my vote in an AfD and the registration of Allemandtando and his subsequent appearance and strong involvement there, my prior suspicion raised to a level of probable. Diffs showing Alle's early behavior are in User:Abd/Allemandtando and have not been repeated here, that page should be considered incorporated in this report.

Core cause of early suspicion: newly registered account that comes out swinging, with detailed knowledge of Wikipedia procedure. Hence I questioned him about this early on, and he acknowledged being a "vanished user," but refused to communicate with a trusted adminstrator about his identity -- see the AN/I report on him, shortly after registration, essentially he called it a fishing expedition, though the reason for suspicion was clear and blatant. And he did not state he was a vanished user until he was confronted. Yes, lots of circumstantial evidence. Time to look at some real evidence, what does checkuser come up with? I'll file the report if nobody else gets there first, hopefully later today. It should list Fredrick day, Allemandtando, and the two IPs above, and any other IPs that anyone may have noticed in the last month that are likely Fredrick day. (I mention one edit above that has apparently been deleted, so it will take an admin to look for it. I posted to User talk:Shapiros10 or User talk:Xp54321, not sure which, sometime about a month ago, and Fd (probably it was him) posted a sexual allegation in response.--Abd (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I was asked about having a previous account, I answered - it's all there in the history. I also have confirmed my identity to an administrator and will be willing to do so again, any admin is welcome to email me to confirm that - so that's wrong as well. How long is this show trial going to be allow to go on? my last account was under my real name and I don't want it linked to this one. I am under no obligation to reveal my real name but have done so in communication with an admin. Am I suppose to tell everyone on wiki so there was no point having an account that does not link? What more do people want from me? blood samples? DNA? Am I suppose to defend myself to every half-truth and slur by this editor? --Allemandtando (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions