Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrKay (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 31 July 2008 (→Open cases). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
|
Refresh the page
|
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
345 | 346 | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 |
355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1147 | 1148 | 1149 | 1150 | 1151 | 1152 | 1153 | 1154 | 1155 | 1156 |
1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
468 | 469 | 470 | 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 |
478 | 479 | 480 | 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
320 | 321 | 322 | 323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 |
330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 | 338 | 339 |
Other links | |||||||||
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to requests for checkuser.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
Administrators
Administrators, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. for editing here at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP).
Reporting suspected sock puppets
Before creating a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:
|
- Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
- Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
- Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry: Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below.
Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled:
Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report.
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)
After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
- List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
- Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}} ~~~~ or similar.
- Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
- Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.
Open cases
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Cladeal832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
MeanLevels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JLIBPB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Todkvi5832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
66.185.217.73 (talk): This anonymous user is an IP in Ontario, Canada and shows a distinctive editing pattern of no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel.
User:Cladeal832 shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They also edit from Ontario IP addresses[1].
User:MeanLevels shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They are also interested in Ontario related subject matter[2].
User:JLIBPB shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They are also interested in Ontario-related subject matter[3]. They stopped editing on November 17, 2007 and resumed editing at 11 p.m. July 27, 2008, identical dates to the user below, Todkvi5832.
User:Todkvi5832 shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. The username ends in the same three numerals as Cladeal832. Todkvi5832 stopped editing on November 17, 2007 and resumed editing 3 hours after JLIBPB at 2 a.m. July 28, 2008.
All five have "!voted" at least once in related move debates and occasionally edit each others' comments: Talk:Princess Louise Caroline of Hesse-Cassel [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive326 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325
- First, I was an one-note account or a vandal or a vote canvasser or a needless modernizer and so now, why not, I am not a socket puppet as well. Is this really how Talk Page debates are won? Always believe it was ideas. This incidents further to are when I forgot to sign in so IP address came up and never stated it wasn't me. I never been involved in an edit dispute before. Please not how many times User:Charles, the other is that debate, was blocked and called disruptive. Also not that the main point of the evidence is that they're happened on the same pages. Well, obviously. So by this logic, any editor who edits on a similar topic and about the same time is a socket-puppet. That's pretty low standard and think a lot more will end up on Kiernan's radar if they start disagreeing with him or her. Also, not doing this formally since this Wikipeia accusation get throw out far too often and really aren't done for the sincere benefit to the quality of this website, but the User:Kiernan, the accuser, has strong case for Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point against him or her. Kiernan and I and others are debating an Hesse-Kassel naming issue for 7 article titles and well, his or her aren't doing as as Kiernan would like so after a few hundreds edits without even bothering to bring it up. In fact, not bothering to respond to any of my points. Whether he or she agrees with them or not, the points are coherant enough for a response. Now before User:PMAnderson and User:PeterSymonds get going on this (the only two that really care about this), this really has nothing to do with Hesse-Kassel and the fact that with Google Scholar in the Recent Articles option, Hesse-Cassel get 183 hits, which is less then Hesse-Kassel which get 209 hits. As well if Editors check Catherine of Aragon#Spelling of her name, while during her lifetime Katherine was used, the fact that most present day scholars use Catherine trumps the antiquated use (as per Kassel today, Cassel yesterday). Journal of Modern History (the leading journal of European history), American Historical Review, Sixteenth Century Journal, German Studies Review, John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, James Sheehan's German History 1770-1866 (which is published by Oxford University Press), McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815 as well as Britannica Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia and Columbia Encyclopedia all switched from using Cassel to Kassel so Wikipedia is behind the times in only 7 cases (as opposed to over one thousand other articles that (until yesterday) use Hesse-Kassel either as part of the title or within the text). Users are asking readers of Wikipedia to act like history is some sort of stagnant academic discipline which unchanging terminology while history is like all academic discipline and no different from computer science or cultural studies and all with evolving terms. Mention this solely because this actually affects the quality of what a reader gets which is the most important aspect of Wikipedia Cladeal832 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
All are socks, all are indef blocked. Master account blocked for 72 hours. Enigma message 16:26, 31 July 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
AccountabilityAssurer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Smegfester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wangthiswood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Selfcopulative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Normandy Landings [12] [13] [14]
Operation Shingle [15] [16] [17]
United States military in Iraq [18]
- Comments
AccountabilityAssurer was created on 28 July and seems to be mounting a POV campaign to include certain military operations in the Category:Crime of Aggression. Included were Normandy Landings, Operation Shingle, United States military in Iraq and Battle of Gallipoli. Most of these edits were reverted by 31 July when the socks were created and took over the project.
I see that User:Selfcopulative has been permanently blocked today for possibly not meeting Wikipedia:Username policy!! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Last two were already blocked. Smegfester indef blocked. AccountabilityAssurer blocked for 24 hours. Enigma message 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update
These are all checkuser Confirmed socks of banned editor DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DavidYork71 (2nd) - Alison ❤ 00:05, 6 August 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
Jean Girard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
69.137.62.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172.134.26.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JackieMoon33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MagicMan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Colbert1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vakidis55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CoffeeBlack7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pennington10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Undertaker13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CalNaughton47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JustInTime69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BillCowher05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ChadWinbush37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Snappy13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
StockMarket12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Deaf Johnny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JeanGirard55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wecrest47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Calleigh47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ASK HIM 222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mister Screwy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Beginning in 2008 mid-June, a nonsense hoax with an array of (mostly) similar titles was created and repeatedly re-created by the accounts listed above, as discussed in some detail on User talk:Athaenara#Protection of deleted article. [Current link: User talk:Athaenara/Archive 00#Protection of deleted article. — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Martinez & Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (15 June)
Caldwell & Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (6 July)
Martinez and Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (23 July)
Caldwell and Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (23 July)
Martinez And Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (27 July)
Martinez y Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (27 July)
Police Cops (television series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (27 July)
Martinez and/or Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (29 July)
Martinez and the Fellow who is Formally Known as Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (30 July)
Martinez & Caldwell & Others (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1 August)
Caldwell & Martinez & Others (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1 August)
Martinez e Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (8 August)
So Let Me Get This Straight..."Vasquez & Roswell"? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (5 December - getting difficult to trap and not worth salting!)
And I Told Him...That I Would Grant His Wecrest... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (8 December)
LlewdlaC dna zenitraM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2009 Feb 14)
Cardenas & Cardwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2009 Feb 14)
Mairteenez airnd Cradwoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2009 Apr 01)
Why Would You Watch The Mentalist? That Show Is Awful. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2009 May 27)
- Comments
A related page of alleged quotes from the alleged series was added to Wikiquote by user "WashingMachine11"—see Wikiquote:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Martinez & Caldwell nonsense hoaxes.*
- * Now at Wikiquote:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/012#Martinez & Caldwell nonsense hoaxes. – Athaenara ✉ 05:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
"Jean Girard" and "CalNaughton47" ("Cal Naughton Jr.") seem to be based on names which appear in the Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby article. — Athaenara ✉ 03:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Confirmed. Master blocked for 24 hours, all socks blocked indef. Enigma message 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I commented out the {{SSPa}} template Enigmaman added. This report was opened less than 24 hours ago, and notification of this case had not been made on the user talk pages at the time of "closing." The anonymous IPs involved have not yet been given any attention, and ten days are allowed for filing a checkuser request. The hoaxer (hoaxers) is (are) inventive and persistent and may dream up many more usernames and page names for the same hoax. — Athaenara ✉ 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Case is clearly resolved, which is why I marked it as such. There is no requirement that cases must stay open for ten days, and SSP is not required before filing a checkuser. I suggest you do some SSP work, which would be much more productive for everyone concerned. Thank you, Enigma message 05:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another sock (StockMarket12) and two additional identical articles ("Martinez & Caldwell & Others" and "Caldwell & Martinez & Others") added above. Note: I've never used this process before and don't know what procedure is supposed to be followed when additional socks show up after a new report has had the {{SSPa}} template added which effectively archives the page. If a second report is supposed to be made instead, would you do that, please? Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 15:22, 1 August 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
- 203.162.3.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Billthebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Steve CarlsonTalk 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Re-added same content to my user page that User:Billthebob added prior to being blocked for disruptiveness and sockpuppetry:
(Sample) edits by Billthebob:
Edits by 203.162.3.166
Clearly the same user, needs to be blocked. Could someone also semi-protect my user page for a while?
- Comments
- Conclusions
Confirmed, user blocked already. Enigma message 16:36, 31 July 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
Discourseur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Seventy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
RJC Talk Contribs 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Seventy3 was created immediately after Discourseur was blocked on July 5. [31] Seventy3 defends edits made by Discourseur, undoing reversions of the latter's edits, in the same broken English. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] Seventy3 justified an edit by reference to the talk page, which was modified by Discourseur. [38] [39] After Seventy3 was blocked for 31 hours for removing AfD tags [40], Discourseur corrected one of Seventy3's edits [41]. The user pages of both are strikingly similar. [42] [43] The recent edits of both concern the same articles almost exclusively.
- Comments
rather mistaken assumption. my editions are to some extent similar in the field of political philosophy, but i have many others on different pages that have nothing to do with seventy3. --discourseur 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
No compelling evidence that the two are socks. You may want to try Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Enigma message 16:40, 31 July 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
Fraberj (4th) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
71.114.36.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Self Evident. Edits to page User talk:Frabberj , continued obession with the same pages. Threatening comments "It is your well being you are threatening, amongst others as you side with these thieves"
- Comments
Please also semi-protect pages Ralph_Merkle,Robert_Freitas and User talk:Frabberj and if appropriate remove rants from talk pages of same. thanks!
- Conclusions
IP blocked 24 hours. Fraberj already blocked. Enigma message 16:42, 31 July 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
Sound check (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Garage Banned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.111.74.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Seddσn talk Editor Review 11:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The puppet master's user page is currently up for deletion at WP:MFD here. The two suspected socks have both voted to keep the user page here and here with reasons like "Sound check rock" and "Dude they're awesome". User:Garage Banned also edited the Sound checks user page here. The IP also seemed to have added false information into this article here.
- Comments
No. I am just a fan of Sound Check and this is my only account. Feel free to check addresses and see. I think the band is awesome so I edited the page about them. The end. Garage Banned (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it that you became aware of this MfD within minutes of registering your account? Mayalld (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used to check the Sound Check page on Wikipedia daily Garage Banned (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You checked a page that hasn't changed in two years daily? Is there a shortage of wet paint that you could have watched drying? Mayalld (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, because Sound Check are awesome. You obviously have not yet encountered their awesomeness. Garage Banned (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You checked a page that hasn't changed in two years daily? Is there a shortage of wet paint that you could have watched drying? Mayalld (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used to check the Sound Check page on Wikipedia daily Garage Banned (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think they are sockpuppets; Sound check is probably in the UK (at least the IPs that have edited the user page are, and the band is); 203.111.74.59 is in Australia. The IP may have created the Garage Banned account. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tend to agree. Somebody, probably not the original page creator (and probably an established editor), has clearly created Garage Banned for non-constructive purposes. Whether this is in order to make some kind of WP:POINT or simply to indulge in a bit of fairly pointless low lever mischief making is a moot point. Mayalld (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be inclined to agree with you. Do you think a CU would be worth doing to confirm if Garage Banned and the IP are related? Seddσn talk Editor Review 21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the user was editing and then decided to create an account to participate in AFD that is not sockpuppetry. However another edit by the IP, three minutes after the first, was on Alan Light (journalist) and continues a pattern of vandalism by Australian IPs on that article, which is about an American journalist, and other articles which have also been vandalised by suspected sockpuppets of Wroth of Groth --Snigbrook (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Both socks. Account blocked indef, IP for 24 hours. Enigma message 16:43, 31 July 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
Aviousours76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
92.23.4.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92.12.128.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92.10.216.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Malljaja (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This user has engaged in edit warring over nationality on the John Lydon entry, specifically reverting "British" to "English", e.g., here; probably to avoid WP:3RR the user stopped and shortly thereafter edits from [44] started here and here. A similar pattern is visible on the Morrissey page (here and here). An earlier series of similar revert edits by anonymous IPs tracing to the same internet provider and with similarly biased intentions and worded reasoning took place on the Peter Sellers page, e.g., here and here.
- Comments
This user is apparently very single-agenda driven, also evidenced by the user's violation of 3RR and creation of a single-purpose account [45]. Because of some of the user's detected activities, he/she is currently blocked from editing (see here). However, given the user's previous actions and the fact that he/she may edit with wandering IPs (which all seem to have in common that they originate from the same internet provider), further edits of the same nature and strategies of evasion of detection may occur. The user's talk page is currently protected from editing (see here) due to disruptive edits by the user, so a notice of this suspected sock puppet activity cannot currently be left on the user's page.Malljaja (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
IPs are socks. All blocked for 24 hours. Master already blocked for a week. Enigma message 16:46, 31 July 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
GDD1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
The Thunderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.149.73.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.41.187.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Domer48'fenian' 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest first started causing major disruption on the Wikipedia article on his former regiment in April, such as attempting to remove negative information despite it being sourced by government reports. His first edits were as an IP, such as this at 15:39, 10 April 2008 and this at 15:41, 10 April 2008. The GDD1000 account was then created at 16:06, 10 April 2008 and proceeded to carry on editing in the same vein, for example this edit at 16:11, 10 April 2008. After causing large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on, GDD1000 stop editing in late May, see his talk page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#GDD1000, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#The Northern Ireland Troubles for further details.
Recently GDD1000 has been violating WP:SOCK by editing from the same IP address as in April, and continuing to add disupted information and very likely copyright violations which are currently being investigated, while not mentioning his account, see for example here and here. After various edits from the IP on July 29 the account of The Thunderer was created at 15:58, 29 July 2008, and carried on editing the UDR article in the same way.
When an editor has a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, it should not be permitted for them to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor.
And now we have edits like this which are a mockery of an encyclopedia, but I won't revert as yet because the whole article needs gutting of the crap that has been added over the last day or so so I'll do it when I have more time. This IP previously made this talk page edit and is clearly GDD1000 since he was the only person in dispute with myself and BigDunc at the time of the post. So we now have two different IPs and one account editing during the space of one day from this suspected abuser of sockpuppets, and behaviour such as this post-ArbCom has resulted in severe sanctions due to the correct zero tolerance approach to abusive sockpuppeteers.
Summary of evidence:
- 81.149.73.79 is obviously the IP that was used by GDD1000 in April, and has been editing the article recently.
- 82.41.187.226 was an IP being used by GDD1000 in May based on this talk page post and this admission, and has been editing the article recently.
- 82.41.187.226 made this edit, which The Thunderer took responsibility for in this edit so they are clearly the same person, who is also therefore 81.149.73.79 and GDD1000.
- Both IPs and The Thunderer were editing the article on 29 July, this is clearly not a permitted use of sockpuppets, especially considering the GDD1000 account is not being used.
- The accusations of sockpuppetry were met by responses of "stupid comments by some paranoid person" and "deleted stupid stuff - obviously a wind up", showing this person has no intention of being honest when confronted with evidence of his flagrant abuse of sockpuppets.
- Comments
You haven't actually demonstrated any "large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on". You have simply asserted that it is so, and given one or two examples of policy breeches in the early edit history of the GD1000 account. There are similarities in the edit histories of these editors, but no firm evidence, only speculation, that this is the same individual. There also seems to be no policy breeches by the IP and second registered account, and therefore no reason to file this report. Unless there is evidence to substantiate the claim of "large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on". There is no Prima facie case to answer.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is also useful to take into consideration. I will make that user aware of this report.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Scolaire's judgement is so relevant, you should also link to his comments about GDD1000's disruption and POV pushing here. Domer48'fenian' 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which also deals with your "goading" and other incivility very well. It demonstrates why, if this is the same user, and there is no evidence that it is, this report could be seen as malicious.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except there is evidence, as the IP is editing from the same IP which GDD1000 was clearly editing from back in April, which is also a static IP. Then lo and behold shortly after you recommend the IP creates an account, the new account appears making the same type of edits to the article. If the person dealing with this is not convinced, we can always have a checkuser to prove the deception which is apparent to me. Domer48'fenian' 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A check user here would be a clear breach of privacy. So a user recommends to an IP that they create an account and.........they do it.....that's clearly evidence of socking.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except there is evidence, as the IP is editing from the same IP which GDD1000 was clearly editing from back in April, which is also a static IP. Then lo and behold shortly after you recommend the IP creates an account, the new account appears making the same type of edits to the article. If the person dealing with this is not convinced, we can always have a checkuser to prove the deception which is apparent to me. Domer48'fenian' 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which also deals with your "goading" and other incivility very well. It demonstrates why, if this is the same user, and there is no evidence that it is, this report could be seen as malicious.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Scolaire's judgement is so relevant, you should also link to his comments about GDD1000's disruption and POV pushing here. Domer48'fenian' 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser would not be a breach of privacy, as accounts can be checked. Who said anything about the IP? Rather than come clean, the suspected socks have gone into denial, so assuming I'm right the deception is clear for everyone to see. Domer48'fenian' 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a privacy policy round here you know, it can't be breeched on a whim from a user who has repeatedly been accused of bullying and goading the user under suspicion.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the IP is being confirmed as the same editor by checkuser there is no breach of the privacy policy. We don't need a checkuser to compare the IP to GDD1000, it's obvious from the edits from April it is him. Domer48'fenian' 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your evidence? Also, a checkuser itself would be a breech of privacy.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is listed above, oddly enough in the section titled "Evidence". As checkusers will not normally comment on IPs, there will be no violation of the privacy policy. Your relentless mentioning of it leads me to believe that you know my suspicions are right and are trying to subvert this report. Domer48'fenian' 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than trying to protect another user from your harassment? I suppose I'd see it that way too if it were me.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone is entitled to make sockpuppet reports when they believe there is abuse of the system, doing so by the book through the right channels is not harassment. Domer48'fenian' 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet you have failed to demonstrate a breech of the rules. That has not been forthcoming in your evidence or this discussion.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than trying to protect another user from your harassment? I suppose I'd see it that way too if it were me.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is listed above, oddly enough in the section titled "Evidence". As checkusers will not normally comment on IPs, there will be no violation of the privacy policy. Your relentless mentioning of it leads me to believe that you know my suspicions are right and are trying to subvert this report. Domer48'fenian' 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". Domer48'fenian' 19:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you're right that this is the same user, we have a pattern of behaviour that "appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.". Thus a checkuser that revealed that this user was linked (which there is no sound evidence to suggest that it is), it would simply allow you to continue to "bully" and "goad" that user.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of Traditional unionist's position: If this account is a new incarnation of the old, there is nothing in policy to prevent this. Indeed policy states: "Clean start under a new name If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Discontinuing the old account means specifically that the old account is not used for editing ever again. If the old account is later used in addition to a new account after supposedly being discontinued, then it has not been discontinued and would fall under the policy for alternative accounts, above. When an account is discontinued, it is recommended that the old account be noted on its user page as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet." With Domer's already noted incivility and border line harassment of GDD1000 there is no reason to follow up this report, indeed doing so would be a breech of policy in my opinion. Domer's general behaviour on WP is something which must be looked at, with this report being another worrying development. I'm not the most impartial editor in the world, and I tend to lose my head in a dispute and edit warring results, but this level of incivility is far more damaging to the project, and I hope that others can see this.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new accounts are being used abusively, simply by virtue of there being more than one. The new accounts have not made a clean start. The same problems still persist - unsourced additions, POV additions and copyright violations. You appear to be labouring under the impression that GDD1000 will be editing under any' account name following the conclusion of this case, I consider the approach taken so far with abusive sockpuppetry on Troubles articles combined with ongoing copyright problems that place Wikipedia in legal jeapordy that this is an unlikely outcome. Domer48'fenian' 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the accounts are being used to game 3RR, to commit !vote fraud, or actually commit vandalism, I don't see that there's much to do here. GDD1000 hasn't edited since June, so there's little point blocking that account. A CU would prove whether the IPs and The Thunderer are the same (the 81.x.x.x is a static IP address by the way, whilst the other one is dynamic), but I can't see much more to do than a warning to always log in would be the thing to do here. (I'm just wondering if the IP is the same editor logging in from a work or other not-at-home address as well - some people don't like to login on shared computers). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is abusing sockpuppets to carry on biased POV editing and adding copyright violations with several brand new accounts, after doing it before and getting himself in hot water. There is a zero tolerance approach to such behaviour in articles related to the Troubles, as any editor who had been here more than a month would realise. Also sockpuppetry has been denied by the accounts, when it is obvious. Domer48'fenian' 21:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no interleaving, though - neither of the accounts or the IPs have been editing Ulster Defence Regiment at the same time. It's been the 81 IP, followed by GDD1000, then the 81 IP again, then the 82 IP, then The Thunderer. They similarly aren't gaming the system by using multiple accounts. Whilst they might clearly be the same person, and should be reminded to log in, they aren't really breaking WP:SOCK. They might be editing disruptively, breaking copyright, or not following NPOV, but this isn't the venue for that. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of WP:SOCK do you think they are complying with? Bearing in mind they have denied sockpuppetry. You also fail to note that sockpuppetry and Troubles articles don't mix too well. Domer48'fenian' 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't addressed the fact that there is no rule breaking here. You also fail to understand tat any new account may be an attempt to evade your persistent harassment. I'd be interested in your opinion on that Wheelchair Epidemic.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think more to the point is, what action do you require? If they are indeed the same editor, since they haven't actually been gaming the system with multiple accounts, the only thing to do is (a) tell the editor to stick to one of the two accounts (possibly one could be blocked), and (b) warn the editor to log in with the remaining account. The actual problems (NPOV, copyright, etc) with the user(s) editing patterns needs to be dealt with elsewhere, though - possibly through The Troubles probation if necessary. This, however, makes a number of good points also, as Traditional Unionist has mentioned. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of WP:SOCK do you think they are complying with? Bearing in mind they have denied sockpuppetry. You also fail to note that sockpuppetry and Troubles articles don't mix too well. Domer48'fenian' 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of three socks is in itself abusive, especially when denying it. The outcome of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kittybrewster may be of interest to you TU. Domer48'fenian' 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing that up, the differences show why this instance is not a rule break. In that instance socks were used simultaneously, switching from one to another to disrupt and make discussions appear multi faceted when the same user was commenting multiple times. All the evidence here points to a user harassed off wikipedia by you attempting to avoid, not the rules, but you in order to fo some editing rather than suffer the kind of abuse you gave him before.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with your ilk is futile. At a loss as to how to defend your fellow traveller, you have continuously resorted to personal attacks. As a self confessed Ulster Unionist, your defence of the self confessed member of UDR is not surprising, despite the overwhelming evidence. Though this collusion was once common it is satisfying to note that both of these groups are now but a distant memory. I therefore do not feel the need to respond to your personal attacks, and I’m more than happy to leave it to the Admin’s. Were reasonable discussion has failed, I see no positive outcome from feeding you anymore. --Domer48'fenian' 07:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you should leave it to the admins. So far thy have seen this report for what it is.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a mini-timeline will help here:
- 81.149.73.79 was used from 24 July to 15:45, 29 July 2008.
- The Thunderer was used from 16:19, 29 July 2008 to 18:36, 29 July 2008, and denied sockpuppetry at 18:12, 29 July 2008
- 81.149.73.79 was used to deny sockpuppetry at 18:40, 29 July 2008, in addition to earlier comments pretending to be a new user
- The Thunderer was used from 18:47, 29 July 2008 to 19:38, 29 July 2008
- 82.41.187.226 was used from 21:03, 29 July 2008 to 23:37, 29 July 2008, and the use of this IP was only admitted after it was added to this report.
- The Thunderer then takes over again.
So you're got repeated swapping between IPs and the account while denying sockpuppetry, while still having an unused account with a long record of disruption. That is not covered by WP:SOCK, it's a classic case of avoiding scrutiny. Also I will not stand for the bully boy tactics being used here by TU, constant unfounded accusations of tag teams and no assumption of good faith among his campaign of harrasment. BigDuncTalk 16:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who mentioned tag teams Dunc? That's a bid Freudian if you ask me. Domer's record of harassment of of GDD1000 is documented and noted by more than just me. The evidence does seem to point to this being the same person, and that this pweson was trying to avoid the attention of a harassment campaign.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
No clear-cut evidence of abuse. Sorry. Enigma message 16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you aren't an admin, you aren't familiar with the Troubles articles and the approach taken to sockpuppetry with them, and you aren't familiar with the history of this editor. Therefore I am re-opening this pending a proper conclusion after discussion with editors and admins familiar with this, and not simply editors like Traditional unionist who have a vested interest in subverting this discussion for his own benefit. I will summarise the abuse, complete with excerpts from policy:
- "While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". As Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#GDD1000 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#The Northern Ireland Troubles show, there are admins and other editors who have a legitimate interest in reviewing this editors contributions, given his history of biased POV editing and adding copyright violations, one archive explicity says that if he returns to editing after chucking his toys out of the pram when his copyright violations were removed the situation will need to be addressed. Therefore to pretend to be a brand new editor, sorry three brand new editors, is an attempt to avoid scrutiny.
- "Clean start under a new name" does not apply. "If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner". Clean and honest? Well he's immediately lied about his sockpuppetry. His conduct is as appalling as ever, and his accounts are not being used in a good manner. "I'll be noticed: If you change your behavior, and also the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made. If you continue on the same articles or your writing style is so distinctive it will quickly be noticed, or you return to problematic editing, then it is likely a connection will be made whether or not you change account, and any perceived concealment will probably be seen more negatively when discovered". Has he changed his behaviour and the articles he works on? He's editing the same articles, with the same (copy and paste!) writing style and appalling formatting, and he's still editing problematically. Then when spotted as an obvious sock, he denied it. What's that about "perceived concealment" again?
- See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank for a similar situation. An editor under scrutiny for problematic editing cannot simply use a new account and carry on the same problematic editing with a clean slate, while pretending to be someone else. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kittybrewster as well. An editor cannot use three different accounts for no obvious reason, especially in areas that have seen abtritation cases and where the edits being made are problematic, especially if sockpuppetry is being denied.
- So, now the abuse has been made clear, I look forward to a discussion with admins and experienced editors (preferably ones without half a dozen blocks for edit warring) familiar with the problems caused on Troubles articles to date, and how this should be dealt with. BigDuncTalk 12:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from the accused
Wikipedia does not require anyone to log in using an account name to make edits. Anyone who does have an account isn't obliged to use it and may continue to make edits from any number of IP addresses which may or may not be registered to an ISP belonging to that user, (Internet cafes, hotel or airport facilities etc). Provided these edits are not being used to disrupt Wikipedia or to manipulate the outcome of a discussion or vote they do not constitute abuse of Wikipedia. I note that the account GDD1000 has not been used since 27/5/08. My contributions did not commence until 29/7/08. Whether I chose to make edits or other posts using IP addresses is of no concern to anyone. Should I choose in the future to make edits using IP addresses, whether those be real or disguised (using a proxy) is likewise of no concern to anyone, provided those posts are made in good faith.
- As posted on the talkpage of BigDuncTalk yesterday, it is to be noted that the Ulster Defence Regiment page has been enhanced by encyclopedic history of the regiment, its formation, armaments, vehicles, structure, commanders, awards, image, effect on the local community, duties, bases, casualties and allegations of collusion between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, all with inline references and citations. I notice that during the same period the tag team which has made this frivolous complaint has not made any contributions to the article, nor have they made any constructive suggestions on the article talk page or been helpful in any way to me or any other contributor to that page. In fact the edit war forced on the page yesterday by BigDuncTalk was a deliberate attempt to subvert information which was a direct lift, and linked to the page at Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 and has been unchallenged since 2006, nor has it been challenged on that page to date, but this user made a decision that it would be modified on the Ulster Defence Regiment page to discredit the information provided by the inline references and Wikipedia quote.
- During the time this has been going on neither I, the user GDD1000, or any IP address listed above has made any attempt to disrupt any page or influence any discussion or vote on Wikipedia. I understand it is my choice as to which articles I edit on Wikipedia and if I choose to only edit the Ulster Defence Regiment page then that is a matter for me alone. I am not a sockpuppet for anyone and no-one is a sockpuppet for me. I am confident that no person in a position of responsibility on Wikipedia will find any evidence of wrongdoing on my part.
- As for "checkuser" - in the absence of any wrongdoing my identity is to remain private. This mischievous complaint starts with the words Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest. This indicates to me that the person who posted it wishes to have some knowledge of individual editors in order to discredit posts they may make which disagree with his/her own political or personal views and is prepared to use such knowledge to intimidate, bully, harrass or pressure another person to prevent them from expressing a contrary opinion. I have no wish to be subjected to this type of behaviour.The Thunderer 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps interested parties may care to examine MV_Princess_Victoria, another article I have edited. I'm sure there's some mischief or harm can be done there by criticising the sources, the copyright on the pictures, the point of view or whatever. In the absence of the tag team being unable to cause edit warring at the Ulster Defence Regiment page I'm sure they can have fun tearing another page to pieces. Perhaps they can find good reason to remove a lot of things and leave the page as bare and uninteresting as it was before I edited it. The Thunderer (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are an editor with a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, you should not be permitted to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor.--Domer48'fenian' 11:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And you're an editor with a noted history of harassment. Should you b allowed to use the SOCK reports to seek to out an edotir who is hiding from you rather than scrutiny?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are these guys smoking? I can see I've got a man here who signs himself as Fenian and at the same time accuses someone else of pushing a conflict of interest. The mind boggles, it really does. The fact remains that I have no history of any violations of any code, rule or guideline on Wikipedia. A short time spent reading some of the articles edited by the Domer/BigDunc tag team does reveal quite a lot of interesting items. Very heavily involved in editing and maintaining anti-British articles concerning the Irish Troubles. Several other names come up too and I suppose it won't be long until we see them supporting this complaint and making censorship edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment page. It really does need to be taken on board by the administration that any rabid Irish bigot is going to have very strong views on information contained within pages on Wikipedia related to Ireland which contain any kind of information which seems to show the Northern Ireland government, its security forces, the Westminster goverment and the British armed forces, ever did anything contructive or positive in Ireland. This article The_Troubles_in_Portadown is a perfect example. One of the biggest killing areas in the entire troubles and what is listed - the deaths of three poor Roman Catholics! I see similar examples of this involving any and every ethnic conflict currently listed on Wikipedia. It would be very easy to get sucked into this type of ethnic bigotry and start editing articles in a biased manner. However: if the tag team are so determined to address the balance of neutrality why don't they use their superb knowledge and interest in all matters Irish to edit these articles to present a non-biased view? I prefer to rely on the evidence of the books in my possession and other interesting and reliable links on the internet. Of course those books are going to say the Provisional IRA were the enemy in the Northern Ireland Troubles and that they killed most of the Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers and civilians who died. They're also going to say that the minority community in Northern Ireland were most associated with the IRA. Facts of life I'm afraid. I note a long discussion somewhere else where the tag team objected to an edit made by GDD1000 because he was crass enough to add information in the Ulster Defence Regiment page that "UDR soldiers were disabled in service". How neutral is that? As for this complaint: it remains that there has been no abuse of an account. All of the posts made by myself and the IP addresses listed by DomerFenian and his tag team partner BigDunc are perfectly legitimate as far as I can see. There is no apparant attempt to subvert any discussion or sway any vote. It appears to me as an onlooker that this particular complaint falls into the category of Weasel word "ambiguous and cannot be substantiated by facts" and its aim is to remove someone from the posting arena who seems to be making the Ulster Defence Regiment respectable. I say again that my edits have contributed encyclopedic history of the regiment, its formation, armaments, vehicles, structure, commanders, awards, image, effect on the local community, duties, bases, casualties and allegations of collusion between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, all with inline references and citations. What has the complainer and his tag team contributed?The Thunderer (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from User:Alison
Okay, checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry having taking place here. There is nobody here abusing multiple accounts. Seriously. What I'd like to see right now is that everyone please stand down and leave everyone else alone. We've an encyclopedia to write here and this hounding of editors is not helping matters. And Thunderer, terms like "rabid Irish bigot" are not constructive in any way whatsoever, so please don't do that.
I'm recommending this SSP case be closed - Alison ❤ 18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alison, checkuser is a technical tool whereas whether abuse is taking place is a matter of judgement based on policy. When an editor with a long history of disruption tries to carry on disruption with a new account claiming "I am not a sockpuppet for anyone and no-one is a sockpuppet for me", then it is obviously an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Before anyone recloses this case, can they confirm that they accept this editor is clearly GDD1000, then we can take this further elsewhere BigDuncTalk 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunc, I'm more than aware as to what checkuser is. Let me put it this way; there is no abusive sockpuppetry going on here. Furthermore, I cannot either confirm nor deny this person's previous identity or whatev; it's 1) irrelevant 2) a breach of privacy policy to reveal at this time and 3) absolutely none of your business. As an admin and checkuser, and as someone who was involved in the Troubles arbitration case, I am now closing this SSP case. Please do not reopen this as your behaviour, and that of Domer is bordering on disruptive> Please stop messing this editor about; you have absolutely no right nor reason for doing so - Alison ❤ 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More harrassment. The Thunderer (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Alison. Thank you for your judgement. My comment "rabid Irish bigot" wasn't directed at anyone but it's very much a question of "if the cap fits - wear it!" I have no problem at all being civil but when I see that this complaint started with the words, Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest I found myself wondering what kind of madhouse Wikipedia is. That type of disinformation is harrassment, designed to belittle a user and to render his/her input of less value than it is - propaganda in other words. Why should it be allowed for someone who has been editing on Wikipedia since 7th February 2007, and who is apparantly so adept at pointing out the rules to others, to engage in such incivility towards another user? Should this DomerFenian chap not be admonished? Reading through the dicussion on the UDR page one can see how DomerFenian and his tag team partners made it so difficult to edit the article that user GDD1000 gave up and stopped posting to Wikipedia? Even at one point trashing the other user's special work page without so much as trying to educate him/her on why they were able to do it. You have here several individuals who, while contributing nothing to the article in question, tried to prevent someone else from doing so. I believe this is called an "ownership" issue? Then we get this frivolous complaint which was spotted as false almost from the outset. I believe a think-tank should be set up to investigate the edit warring caused by this multiple tag team and DomerFenian in particular. Unless something is done to rein people like this in then all the articles on Ireland will contain a clever Republican bias which will defeat what I perceive the purpose of this online encyclopedia to be. Of course the same should apply to anyone who pushes an opposing (Loyalist) POV only. Can you suggest anything?The Thunderer (talk) 19:10, 4 August 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
Mariochui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
99.238.175.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
at June 20, note these by the IP: [46], [47], and [48]. Then by the user: [49]. Then by the IP again: [50], and [51].
- Comments
the IP received a warning after the first edit: [52]. Second warnings came only after sockpuppetry began.
- Conclusions
Mariochui blocked indefinitely for being a single purpose vandal. IP blocked 24 hours. Enigma message 16:59, 31 July 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
- Nashisraw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 65.34.254.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Xtremenash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Puppeter created Dollar Store Wrestling and removed CSD tag after numerous warnings, was finally blocked. IP has started to remove CSD tag again, ignoring warnings (see [53], [54]). Article was deleted via CSD yesterday, recreated by User:Xtremenash today, CSD tag removal vandalism again has begun.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Two accounts were already indef blocked. IP blocked 24 hours. Enigma message 17:00, 31 July 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
Chad01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Texas Whitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.74.245.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Pages created by User:Texas Whitt (examples [55], [56], [57], [58]) were nominated for speedy deletion (lack of notability, per WP:SCHOOL) or proposed deletion. In some cases, the notices were deleted by this user (example), or User:Chad01 (example). User:Chad01 claimed he/she created the articles in the first place. The IP editor 24.74.245.94 has edited only on these articles and has also been removing deletion notices (example).
- Comments
- User:Chad01 also made a curious threat to block me, although the user does not appear to have administrator authority. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Chad01 has started deleting comments from my user talk page ([59], [60], [61], [62]), perhaps in an attempt to hide his/her actions, and he/she also blanked this very report (and again). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, First I have no more accounts other than this that i use. I have the right to delete anything ANYTHING that is mine or that i typed. I do not know who the User: Texas Whit (I believe was the name) is. So this report is a waste of everyones time when you could be using it to better a article that it may be useful to because whatever you trying to accomplish won't work. I can always make another account. If you trying to get mine locked. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad01 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know what your argument with Chad01 is, but I can honestly say I am not a sock puppet (and my wife would agree). I'm sure if you took the time you could go to my other contributions and see a difference in style between mine and his. I appreciate your notices to me about the notability guidelines since this is new to me - I didn't realize all schools weren't considered notable. However, I do agree with Chad that maybe you shouldn't be so quick on the draw when someone is in the middle of creating an article. I think I had the first paragraph up for all of about 20 seconds when I got the notice questioning notability. Do you have a bot scouting for obscure middle schools? Maybe you need to take a break from Wikipedia to cool off and get some perspective.--Texas Whitt (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied to your comment on your talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I came here randomly because the reporter's page is on my watch list. In this edit edit[63] claims incorrectly to be an admin, and here[64] claims to be have a sock admin account. If true this is an abuse of admin powers and abusive sockpuppetry so both accounts indef. blocked. If false this is a disruptive threat with no plausible good faith explanation, which would also support an indef. block. Given that the editor has admitted to sockpuppetry they lose any right to privacy or an assumption of good faith - best to run a checkuser to possibly figure out what is going on. Or if its very unlikely they have an admin account, just block and be done with it. 04:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Chad blocked 24 hours. IP blocked 24 hours. Texas Whitt indef blocked. Enigma message 17:02, 31 July 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
JaimeAnnaMoore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
65.12.124.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.179.128.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 00:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User JaimeAnnaMoore is editing Real World/Road Rules Challenge-related articles without providing explanations for her edits; this isn't normally a problem but she has reverted several edits to Template:RWRR without explanation, even though other users editing that template have explained why her edits are being reverted. (she is adding an upcoming season to the nav template but that season's article has been deleted so there is no need for the link in the nav template) An unregistered user 65.12.124.182 also edited the Template:RWRR in the same manner that JaimeAnnaMoore did. (restoring the upcoming season to the nav template)
- 74.179.128.205 edits the user page of JaimeAnnaMoore as if it were her own, as shown by the extensive amount of editing done to that page [65]
- The "sandbox" subpage of 74.179.128.205 was created by JaimeAnnaMoore [66]
- JaimeAnnaMoore edits the "sandbox" subpage of 74.179.128.205 as if it were her own, as shown by the extensive amount of editing done to that page [67]
- JaimeAnnaMoore was once blocked for removing AfD tags from articles (specifically, the articles for specific seasons of Real World/Road Rules Challenge) and the blocking admin suspected that she was also removing AfD tags the day before while not logged in. [68] That unregistered user is 74.179.128.191 (talk · contribs), see the contributions of that user to Real World/Road Rules Challenge articles.
- JaimeAnnaMoore reverts the edits of established contributors on Template:RWRR repeatedly, using the "undo" function, without explanation, [69] [70] [71] followed by 65.12.124.182 making a similar revert with the "undo" function without explanation [72]
- JaimeAnnaMoore removes warnings from talk page of 65.12.124.182 like a user removing warnings from their own talk page after reading them, [73] followed by 65.12.124.182 removing warnings from her talk page in a similar manner and by using the "undo" function [74]
- 65.12.124.182 edits the "sandbox" subpage of 74.179.128.205 as if it were her own [75]
In addition to the specific evidence above, all three users edit several of the same articles.
- Comments
- Seems likely. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, those ARE me. One of them is an old IP that isn't even used anymore. I often do also use the IP one, when I do forget to log in. But it's also shared by other people in my network. JaimeAnnaMoore
- WP:SOCK Notes that "There is a significant difference between an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account and a person operating sock puppets." At first glance, whilst JaimeAnnaMoore should clearly be encouraged to both log in and use edit summaries (and to take a more collaborative approach to this subject) it is not clear to me how these alternates are being used specifically for "collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse". If you believe this to be the case please indicate which diffs are involved. Ben MacDui 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Sorry, no abuse detected. Enigma message 17:05, 31 July 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
Adrianfeane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Yvonnediggins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wendygower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lesliebaumann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Patrickmaguire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Peterjohnohara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jrbelkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fmaple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
9Nak (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
These accounts appear to be controlled by an individual or group at Digino Marketing, a search engine optimizer that lists Ailesbury Clinic as a client. The suspected socks have been exclusively active in creating and editing Patrick Treacy, the founder and main personality behind the clinic, and in commenting on the AFD of that entry.
- None of the accounts have been active anywhere outside of this one entry, its talk page and the related AfD.
- Six of the seven accounts use an identical naming convention: Firstnamesurname; no space, initial capital and all lowercase thereafter. The seventh is close, identical if assuming first name is "JR".
- Five of the seven accounts have identical editing styles: multiple edits to the same page within minutes of one another with no edit summaries. The remaining two accounts have only one and two edits, respectively.
- The five active accounts are remarkably keen on including inter-textual external links and continue doing so contrary to advice and warnings.
- Accounts edit sequentially, with occasional overlaps.
- Two of the accounts (Peterjohnohara and Jrbelkin) learned to sign talk page comments within hours of one another – after consistently failing to do so previously.
- As noted at the AfD page by Brammarb: "Lesliebaumann and Jrbelkin both misuse the word "notary" in the same way and in the same context (a 'notary' is a lawyer of sorts and not a noteworthy person)..." (diff1, diff2, and add Peterjohnohara to that list: diff3)
- Accounts that have commented on talk pages use the same writing style and similar arguments.
- Accounts all show remarkable knowledge of the background of the article subject without being able to point to references for the same information.
- Yvonnediggins' user page identifies the user as an employee of Digino. A company web page lists one "Adrian Feane" as sales director and the user by the same name says the page was created on behalf of the subject.
- Six of the accounts managed to mistake a redirected article page for the AfD discussion page, and proceeded to hold their own AfD debate there. Needless to say consensus was easily reached. (page history)
- Comments
I would be very surprised if checkuser doesn't find all seven accounts sharing just three IPs, the three that edit Patrick Treacy with the same pattern as the suspected socks:
- 83.71.213.165
- 86.42.173.221
- 89.100.158.252
9Nak (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with pretty much everything 9Nak says and I'm glad that the hunch of a newbie wasn't thought completely wide of the mark. I do have a slightly different sense of things, though. I think the puppetmaster is Lesliebaumann and that (s)he, Jrbelkin and Peterjohnohara are all the same person and probably, given the ardour with which they rally to the cause, the subject of the article. I think that Patrickmaguire is another sock. However, my guess is that Adrianfeane and Yvonnediggins are paid marketeers on behalf of the real puppetmaster - after all, they don't hide behind fake names and nor have they done any editing much outside of the regular working day. Although not really at all active, given the time at which Wendygower was up and about, I suspect that (s)he is also a sock of Lesliebaumann. However, wherever it all starts, it's clear that they're linked. Brammarb (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Account
I can't speak for the above users but I definitely only have one account and I'm genuinely interested in finding out more about good practices in writing articles for Wikipedia, so please don't delete my account.
Yvonnediggins (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Obvious socks. Master blocked 24 hours, socks blocked indefinitely. Enigma message 16:54, 31 July 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
Brhannan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
38.112.25.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
MSJapan (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See contribs for both accounts to show that a) they have edited nothing except Katie Reider and b) have made no edits to WP since they got the article kept as no consensus on AfD. Blatant evidence that they are one and the same aside from edit pattern is this diff, where the IP edits Brhannan's AfD comment.
Also note in the final version of the AfD that Brhannan was oversigning as "Nomad 2", and the IP did the same.
- Comments
AfD on Katie Reider that ended in no consensus was affected by keep votes and spamming from both these accounts. There is also a COI problem, as this user was aware of information definitely not obtainable through secondary sources, such as knowing about all her awards two days before anyone else found them in a source, and yet not sourcing that themselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MSJapan (talk • contribs)
- Conclusions
Brhannan and IP each receive 24 hour blocks. Enigma message 17:06, 31 July 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
Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
212.250.165.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Pureditor 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=227640286&oldid=227637598 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=227624609&oldid=227624068
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IFA_Premiership&diff=prev&oldid=220103237 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IFA_Premiership&diff=prev&oldid=223519535
- Comments
The editor has been using the two accounts on the same topics rather harmlessly up until now. But User:Mooretwin has just started using the sock account to back his/her viewpoint on a certain article's talk page and has been using the sock account to revert changes in order to avoid the 3rr rule. Even though the user denied knowing about the other account it is quite obvious they are the same person if you look at the diffs and contributions.
- Conclusions
Inconclusive. No blocks issued. Enigma message 17:09, 31 July 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
Hilscher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Demonesque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ebonius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.185.166.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.191.125.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.190.62.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
On User:Hilscher, Hilscher (talk · contribs) claims to have started the articles Sawdust, Mohorovičić discontinuity, Gutenberg discontinuity, Wardog, and Keelboat despite the fact that the articles were started by other users. When asked about it, the user repeats the claim that they started the articles. Seems to be an admission of sockpuppet use, so I'm filing this with the assumption that there are more where these came from.
Keelboat was created by (indef blocked) editor Demonesque (talk · contribs). Sawdust was created by 24.241.225.148 (talk · contribs) (not included in this report since they haven't edited since 2005, but WHOIS is similar to listed IPs). The third edit to Sawdust was by User:Demonesque. Gutenberg discontinuity, which is now a redirect, was created by User:Demonesque.
War dog was created by Ebonius (talk · contribs), who has very few other edits.
Mohorovičić discontinuity was created by Penfold (talk · contribs) who seems unrelated, but edited by user:Demonesque.
IP editor 68.185.166.126 (talk · contribs) made this edit to User:Hilscher. They have recently edited a discussion at Talk:Cecil Rhodes with Hilscher and 66.191.125.140 (talk · contribs). The IPs have similar WHOIS info and leave talk page comments of a similar style.
- Comments
User:Hilscher got themselves indef blocked while I was writing this up. Perhaps the socks can be blocked/tagged anyway, and the IP info put to some use. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: User:66.190.62.245 turned up to complain about Hilscher's treatment. It seems to be in the same block of ISPs, so I added it. Why not just make the complaint yourself? I don't get the recent obsession half of the world seems to have with pretending to be an independent defender of themselves. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Already dealt with. Enigma message 17:12, 31 July 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:Garhauer (3rd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Garhauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Rewih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.197.16.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
After previous attempts with multiple sockpuppets, refer...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Garhauer
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Garhauer_(2nd)
...this company has been attempting a more subtle approach, editing what they term as "biased" statements in Anchor.
Nb. it is well established (refer above cases) that this single editor is a rep of the Anchor Buddy company, an affiliate of Garhauer (same business addresses). This company produces a product which is what they are editing about. In the diffs below it can be seen they are trying to change, and then remove, any statement which appears negative to them. It is frankly a trivial matter but this is a clear example of commercial bias attempting to affect what an article says about something which is a product to sell for those who produce it.
Rewih - removed existing NPOV and replaced partially with uncited statement:
Again:
Then, after reverts, user resorts to logging out and editing anonymously (using same IP as before however, see previous cases) and deleting the offending statement completely:
- Comments
This editor was essentially let off the hook last time. I strongly suggest this not happen again, for the following reasons:
- They were warned repeatedly via regular sock puppet templates on user-talk page.
- They were warned by the admin who let them off with said warning and disabled all sock-puppets save "Rewih".
- All sock-puppets including the remaining Rewih are single purpose accounts (e.g. refer [76]) which focus entirely on this matter of anchor kellets.
- Conclusions
Garhauer already blocked. Rewih indef blocked. IP hasn't edited recently. Enigma message 17:16, 31 July 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
TheJokerrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Wassup54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Night-sunne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
IrishForce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.94.160.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.94.165.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.94.160.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.94.171.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.94.220.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.94.224.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.94.225.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The users in question have all been pushing the same WP:POINT since atleast April. While I only listed 7 of the IPs there are many many more from the same 65.94.xx.xx range going all the way back to atleast April, I just wanted to show that there was a history of edits from the same IP range pushing the same point. Wassup is known for sure to be the same person as the IP created that account when asked to create an account. Not long after that account was created Night-sunne was created making the same edits as the 65.94 IPs on the same semi-random articles that see very little editing to begin with. IrishForce was created right after a 65.94 IP was reverted by myself and another on the National flag article and proceeded to switch to the same version that the 65.94 wanted. IrishForce is quite obviously a SPA as in a number of their edit summaries and posts they act as if they have been a user for a long time.
TheJokerrr is the most interesting of the bunch as it appears to be a revenge(?) type account as the only edits made by that editor are to revert random edits made to random articles in the edit history of the three people who have most recently been reverting 65.94's edits. And he created his talk page and user page with the same basic phrases that IrishForce did. As well the edits for TheJokerrr seem to start time wise (hour/minute) that the edits of IrishForce end both on the 22nd and the 18th of July which would be quite the coincedence.
That being said we are not the only 3 who have reverted him as he has been reverted hundreds of times by many users.
I am not sure who is exactly the puppetmaster since alot of the edits have been IP based so I just listed the most recent suspected sock as the sock puppertor. I would not doubt that there are many other accounts that we have not caught. The best page to see the IPs at work on is Quebec sovereignty movement. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Evidence not strong enough to block. Suggest a request for checkuser assistance. Enigma message 17:19, 31 July 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:63.164.47.2 (2nd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
63.164.47.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Hoo Woo Woo Woo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Those Kids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Powers T 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.164.47.2. Editing pattern of User:Hoo Woo Woo Woo (and indeed, of the IP address itself) is identical, particularly in attention paid to the phrase "does the ba-limp" and its abbreviation "B.L.": [77] [78]. Also note attention paid to articles Garfield, Bert (Sesame Street), Joel Gertner, Jon Bauman, and The Portsmouth Herald, among others -- all consistent with prior sockpuppets including User:Closed Tip Ipp Ipp.
- Comments
I suspect the user does this primarily to get attention. Note that the IP is back to its old tricks because it can't be indef-blocked. Powers T 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP was already blocked, however other IPs have made similar edits: compare 71.52.32.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [79] [80] with Closed Tip Ipp Ipp (talk · contribs): [81], and 216.40.159.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with this edit: [82] and blanking of the original sockpuppet page: [83] then restoring it: [84] (although all IPs are registered to different companies and 216.40.159.11 is in a different location). --Snigbrook (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- another IP, 70.180.231.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made this edit on 21 July: [85] which is almost identical to an edit by 68.108.88.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [86] an IP blocked after the first sockpuppetry case. These IPs are registered to the same ISP in the same city (probably a dynamic IP). --Snigbrook (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information: [87] -- Powers T 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
IP already blocked, Hoo Woo Woo Woo indef blocked, assuming good faith with Those Kids. Enigma message 17:23, 31 July 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:Artisol2345 (2nd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Artisol2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Splat5572 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.129.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.129.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.130.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.130.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.132.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.132.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.135.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.136.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.147.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.148.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.148.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.151.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.151.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.151.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.196.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.197.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.198.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.200.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.200.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.201.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.201.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.202.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.212.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.217.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.217.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.47.218.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
Please see WP:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x which was opened on the anonymous user edits.
Continual bad faith edits, as well as good ones on various Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads and cartoon related articles. Admin User:Geniac was the one who connected the anonymous IP with the puppeteer. -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Splat5572 has already admitted that he is Dabby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[88], who admitted he was AL2TB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[89]. So AL2TB is Dabby and Splat. However, it was shown that was also shown that it was likely that AL2TB was also Artisol2345 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artisol2345. Establishing that the Artisol2345/AL2TB sock family is also 75.47 would be a major finding, if it is true. To me, it somehow doesn't seem as if they are linked, though. I am contacting User:Rschen7754 about this case, as he edits the California roads articles and has dealt with these users more frequently. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't originally connect 75.47.x.x with Artisol234; I read a discussion about the similarity on a talk page, I can't remember where, about a month ago. --Geniac (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we do a RFCU on this thing? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I beleive Artisol2345 and AL2TB is not a sock though both of them live in Orange County, CA. AL2TB and Dabby both have black tag on user page both talk and userpage protect. They no longer log in with account. Those guys seems to have be much civil than 75.47 though.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is very plausible - Arisol and 75.47 and AL2TB all have similar editing patterns. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well AL2TB and Artisol2345 have similar IP. The thing is Artisol2345 left loong time prior to the time AL2TB came in. They both have satisfactory level of Civility, and they don't ever have fly off handle behavior like 75.47 does. 75.47 have post false blocking message on my talkpage, and call me names in past like "Dickhead".Alot of times 75.47 lack civility and use many cuss language to communicate. 75.47 gets strongly upset when he disagrees with others opinions, and just perform 5RRs in like 10 minute time, alot of times he does not provide summary. When we blockl one of 75.47s he change his IP to escape from his block. Its better to block all of 75.47's IP range so he cannot escape block.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 17:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any answers? 75.47 was upset just because he believe I accuse him of sock of Artisol. I couldn't tell if Artisol, ALT2B, Splat5572 may have similar writing patterns, its tough to tell. I won't say its certainly a sockpuppet, I don't want users to be upset at me.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8And when 75,47 even made those changes by just talking about it, people automatically know its sockpuppet. Aristol once have it on userpage to warn people especially bad faith comments against Rschen7754 about accusing of sockpuppets. This also makes it very obvious of socks.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Splat5572 is probably not 75.47: [90] --NE2 03:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, NE2 (and Thatcher as well, naturally).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, this confirms nothing only. His edit habits, style and responses have been the same as 75.47.* (which are also from the same area as the cox communication IP). -- KelleyCook (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Figures that two people in California would edit about California. I've put up with them for a while, and they seem different, though that shouldn't be taken as definite. --NE2 20:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, this confirms nothing only. His edit habits, style and responses have been the same as 75.47.* (which are also from the same area as the cox communication IP). -- KelleyCook (talk) 02:28, 31 July 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
- Suspected sockpuppets
Azdpetratarawsanata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Petrasantatarawnazdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tarawazdypetrasanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AzTarPeCah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Knyac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Grammar Cahta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Azddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Petra boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Khawarizmyat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Abu Zaid T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Template Maker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Stayfi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
Three sock puppets courtesy of the Arabic Wikipedia. Participated in edit warring the article. The owner is too limited to come up with better usernames (being a sockpuppet he thinks some established users on ar wp belong to the same user which explains the anthological usernames). Санта Клаус (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the above editors persist in adding the same WP:SOAPBOX comments into the article which are identical in wording. I have fully protected the article for a week and am wondering whether a checkuser might be indicated to see if they are editing from the same location. Stayfi is the most persistent and I suspect he's the sockmaster. --Rodhullandemu 04:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without cu the first 4 are socks. If a cu is to be run please check Stayfi against 82.101.143.211 and 82.101.143.215 who also participated in editing the same article. Note Stayfi's denial. Thanks. Санта Клаус (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DUCK I've blocked the first four indef as sockpuppets, at least of each other. What will be interesting is to see whether the IP autoblock has any effect on Stayfi. Watch this space. --Rodhullandemu 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added 2 more. Maybe a cu is justified if my talk gets more. I don't think they belong to Stayfi (who used the above ips); they belong to another disgruntled user at ar wp. Санта Клаус (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also blocked for disruption/username issues. Stafyi doesn't seem to be caught in the autoblock, but then I'd guess these are going to be dynamic IPs. However, the message needs to be loud and clear that this is an inappropriate venue for their complaints, which should be in English anyway. --Rodhullandemu 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Next four blocked per WP:DUCK; name similarities and heading straight for your talk page is a bit of a giveaway. User:Template Maker I can't be sure of yet, so I'll hold fire on that one. This may be a coordinated influx of blocked ar:wiki editors, which makes them WP:MEATpuppets. I do note that none of the previous blockees has asked for an unblock. --Rodhullandemu 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CU will show that all, except Stayfi, are in the same country. It's one "happy" user - same pattern, same punctuality . I've seen more entertaining socks. Санта Клаус (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Next four blocked per WP:DUCK; name similarities and heading straight for your talk page is a bit of a giveaway. User:Template Maker I can't be sure of yet, so I'll hold fire on that one. This may be a coordinated influx of blocked ar:wiki editors, which makes them WP:MEATpuppets. I do note that none of the previous blockees has asked for an unblock. --Rodhullandemu 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also blocked for disruption/username issues. Stafyi doesn't seem to be caught in the autoblock, but then I'd guess these are going to be dynamic IPs. However, the message needs to be loud and clear that this is an inappropriate venue for their complaints, which should be in English anyway. --Rodhullandemu 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added 2 more. Maybe a cu is justified if my talk gets more. I don't think they belong to Stayfi (who used the above ips); they belong to another disgruntled user at ar wp. Санта Клаус (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DUCK I've blocked the first four indef as sockpuppets, at least of each other. What will be interesting is to see whether the IP autoblock has any effect on Stayfi. Watch this space. --Rodhullandemu 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without cu the first 4 are socks. If a cu is to be run please check Stayfi against 82.101.143.211 and 82.101.143.215 who also participated in editing the same article. Note Stayfi's denial. Thanks. Санта Клаус (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an Algerian I guess you are in Algeria. Are the following addresses yours? Санта Клаус (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 41.200.132.141 (talk · contribs)
- 82.101.143.211 (talk · contribs)
- 82.101.143.215 (talk · contribs)
- Comments
- I'm not a puppet (nor a master one) my work is original, my edits on the talk page of arabic wiki are also, so i don't mind to do a check user at any time (I hav my user page with informations about me, not like santa at least)
For More explenation, i'm here. --Stayfi (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
All red-linked usernames plus Template Maker (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets. Technically speaking, Stayfi (talk · contribs) remains unrelated. They edit from different locations though there's only a slight difference in the user agent. This doesn't mean that they are not the same as per this somehow silimar case.
Stayfi, your presence here seems annoying to the community. If you want to edit as most people do, then stop bringing other Wikipedia versions' problems here. Your userpage should reflect that. You haven't brought great contributions and yet you are still making a lot of noise. Please stop it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a defense, my contributions aren't a must i guess, we're all volunteers here, nd no one can force me to do or write what he wants (i'm not writing to please also) since I'm following the rules. regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:19, 30 July 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
Elladog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Oldsunnygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Hqb (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Mainly edits to Archie Comics and related articles, often deleting material [91][92] without any explanation. (Cf. [93])
- A few edits to dog-related articles [94][95]. (Cf. [96][97])
- Accusatory behavior [98][99] towards other editors who clean up after her (him?). (Cf. [100], [101])
- Clearly not a fresh editor; removes sockpuppetery tags on sight: [102],[103]
- Comments
Most recently active as (now blocked) User:Skinnydipping (contribs). Long history of signing up for new accounts as old ones are blocked for abusive behavior.
- Conclusions
Evidence is too vague. Don't see any major similarities. Enigma message 17:32, 31 July 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
Round55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Betternow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
AdamRoach (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidience
I am rather certain that these accounts are both being wielded by the same individual who was blocked for sockpuppeting on the accounts User:76.121.222.248, User:Fixedit1980, User:Okay2009, and User:Improve2009. These four other accounts have already been identified as socks in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009.
I will first tie both Round55 and Betternow to these blocked accounts that have already been demonstrated to be operated by the same person.
Key diffs:
Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Larry Craig:
Barack Obama:
Dave Reichert:
And, for the coup de grace -- a direct link between the puppet and the puppetmaster:
Washington, DC:
For Round55, there is also a very credible set of somewhat circumstantial evidence tying the account to the other 5. In particular, this user has edited a scant 16 articles; of these 16, at least 8 also been edited by Improve2009 or one of its socks in the same style as Round55. The "style" I'm referring to is minor edits that make the article somewhat worse stylistically while usually not adding any new information. The rare exception appears to be an axe this individual has to grind with Obama's decisions on public campaign funds.
Here is a complete list (omitting User talk pages) of the pages Round55 has edited:
- Angela Merkel
- Ann Richards ( [115] [116] ) - User:76.121.222.248: [117]
- Barack Obama ( [118] [119] [120] [121] ) - User:Fixedit1980: [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] - User:Improve2009: [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157]
- Canada ( [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] ) - User:Fixedit1980: [163] - User:Improve2009: [164]
- Carrie Underwood ( [165] ) - User:76.121.222.248: [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] - User:Improve2009: [172]
- Dave Reichert ( [173] [174] [175] ) - User:76.121.222.248: [176] - User:Improve2009: [177]
- David Archuleta ( [178] ) - User:76.121.222.248: [179] - User:Improve2009: [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186]
- Dino Rossi ( [187] ) - User:Betternow: [188] [189] - User:Improve2009: [190]
- Laura Schlessinger
- Rob McKenna
- Stephen Harper
- Susan Collins
- Talk:Larry Craig ( [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] ) - Very, very closely related to the Larry Craig edits cited above
- Tom Allen
- Washington gubernatorial election, 2004
- Washington, D.C. ( [203] [204] ) - User:Betternow: [205]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Master already blocked. Sock is blocked indefinitely. Enigma message 17:34, 31 July 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
- Peace454 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Peace555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Hellogoodday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Coffeemusiclife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Garda40 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The editor only opened account after previous account banned and is editing similar subjects as Peace555 There are adding material despite being told it is not from a Reliable Source and have tried to add an image twice to the Sarah Michelle Gellar article which was also behaviour of Peace555 .Adding a GNU licence for a poster based on a copyright picture here .Peace555 had a similar pattern of uploading copyvio pictures and it was one of the reasons they were blocked .
Hellogoodday has added non RS information to movies of Sarah Michelle Gellar on account created after I added further evidence of sockpuppetry of Peace 454 and added back copyvio non official poster
In re-reading my report I realised that I have reported the account Peace454 as the sockpuppeteer and Peace555 as the sockpuppet.I realise now that it should be Peace555 as the sockpuppeteer , as that was the initial account created and blocked , and Peace454 and Hellogoodday as the sockpuppets .Sorry for the mix up .
- I have added User:Coffeemusiclife, as they added an image at Shannen Doherty 1 minute before User:Peace454 [uploaded it. Kevin (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Master blocked 24 hours. 555 already blocked. Coffeemusiclife blocked indef. No evident link with HelloGoodday. Enigma message 17:39, 31 July 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
218.188.90.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
203.218.20.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.18.170.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.18.170.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.18.170.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.18.170.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
218.102.133.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.218.237.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.18.170.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.18.170.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
218.102.202.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
218.102.154.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.18.170.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.18.170.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.160.248.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.155.157.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nefbmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
162.84.162.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
162.83.163.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
162.84.137.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Note:162.84.162.32 has already been blocked for 2 days for being a sockpuppet of Nefbmn. (as of 23/7/2008 1650 UTC)
- Report submission by
David873 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The edits listed below All edits display strong anti-Vietnam bias and have occurred over an alarming short period of time. occurred within the space of 3 days, beginning at 17/07/08 0241 UTC and ending at 19/07/08 1205 UTC. At least eight of them were extremely racist and constituted defamation. Many of the comments made simply echo the ideas of another. All but the last four of the IP addresses resolve to hosts in the same locale. 68.160.248.199, 141.155.157.83, 162.84.162.32 and 162.83.163.42 seem to be meatpuppets of the other 'IP accounts'.
The relevant edits are as follows.
[206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238]
The editor who was previously User:141.155.157.83 then confessed to creating a user account with an inappropriate username as shown here[239][240]. When the later user account was indefinitely blocked due to username policy violations, User:Nefbmn then surfaced as shown here[241].
Nefbmn then proceeded to the usual routine of serial abuse that had occurred under three previous user accounts (both registered and anonymous IP). When this user was blocked for one week, two IP accounts turned up with the same patttern of abuse as Nefbmn: 162.84.162.32 and 162.83.163.42. 162.84.162.32 has since been blocked but as of 24/7/2008 0100 UTC, 162.83.163.42 remains unblocked. The contributions listings for the three user accounts mentioned in this paragraph along with that for the user account blocked for having an objectionable username speak for themselves[242][243][244][245]. David873 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some twenty hours later User:162.84.137.211 turned up and inserted a superfluous expression into Vietnamese people as shown here[246]. This edit shares the same agenda as this user account and Nefbmn.
- Comments
The editing pattern just described is highly suspicious given that Talk:Cantonese people, Talk:Guangdong and Talk:Nanyue rarely experience high levels of activity and certainly not at the same time! The suspected sockpuppeteer has continued making disruptive edits (often in a propagandist manner) since this report was filed and it is highly likely that this editing pattern will continue. Many attempts to remove the suspected sockpuppeteer's disruptive edits have failed either because the IP editor returns to cause more trouble or some established user unconnected to the suspected sockpuppeteer reinstates their improper edits, claiming that the IP editor's comments are 'valid'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David873 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user (or users as there seems to be meatpuppets involved) obviously will not stop their abusive acts. Apparently, inserting abusive comments into user talk pages now seems to be one of his preferred ways of abuse. Some articles have also been targetted. David873 (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption has now spread to Talk:Hoa. David873 (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the following Wikipedia pages have been vandalised or spammed by the suspected sockpuppeteer or their sockpuppets:
- Talk:Cantonese people
- Talk:Guangdong
- Talk:Nanyue
- Talk:Hoa
- Hoa
- Taiwanese people
- Taiwan independence
- Talk:Han Chinese
- Han Chinese
- User talk:HongQiGong
- Vietnamese people
- ...and probably others too
David873 (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is 68.160.248.199 (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC), on my talk page i have definitive proof that i am not any of these sockpuppets, i demand an apology for this blatant accusation which i proved wrong, because the user in question you are talking about is in hong kong, and i am in the USA, jeez some people are just so rude.......[reply]
- This user account is obviously abusive.
The nextLater in the day, more abusive comments appeared, this time in the user talk page itself[247]. A minute later, the user account with the objectionable username appeared. David873 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese was blocked due to a violation of the username policy, it would be inappropriate to call that account a sockpuppet. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The user account that was blocked for username policy violations was listed here as I had already suspected it to be a sockpuppet before it was even blocked, given its similar record of serial racial abuse compared to the IP editors. David873 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese was blocked due to a violation of the username policy, it would be inappropriate to call that account a sockpuppet. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you have no proof of meatpuppetry, its not highly suspicioius, due to the fact that the comment about cantonese being vietnamese ALSO APPEARED RECENTLY, LEADING TO INFLAMED TENSIONS OF CONTROVERSIAL EDITS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefbmn (talk • contribs) 13:23, July 23, 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong! No one ever said that the Cantonese people are part of the Vietnamese people at the talk pages concerned. See the edit histories for Talk:Cantonese people, Talk:Guangdong and Talk:Nanyue. The editors responsible for causing the chaos just described have been listed in this report. David873 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
There is not enough manpower on a volunteer-run encyclopaedia to deal with this. Please consult WP:RfPP if you wish to stop the IPs. Enigma message 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- 75.47.129.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 75.47.129.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
KelleyCook (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Putting random Blocked Proxy pages on IP addresses that aren't blocked, same type of edits as other blocked IPs. Its obviously an exerienced user who switches IPs everytime he is blocked for unconstructive and uncivil edits
- Comments
It's pretty clear that it's the same user; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x details some of his actions. He switches at least once a day, whether or not he's blocked. I don't think anything can be done about it, since he makes both good and bad edits. I just reverted his changes to the Tennessee templates where he removed the dash. --NE2 16:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: he's currently 75.47.130.250. --NE2 16:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[248] and [249] suggest a possible connection with Freewayguy, though the two of them do edit war against each other. I don't know if this is enough for a checkuser on Freewayguy vs. 75.47. --NE2 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I just noticed this SSP report. I encountered a user (one of which was 75.57.165.180) with similar behavior using a slew of IP addresses. It resulted in at least one RfCU where the person fessed up to the multiple accounts. Might this user and the one who spread so much joy earlier be related? If not, I guess we can just shrug at the relative contentiousness of domain address 75. ;)- Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Obviously related, but I think WP:RBI is the thing to do here. Enigma message 17:47, 31 July 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
Funk Junkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
71.62.27.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.196.166.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.196.225.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
93.149.194.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.196.159.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.196.97.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Swampfire (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Funk Junkie contribs [250]
- 71.62.27.39 contribs [251]
- 87.196.166.34 contibs [252]
- 87.196.225.43 contirbs [253]
- 93.149.194.172 contribs [254]
- 87.196.159.47 contribs [255]
- 87.196.97.99 contribs [256]
- Funk Junkie's admission of guilt before returning to do it again using 71.62.27.39. His talkpage [257] My talk page [258] The discussion is exactly combined and collapsed below in the comment section, or you can open both funk junkie and swampfire talkpages and read them back and forth.
- Here is the first removal of {pop} from Joss Stone's page by Funk Junkie on June 10, 2008[259]
- Here is the last removal of {pop} from Joss Stone's page by Funk Junkie on July 11, 2008 [260] Note: I did not include all the times he did it in between as Funk Junkie
- Here is the first removal of {pop} from Joss Stone's page by 71.62.27.39 note that this is the first ever edit by this IP and it is to revert something after he had just been warned as Funk Junkie to stop edit warring and to leave page alone. [261] It is also when I first noticed the pattern with the fake IP's. Funk Junkie went in and rearranged the word {pop} as himself, only to come right back as the IP to remove it. A pattern that strongly emrges in all the IP's where he uses 2 against each other to end up with what he wants. If you check Funk Junkie you see that these mysterious IP's that pop up, only have contribs involving reverting music genres on pages that are heavily visited by Funk Junkie. This is not a coincidence.
- Here he is returning as 71.62.27.39 to remove {pop} from Joss Stone's page again even though it had valid citations [262] resulting in an admin locking the page.
- Comments
After being involved in an edit war over the use of adding the word {pop} to the genres part of Joss Stones page Funk Junkie was warned about edit warring. He then returned to the page using ip address 71.62.27.39 to once again remove {pop}. I actually had a converstaion with him and warned him about being a sock puppet on both mine and his talk pages where he admits that it was him and asks me if I will not pursue a sock puppet case against him and if i will forget about him doing it. He then returned again as the sock puppet IP address to remove {pop}. It is not a coincidnece that the very first edit this IP address ever made was to go to Joss Stone's page and remove the word {pop} from her page especially right after he was warned as Funk Junkie not to do it. He has also now tried to hide that the IP is him, by going to other pages and removing or adding {pop} or other genres. The thing is, the only pages he did it on is pages that he has been editting as Funk Junkie for 2 years. Then he signed in as Funk Junkie and reverted the IP's changes. If you look at the IP's contribs and Funk Junkie contribs you see that All of the IP's edits are on FJ's list. He did the exact same thing with the 2 newest IP's I added. Except at one point he logged in and removed the word, logged in with the other added it back, and did this back and forth with these to IP until he left it off. If you check the editting style and content. It is a dead giveway. All 3 turn up, and revert {pop} off of Joss, and make the same type edits on other pages. All of which are in Funk Junkie except 2 on 87.196.225.43 which both have to do with Nelly Furtado, which she is all over Funk's contribs. But you can clearly see the lil game he does to get around the 3RR and warnings. This is a clearcut version of sock puppetry.Swampfire (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need evidence that is a bit more concrete. For~example, for 71.62.27.39:
- removal of pop [263]
- second removal of pop, despite it being sourced, and removal of all sources on the section and of the piped wikilinks [264], followed by adding funk with no explanation or source [265]. Page was semi-protected due to this last change.
I suggest you add more concrete evidence and explain how this demonstrates that the user is sockpuppeting. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to be adding a lot more, especially all the [Pop] removals as well as the sock puppet accounts he made to make it look like he was figthing against himself so that he could eventually leave it off. There is a very clear pattern amongst all of the edits also the fact that the sock puppets seem to only do it on Joss Stone and then other pages that Funk Junkie edits. But since I haven;t added them all yet is why I haven't placed this on the OPEN CASE list yet.Swampfire (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, he removed pop from many articles, including an article talking about a Maria Careyh album [266]. That is plain against-reason hate of pop music category, someone block this guy --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
collapsed copied discussion for readability |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was the conversation that happened before he returned to do it again using the same IP. It is a exact compilation of the discussion from the user pages of Funk Junkie and Swampfire links provided.Swampfire (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- relationship from User:71.62.27.39 to User:93.149.194.172 to User:Funk Junkie
93xxxx replaces "pop" with "hip hop" on Mariah Carey-related article [269]. 71xxxx has made the same change at least once [270], has removed "pop" from several articles, and added "hip hop" to several other where it doesn't belong [271][272] --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And here he is as Funk Junkie involved in the same dispute [273] and here [274] Swampfire (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User characteristics
The user is easiliy identified by his edits to several pop artists where he removes the pop tag, adds the improper hip hop tag, and replaces one with the other --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Recommend you try WP:RCU. Enigma message 17:49, 31 July 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
Erjentapa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Freaklosi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Starczamora (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Puppet master User:Erjentapa is the original author of a hoax article Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 2. It has repeatedly been revived only to be speedied once spotted. Meanwhile, another article surfaced under the title Philippine supermodel search, which was completely similar to the former hoax article only under a different title. The author of the second article is User:Freaklosi.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Master blocked 24 hours, sock blocked indef. Enigma message 17:50, 31 July 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
- Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Dlabtot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I believe that this person has been maintaining the sockpuppet Dlabtot for some time. There was an earlier case that came back unlikely at checkuser, but I now believe that this person is simply editing Wikipedia under a proxy. The argument earlier was that he was actually James Lang and is living in Alberton, MT, but now I believe that to be a smokescreen: he has borrowed James Lang's identity for the purposes of continuing to disrupt Wikipedia. Like James S., this person seems peculiarly obsessed with Berkeley, left-wing politics, depleted uranium, and has followed me around incessantly just as Nrcprm2026 did. He seems to be very careful, but I'll note very first actions upon clearing the sockpuppetry and later arbcomm case was attacking me out of the blue with very veiled incessant prodding that has not let up and has risen to the point of harassment. This point has never been explained: and his familiarity with Wikipedia as well as his choice to pick a fight with me seem very peculiar. Since he had refrained from attacking me when the previous case was filed, I think we need an explanation as to whether the previous case really should have been closed the way it was. There are now four distinct pieces of evidence and since this was a prolific sockpuppeteer, there is every reason to think he may be using proxies to edit ala User:Davkal. We need to investigate this thoroughly.
- Yawn. Everything I have to say about this, I already said last October, when I provided my real name and even provided a link to my picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nrcprm2026_(3rd) (actually, one thing to add, I have now sometimes edited from some other ips, e.g. 66.109.148.174) If you have any doubts just look me up in the phone book and call me. Dlabtot (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is your position that you are in no way related to James S.? You have never been in contact with him, have never used his identity and all this evidence is simply a coincidence? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no need nor desire to argue with you. I have already denied your accusations, all of which are entirely groundless. Dlabtot (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you singularly obsessed with me? What brought you to my page in the diff I provided above? I have never been active on any of the pages you were editing under the User:Dlabtot account up to that point, so how did you suddenly know to attack me if not from your James S. alterego with whom I did have very nasty encounters? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A rational response to your question would probably involve simply pointing out that your premise (I am obsessed with you) is invalid, unsupported by evidence, and a violation of your ArbComm restrictions against incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. However, experience having shown me the value of rational discourse on Wikipedia, and the hour being 3am and having imbibed my fair share of alcohol, I will instead respond (apologizing in advance to those who don't get the joke), by asking, , " why do you hate America "? Dlabtot (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you singularly obsessed with me? What brought you to my page in the diff I provided above? I have never been active on any of the pages you were editing under the User:Dlabtot account up to that point, so how did you suddenly know to attack me if not from your James S. alterego with whom I did have very nasty encounters? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I submit further that the sockpuppeteer and the sockpuppet are both active on the same geographical locations. I believe that the evidence connecting these two accounts is striking. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
diffs
- First EVER interaction with me... ON MY USER TALKPAGE????
- vaguely rude comment to me about "civility"
- Wikistalks me to WTBDWK article having never edited there before
- Tendentious filing of a WQA against me
- Acting condescending toward me
- Joining a pile-on against me at AE
- Forum shops to Rlevse
- Preaching to me
- Refuses the advice of someone else to stop bothering me...
- and continues...
- and continues.
- Forum shops to Jossi
- Protests the block of a Davkal sock
- Wikistalks me to WikiProject Plants
- Wikistalks me to Martin Tajmar
- Wikistalks me to Thuja occidentalis
- Wikistalks me to NPOV and personally attacks me
- Piles on at ANI
- Forum shops to 3RRN
- Wikistalks me to MfD
- Wikistalks me to Atropa belladonna
- Wikistalks me to AN
- Wikistalks me to Rue
- another AE pile-on
- Continued wikistalking regarding my arbcom case
- Makes excuses for Wikistalking me
- and makes more excuses for Wikistalking me
As you can see the user is peculiarly OBSESSED with me. I can provide diffs of the sockpuppeteer acting with obsession, though with a bit more bluntness in his singular striving for "balance": Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology.
Another interesting parallel is that both are staunchly opposed to pseudoscience, but see a need for "balance". Read some of the above comment on homeopathy as well and compare to this.
ScienceApologist (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would urge the admins reviewing the case to carefully examine the diffs provided rather than take at face value the characterizations by SA. They seem to mostly be a reposting of the diffs he provided back in February in another attempt to have me sanctioned. He's wasting your time. Again. Dlabtot (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I have removed a number of privacy-breaching posts from this page, and emailed the removed mark-up to ScienceApologist so he can repost the valid evidence, if he wishes, without that material. - FT2 (Talk | email) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, back in November I wrote to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org asking that the personally identifying information about me on [275] be removed, but I never received a response, and it was never removed. Yes, I revealed it in response to the sockpuppet case but in hindsight that wasn't necessary and probably not wise. Once this case is done, can we get my name and address removed from this current page and its history and that old one as well? Yeah, my street address isn't listed but that doesn't matter in a town as small as this. tia Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well, the (very tiny) upside of this is that it has been kind of fun to google myself... a simple search on dlabtot shows my wikipedia profile first - well, there's no debate about whether WP has a high google rank... next is my photobucket page, where the most interesting photos in my opinion, are the ones of my wolf-dog Luca when she was a really cute puppy. (If you want to see more pictures of Luca, go to http://luca.soak.net - oh, and, while you're at it, you might want to check out this.) On the photobucket page there are a lot of pictures of pie, and using them a really determined sleuth could possibly figure out my username at dailykos.com. Next up is a post I made on ghosttowns.com about the not-really a ghost town near me, Lothrop. I was gonna create a Wikipedia page about Lothrop, or about Petty Creek, I have a book about the history here, but, something about the rules for creating pages, or notability, or something, made me decide it was gonna involve too much work at the time. But someday I will. After that there's not much except wikipedia stuff, oddly enough the website where I originally chose the username dlabtot barely shows up. It was also interesting to search on the other information given on this page, e.g., "james lang alberton montana". That'll reveal a post I made about a recent Iranian missile launch where I described being in the Navy and the missiles we got to test our new missile system were 2 out of 3 duds. You can see the ship at USS Savannah (AOR-4). The missile system consisted of the two controllers (they are the two elevated object towards the aft that look like of Mickey Mouse ears without heads) and the launcher which could hold 8 missiles (hard to see but just aft of the smokestack). Looks like the opinion I posted on the WSJ about Brian Schweitzer's veep prospects was also indexed by google. Googling jim lang montana will show you the myspace page of my, sorry to say, defunct band, 9x13 (ugh, I didn't know that Rob added those keyboard tracks, I don't approve), as well as the local blog 4and20blackbirds, where I post under my own name... I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. I again request that the information about myself that I revealed in response to the earlier accusation, and repeated here by SA and elaborated upon here by me, be deleted. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you add a bunch of information about yourself and then ask for it to be deleted? There's rules against posting -other- people's information because it violates -their- right to privacy. If you want to remain private, don't post your -own- information. I'm sure someone will be happy to remove the information per your request, but adding your information, requesting for it to be removed, adding more information, and then asking for that to be removed as well, is burdening admins unnecessarily. Right to privacy is a right, but removing information you yourself posted is a courtesy since that was information posted publically and voluntarily. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Back in October, I revealed my name and town in response to a sockpuppet accusation. In November, I wrote to oversight asking that it be removed. Yesterday, ScienceApologist reposted it on this page. In the post I made above, I took the information previously revealed about me and demonstrated a small part of what one can learn with google and that bit of information. My point being, please delete that bit of information, a point that obviously was not made effectively by my email to oversight. Dlabtot (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And ps - I understand that it is a courtesy - one I ask to be extended to me. Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further non-public, privacy related information has been removed from this page. Folks; please be careful and try to get your point across without revealing private information on an editor. If it's privacy-related and it needs to be stated, consider pmailing an arbitrator - Alison ❤ 04:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a sockpuppet accusation or an "I don't like Dlabtot" rant. All I see above are attacks on Dlabtot as an editor, innuendo and peculiarly described diffs, but nothing to connect him to the banned user. This is real life now, not physics. D-- must do better.64.86.17.112 (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (3rd) has been courtesy blanked. Checkusers have access to prior revisions if needed. Please refrain from posting personal information in the future. Kylu (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and if this page is also blanked after the resolution of this case, I would be similarly grateful. Dlabtot (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more point to note: In all these accusations, Dlabtot has yet to come out and say, once-and-for-all, that there is no connection between him and the other account. Of course, others have documented evidence that the two accounts are interested in a lot of the same things, edit in similar areas, and have similar vendettas, but his responses are merely protestations regarding his identity. The text does not explain why he chose to contact me -- OUT OF THE BLUE -- on my talk page in a confrontational manner and comments on all the administrative reports against me. Nor do they explain why he edits about places that are not related to his stated geographical location but does edit places that are related to the other account's geographical location -- though he seems singularly obsessed with pointing out the geographical facts. There are just too many coincidences here and the fact that there is no direct statement that explains these points seems to me to be indicative of fishiness. I am in no way related to the other user who made the same allegation, but I identified Dlabtot's tone and obsession as being very reminiscent of Nrcprm2026's. That two separate editors come to the same conclusions from two extremely different angles (one from the depleted uranium angle the other from the anger against my account angle) seems to me to be yet another strange and unexplained coincidence. At some point the circumstantial evidence becomes a bit much. People have been blocked as being sockpuppets for FAR less. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One more point to note: In all these accusations, Dlabtot has yet to come out and say, once-and-for-all, that there is no connection between him and the other account. ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE All your accusations are totally without merit, and I again, deny them all categorically. I am me. I have absolutely nothing to do with any other Wikipedia account. Any further attempts by you to bait me will go unanswered. I look forward to the resolution of this case. Dlabtot (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The categorical denial is good, but I would still like an answer to the questions raised about location edits and picking on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After you tell me why you hate America, I will answer your similarly premised questions. Dlabtot (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate America because it is evil. So please, will you explain why you've been singling me out for complaints and comments, why you edit articles on areas that are fairly distant from you geographically? For good measure you can try to explain the other circumstantial evidence as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should have stuck to my plan to not respond to your bait. Because all your accusations are totally without merit, I am me, I am not a sockpuppet and that is why there is not in reality any evidence that supports your false accusations. But I will assume good faith and believe you when you say that you hate America because it is evil. After all, you would not state that you believed something that you do not really believe - that would be lying. Dlabtot (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you aren't going to answer my questions even though you said you would answer my questions? I really do want to know the answers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You want me to explain why you have come up with this false accusation and mischaracterized my edits? I'm sorry, but it's not within my power to provide that explanation. Please, some third party, end this torture by weighing the so called evidence and taking the appropriate action. I'm taking this page off my watchlist. Dlabtot (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you aren't going to answer my questions even though you said you would answer my questions? I really do want to know the answers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should have stuck to my plan to not respond to your bait. Because all your accusations are totally without merit, I am me, I am not a sockpuppet and that is why there is not in reality any evidence that supports your false accusations. But I will assume good faith and believe you when you say that you hate America because it is evil. After all, you would not state that you believed something that you do not really believe - that would be lying. Dlabtot (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate America because it is evil. So please, will you explain why you've been singling me out for complaints and comments, why you edit articles on areas that are fairly distant from you geographically? For good measure you can try to explain the other circumstantial evidence as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After you tell me why you hate America, I will answer your similarly premised questions. Dlabtot (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The categorical denial is good, but I would still like an answer to the questions raised about location edits and picking on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More evasion. Instead I just get invectives and claims of "false accusation" and "mischaracterization". I believe I have been altogether fair in this analysis. It is a fact that Dlabtot never interacted with me before accosting me on my user talk page and lecturing me on civility. He then proceeded to hound me across the encyclopedia including at various administrator enforcement pages in a manner which looks very much like he's carrying an old vendetta. Except, I can see no evidence in his contributions that he ever interacted with me before his first interaction. Why me? What did I do to encourage him to single me out? He doesn't seem interested in other controversial accounts: just me. I submit that new users do not pick fights just for the hell of it, and when they quixotically focus on a single user to hurl their attacks at, this indicates something more is going on. Nevertheless, Dlabtot has provided ZERO explanation for his actions despite their very suspicious nature. The only conclusion is that this is a person who knew me from before our first encounter: I submit it is from his previous account. It so happens that the parallels between his account and the previous account were noticed by another but then dismissed due to geographical evidence provided by Dlabtot. Now we have mitigating evidence that seems to show that, despite his geographical location, he is connected to the geographical location of the accused connecting account. So now two separate people are accusing him of being a sockpuppet. This is new evidence on top of the old evidence and it is evidence that Dlabtot has steadfastly refused to discuss. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence to discuss; all the accusations you've made are false - as in not true. All of your so-called questions are premised on falsehoods. Dlabtot (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fact that I had no contact with you before you began explaining the civility policy to me on my talkpage. It is a fact that you have followed me from page-to-page on this encyclopedia and have written disparaging things about me despite there being very no evidence of you being in contact with me before December of last year. It is a fact that you edit articles about a geographical area which is much closer to the known locations of the sockpuppet's account than to the known location of your account. It is a fact that you follow similar interests, adopt nearly identical perspectives, and often use the same argumentation to try to make your points in dispute. It is a fact that another user completely independent of me thought that you might be connected with the other account. These are all facts. You have addressed none of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fact that you believe I'm someone other than who I am, and using that belief as a premise, everything seems to you to confirm it. But since I'm actually me it's pretty hard to take you seriously. Why don't you try looking me up in the phone book, as I suggested, and call me? Do you have a rational response to that request? Dlabtot (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What would calling James Lang prove? If he says he edits Wikipedia as you does that resolve the situation? No. What resolves the situation is an explanation for the things I laid out. Answer the questions. Why did you contact me aggressively and arbitrarily without ever having had contact with me in the past? Why do you edit articles primarily on geographical locations that are thousands of miles from you? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You accused me of being a sockpuppet of someone called James Salsman with whom you had a prior conflict; is that the accusation? or is the problem that you don't like me?
- This page is for reporting suspected sockpuppets, not for attacking editors you don't like. Dlabtot (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely accuse you of being associated with the other account. I think the evidence is strong that you are acting as a sockpuppet of that account. I have explained my reasoning above. I have asked very straightforward questions which you have refused to answer. You are responding with capitalized yelling. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I look forward to the resolution of this case by a disinterested third party who can objectively evaluate your mischaracterizations. Dlabtot (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if any third-party believes that there are any valid questions raised here, and wishes to pose them to me, I'd be happy to discuss them. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the use of caps: mea culpa - that was a poor choice on my part. However, my point stands, this SSP report seems to me to be a clear case of abuse of process. Dlabtot (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be good if you would just come clean and answer the questions I asked. However, I'm not holding my breath. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't asked any questions that are founded in fact; for example what you describe as a question: "Why am I obsessed with is you?" is actually not a question at all - it is rather an ill considered accusation and an unfounded personal attack. Dlabtot (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I again re-iterate - if any third-party believes that any valid questions have been raised and wishes to pose them to me, I'd be happy to discuss them. Dlabtot (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could simply answer the question as to why your first contact with me was on my talkpage with a goading discourse chastising me for supposed incivility. Why you have followed me from article to article and on many simply reverted me (including your continued activity at Atropa belladonna). You might not think these instances are an obsession, but I have provided the diffs of you following me around and it is undeniable that you are stalking out places to revert me from my contributions. Give an explanation for that. I have never yet seen someone simply go about reverting me without having some reason for doing so. You would be a unique first case. An incredible instance, just like many of the other things that I guess we could chalk up to "coincidence" that I listed above and below. Be my guest, explain yourself. I think the explanation is simple: you are James S. You are taking out your anger on one of the people who got you blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your characterizations are false; your statements are untrue; your assertions are unfounded; and after the resolution of this SSP case, the appropriate reports will be made to WP:AE. Dlabtot (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you deny that your first interaction with me was on my talkpage? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea when my first interaction with you took place. Nor do I care. Since this is a page for reporting sockpuppets, and since I have never edited from any other WP account, and have absolutely no connection with any other WP account, where I first interacted with you is entirely irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can explain why you thought you should make this edit despite never before having interacted with me, that would go a LONG way toward alleviating my concerns. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that it's true that I never interacted with you before that. I thought I first became aware of you when I responded to an RfC you posted about original research, specifically you asked whether you could do original research to debunk a claim made in the what the bleep film. Before responding to that RfC I had never heard of the film. But maybe I first saw your name on Rlevse's talk page... I don't remember.. why would I care where I first interacted with you? what a total non-event.
- The comment I made: "Yes, it is indeed uncivil to Obviously." was made in response to the discussion I was reading on your talk page. And I stand by it: it is indeed uncivil to label another's editor's edits as "garbage" and "drivel". Dlabtot (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can explain why you thought you should make this edit despite never before having interacted with me, that would go a LONG way toward alleviating my concerns. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea when my first interaction with you took place. Nor do I care. Since this is a page for reporting sockpuppets, and since I have never edited from any other WP account, and have absolutely no connection with any other WP account, where I first interacted with you is entirely irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you deny that your first interaction with me was on my talkpage? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your characterizations are false; your statements are untrue; your assertions are unfounded; and after the resolution of this SSP case, the appropriate reports will be made to WP:AE. Dlabtot (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could simply answer the question as to why your first contact with me was on my talkpage with a goading discourse chastising me for supposed incivility. Why you have followed me from article to article and on many simply reverted me (including your continued activity at Atropa belladonna). You might not think these instances are an obsession, but I have provided the diffs of you following me around and it is undeniable that you are stalking out places to revert me from my contributions. Give an explanation for that. I have never yet seen someone simply go about reverting me without having some reason for doing so. You would be a unique first case. An incredible instance, just like many of the other things that I guess we could chalk up to "coincidence" that I listed above and below. Be my guest, explain yourself. I think the explanation is simple: you are James S. You are taking out your anger on one of the people who got you blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be good if you would just come clean and answer the questions I asked. However, I'm not holding my breath. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely accuse you of being associated with the other account. I think the evidence is strong that you are acting as a sockpuppet of that account. I have explained my reasoning above. I have asked very straightforward questions which you have refused to answer. You are responding with capitalized yelling. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What would calling James Lang prove? If he says he edits Wikipedia as you does that resolve the situation? No. What resolves the situation is an explanation for the things I laid out. Answer the questions. Why did you contact me aggressively and arbitrarily without ever having had contact with me in the past? Why do you edit articles primarily on geographical locations that are thousands of miles from you? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fact that you believe I'm someone other than who I am, and using that belief as a premise, everything seems to you to confirm it. But since I'm actually me it's pretty hard to take you seriously. Why don't you try looking me up in the phone book, as I suggested, and call me? Do you have a rational response to that request? Dlabtot (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fact that I had no contact with you before you began explaining the civility policy to me on my talkpage. It is a fact that you have followed me from page-to-page on this encyclopedia and have written disparaging things about me despite there being very no evidence of you being in contact with me before December of last year. It is a fact that you edit articles about a geographical area which is much closer to the known locations of the sockpuppet's account than to the known location of your account. It is a fact that you follow similar interests, adopt nearly identical perspectives, and often use the same argumentation to try to make your points in dispute. It is a fact that another user completely independent of me thought that you might be connected with the other account. These are all facts. You have addressed none of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An end?
So is a checkuser going to end this....discussion sometime in the near future? Shot info (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I pray so. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that will not resolve the issue as I'm accusing this guy of carefully segregating his account logins. We need someone to evaluate the other evidence: the similarity of interest, the peculiar obsession with me, the other accusation by an unrelated account, the similarity in names, geographical location edits, stated opinions and actions on pseudoscience, similar expression of temper, similar refusal to address questions directly, etc., etc., etc.... ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I look forward to a dispassionate evaluation of your so-called evidence by a disinterested third-party. Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that many days past you claimed to be taking this page off your watchlist. Seems that hasn't kept you away. Obsessed much? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do retain an interest in countering false statements and personal attacks made against me; your interpretation of my actions is of no interest to me. Dlabtot (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I look forward to a dispassionate evaluation of your so-called evidence by a disinterested third-party. Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that will not resolve the issue as I'm accusing this guy of carefully segregating his account logins. We need someone to evaluate the other evidence: the similarity of interest, the peculiar obsession with me, the other accusation by an unrelated account, the similarity in names, geographical location edits, stated opinions and actions on pseudoscience, similar expression of temper, similar refusal to address questions directly, etc., etc., etc.... ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Evidence is inconclusive/ Sorry. Enigma message 17:54, 31 July 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
74.41.82.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
98.227.191.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.134.70.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.115.61.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lihenri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.55.16.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Takoma808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.52.56.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.143.192.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.97.213.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Artichoker[talk] 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Repeated adding of slightly varied versions of one line to the end of the "Plot" section of Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, with this being the only edit of many of the above accounts. Diffs: [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], and [285].
- Comments
- Conclusions
Accounts blocked indefinitely. IPs haven't edited in a while. Enigma message 17:57, 31 July 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
YourLord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Omegafouad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
edg ☺ ☭ 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Sockpuppetry used for block evasion, of which YourLord has a history. (See 1st and 2nd SSP for this editor.)
Omegafouad is a new-ish account specializing in highly speculative nuisance categorization, one of YourLord's hobbyhorses. Like YourLord, Omegafouad is obsessed with supervillains[286] [287] and Family Guy [288] [289].
Similar edits by YourLord:
More examples of YourLord's editing style can be found in 1st and 2nd SSP for this editor. Omegafouad's edit history of course has similar examples.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Similar, but unfortunately not enough to block. Enigma message 17:57, 31 July 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
Carribeanqueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Littleredm&m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.9.58.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wettendass2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Scotsman2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Admiral Norton (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Compare Special:Contributions/Carribeanqueen and Special:Contributions/Littleredm&m. All of their contributions revolve around the Indiana Gregg page. Also, Littleredm&m was created in early May ([293]), but became active only today, two days after Carribeanqueen's activities ceased. This leads me to think Carribeanqueen uses sockpuppets to engage in a dispute.
- Comments
- I have added 82.9.58.47 to the list of suspected and recently active socks. The account "Littleredm&m" was created on May 19, 2007, a day after IanMorrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the husband of Indiana Gregg, was blocked indefinitely for legal threats. These accounts most likely belong to him as he has continued editing the article also from IP addresses starting with 82.9.x.x ([294]). Prolog (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add here (in case thats OK!] the remarks from an editor that was mainly involved in the substantial page editing he had psoted on the article talk page. His post contains more diff link examples and seems to be helpfull for the determination of the validity of the SP allegations: I would like to add some additional points to the discussion: I first tried to engage Carribeanqueen on the talk page on 7/4 regarding her edits[295]. Rather than respond to the problems I pointed out, she wiped my comments from the talk page [296] (contrary to WP:TPG) and reverted to her previous version without explanation. Since then, numerous other editors have tried, imperfectly, but I believe in good faith, to remove unsupported claims and clearly argumentative edits [297] [298]. Each time Carribeanqueen has wiped them and replaced her previous edits [299] [300] without providing coherent justification on the talk page. It now appears that Carribeanqueen has resorted to suckpuppetry[301] as Littleredm&m has taken over wiping others and restoring Carribeanqueen's improper edits using nearly identical tactics and patterns [302] [303] [304]. Additionally, the circumstantial evidence regarding the account creation date for Littleredm&m posted by Prolog here is, while not conclusive, very persuasive that both accounts belong to the same user who was indefinitely banned after repeated inappropriate edits and legal threats regarding this article, and who claimed to be Indiana's husband, IanMorrow [305] [306] [307] [308]. Mooksas (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Wikieditor2008 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved to proper location) hi, admiral norton suggested that i should contest 'sock puppetry' here. I'm not sure how I am meant to defend this though because the accusation has simply been made without any verification. I work in the media industry, but it doesn't mean that I pretend to be someone else. I have made entries in wikipedia in the past; however, I didn't remember my username, so, in May, I made a new user name. There has been a lot of conversation about this story between my colleagues and myself and I have made entries and used an older entry to work from because other editors were deleting the newer expansions that were made to the article. I find it unfair to be considered a 'sockpuppet'. and have made new contributions to the discussion whilst not knowing that I had been made an alleged 'sockpuppet'. In fact, I didn't know what this even meant or implied until tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleredm&m (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you say [below the line!] you were just a bit absend minded when you deleted the header of the section that accused you big and fat of being a sockpuppet?[309] How believeable is that? (Well I'm not a decider..) Wikieditor2008 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the accused has for a second time now [310] deliberately deleted the infos about the incident posted by wikipedian Prolog on the relevant article talkpage Wikieditor2008 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Wettendass2008 and Scotsman2008. Their contributions are also Indiana Gregg-only. Wettendass and Littleredm&m have already been blocked for Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetteering by Swatjester. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note an emergency checkuser was conducted based on an OTRS ticket. The above two users were confirmed as socks. The checkuser did not confirm any other accounts. While that certainly does not rule out any abusive sockpuppeting by Carribeanqueen, it does mean that it is more likely a case of meatpuppeting than sockpuppeting. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Per checkuser, the IP, Wettendass2008 and Littleredm&m all the same sockpuppet. Per OTRS, we know who that is, and all three have been indefinitely blocked for COI editing and disruption. No conclusions yet on the remaining accounts, perhaps the remainder of the SSP case will turn them up. I encourage a checkuser to be done on Carribeanqueen. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:43, 26 July 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
- Scotty 0905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Scottevans05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Incredibly similar username.
- Incredibly similar disruptive edits to Doctor Who articles of recent origin (about things since 2005) - adding unsourced information, original research and so on... this is what Scottevans05 was blocked for
- Comments
Diffs of the alleged misbehavior would help me make a final determination. Assuming there's some basis for suspicion, the habits of the two user accounts are similar; both edit mostly Doctor Who articles, and both will often make multiple edits to the same page just one or two minutes apart (and no, this is not exceedingly common behavior the way this particular person seems to be doing it). Also, neither account ever used an edit summary other than the automatically generated edit summary for editing section headings. This is also exceedingly rare for a user to have this many edits without ever using edit summaries. Overall, I'd say this is very likely, but I'd like to see diffs of bad edits by the new account before I would endorse a block. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [311] and then repeated [312], to take just two examples. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 19:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Clearly socks, but I don't see it as abusive socking. Enigma message 18:01, 31 July 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
Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Bbcardguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Opccollector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Your Radio Enemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
213.220.223.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.246.228.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.92.128.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
209.162.223.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
165.130.136.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.229.210.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
212.114.239.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.182.207.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85.178.49.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
218.25.101.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85.177.45.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.44.172.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Box Benefits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Omero Tognon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Libro0 (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I believe the above to be sock puppets for numerous reasons. 1) They have all edited in the same area which include the Baseball Card Pages. 2) None of their edits overlap. 3) They have the same writing style, logic and behavior. 4) They support each other's point of view. 5) They revert my proper and verifiable edits but do not touch each other's edits even if they include errors. 6) They are all red links or IPs with no established user or talk pages. 7) They are single purpose accounts. 8) They appear suddenly and engage in editing as though quite familiar with a situation and have knowledge and expertise highly unlikely for a new user. User:Bbcardguy and User:Opccollector clearly violate the name similarity rule and also appear to be single purpose which is a character trait of this puppetmaster. User:Die Profis - Die nächste Generation and User:Your Radio Enemy showed up almost simultaneously; May 12 and May 13 respectively. Die Profis first edits on WP were here. They were unit changes that were deemed improper and unverifiable. Despite this User:Your Radio Enemy supported the use of these here, which was simply a vote against me and for himself. User:Your Radio Enemy mysteriously showed up here. A place he has never done any editing. I believe he was following me around and trying to log a vote against me in a long since finished discussion. Following me around is what this puppetmaster does regularly. Die Profis shares in common with User:Baseball Card Guy the desire to delete someone's images and replace them with his own. This is what BCGuy did to me and this behavior drew the attention of others here as well. The rest of the IP's appear when he feels he wants to make an edit and go unnoticed, however their contribs appear to be the same editor. The last two, User:Box Benefits and User:Omero Tognon, are a special case. He used these to frame me, however admins removed any sock tags on them on account of no evidence. Box Benefits first edit was on May 7 2008 several hours after I placed boxes on the some baseball cards pages (ex.). Needless to say Baseball Card Guy reverted these edits and then came after me as Box Benefits. What is very interesting is that if you check their edits at that time and connect the dots it forms a sine wave. What I mean to say is that it looks as though he logs in, edits, logs out, then logs in as another user, reverts the edit, logs out and repeats this process several times in immediate succession. Box Benefits' last edit occurred on a bio page I created called Omero Tognon where he placed a deletion tag. Soon after this he created User:Omero Tognon and made some edits to the card pages using dialogue from a discuccion I had. Also, in my opinion the Talk:1960s Topps page demonstrates how the puppetmaster is unwilling to discuss things and brings in socks to 'gang up' on others.
- There are way too many coincidences to be ignored. Baseball Card Guy, I Hate CAPTCHAS, Die Profis, and Your Radio Enemy all use the same words or wording repeatedly. Among them 'status quo', (un)civil, allegations, troll(ing), 'goes to insult me', passive-aggressive, 'thinly veiled', egg(ing) on, they also deny there is content discussion. These instances are as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and most of this discussion.
More wikistalking- I went to add more information to a team page and its talk page and found that Your Radio Enemy has decided to continue following me around here. At this point not at all a likely coincidence.
- Comments
Among the affected pages are 1950s Topps, 1960s Topps, 1970 Topps, 1971 Topps, 1980 Topps, 1981 Topps, 1982 Topps, 1983 Topps, 1960s O-Pee-Chee, 1970s O-Pee-Chee. I had refrained from doing this earlier in the hopes that the puppetmaster would change his ways. I have tried to communicate on numerous occasions. I also tried to stay away from the pages listed above but it appeared as though he would not cease harrassing me. He has been disruptive and will not allow me to edit and constantly reverts my edits regardless of what they are. He has also been reprimanded for hostility against me. He is connected to the following cases: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I Hate CAPTCHAS, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers.
- This is absurd Libro0 is making a mockery of the whole process. If you look at Libro0, he seems to have used sockpuppet allegations to bully his way to get what he wants in the baseball card articles. If you look at this [313] he says of someone who calls him on his allegation, Writing here was the worst thing you could have done. You have exposed your poor writing skills and have knowledge of things not likely for a brand new user. When will you learn to play by the rules. It seems like he is paranoid and engages in behavior that invites people to take him on. He has attacked me [314] and failed to heed any attempts at a third party intervention by Rgoodermote. When Your Radio Enemy suggested that Libro0 and myself take a break from editing baseball card articles (Rgoodermote suggested that he stop altogether weeks ago) he came up with this absurd sockpuppet allegation. This is more the act of someone who sees enemies under every rock than a reasonable user. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rgoodermote told everybody to hold off on editing those pages. I was the only one who listened. You are reckless and care little for the rules because you have nothing to lose seeing as how you have socks to fall back on. You and your socks also blank your talk pages. I do not. I hide nothing. I own up to anything I have done. Review of my history will only reveal proper edits, collaboration, and communication. My user page and talk page histories only show you and your socks harassing me. Libro0 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More lies and untruths. I am just going to leave because there is no need to be pestered by some bully and liar who drags people through the mud. Due to abuse and false accusations by one user I am afraid I will not be using Wikipedia anymore and will relate my bad experience to others. Good bye! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting thing to see on my RSS while trying to enjoy a Wikibreak. Yes I "suggested" both of the users to back off and stop editing those pages all together and yes I "suggested" they both take Wikibreaks and I also "suggested" both users go to mediation as I was getting tired of going no where. I thought this was over but I see it is not. I will not comment on either of these users and I do not want to be mentioned if any actions is taken. I want nothing to do with this. I was just trying to help. If you need to contact me you can email me. RgoodermoteNot an admin 20:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to tell these two to stop, but because I seem to be on the side of Baseball Card Guy in Libro0's eyes I am a sockpuppet. Libro0 seems to engage in uncivil behavior and intimidation to get what he wants. This is a prime example of that. Hopefully the proper sanctions can be levied. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Your Radio Edits' are severely lacking in any content in fact they appear to be primarily bot-like edits. There seems to be only minor bracketing to make wiki links. It looks like you selected a subject to cover your true intention. You added categotries only. Your wording for the category also resembles the socks manner of wording. 'Old-time'? That is a relative statement. Why not something like antique, vintage, depression-era, pre-war, 19th century, early 20th century... Your only significant edits come with the baseball card pages and those edits match the socks edits. Your Baseball park edits match quite a few anonymous users. You created one page called Domain Registry of America. Isn't it ironic how they are located in Ontario, the very same place O-Pee-Chee is located. You also removed an image from a page which is a bad habit of Die Profis and BCGuy. Look, it is very simple. You do not have the source material to identify the errors on the baseball card pages, otherwise you would have cited and corrected them. You are clearly just sock support. Libro0 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So I am a sockpuppet because I categorized things that needed to be categorized?
So, I am a sockpuppet because I started an article about a well known scam that just happens to be based in the same Canadian province that some baseball card maker is in? That was done as a public service. It is more important to have information about some company that is scamming people than to have articles about sports and cardboard with pictures on them. I removed an image that violated the image use policy, and just because some other users you think are sockpuppets did the same thing means I am a sockpuppet? Just because I made some edits that "match quite a few anonymous users" I am a sockpuppet? If I was paranoid I would go and find some anonymous users that match your edits. Just because I made a few edits to some baseball card articles and disagree with you I am a sockpuppet? Do you even know anything about radio? The term Old-time radio is an term established decades ago. It is not a relative statement. Do you have some sort of expert complex? Just because I asked you and the person you have an issue with to stop and calm down, I am a sockpuppet? I don't see you adding any more sources. You just seemed to have listed one. You seem to be grasping at straws and engaging in yet more uncivil behavior. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any and all edits I make to those pages are reverted. Regardless of what they are. They could be new info, correction of errors, etc. If I list more sources, what guarantee is there that those edits will be allowed to remain? You support BCGuy's actions in full, do you not? You have not said anything in support of my proper edits. Libro0 (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not going to make any promises and I support nobody in full.
I am not going to say anything further about you or your false accusations here.Your Radio Enemy (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I make a legitimate move of an article, in this case St. Matthew's, you think I am wikistalking you?
No. In monitoring your activities to check that you aren't making any more absurd allegations like you did here, I was able to find a problem that I was able to fix. Something you apparently missed with your narrow focus. Did you ever think that most people who are searching for St. Matthew's would not expect to find an article about some obscure soccer team that only lasted one season? I moved the article for the obscure soccer team to St. Matthew's (soccer team), where it should have been all along. St. Matthew's now has a disambiguation page with over two dozen things that people have a much higher likelihood of relevance. If anyone is digging a hole it is you since you seem to be on the attack. I did not delete the article. I did not do anything out of malice. I am, however vigilant when it comes to you since you seem to tar anyone you have issues with as a sockpuppet and now as a wikistalker. If anyone is acting poorly in this matter it is you with your allegations and lies. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from an uninvolved party I have reviewed some of the contribs. There is no doubt that a number of the IPs are using IP spoofing software and socking, as they pretty much declared it themselves. Baseball Card Guy, Bbcardguy, Opccollector, Box Benefits and Omero Tongon are all also likely related in my opinion, although I am not 100% certain. That group of accounts may be related to the IPs as well. I would like another editor's opinion on all of that.
- I am highly doubtful about Your Radio Enemy (talk · contribs) and Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk · contribs). The latter is probably somebody's sock and/or alternate account, because he showed immediate knowledge of policy -- but I don't see disruption and the writing style is different enough from the Bbcardguy socks that I really doubt a connection. The Radio Enemy also has a different writing style, and has a lot of contribs on other subjects.
- Now, I could be wrong -- TRE's other contribs could just be a ruse, I suppose. But I really doubt those two are connected. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
There is not enough manpower on a volunteer-run encyclopaedia to deal with this. Consider checkuser. Enigma message 18:03, 31 July 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
- Mbabane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Plannedobesity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Nutsheller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
New account User:Plannedobesity (created 09:55, July 12, 2008), well versed in Wikipedia terminology, appeared today, editing the same articles as User:Mbabane, including redoing the detagging of Pygmy Kitabu that was reverted when Mbabane did it[315], and undoing reverts of his Mbabane's edits on Jean-Pierre Hallet. User:Nutsheller also appeared today (account created 11:01, July 12, 2008), working in the same two articles, appearing to continue edits started by Plannedobesity and also quickly removing any attempts to tag the article for notability issues[316]. Note Nutsheller also uses the IP 66.122.185.187.[317]
- Comments
Collectonian has entered numerous tags for deletions to the identical page, which is a well-recognized work that is referenced in a movie of the New York Times today. This work is in wide publication and is not an obscure work that would be recognized by only a few contributors to Wikipedia. Collectonian's attack on multiple users is based on her lack of knowledge of the national publication of this work. It is unclear on what basis Collectonian has mounted a single-handed basis to prevent addition of this article to Wikipedia and on what basis she claims that it is of interest to a single user.Nutsheller (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nutsheller's comment does not answer the fundamental point of concern, which is the question of sockpuppetry. Even if you are right about the substantive dispute, on which I have no opinion, it is wrong to use sockpuppets to further your agenda. You have not denied the allegation, but if you are someone other than Mbabane, please say so.
- That said, I think all three users are the same person. Plannedobesity's first four edits are to blue-link his userpage and talk page by adding "No content here" to each, then blanking the page. I have observed that this is a common tactic among sockpuppeteers who wish to avoid scrutiny by having blue-linked userpages and talk pages. His edits to Pygmy Kitabu and Jean-Pierre Hallet demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia more than you would expect from a newbie, and fit the pattern established by Mbabane on those articles just a day earlier. (I didn't check diffs; this is all based just on reading the contribution logs.) Nutsheller also focuses on those articles. Nutsheller created his account just 17 minutes after Plannedobesity stopped editing, and began editing one minute later, also on the same two articles. I find it difficult to come up with any explanation other than that these are all one person. I would block the sockpuppets forever and the main user for six months - an arbitrarily long time, but not forever. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Per Shalom, master is blocked for 24 hours and the socks are blocked indefinitely. Enigma message 18:04, 31 July 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
Cupidcobra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
59.178.216.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.221.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.213.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.193.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.198.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.221.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.214.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.192.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.222.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.178.211.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Murmurer (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Cupidcobra repeatedly changed headers in Sexism_in_India without seeking consensus [318] [319], and after the changes were reverted, several IP addresses made similar edits: [320] [321] [322] [323] [324] [325] [326] [327] [328]. Other IP addresses in the 59.178.x.x range made destructive edits to the same page [329] [330], including attempts to falsely attribute an edit [331] [332] to a user which Cupidcobra had a dispute with [333]. Some of the same IP addresses also repeatedly removed an older sockpuppet warning on User:Cupidcobra's page [334] [335], which Cupidcobra has also done several times [336] [337].
- Comments
Added another IP address to the list: 59.178.211.94. Murmurer (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Okay, this is the second time, after User:Newshounddog, that I've seen someone make an SSP report using a single-purpose account. I'm just going to ignore all such reports in the future. If you're going to throw stones at another user, don't live in a glass house - have the guts to stand up from your own user account, or if you don't have an account, identify your role in this matter as an anonymous editor. Sorry, but I don't think this is worth my time to look at. I'll leave a note for Murmurer to respond to this. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the substance of the matter, yes, they are probably sockpuppets. This edit by one of the listed IP addresses to User talk:Cupidcobra is telling. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already notified User talk:Cupidcobra about the nature of this account, and I have emailed the Arbitration Committee as well. This is the IP address I've been using: Special:Contributions/98.226.245.252. I created this account in order to make this page, but I will use it for all my edits from this point forward. While such concerns about single-purpose accounts are understandable, I was hoping that the evidence would speak for itself. Murmurer (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to confirm that what Murmerer has said is true. (Bias against IP accounts is hardly worthy of an admin. AGF?)Yobmod (talk) 08:49, 14 July 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
James Sidis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Davids Article (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92.4.23.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ryan Articles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92.3.138.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Adolphus79 (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:James Sidis created an article regarding a non-notable person (Viet Anh Pham). That article was speedy'd under A7 several times. After the original series of deletions, the IP recreated the article again, as well as edited User talk:James Sidis. Now, a newly created accout (User:Davids Article), has recreated the same article again, and the IP edited it 5 minutes later. User:Ryan Articles then created the article Pham Viet Anh. None of the 4 accounts have any edits not related to each other or the deleted article.
- Comments
Master blocked for 24 hours; socks blocked indefinitely. Enigma message 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- 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
24.3.180.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
76.120.173.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Erigu (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
These users claim to be three different people (Fragments of Jade, in reference to 24.3.180.166, 76.120.173.40, in reference to Fragments of Jade, Fragments of Jade, in reference to 24.3.180.166 and 76.120.173.40, in the "Heather's name" section of Talk:Silent Hill... also, the three "votes" in favor of "Heather Morris" were cast by the three suspected users), but edit the same articles (mostly Silent Hill and Wild Arms-related ones, but you'll also note 24.3.180.166 and Fragments of Jade's shared interest in The Looking Glass Wars, for example [338] [339]), push for the same edits to the point of edit-warring (most notably about the last name of a Silent Hill character [340] [341] [342] and the capitalization of the title Wild Arms [343] [344] [345] <- strange contradiction between the actual edit and the comment for the last one), revert good faiths edits and refer to them as "vandalism," ignore their interlocutors' arguments, respond to them in rather rude and hostile fashion (going as far as to accuse them of "racism" for no apparent reason [346] [347]), and generally resort to very similar arguments (such as claiming that the makers of the game e-mailed them and proved them right [348] [349]) and insults.
You'll also note how 76.120.173.40 and Fragments of Jade appeared shortly after 24.3.180.166's disappearance and immediately started supporting her views in Talk:Silent Hill (it would appear Fragments of Jade even already knew 24.3.180.166's gender).
Other weird "coincidences" would include the three users' shared habit of replying without any indentation in discussion pages, signing immediately after the final period of their comments (i.e. no space or anything in between the two), misspelling the same words in the same manner (such as "omit" -> "ommit" [350] [351] or "editing"/"edited" -> "editting"/"editted" [352] [353]), or blanking their personal talk pages regularly, generally right after one last hostile reply [354] [355].
On top of that, the WHOIS results for 24.3.180.166 and 76.120.173.40 prove to be eerily similar.
EDIT (July 28):
Thatcher explained here that Fragments of Jade was blocked for violating the 3RR through a combination of logged-in and logged-out edits. On July 2, 2008 (the day of the violation, according to Thatcher here), 76.120.173.40 is the only user that's been pushing the same edits as Fragments of Jade on the Silent Hill article.
Therefore, it would appear Thatcher confirmed that Fragments of Jade and 76.120.173.40 are in fact one and the same, despite Fragments of Jade's claims to the contrary.
- Comments
These accusations are completely false, and arose only because other people had the nerve to go against the user making the accusation. Yes, I like Wild ARMs and Silent Hill. So what? Both are video games and incredibly popular ones at that. What next? Do we both like Harry Potter or Final Fantasy, maybe? Secondly, it's impossible for us to be the same. We don't even live in the same state. Someone already took the liberty of posting where the two IPs live, down to the county, which is presumably why they both disappeared, not because of sockpuppetry. I wouldn't want to go somewhere where my residence was being publically posted either. As for the spelling mistakes pointed out, there is no validaty to those, as we've never shared the mispelling of the same words that I know of. I've no connection to either of those IPs, though I'm sure the admin or whatever you call him who has been sidestepping the rules will convince someone to lie so that I will be banned. Wouldn't surprise me at all. At any rate, if the information provided for them is true, there's no way we could be the same person, due to the vast difference in location. Again, these accusations were only made because one childish young lady, who is suspected of being a sock herself, couldn't handle that people were disagreeing with her and dug up some random evidence. We sign are posts directly after our messages? So do a lot of people. In fact, every time you go to edit a page, there is a message telling you to do just that. How can you even investigate someone, based on such ridiculous grounds?Fragments of Jade (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These accusations are completely false, and arose only because other people had the nerve to go against the user making the accusation.
- I just listed many reasons as to why I suspect you of sock puppetry.
- it's impossible for us to be the same. We don't even live in the same state.
- Well, that's what you're saying, just like you're saying you're three different people. Thing is, I don't believe you.
- Someone already took the liberty of posting where the two IPs live, down to the county, which is presumably why they both disappeared
- They didn't both disappear after the WHOIS results were mentioned (that would be July 4 [356]). 24.3.180.166 "disappeared" last month, well before that. As for 76.120.173.40, she (I'm assuming she's a "she"!) was still there after that, and actually reverted the Silent Hill article twice on July 6 [357] [358]. You should remember, as you pushed the exact same edits on that day, except you did so four times and got blocked because of it [359] [360] [361] [362].
- I'm sure the admin or whatever you call him who has been sidestepping the rules will convince someone to lie so that I will be banned.
- Damage control, already?
- And I suppose we won't ever know what you mean exactly by "sidestepping the rules"? Just like I'll never get to know why you're accusing me of "racism"?
- these accusations were only made because one childish young lady, who is suspected of being a sock herself, couldn't handle that people were disagreeing with her and dug up some random evidence.
- That's a bunch of circumstantial evidence, actually.
- Oh, and I'm not so young, nor am I a lady. Childish? Well, maybe, but I've seen worse. And if you're going to accuse me of sock puppetry, by all means, go ahead. But I'm afraid you'll need at least some circumstantial evidence, and you haven't provided any so far. In fact, it sounds like you're accusing me and others of sock puppetry only because we're disagreeing with you, which is precisely what you've been (wrongly) accusing me of.
- We sign are posts directly after our messages? So do a lot of people.
- With no space in between the final period and the sig? Well, when I mentioned my suspicions on the talk page, many people had posted comments already, and only you three had that peculiar habit on the entire page. In fact, you never failed to sign like that. There was only one instance of another user doing that, and that was for one message only: the rest of the time, that user put a space in between his comments and his sig.
- Certainly not damning evidence, naturally, but yet another "strange coincidence"... Erigu (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More lies from you, as expected. And now you reveal another of your fake names. Nice try, but I know it's you. You really need to grow up, tell the truth for once, and accept that you are not always right.Fragments of Jade (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More lies from you
- More baseless and gratuitous accusations from you.
- And now you reveal another of your fake names. Nice try, but I know it's you.
- I just created this "Erigu" account in order to report you here, as some advised me to [363]. I never pretended I wasn't 88.161.129.43. In fact, I would hope you know it's me, as I've made a reference to your accusing me of "racism".
- And again, if you're going to accuse me of sock puppetry, by all means, go ahead. Good luck with that. Erigu (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grow up. You just can't handle that people disagree with you. Otherwise, this report would not exist, because the accusations would never have happened. It's a shame you can't have a discussion with harassing the people who disagree with you.Fragments of Jade (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grow up.
- Thank you for the extra material: [364].
- It's a shame you can't have a discussion with harassing the people who disagree with you
- Thank you for the extra material: [365] (by the way, this is the "harassment" mentioned in the link: [366]).
- That also helped me dig up this: [367] and [368]. It's not like I was trying to be exhaustive while listing my evidence above anyway, but "discussing" with you is motivating. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not evidence at all! Like all the other links you posted, it relates to nothing at all relevant to your accusations. With your racist, witchy attitude why are you so surprised that people keep getting ticked with you? Again, learn how to have an adult discussion, instead of acting like a jerk and making outrageous accusations the minute things don't go your way.Fragments of Jade (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not evidence at all! Like all the other links you posted, it relates to nothing at all relevant to your accusations.
- It's circumstantial evidence. In this case, eerily similar behavior and words.
- Of course, I'd prefer damning evidence, such as an IP check (I'd bet your current IP is 76.120.173.40).
- With your racist, witchy attitude
- Enough with the baseless allegations of racism, please. You're not helping your case. And "witchy"? Er... For the third time, I'm a man.
- why are you so surprised that people keep getting ticked with you?
- Thank you for the extra material: [369]. Erigu (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra material? There is no material. You're just saying that and trying to use everything I say against me, even when it's got nothing to do with your accusation.Fragments of Jade (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's got everything to do with it. But if you feel otherwise, I guess you really shouldn't worry about the outcome of this case. Erigu (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My only worry comes from the fact that you've got an admin bending the rules in your favor, as well as Wikipedia's history for claiming people were socks by manipulating evidence, something I have a whole forum full of proof of.Fragments of Jade (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure... *steps back* Erigu (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a secret anymore. It's dead-obvious what he's doing.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't even know what or who you're talking about... But just like you never bothered to explain why I was "racist", I guess I can't expect any specifics here either, huh? Erigu (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You already know all the racist things you've said about Americans. Playing dumb to try and irritate me is pathetic.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me or shut up? Erigu (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about YOU shut up? I'm getting more than a little sick of your attitude, especially in regards to Americans. You need to grow up or at least play somewhere else, where there's no one around who has to listen to your nonsense.Fragments of Jade (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK guys. That's enough. This argument is not helping your cases. FoJ, if you haven't been sockpuppetting you have nothing to worry about, getting you back up makes you look guilty. Erigu, you've made your case, arguing makes this look like a grudge. I suggest that both of you back away from this please. --Thaddius (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... It's been 9 days, you know... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that soon after posting but didn't see fit to remove my message. My bad. Did you end up submitting a checkuser request? Otherwise this'll have to be redone. --Thaddius (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Lack of manpower. Resubmit if it's still a problem. Enigma message 18:10, 31 July 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
Omaga99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mega volt2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Willy56.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pizza pants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mr.ZAPY! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.152.108.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
On 6 July, Omaga99 (talk · contribs) submitted an article Bayley Gap which was taken to AfD here.
On 7 July, between 02:56 and 03:02, Mega volt2 (talk · contribs), Willy56.5 (talk · contribs) and Pizza pants (talk · contribs) all posted "Stay" (sic) !votes at the AfD, in each case the user's first contribution to Wikipedia.
At 06:58 Mr.ZAPY! (talk · contribs) appeared, added a "Stay" !vote, altered it to "Keep", and then removed a previous comment pointing out that the first three had made no other edits. To put that right, between 07:34 and 07:37, these three editors made curious edits [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] to other articles, each consisting only of the addition of a few dots.
- Comments
I have added an IP address to the list of sockpuppets above as it is obvious from the contributions listing [377] that the said IP address is also a sockpuppet account. David873 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Master blocked for 24 hours. Socks blocked indefinitely. Enigma message 18:14, 31 July 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
Ninavizz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
67.188.40.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.188.110.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HackerToy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Delbertpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ChoochooBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SpiritMovesMee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flowersprout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EscalanteXP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Norquist9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brazensunseeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kombatstilettos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Wikiwikimoore (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
There is evidence of ongoing sock puppetry starting in August of 07 through present. The editing is with respect to the Violet Blue (author) page. All of the edits are POV pushing on one of three issues. One: attempts to remove as much information about Violet's tenure at SRL. Two: attacks against editors who disagree with Ninavizz, or her sock puppets. Three: attacks and edits around the BoingBoing-Violet issue.
Ninavizz's POV on the SRL issue is made clear in this talk page edit (which strangely was made while not logged in and was manually signed ):
In this edit she tells us, "my edits were not POV pushing about SRL: they were and continue to be, fact, and a fact that I could at the time (and can still) personally substantiate through my direct involvement with SRL". Conveniently we don't need to argue that Ninavizz has been involved in sock puppetry as she admits to it twice. Once in a comment on boingboing.net where Ninavizz states "Wikipedia, that displays a coffeehouse WiFi's IP address that I'd made the 3 Wikipedia edits from (as well as I suppose, sending emails to his account on, months prior- good catch)". (Edits from referenced IP here Special:Contributions/67.188.110.143, SRL POV pushing.) Then again when, as Ninavizz, she edits one of her puppets talk pages to disclose that it was a puppet [[378]] which she later thinks better of and deletes [[379]].
Below I list exemplary edits from each puppet:
- 67.188.40.44 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=151067674
- 67.188.110.143 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=151225138
- Flowersprout http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=151735146
- SpiritMovesMee http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=151862361
- ChoochooBiz http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChoochooBiz&diff=prev&oldid=175769057
- Delbertpk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=151877472
- HackerToy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=152515366
- EscalanteXP http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=167470660
- Norquist9 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boing_Boing&diff=prev&oldid=222286071
- Brazensunseeker http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=223668696
- Kombatstilettos http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=223812234
- Comments
I clearly have a COI with respect to the violet blue page, which I disclosed, on Feb 8 2007, before making any edits to the page [[380]]. Regardless of my COI, I feel that, where I may have made some mistakes during my process of learning the culture and practices of Wikipedia, I have been a positive element who tries to come to consensus about changes before making them. It is also clear that Ninavizz has a personal issue with Violet. There are current and ongoing disputes on the page, that clearly include other parties as well, which may or may not include other sock puppets.
- Conclusions
I have shown unarguably that Ninavizz has been involved in at least some level of sock puppetry and provided strong evidence of an extensive and long running POV campaign using puppets.
- Sorry, not enough manpower at SSP to handle this. Resubmit if it continues. Enigma message 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
The person placing this report was involved in an action with the subject of the article in which they, at a microphone in a public forum, and without any evidence whatsoever, accused Nina of having been "stalking" them on Wikipedia, and then they outed her wikipedia name. I think we all have seen the baleful effects of outing in our recent loss of NewYorkBrad, and I hope that the admins who review this case will proceed accordingly. This person's allegations AFAIK have nothing whatsoever to back them up except POV and mean-spiritedness. --BenBurch (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These charges are all false or misleading. If any admin want to discuss any thing with me I will be happy to do so publicly or privately. As for the basis for my allegations, the evidence I have provided above is quite strong.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that coffeehouse IP addresses are NOT sockpuppetting, son, they are the inevitable result of being mobile. The current named account was LATER than this era. However, on the article subjects Blog she, and by extension you have solicited meatpuppets to POV-push on the subject's article, and those meatpuppets have absolutely showed up. Admins contact me if you need the URL where that solicitation was posted. Thank you! --BenBurch (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That request was maid a long time ago and did not ask any one to push a POV. What she ask is full is:
- "Please help. My Wikipedia page does me no justice whatsoever. My press and publicity page has more info — and that’s not much. All I want for christmas is a Wikipedia page that looks like everyone else’s, rather than just a dry list of my books (and not even including the ones I’ve contributed to). I will be happy to answer any and all questions to accomplish this goal. I just have no clue how to go about it."
- The post is here [381] as you can see that happend in augest of 07 and Violet now understands even this POV pushing free request is considered inappropriate by Wikipedia. I personally see no evidence of the supposed meat puppets showing up after that requests. So benburch please provide evidence for this claim that "those meatpuppets have absolutely showed up". Wikiwikimoore (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I rest my case. That is a request for meatpuppetry and is absolutely POV-pushing as it asks for FANS to ask her for INPUT for the page. --BenBurch (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That request was maid a long time ago and did not ask any one to push a POV. What she ask is full is:
- I am definately not a ninavizz sockpuppet. Based on the Violet Blue talk page, it would seem that wikiwikimoore has 'lost' it in many instances and is just noise making the talk page hard to read, often asking the same questions repeatedly or not bothering to completely read explanations in context, or even click on links cited as proofs, but would prefer to challenge every single entry that is not written as if the article were a CV. In fact some of the link spam he provided doesn't even prove the point he was trying to make. He seems to have the inability to think objectively before reacting such as posting a lot of link spam trying to prove something that was not even being disputed.Brazensunseeker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathan- you have provided no evidence, other than 1) My BoingBoing contribution, and 2) The history on my DelbertPK's S.P., that simply was a reneged attempt at outing myself, some time ago. Both pieces of evidence were made available to you because *I* volunteered disclosure... the prior, only coming forward with after you outed me for contributing, anonymously. Wikipedia users are well within their rights to contribute anonymously, and what code of ethics are you adhering to, "outing" me for my very reasonable anonymous edits- and falsely accusing me of others that only your "gut" just is guiding you on?
- This is slander, plain and simple- and it is slander to both cause me personal damage, and to deny that *many* people are involved, and not just me.
- This is pretty clear wikipedia abuse, imho, to resolve a personal dispute that you and Violet have both refused to meet with me in person, mediated or not, in a civilized fashion, to resolve, in the year+ since the SRL show at Maker Faire. As an abusive use of wikipedia, it is my hope that admins will take appropriate action. None of my anonymous, attributed, or *one* sock-puppet edit, were abusive, slanderous, or mean-spirited. This is all of the above.
- The SRL stuff is PRIVATE, and my sockpuppet DelbertPK was created entirely to disguise my identity, so that my expressions requesting folks to focus on other stuff would not be written-off. Sock Puppetry, like COIs, is strongly discouraged; and I think in the one instance where I did it, it was reasonable. You and Violet and all of your/her sockpuppets need to STOP hyper-focusing on the SRL contributions!!! Violet is noteworthy for many OTHER reasons, hence her presence here!
- Everyone in SRL (myself included) have had a tremendously difficult year, bereaved with the Robodock accident. Dealing with Violet's self-serving demands for her personal history with SRL to be set straight and in lengthy detail on her wikipedia page are both inconsiderate noise, and especially irritating; since she is *not* noteworthy for her SRL contributions, and many with SRL have been upset by her over the last few years for appearing to ride on the celebrity coat-tails of her involvement with SRL which was no-more noteworthy than any of 100+ or so other volunteers' work has been.
- What concrete evidence do you have to link me to any of the other IDs or IPs?! The other day I forgot to log-in, and so my edit is shown as coming from an anonymous IP- despite the fact that I signed it, with my username. I'd like to add here that because of all the hostility and your "enthusiastic" efforts to slander me because of our personal differences, I had to go through quite the song-and-dance with my DSL company this weekend, because of my aforementioned mistake, having my full array of Static IP's re-assigned/created, out of fear of you hacking into my server and creating more problems for me.
- Please take it offline Jonathan, and just quit harassing me with this slanderous barrage!!! You and Violet both clearly have concerns with me, personally- and a year after this mess started, the frustrations and hostility are now mutual. A personal sit-down discussion is a much more appropriate place to start to seek resolution, than wikipedia. If resolution is not your goal, but creating more "drama" is, then you probably chose the correct action to take.
- I note that DelbertPK never made a main-space edit at all. Not exactly actionable especially after they had already invaded your privacy. --BenBurch (talk) 04:26, 7 July 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
- 68.249.241.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Any IP address starting with 68.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some:
- 68.79.88.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.90.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.96.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.98.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.101.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.115.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.122.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.123.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.79.167.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.248.72.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.248.73.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.248.73.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.248.74.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.248.74.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.248.74.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.248.74.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.248.75.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.249.44.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 68.252.7.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Yep. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Report submission by
Rushyo (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User_talk:68.249.241.154... contribs... you name it.
- Comments
- This idiot also has spammed my talk page an inordinate number of times. He is abusive and continues changing his IP address. He has also affected many other users as well. (E Wing, Cambridge WeatherBay, etc)--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me get this straight, you're accusing an entire /8 of being sockpuppets? Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
"Let me get this straight, you're accusing an entire /8 of being sockpuppets?" Closed per Allthedamnusernamesaretaken. Enigma message 18:18, 31 July 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
Figment1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Gators855 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.231.128.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- The Figment1 account was created here, and shortly thereafter made this addition to the Ruslana Korshunova, and first reverted its deletion here. The link was removed by more than one editor, noting that it appeared to be a blog. Figment1 then returned the link here, here, here, here, and here
- When the link was questioned on the talk page, IP 66.231.128.196 removed one comment which said the site material was stolen from elsewhere, then posted a comment about the website, asserting that it was a legitimate news source, and insinuating that questioning it could be a legal issue here.
- Eight minutes later, the Gators855 account was created, removed, then re-added the comment here. I responded to the comment, observing that the material on the diaday website appeared to come from another website (Tactical News Service). Gators855 posted a notice that the Tactical News Service had an agreement with diaday.com here, which was posted to the Tactical News Service at 7/5/2008 11:31 AM.
- To clarify, the IP 66.231.128.196 posted the diaday/Tactical News Service connection defense here, immediately thereafter, Figment1 returned the material here. Immediately thereafter, Gators855 removed the IP talk page addition here and returned it under his/her own account here. The question regarding copyrights was raised, the material removed, and the following day, Gators855 posted the notice about the connection between the two websites here, made a correction here, and two minutes later, Figment1 returned the diaday link here.
- Comments
This is clearly a case of two single-purpose accounts created and only used to make and defend a link addition to this article. Figment1 makes the addition, and Gators855 defends the change on the talk page. That the last two days, one account acts within in a very few minutes of the other is clearly a case of sock puppetry. The link is to what appears to be a newsblog and was questioned by 3 separate editors. When the point was made that the material on the diaday page was from something called "Tactical News Service", a notice was then posted on the Tactical News Service front page, asserting that diaday is an official licensee of TNS. The two websites appear linked as do these accounts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Accusation
Not knowing what a sockpuppeteer is, I looked it up in Wikipedia and did not find a definition for the word. I think it is only right that if I am accused of something then the word being used for the accusation be defined in it, or a link to the word’s definition should be provided.
I did not find a specific definition for sockpuppeteer. However, I did find the term, “sock puppet” in the section labeled WP:SOCK. If they are the same, I deny the allegation.
The box at the top of the article in WP:SOCK says: “This page in a nutshell: The general rule is: one editor, one account.” The first sentence of the first paragraph in WP:SOCK says: “A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. “ I am one editor using one account.
I did find something called Template:Sockpuppeteer. It has a box saying, “It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.” I have not used one or more accounts abusively.
Response to Evidence Response to Paragraph 1: Wildhartlivie links to the User creation log. It says: 15:06, 30 June 2008 Figment1. Then there is the addition. I began participating because I disagreed with the link being taken down. I don’t view it as a link to a blog. I don’t agree with that. The website has audio with someone at the scene. The person being interviewed at the scene is a person quoted about the incident in well known newspapers. There is a section in the article about her death, so I see it as relevant.
Response to Paragraph 2:
This paragraph does not relate to the accusation against me.
Response to Paragraph 3:
This paragraph does not relate to the accusation against me.
Response to Paragraph 4:
If somebody is using Wikipedia as a research tool they could spend a lot of time looking at an article. One of the good features here is that things are constantly updated. I imagine lots of people look at a page at the same time, or edit based on things they see in a discussion, without joining the discussion, and do it out of wanting to do what makes most sense for an article.
I found an entry on Wikipedia that says Be Bold in editing. It’s at WP:BOLD. I was not trying to be bold, even though that’s encouraged. I was trying to do what I think is right and restore the link.
Wildhartlivie’s accusation is inconsistent. Wildhartlivie claims in his/her Comments that I (Figment1) make the addition and then somebody else makes the defense on the talk page. Yet, in his/her fourth paragraph of supposed evidence Wildhartlivie starts by saying, “to clarify” and goes on to make the opposite claim saying that I am returning the link after entries to the talk page. The contradiction is obvious.
As to the rest of the comments, I do not see how they apply to this accusation.
After I received this accusation I went and checked Wildhartlivie’s user page. It says that Wildhartlivie has made over 10,000 contributions to Wikipedia. It says he/she has been a user for 1 year, 11 months and 14 days. That’s roughly 14 contributions a day, or more. With so much experience why not contact me or write something in the talk section to me rather than accuse me of something without knowing?
Wildhartlivie has claimed that the link I posted was questioned by three separate editors. It appears from Wildhartlivie’s page that at least one of those editors has some form of pre-existing relationship with him/her. The one editor I refer to is Pinkadelica. Pinkadelica made arguments against the addition of the link I reposted. It might be interpreted that Wildhartlivie came in specifically to support Pinkadelica’s position.
A review of Wildhartlivie’s user page and Pinkadelica’s user page show that they have given each other various awards. This goes back as far as December of 2007. Included is an award to Pinkadelica, by Wildhartlivie called, “The Outlaw Halo Award”. It says, “Presented because I simply couldn't find an award that had someone driving a nail into the overtly loquacious tongue of a lesser being with an oversized, wooden hammer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)”
I wonder why a person would give out an award with that kind of language. The language in that award makes me wonder about the level of bias these two editors might have in approaching an issue, particularly this one. It does not seem to speak of people looking to build consensus.
As far as the talk page of the Ruslana Korshunova article, it has a statement by an editor named robomod making a claim about the link I posted. It says, “… everything on that site is stolen from somewhere else. ► robomod 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)” That kind of claim seems irresponsible and wrong. Why didn’t Wildhartlivie take robomod to task for that statement? Why did he/she take no action? Why falsely accuse me and not do something about a statement like that?
Response: As long time contributors to Wikipedia, Pinkadelica and I have worked together on individual articles, and as colleagues in WP Projects. Because we respect one another's opinion and judgment, we often asked one another to look at issues that arise in our individual editing, as advised in WP:DR and specifically WP:DR#Ask for a third opinion. There is nothing suspicious or questionable about this practice, which is in the spirit of collaboration, good faith and cooperation. I will not respond to particulars about an award that was given following a formal dispute resolution case, nor am I required to defend or explain about the case. That is not relevant to this case, it is not against policy, and was the response to an extremely problematic issue last winter. However, I don't always agree with Pinkadelica and do tell her so when I don't agree. There is no collusion there. Further, these issues are not personal issues with either Figment1 nor Gators855, but content and policy issues. To allege otherwise, and turn the case in that direction, is irresponsible and contentious.
Pinkadelica and Robomod were dealing with an issue that arose regarding this link and I was asked to provide an opinion on the matter. I looked over the article, the link, and the pattern of contributions in respect to that site and did advise Gators855 to please take the question to the appropriate noticeboard for opinions on the website link. That was not done, and instead, the Tactical News Service posted its notice that it now had an agreement with diaday.com, after which the link was returned to the article. Pinkadelica, Robomod, and myself all agreed that the page was questionable, and further, that previously determined reliable sources were available for the article, which rendered the diaday.com external link posting redundant. Consensus was that it not be included. However, Figment1 returned the link against consensus.
The issues in each paragraph of the sock puppet case, the wikilink to the definition of which is, in fact, in the posting on the talk page of all three accounts in this case, are outlined to establish the connection from one account to the other and are therefore germane to the entire case. That Robomod expressed an opinion on the content on the posted website diaday.com, is neither against policy nor questionable. I don't take other editors to task, however I did notify Figment1 that he/she was in danger of violating WP:3RR, which is according to policy. Links to basic Wikipedia tenets were posted on Figment1's talk page by an editor on 30 June 2008. That he/she read, or didn't read, those pages are not relevant to policy violation questions.
Figment1 misread paragraph 4. I stated that Gators855 posted the diaday/Tactical News Service connection defense to the Talk:Ruslana Korshunova here, and seven minutes later, Figment1 returned the diaday.com link to the Ruslana Korshunova article here. Two minutes later, Gators855 removed the talk page comment by Robomod here and returned it under his/her own account here. The time frames and joint sole purpose of both accounts (which no other editor of all the ones who have posted to the Korshunova page since her death has supported or added), are clear indications of sock puppetry or meat puppetry, between which Wikipedia policy does not distinguish. No other editors approached this link issue, nor were there other editors contributing during that time frame. This is why sock puppet cases are opened. There is nothing contentious about this question and I'm sorry Figment1 sees it as such. There also seems to be a conflict of interest issue with this website and its addition and promotion by these accounts.
Finally, please sign your talk page posts, Figment1, by typing ~~~~ (four tildes) each time you post. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certain that asking for another long standing editor's opinion on any Wikipedia matter is not out of line with policy. In fact, it is encouraged and I myself am a third opinion Wikipedian. As Wildhartlivie stated, we have worked together on several articles, been involved in several disputes together, and I respect her opinion tremendously. We don't do bidding for each other and we certainly wouldn't violate Wikipedia policy to support each other. If there is clear evidence of any kind of violation of Wikipedia's core policies, please provide anything supporting those accusations. If you have none (aside from some silly Barnstars that are unrelated), I suggest the accusations be retracted. For the record, I contacted Wildhartlivie after it became clear that Figment1 decided to ignore what User:Robomod and I had agreed upon on the Ruslana talk page regarding the diaday.com link. I asked Wildhartlivie to check the link out to make sure I wasn't being unreasonable or was perhaps missing something. Turns out both Robomod and I were correct and the link shouldn't be included according to WP:EL because it is a blog. I stated those feelings on the talk page to which Figment1 ignored and repeatedly reinstated the link. Wildhartlivie did a little more digging than I ever cared to do and found out more info regarding the link and the users associated with the inclusion of it. Truth be told, I didn't even realize two separate users were adding the link back until after this case was opened. If I had realized that multiple users were adding the link back, I certainly would have taken the matter to an admin or opened this case myself. The hints of vote stacking or some sort of conspiracy against Figment1 are all in the user's head. I have asked several other users for help on several different articles (and vice versa), but I suppose Figment1 was too busy counting Wildhartlivie's contributions and perusing my user page to realize that. If Figment1 isn't related to User:Gators855, Figment1 should just state that and move on. However, their use of ad hominem arguments and questioning other user's comments seem to point to this user avoiding the real issue. Pinkadelica 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Figment1, for clarity's sake, please respond under the person who posted last. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page to familiarize yourself with how to format talk page responses. The reason I am here responding is simple, I was alerted that someone was banting my name about on this case which has nothing do with me. It's simple Wikipedia etiquette to tell someone when they are being accused of things so they can respond to said accusations. Now you have a concrete reason as to why I'm here defending something that isn't the issue. Having said that, you NEVER responded on the Ruslana article talk page regarding both User:Robomod's and my concerns regarding the link. Curiously, User:Gators855 responded on the talk page in the same manner that you communicate and also didn't sign their comments which, again, you do not do. Perhaps these are coincidences and there are two people who just happened to create accounts around the same time, only edit the Ruslana Korshunova page, and both want the same link included. The link is pretty much a secondary concern right now, and whether you like it or not, two people (not including Wildhartlive) had some problems with that link. Two people actually do count as a consensus considering only two people left concerns about the link being included. If you had issue with its removal, you should have expressed yourself on the talk page before adding it back as I suggest in an edit summary when I removed the link for the second time. Instead, a new, seemingly unrelated user popped up, gave some explanation and added the link back - twice. Still, that's two against one because, again, you never voiced your opinion on the talk page, you just kept adding the link back. However you wanna slice this, you didn't speak up and if you want to talk about unfair, I think it's more than unfair that a new user would create another account to create the illusion of support. That is exactly what this case is about and believe it or not, the evidence points to such until you can prove the accounts are unrelated. As for your concern over libel about Robomod's comment regarding the diaday website, I will kindly refer you to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Nothing Robomod said is libel and s/he is certainly entitled to his/her opinion. I have also taken the liberty of alerting Robomod about this case so they too can come here to defend the accusations and concern over their supposed slanderous comments about a website. Pinkadelica 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I posted what I did in the interest of the article and the truth. Some people make thousands of posts. Should they be suspected of having an agenda? If someone is new does that mean they have an agenda? Why did this editor Wildhartlivie not make any comment to robomod about his comment? With 10,000 plus contributions it makes me wonder.
If Wikipedia is about finding the truth on subjects then we should focus on quality not quantity. Being new or posting seldomly should not be punished. The facts should be all important. Please remove this accusation against me.
- Figment1
- Answer to Wildhartlivie’s and Pinkadelica’s Responses
Wildhartlivie has made an accusation against me. I deny the accusation. Wildhartlivie’s actions are his/hers and should be reasonably subject to inquiry by a person being accused by him/her. An editor who memorializes a sentiment on a user page saying that a person is a “lesser being” along with an average of roughly 14 contributions a day over a two year period (based on information displayed on their user page) might have a certain mindset and outlook that is not wholly consonant with Wikipedia being a civil, open source encyclopedia that is readily accessible to all. Presumably, someone of Wildhartlivie’s vast experience should have attempted to treat me in a collegial manner rather than the adversarial approach he/she may have appeared to have taken. I do not have the same command of Wikipedia Policies and editing process that Wildhartlivie has. That does not mean that Wildhartlivie has a franchise on the truth, or that he/she is correct in this matter. In fact his/her sock puppet allegation is incorrect. After this accusation I took the time to read as much as I could of the policies and rules. There is quite a lot to read. What I read about consensus leads me to believe that Wildhartlivie is misapplying that term here. Nothing I read gave me the impression that one person can make what is apparently, at very best, an irresponsible comment. Then have a second person agree to the removal of a link. Then have a friend of the third person come in and support them. This does not seem like consensus. It seems like edict. robomod, on the Talk page posted the following, “… everything on that site is stolen from somewhere else. ► robomod 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)” Wildhartlivie says, referring to that comment, “That Robomod expressed an opinion on the content on the posted website diaday.com, is neither against policy nor questionable.” It seems here that Wildhartlivie is not familiar with WP: LIBEL which clearly states, “For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.” “It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous (sic) material when it has been identified.” Is Wildhartlivie not part of “all contributors”? It seems that Wildhartlivie is applying portions of rules in a context and manner that suits his/her point of view in order to prevail rather than to do what is in the best interest of the article. Wildhartlivie is making an allegation based on the timing of edits to an article. Is a person supposed to wait a certain amount of time before they agree with someone by editing a link? Is being new a disability to posting? Isn’t Wikipedia dynamic? Can’t a person edit something in real time if they see an argument that they agree with? How are they supposed to know the timing of an edit in relation to what someone else is doing? Pinkadelica claims that “Turns out both Robomod and I were correct and the link shouldn't be included according to WP:EL because it is a blog.” Calling something a blog, claiming that there is consensus, citing all kinds of rules and regulations, etc. does not make a person right because they say so. Making a claim is not the same as proving a claim is correct. And if I make an inquiry, an inquiry is not an allegation.
Pinkadelica said, “If Figment1 isn't related to User:Gators855, Figment1 should just state that and move on. However, their use of ad hominem arguments and questioning other user's comments seem to point to this user avoiding the real issue. Pinkadelica 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)” I clearly stated at the beginning of my response that I deny the allegation. I made no ad hominem attacks. To the contrary, I am answering on point, on the issues. If accusations can be made against me attempting to weave together information to quash dissent, then I should be able to seek out information to defend myself.
Why has Pinkadelica come to this page at all? Wildhartlivie made an accusation, I responded and denied it. Pinkadelica being here seems to back up what I am saying. It might be interpreted that they are working together to support each other for the sake of argument, but not in the spirit of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia.
The award that Wildhartlivie gave to Pinkadelica claiming someone to be a “lesser being” is quite relevant here because it might tend to indicate a certain shared mindset by these two editors. Wildhartlivie’s over 10,000 posts in a bit less than two years is relevant as well. How many people could spend that much time editing Wikipedia? How many people can match Wildhartlivie’s subject matter mastery when it comes to policies here? The issue though is that being able to cite rules to a person’s convenience does not make their points substantial, their edits merit worthy, or their accusations correct. This is particularly true in what is supposed to be an open source encyclopedia.
Wildhartlivie’s volume of edits, which calculates out to approximately 14 per day for a period of a bit less than two years is relevant. Isn’t there something in the Wikipedia policies, suggestions or rules saying that it makes sense to take time away from Wikipedia to put things in perspective?
Coupled with a mindset that allows for awarding, “The Outlaw Halo Award” “Presented because I simply couldn't find an award that had someone driving a nail into the overtly loquacious tongue of a lesser being with an oversized, wooden hammer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)” might suggest that Wildhartlivie is missing the forest for the trees in what is supposed to be an open source encyclopedia that encourages new people to contribute.
In fact, all this back and forth makes me not want to contribute again. Perhaps that is Wildhartlivie’s objective. Maybe what is at stake here is some people winning, rather than what makes the most sense for an article.
I deny the allegation. I would prefer not to constantly go back and forth about this. Figment1 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response
This case was opened in order to determine the validity of a possible sock puppet situation. There has been at no time in this inquiry a personal tone in the case I presented here, nor is it acceptable and within guidelines for what amounts to a personal attack from Figment1 upon me based on the totally irrelevant award given to a fellow editor following the resolution of a difficult issue on Wikipedia. To state that there is a problem with my mindset regarding other editors based on that award is unacceptable, and to further imply that based on the number of contributions I've made, I spend too much time on Wikipedia and should take a break is totally out of line. I work on projects that includes assessment of hundreds of biographical articles, which includes over 2000 from March until June 2008 on one project alone. A very small number of editors assessed over 40,000 articles in that period of time, some of them doing over 6000. It is poor logic and bad faith to assume I spend inordinate amounts of time editing based on an edit count. Account statistics from the user history clarifies what a person spends time doing on Wikipedia, and I can assure you, 10,000 in 2 years, or 14 per day when one is involved in assessing several thousand articles, isn't all that much. Beyond that, there are a large number of editors who have far greater edit counts than I do. The circumstances surrounding that award are, first of all, none of your business, and secondly, were not related to this, or you, Figment1. It requires no explanation, none will be forthcoming, and it is totally irrelevant to this sock puppet inquiry. To make is so is casting a smokescreen from the relatively simple question, opened per WP policy, based on the case outlined above and is certainly an ad hominem argument directed towards me. I certainly hope that Figment1 will also spend some time perusing WP:Civil, WP:Etiquette and WP:NPA. This is a sock puppet inquiry, it is not a personal attack upon Figment1, and to turn it into a personal issue is against Wikipedia policies regarding user behavior.
Robomod committed no libel as outlined in Wikipedia policy in stating his opinion of content on a website, and it is unacceptable for Figment1 to make that accusation, and to further state that I am violating policy because I what? Didn't "admonish" him? Beyond that, I have to wonder why this is an issue for Figment1, when he or she isn't the person who was involved in the discussion on the talk page, and supposedly wasn't the editor who removed the statement made by Robomod. Just as a reminder, it was Gators855 who removed the comment left by Robomod, in a discussion regarding the webpage in question. Also, to clarify, the fact that two persons objected to an addition by a third person, and the opinion of another editor was requested, who also agreed that the addition didn't belong, is exactly what consensus is. Consensus was determined that the website didn't belong. However, this case is not about page content, it is solely and totally about whether or not Figment1 and Gators855 are accounts belonging to the same person (sock puppets), or one person acting as an agent of the other with a single purpose in mind (meat puppet).
Further, it is certainly within the rights of Pinkadelica to respond to this case, when her integrity has also been called into question because she objected to the inclusion of the website link and requested a third party opinion. To claim that she had me come in to back her up is a serious charge of vote stacking and absolutely it is her right to dispute that accusation. This isn't a personal issue, Figment1. Please stop making it one.
One final point that I want to make. WP:V states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." That has been the objection to the diaday.com inclusion all along. It is not possible to tell from either that page, nor the Tactical News site, whether these are reliable sources, and was the sole reason it was suggested that an inquiry at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard be done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Robomod
- Answer to Figment1
I apologize for using the word "stolen", instead it should say "retrieved". The fact is that the link has been re-added several times and bearing in mind that the behavior pattern was inopportune, I used that verbum but I didn't mean to offend diaday.com ( or Figment1/Gators855). As for the topic I agree to Wildhartlivie, everything has been said. ► robomod 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally put this on my discussion page. I deny being a sock puppet. I am Gator855. I created the nick after historically using my IP. My intention was to use Gator855 from now on because it is more private. I am not Figment1.
Nobody does my thinking for me or tells me what to do when it comes to discussing or editing here or anywhere.
There is so much to read here, that if I have time to go through it all I will give a longer answer.
Gators855 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 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
Auno3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Verwoerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Avi (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Auno: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=165938977
- Verwoerd: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=223202430&oldid=223167842
- Verwoerd contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Verwoerd&month=&year=
- Auno contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Auno3&month=&year=
- Comments
Verwoerd account created mere days before final indef block of Auno, and first real edit was the day after indef block.
- This diff by Verwoerd uses many of the references found in this Auno diff, with similar language and phrasing.
- Certainly looks like a sock to me. The continual attempts to include dysgenic theories into the human article are very similar. Why don't you request checkuser? Alun (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not auno3. My edits have been scientifically sound and conforms to generally accepted methods of writing scientific papers. Those editors who have an axe to grind are looking at the wrong place. I merely present missing information, as POV doesnt mean there can be no point of view, only that all views have to be equally represented. I believe that the information submitted by other editors should have been kept, and I am now being retaliated against for presenting a view that this accuser does not agree with. Verwoerd (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also pretty sure this is the same person. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CheckUser request has been determined to be stale. Bwrs (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
As Bwrs said, Checkuser determined it to be stale. Closing. Enigma message 18:21, 31 July 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
- Mac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- PLEASE EXPLAIN! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Lammys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
NJGW (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Mac created a redirect to a non-existent page (bioasphalt)[382] and linked to it in several places. [383], [384], [385]. He was subsequently reverted several times and warned about inserting inappropriate links (for this and similar instances) here. Since then, two entirely new users have appeared who have only inserted the bioasphalt link. [386] and [387]. Given that PLEASE EXPLAIN! asked why the link that they placed was removed before they even placed it, [388], he/she is obviously Lammys (who had placed the link and been reverted the same day, see difs above). Given the obscurity of the bioasphalt redirect, and Mac's non-repentance for inserting the links, one can only assume that this is Mac attempting to avoid scrutiny.
- Meta-comment
This appears to be User:Mac's first time around at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, not his second; it seems there was some error when creating the report (using Twinkle). I shan't venture an opinion on the report itself, just stopping by from the Help Desk! :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Interesting. I didn't know he/she had been suspected before. I'm having trouble finding that information though. NJGW (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What STUPIDITY !!!!!!!! are you saying. I am not Lammy, I am not PLEASE EXPLAIN !!!!!!!. Really, you are not a reasonable person and you persecute to every people thinks in a different way to you, as me. I repead it one more time. I AM NOT LAMMY. I AM NOT PLEASE EXPLAIN!. I AM MAC. --Mac (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NJGW has done a false accusation. It looks like he does not like alternative fuels and products to petroleum and nuclear power and tries censorship against me. On the other hand, soaring petroleum and asphalt prices have lead consumers to BIOasphalt. Sorry, but it is the true. --Mac (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lammys and PLEASE EXPLAIN are clearly the same user. I am not so sure that Mac is related to either as most of his contributions appear sound. The redirect to bioasphalt) might have simply been a spelling error, as a page Bioasphalt does exist. I would dobut very much that a checkuser would find anything untoward. Fianlly, the issue of whether the submission by NJGW is sound needs to be considered. I noticed that NJGW does edits in similar fields to that of Mac and I wonder if there is some underlying issue between them. If nothing else, the fact that they both edit in the same are of interest is a clear conflict of interest. Olana North (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should keep digging. Bioasphalt only became an article on the 9th[389] (and Mac has thanked me on my talk page for helping him with it[390]). Reasonable editors with whom I work often have similar sentiments, even those with whom I have disagreements[391]. I think Mac is generally reasonable, except (so far) when it comes to the redirect issues. I don't know if these are truly his socks, but again the bioasphalt redirect was extremely obscure, so I made this page to nip any socking in the bud. While that may have been the case (for now), I would like to point out that there is another editor who thinks that Mac has other socks [392], the merits of which I can't yet comment on as I haven't dug too far into the evidence yet.
- Lammys and PLEASE EXPLAIN are clearly the same user. I am not so sure that Mac is related to either as most of his contributions appear sound. The redirect to bioasphalt) might have simply been a spelling error, as a page Bioasphalt does exist. I would dobut very much that a checkuser would find anything untoward. Fianlly, the issue of whether the submission by NJGW is sound needs to be considered. I noticed that NJGW does edits in similar fields to that of Mac and I wonder if there is some underlying issue between them. If nothing else, the fact that they both edit in the same are of interest is a clear conflict of interest. Olana North (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as a coi goes, I don't think someone who doesn't edit with an editor would notice possible socking activities. Pretty hard to pick-up-on what you're not looking at. NJGW (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Assuming good faith with Mac. The two SSPs are blocked indefinitely. Enigma message 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one one Guy Chapmans "alias Ravings"...lol 124.176.142.237 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 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
Musiclover565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Masha4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 92.1.182.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(the above have been confirmed by the user himself [393])
92.3.158.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92.3.158.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 92.0.248.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Whitenoise123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
For additional suspected sockpuppets of Musiclover565, see this. Tennis expert (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Report submission by
BanRay 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
It's quite late, so I'll be quick here, especially since the case looks crystal clear to me. Earlier this year the user (Musiclover565) tried to completely rewrite the Maria Sharapova article, against the consensus of five established editors, including User:Tennis expert, the biggest contributor to the page. The user was eventually blocked for a 3RR violation.
The User returned with an IP account (92.1.182.171), but was blocked again for disruption and trolling. The user's unblock requests were declined with the following reasoning:"As per WP:ANI, this is not an accurate summary of the state of things. There's also serious concern that this IP address is a sockpuppet of Musiclover565 (talk · contribs), previously blocked for edit warring on that article. As such, I am loathe to lift the block. — Yamla (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)" and "The sockpuppet case is just too strong to be dismissed so blithely ... the geographically similar IPs, the interest in Maria Shapraova and the tendentious editing. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)". Five days later the same user (the user himself admitted being the previously blocked 92.1.182.171) registered the Masha4ever account and continued with his attempts, but eventually gave up after yet another WP:AN/I report.
Last month User:92.3.158.227 (although the user's IP has since changed to 92.0.248.49) picked up from where Masha4ever left off. Trying to solve the situation once and for all, I suggested User:Tennis expert to try and reach a consensus with the editor, but that didn't work either, so now I'm forced to ask for assistance from outside. Since both User:Musiclover565 and User:Masha4ever have commented or edited wikipedia without logging in (but still signing their comments as Musiclover565 and Masha4ever respectively) the IP addresses of both accounts are known. Needless to say that Musiclover565, Masha4ever and the currently active 92.0.248.49 all use near-identical IPs (region, internet provider etc).
So to sum it up:Tendentious and very similar editing of the same page, use of similar wording in the edit summaries and comments ("in line with Wikipedia:Be bold..."; "we have now established that..." etc.), similar edit summaries ([394], [395]], and, of course, the same IP range.
- Comments
- This is the "accused". I'm not 100% sure if I can comment here, so sorry if I am breaking any rules. Can I firstly point out that Tennis expert, who I believe requested BanRay submit this report, has in the past accused me of being User:Dudesleeper (1), so I think that somewhat undermines the credibility of his argument.
- Can I also point out that the case against me is weak at best; Tennis expert has informed me that my IP apparently shows I live in Manchester, UK. Actually, I live around 30 miles away from Manchester, which leads me to believe anyone in the North West of England registers as Manchester; an area covering something like 6m people. So the incriminating evidence is that it is implausible that 2 people out of 6m could have an interest in arguably the most famous tennis player in the world today, during the British season where popularity of tennis skyrockets here. And the fact that I am apparently under suspicion for saying "we have now established that...", a completely bog-standard expression in English, bewilders me to say the least.
- Lastly, I'd like to point out this comment on the main sockpuppets page, a requirement for making a complaint: "An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint." Even if I was Musiclover565, I am clearly not abusing any articles, as my edits are perfectly legitimate, therefore it puzzles me why BanRay has filed this report. Musiclover565 would be perfectly within his rights to attempt the perfectly legitimate edits I am attempting. He was blocked for several days or a week or something, a block that expired a long, long time ago. In addition, the edits he wanted were absolutely and completely different to what I want now - see the article now (with my edits in place) compared to ML565 here: 2 Therefore, it puzzles me why BanRay is wasting administrators time by trying to prove I am someone else to discredit me, with such weak evidence and when that person would be able to do what I want perfectly legitimately. I also believe it noteworthy that Tennis expert and BanRay only began these accusations when I attempted to start cutting the article down a bit (as general consensus is that it is too long, and the language too stilted). In addition, I would like to point out that I attempted to seek a consensus with Tennis expert, and everytime, he responded by removing my comments from his page, ignoring me or throwing smears. While I naturally assume good faith in most cases, I cant shake the feeling that he is more inclined to push for reports such as this because he does not agree with my perfectly legitimate edits. 92.0.248.49 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
This user exhibits the same editing patterns and behaviors (on discussion pages and elsewhere) as the disruptive Musiclover565 and Masha4ever. There is no question in my mind that all the IP accounts listed above belong to the same person who registered Musiclover565 and Masha4ever. Aside from the multiple sockpuppet problem, this user has repeatedly ignored consensus on the Maria Sharapova article, has unilaterally reverted and ignored the edits of multiple users based on this sockpuppet's sole conception of what is "correct" or "valid" for the article, and has ignored the longstanding standards that editors have established for countless tennis biographies. As for the false claims this sockpuppet has made, here are two clarifications: (1) There is not and never has been a consensus that the Maria Sharapova article is "too long" (except in the mind of this sockpuppet). (2) I spent fruitless hours trying to work with this sockpuppet, as the discussion page of the Maria Sharapova article proves beyond question. Tennis expert (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I have made my main points, so I will be brief in my response to the claims by Tennis expert. Firstly, he again fails to address the crucial point that, even if there was the slightest shred of proof that i was ML565, it is irrelevant anyway, as I am not abusing articles. As for his so-called "clarifications": (1) Actually, the only other person to really chip into the dispute, Dudesleeper, agreed the article was too long. Otherwise, all other editors appear to broadly agree with my edits, as Tennis expert I believe is the only person who has attempted to revert my edits. (2) This is just patently not true. Not once have you attempted to work with me. All you have done is attempted to get your own way, and if that failed, you would use underhanded tactics, for example starting silly rumours about me being a sockpuppet (firstly Dudesleeper, now ML565). The discussion page as well as our interactions on your talk page (or rather, me leaving respectful comments and you deleting them without response) proves my point I think. 92.2.112.171 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Your abuse of the Maria Sharapova article already is well documented and remains ongoing. (2) You are incorrect about other editors not attempting to revert your edits. See, e.g., the reversions by Tennisboi13 and IP 121.152.80.151. (3) I never started a "silly rumour" about your being a sockpuppet of Dudesleeper or vice versa. I simply asked Dudesleeper if you were his sockpuppet. This twisting around of facts to suit your purposes is a common disruptive tactic of both yourself and the other users listed at the very top of this section, which is further evidence that the sockpuppet allegations are true. Tennis expert (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) You cannot seriously still be attempting to claim my Sharapova edits are abuse. You have been roundly defeated on that score by other editors on the page, so you would be well-advised to let that drop. (2) Tennisboi reverted a very, very small portion of what I had done. And as for that annonymous IP, I have as much right to claim that is your sockpuppet as you have to claim I am the sockpuppet of ML565. (3) You say potato, I say pot-ar-to. 92.2.112.171 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Just to point out, this is the anonymous IP who is being questioned (on that note, would my e-mail address have not been recognised as already in use were I ML565?). I thought I had better post this here, in case BanRay or Tennis expert accused me of being a "sockpuppet" too. Whitenoise123 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More evidence
Notice some of the edit summaries that Masha4ever and Musiclover565 used in January 2008: "As BanRay as yet to provide a legitimate reason for why these edits are apparently not allowed, I'm going ahead with them. Others are more than entitled to edit statements they feel are uncited or POV." "Please do not mindlessly revert my edits." "Please do not revert edits without reason." The similarities between these edit summaries and those of Whitenoise123 (and his sockpuppets) are inescapably obvious. For example: "Please stop mindlessly reverting my edit. Thank you." "Please stop reverting my perfectly legitimate edit or it will be reported. Thank you."
Also, compare the complaint made here by Whitenoise123 to the almost identical complaint made by Masha4ever here. Are the similarities merely coincidence? I think not. Tennis expert (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of "an alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint" do you not understand? Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that you admit being the person behind all the accounts mentioned above? BanRay 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not mean that, but as I have pointed out, it would not matter if I was. Whitenoise123 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that you admit being the person behind all the accounts mentioned above? BanRay 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I can't make a decision here as I don't wanna get it wrong. It looks like you might have enough evidence for a Check-user. Perhaps take it there. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:28, 31 July 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
Velebit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.217.132.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.217.131.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.217.131.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
J. A. Comment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.252.83.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.252.102.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.252.101.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brzica milos etc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PravdaRuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Rjecina (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
user:72.75.18.173 and user:72.75.5.121 are banned puppets of user:Velebit aka user:Purger. It is possible to see that only edits of this 2 accounts are about Croatia WWII, Neo-nazism in Croatia and who is and who is not Croat. [396] [[397] .If we look IP range and article edits user:72.75.24.245 is 100 % puppet of this users [398]
Connection between user:72.75.24.245 and user:J. A. Comment are words of user:72.75.24.245. He is claiming again and again that checkuser has rejected my accusations [399] [400] [401] [402]. There is only 1 small problem. There has never been checkuser report about user:72.75.24.245, but only report for user:J. A. Comment .Maybe I am making mistakes but with this statements user:72.75.24.245 is declaring that he is user:J. A. Comment. Final checkuser report is here but because it has not been very clear there has been demand for explanation which is very clear:J.A.Comment IP is few minuts away from other banned IP [403]. Now we can say that J.A.Comment is connected with banned IP and user:72.75.24.245 is calling his IP check that he is cleared. This other banned IP near which J.A.Comment is coming on internet are:user:71.252.83.230 and user:71.252.101.51.
This user is having very great knowledge of how wikipedia work. Like I have been saying earlier J.A.Comment is knowing rule about 10 edits and semi-protection so his 10th edit [404]. has been demand for lowering protection level from full to semi [405] so that he can edit.
On other side user:72.75.24.245 has started discussion about Wikipedia talk:Verifiability [406]
I do not know new users which are having so great wikipedia knowledge to know semi-protection rule or which are starting discussion about Verifiability. Maybe administrators are knowing this sort of new but for me is hard to believe in that.
- Editorial style 1:To explain his POV edits this user:J. A. Comment is writing on talk page "books" pages [407] . This editorial style is copycat of banned user Velebit and his suspected banned puppets Smerdyakoff and user:Stagalj. Examples of banned users:
- user:GiorgioOrsini (confirmed puppet of Velebit): [408] [409]
- user:NovaNova (confirmed puppet of Velebit) [410]
- user:Stagalj (banned puppet of Velebit):[411]
- banned user:Standshown: [412] and [413]
- user:71.252.83.33 (from Velebit IP range):[414]
- To tell truth I do not know any other user which is writing like evidence book pages on article talk pages.
users 66.217.132.152, 66.217.131.125 and Brzica milos etc are on this list because only edits of this 2 has been revert in support of user:72.75.24.245 . Name of this last "user" is combination of names of 2 Croatian WWII criminals Ljubo Miloš and Petar Brzica.
Users 71.252.102.163, 71.252.83.33 and 71.252.101.67 are on this list because they have edited only Croatian WWII articles like user:72.75.24.245 and user:J. A. Comment and they are from another confirmed user:Velebit IP range (see User:71.252.83.230 and User talk:71.252.101.51)
It is time for me to end this, and I will say must important things with small number of questions because decision is very simple.
- It will be interesting to hear explanation how 72.75.24.245 knows Future perfect words from 22 April [415]. For me this answer will be very interesting ??
- I am sure because of 72.75.24.245 IP range and sort of edits that he is connected with banned Velebit puppets user:72.75.18.173 and user:72.75.5.121
- 72.75.24.245 has spoken many time that he is innocent because checkuser raport about user:J. A. Comment. Maybe I am mistaking but with this words he is saying that 72.75.24.245=J. A. Comment. All other stuff like Editorial style and wikipedia knowledge is only in support of this 2 must important facts.
- Comments
- The comment about the J.A.Comment checkuser is thus; the checkuser doesn't clear the IP address from being a sock, it just proves that the "sockpuppeteer" wasn't using this IP address at the time. Checkuser proves guilt, not innocence. I have noticed a large amount of crossover in the types of edit by the IP in question and by other banned IP addresses and users, but i'd point out they all seem good quality edits. I initially got involved on the other side of the argument (supporting the IP) because from what I could see Rjecina was removing valid information and contributions. The edits were well thought out, useful and explained on the articles' in questions talk pages. Rjecina seems to have something of an obsession following this sort of edit around wikipedia, and i'd advise that such ferverent "vandal"-chasing is a bad idea; when you have a hammer, everything looks like a spade, and I can see people getting wrongly nominated and accused of sockpuppetry as a result. Ironholds 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A checkuser was requested already on this group of users, and no connection was established to Velebit. I need to understand something, seriously: what is the problem here? What was Velebit even banned for? Can Rjecina please explain what, if any, actual disruption is being caused here? Are these multiple IP addresses representing themselves as multiple users with independent opinions in an attempt to influence things? Are they edit warring? POV pushing? Mangojuicetalk 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm staying neutral here, but the checkuser policy itself: checkuser can only prove guilt, not innocence. Rjecina claims that the editors are POV-pushing; he's the one edit warring with them. From what I can determine, the contributions they are making are valuable. He seems to take any contribution to one side of the argument as a "pro-nationalist" agenda. Ironholds 15:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Checkuser has never controled User:72.75.24.245 but it has controled similar IP range and confirmed that it is used by banned user:Velebit [416] [417] . If this is not enough we are having editorial history of this 3 accounts which is enough for blocking this account.
- In article Magnum Crimen User:72.75.24.245 has been helped in edit warring against 5 other users (edit warring) with only edits of user:66.217.132.152 and user:66.217.131.125 and if we look statements of this "users" they are representing themselves as multiple users. In the end if we look edits in this article we will see clear POV pushing.
- After reading book advice of Mango there has been interesting finding about article Srbosjek where POV pushing by user:J. A. Comment , "User:72.75.24.245", "User:71.252.83.33" has become clear. Book "The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican:" which is only english language source for this article about this "knife" is failing Wikipedia:Verifiability rules. English language publisher of book are Prometheus Books which are publishing dissenting books [418]. German language publisher is Ariman publishing house which is controled by radical atheists movement. It is interesting to notice that respected German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has refused to publish an advertisement for publisher of this book in Germany because they publicize intolerant and aggressive nonsense [419]
- For the end to say something about user:Velebit. He has always used multiple accounts in writing his POV pushing. If there is need I will give more data about user:Velebit on users talk pages--Rjecina (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you try to explain what POV is being pushed? Mangojuicetalk 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The religious viewpoint of a publisher should not infringe on the books notability in this situation, where religion is not an issue. And by "dissent" Rjecina evidently means books about religion, as the link he inserted states. Again, religion is not an issue here. The IP ranges are not at all similar; 71.... and 72....? there's a dissenting seven digits there. I'll be putting in a request for admin intervention after this with the aim of getting Rjecina to back away from articles like this. Ironholds 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some facts. 72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the 71.252 addresses all, according to Whois, are IP addresses from Verizon in or near Reston, VA. The 66.217 addresses resolve to New York. The previous Checkuser request said that J. A. Comment is not linked to the Reston, VA addresses but resolves to the same region. I want to point out that the information in Whois about the 71.X.X.X addresses say that the ENTIRE range 71.0.0.0 - 71.255.255.255 all belong to Verizon; this suggests to me that Reston, VA is just the address of Verizon itself, not of the local ISP router near the user. Mangojuicetalk 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- religious viewpoint of a publisher is not important but important is that he is publishing "intolerant and aggressive nonsense". Can somebody explain me how books from that sort of publisher are OK source for Wikipedia ???--Rjecina (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we want to play with IP range used by user:Velebit : User talk:4.249.6.37 (and many similar 4.249.xx.xxx) [420], user:153.39.144.157 [421], User talk:71.252.81.35 [422], , User talk:64.18.16.251 [423] Administrator decision in article Independent State of Croatia [424] . User:72.75.18.173 [425] If we look this IP ranges and decision or users thinking many of us are having obsession with this user :)
- POV pushing examples: Magnum Crimen , Ivo Andrić (deleting 6 internet sources 1 of which is NYT and changing with 2 "book" sources and 1 internet which is not speaking about his parents), about article Srbojek and source I have spoken earlier--Rjecina (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you getting the "intolerant and aggressive nonsense" quote from?
- You shouldn't obsess over specific users. It leads to you accusing users of being sockpuppets without even checking if this is true because you're so caught up in chasing down one person.
- "They succeeded only in drawing some degree of attention when the Munich "Süddeutsche Zeitung" daily refused to publish an advertisement for "Ariman" editions, explaining that they evidently publicize intolerant and aggressive nonsense" [426]
- That translates as "one particular newspaper believes they publish intolerant and aggressive nonsense", and does not imply that the book itself is such. Ironholds 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but not. We are having this words about Ariman editions, we are having Prometheus Books which are publishing dissenting books and in the end we are having Amazon which is putting book in question in category of strongly POV (pro Serbian) books (Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought...) [427] . After looking all this in my thinking nobody can say that this book can be used like source for wikipedia.--Rjecina (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon does not put the books in that category. It is based on, well, what customers who bought X ALSO bought. The quality of the sources does not reflect on this case; you are accusing him of being a sockpuppet, which is something totally different to using inproper sources. Ironholds 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- user:Velebit is using multiple accounts and IP address for anti Croatian POV pushing.
- We can see in articles Srbosjek, Magnum Crimen, Ivo Andrić and Ante Pavelić multiple IP accounts which are writing anti Croatian POV pushing. They demand that we accept very suspicious books for references, but they delete respected internet sources. For me best example of POV pushing is in article Ante Pavelić where user:Velebit and all his puppets are demanding (edit warring) that it is writen how Ante Pavelić is leader of national socialist/fascist Ustaše movement. I have never heard of similar definition for any movement but this is definition of users 72.75.24.245 , 72.75.43.59 , 153.39.144.157 (blocked), 71.252.101.51 (blocked), 72.75.21.12 (only 2 edits so he is not blocked , Stagalj (blocked), BarryMar (blocked). From this it is possible to see that must of account which has not ended edit warring in this article has been blocked like puppets of user Velebit. If this edit warring has been earlier good enough evidence for blocking then user:72.75.24.245 need to be blocked !
- That translates as "one particular newspaper believes they publish intolerant and aggressive nonsense", and does not imply that the book itself is such. Ironholds 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Multiple users making edits on the same topic is not in itself proof of sockpuppetry. 2) Other editors (who may/may not be blocked) making such edits is again, not proof of sockpuppetry. I'll draw up lists on either side to make this all easier to read:
"yes this IP is a sockpuppet"
- It has a similar IP to the blocked users/IP's
- It makes edits on the same/similar topics
- It is pushing the same viewpoint
- It is putting in edits from a controvertial set of books
"no, this IP is not a sockpuppet"
- The similarity is the same first two digits, something millions of internet users share. While they resolve to the same address, they resolve to the Verison servers; thousands of users/IP's would do so, it does not prove that this IP is linked to the others, only that it shares the same internet provider.
- Simply proves the IP's have the same interests; again, not proof of sockpuppetry
- Simply proves the IP's have the same opinions; again, not proof of sockpuppetry
- This does not relate to the topic. Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and the quality of the users' edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry, although it might show vested interest.
- "yes this IP is a sockpuppet"
- It has a similar IP to the blocked users/IP's: User:72.75.24.245 and banned puppet user:72.75.5.121 (4 digits)
- It makes edits on the same/similar topics: It is shown earlier in article Ante Pavelić
- It is pushing the same viewpoint: for User:72.75.24.245 it is shown earlier in article Ante Pavelić, but if we look Magnum Crimen and Srbosjek (knife) we are having evidence for user:J. A. Comment and User:72.75.24.245
- It is putting in edits from a controvertial set of books articles: for User:72.75.24.245 and user:J. A. Comment this are:Srbosjek (knife) and Magnum Crimen
- For User:72.75.24.245 we are having 4 out of 4 so he need to go down
- For user:J. A. Comment we are not having IP but we are having User:72.75.24.245 support for him in article Srbosjek (knife) and user:J. A. Comment support for User:72.75.24.245 in article Magnum Crimen (I am really interested to hear in which way has user:J. A. Comment discovered article Magnum Crimen) . Second (or 3rd) connection between this 2 are words of User:72.75.24.245 which is saying again and again [428] [429] [430] [431] that checkuser report of user:J. A. Comment is saying that User:72.75.24.245 is not puppet of banned user ???? This is interesting because nobody has checked User:72.75.24.245.Bye --Rjecina (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I already provided the yes/no's; there's no need to repeat them, it's just a conclusion of the evidence. Ironholds 22:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- A piece of advice to Rjecina: After this case is over, regardless of the outcome, stop chasing after "sockpuppets" of the banned user. Without even consulting a checkuser account or filing a sockpuppetry case you accused this IP of being a sockpuppet, a serious accusation, and reverted his/her edits. You seem to be obsessed with chasing down socks of this particular user, and when you've been using a hammer for long enough everything looks like a nail; you can end up accusing innocent IP's, which as well as making it likely they'll be scared off also creates a large mess, as this shows. Ironholds 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP's you're accusing of sockpuppetry appear to be divided into two groups; 66.X and 71.X. This suggests two seperate editors. You'll also note at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Velebit that most of them appear to be 4.X IP addresses. Make your mind up; where is this user coming from? And an important comment; the request(s) for checkuser showed that "IPs are Unrelated but geographically similar." for all the 71.X addresses; how can you accuse IP's of sockpuppetry after they've been shown to be completely unrelated? Ironholds 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me see ....user:72.75.24.245 has made to 2 reverts in article Ivo Andrić after which he is helped by user:66.217.131.60 (his only edit). user:72.75.24.245 has made 3 reverts in article Magnum Crimen after which he is helped by "users" user:66.217.132.152 and user:66.217.131.125 (only edits). All 3 66.217.13x.xxx are of PAETEC Holding Corp. All 72.75.xxx.xx are from Verizon Internet Services (they are blocked by checkuser decision), user:64.18.16.251 (banned by checkuser) is from Baltimore Technologies. We can say that this vandal is very, very lucky for recieving help from IP of PAETEC Holding Corp or ....It is known by checkusers that user Velebit is using different proxy to edit wikipedia.--Rjecina (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Open proxies are quickly found and blocked. And my suggestion is this; have you considered PAETEC may be a different user to the Verison account? "only contribution" means nothing; IP addresses change constantly. Ironholds 01:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because only edits of PAETEC are in support of user 72.75.24.245 edit warring (not only against me) this is hard to believe. For this and similar reasons we are having WP:DUCK--Rjecina (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So? It isn't an edit war if it is against multiple people, it's promoting a particular view. PAETEC supporting Verizon does not make them the same person, it means they share the same viewpoint. And WP:DUCK is an essay: "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". If you are following it then note the line "remember to remain civil, and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia". Your handling of the case so far has been way out of line. Ironholds 01:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If PAETEC is having other edits then they are not same person. If PAETEC is acting only in support of Verizon and very short time after Verizon edits then they are the same person. For me is very hard to defeat this argument--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So? It isn't an edit war if it is against multiple people, it's promoting a particular view. PAETEC supporting Verizon does not make them the same person, it means they share the same viewpoint. And WP:DUCK is an essay: "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". If you are following it then note the line "remember to remain civil, and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia". Your handling of the case so far has been way out of line. Ironholds 01:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because only edits of PAETEC are in support of user 72.75.24.245 edit warring (not only against me) this is hard to believe. For this and similar reasons we are having WP:DUCK--Rjecina (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a logical fallacy. If I contribute to an article about teeth, and a user living in montenegro does the same 3 hours later, are we the same person? And explain, then, why if it is the same person the internet provider changed between edits. Ironholds 01:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 hours or 10 minutes ?? For other question you need to ask user Velebit because he is changing internet providers between edits. On 17 October 2006 he has demand unblock of accounts 72.75.5.121 (Verizon) [432] and 64.18.16.251 (Baltimore) [433]. 2 edits from 2 different providers !--Rjecina (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please protect Wikipedia's integrity and credibility - not my rights to speak and edit articles
From the above
Some facts. 72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the 71.252 addresses all, according to Whois, are IP addresses from Verizon in or near Reston, VA. The 66.217 addresses resolve to New York. The previous Checkuser request said that J. A. Comment is not linked to the Reston, VA addresses but resolves to the same region. I want to point out that the information in Whois about the 71.X.X.X addresses say that the ENTIRE range 71.0.0.0 - 71.255.255.255 all belong to Verizon; this suggests to me that Reston, VA is just the address of Verizon itself, not of the local ISP router near the user. Mangojuicetalk 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
is clear that
- there is no way to claim that the same user had available 72.** and 66.*** IP addresses - also I seriously suspect that this 66.*** anonymous user 'supported' me is a Rjecina's friend helping him in this smearing campaign against few of us
- checkuser quite clearly separated user:J. A. Comment from the Verizon ISP
- user: Brzica milos etc had only five edits which are ok by all Wikipedia standards
'POV-pushing' Rjecina's false accusations exposed
- Ivo Andric article - Andric's lineage
I fixed the Biography paragraph based on strong scholar references - Introduction by William H. McNel, Translator's Foreword by Lovett F. Edwards - both from Bridge on the Drina by Ivo Andric, Presentation Speech (at 1961 Nobel Prize awarding ceremony) by Anders Österling, and the biography of Andric written by Milan Bogdanovic. So, all four people were Andric's close friends: Edwards - Andric's book translator and close friend from the times when Andric was a diplomat in London, McNeil - a world-renown historian of the 19th and 20eth century European history and professor at the Chicago University and a man who was Andric's friend sharing interest with him in the Balkans history of the 19th and 20eth centuries, Österling - Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Bogdanovic - writer and close friend of Andric - see
[434] My full explanation of this improvement was regularly removed from the talk page by Rjecina [435], [436], [437]
Contrary to valid and scholar references I've used - Rjecina is pushing links claiming baselesly that Andric' parents were Croats. Stressing that the same information comes from New York Times is pointless - the NYT does not treasure Andric's biographical data nor it references any valid document as its primary source. The same case is with other Rjecina's 'references'.
I and other three editors were providing valid scholar references and citations. Rjecina removed many times these references or citations - as he does it now - claiming inacurracy and new citations - not supporting these claims by any valid knowledge. On the talk pages one of editors gave list of books supporting text - which Rjecina simply ridiculled claiming nonsense: 'Ulmost all this books are speaking that Srbosjek knife has been used by Chetnik forces to kill Serb' see [438]. Whoever had ever these books in hands can testify that Rjecina's comment is nonsense.
- Magnum Crimen article
I removed two primitive disqualifications of this great book - telling absolutely nothing about the book content. Bear in mind that this book can be found in the world-renown unversities and academic libraries, referenced and quoted hundreds and hundreds times. This way I was defending Wikipedia's credibility and accuracy
Bottom line - this Rjecina acts against the very letter of Wikipedia. Needles to say that he was warned by many editors and administrators already against this uncivil behavior and false accusations. Stop him in damaging further Wikipedia!--72.75.24.245 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note
I demand ultimate checkuser on all listed above IPs and user accounts. I see that this slandering campaign goes on and on.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Not enough manpower on a volunteer-run website to deal with this. Either request a simple CU or re-submit in a condensed format. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:29, 31 July 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
Nimbley6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
78.150.204.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mixedupworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.125.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
89.241.141.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Martinnutini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.56.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sophie Bextor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amywinehouse22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kevin Forsyth12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.151.55.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
89.240.251.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.151.54.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
T in the park (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
89.240.133.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.124.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.13.89.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
89.241.142.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.234.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.203.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.13.96.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.144.142.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.191.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.144.86.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.55.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.144.80.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yes I Can Try (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Prior cases: Nimbley6 (2nd) and Nimbley6 (3rd)
See also, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bennet556
- Report submission by
Alanraywiki (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Multiple disruptive entries in articles related to Scotland and related cities.[439]. In addition, vandalism in the entirely unrelated article of Huntington Beach, California, an unusual connection done several times by this sockpuppeteer.[440]. Lastly, IP address fits in range of earlier SSP case.Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/June 2008#17
- Added User:Mixedupworld. Typical disruptions in Scottish cities (Glasgow,Kilmaurs), and attributing to Scotland things that are not ([441]). Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added User:78.148.125.88 and User:89.241.141.16. The edits are remarkably similar to those from the other accounts listed here. The articles are the same and the quality of the edits are the same, i.e., there are successive edits attempting to change infobox pictures and tweaking official names of cities.
- Articles for 89.241.141.16 include Edinburgh and Hurlford and edits similar to the Italian Job edit for Mixedupworld: to wit, Trainspotting and Outpost.
- Articles for 78.148.125.88 include Edinburgh, Kilmaurs, and Kilmarnock. -Rrius (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added user:Martinnutini. Edits to Scotland are very similar to those by user:Mixedupworld. Likes to introduce multiple extra headings, eg Mixedupworld diff vs Martinnutini diff. Mixedupworld is currently blocked, hence this may also be block evasion. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added 78.148.56.202. Similar heading-inserting edits to Scotland, eg this diff. Compare to edits (already given above) by Mixedupworld and Martinnutini. Mixedupworld is on a week long block, so this may be more block evasion. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added user:Amywinehouse22. More disruption to Hurlford and Glasgow, and a low-quality new article in Kilmarnock Bus Station including the same kind of badly framed, through-the-windscreen photo that user:Martinnutini was propagating. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After being added to this case, User:Amywinehouse22 vandalized this very page, acknowledging he is a sock. -Rrius (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added user:89.240.251.201. They removed a map image, reverted and added a semi-protection tag, were reverted, then added more sub-headings. When reverted they claimed that England, Wales and Northern Ireland have them so why can't Scotland (sounds familiar!) Cheers, This flag once was red 23:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added user:78.151.54.70, same operating procedure as previous examples - sub-heading fascination, etc. Cheers, This flag once was red 11:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on a google search, I believe this is the identity of our puppet master. --Jza84 | Talk 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that explains a great deal. -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. It indicates we're dealing with a 12 year old child who lacks maturity rather than a disgruntled adult... which made me change my whole perspective on this rather odd episode to say the least! --Jza84 | Talk 22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The next question is: What action is going to happen? Has someone blocked the registered sockpuppet accounts? What advice has and sould be given to the guy, given that he is only 12 years old? (And, as a more rhetorical one: where on earth was the parental/guardian supervision to help ensure appropriate use of the Internet in all of this?) DDStretch (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's said here that he is sorry for any distruption. We may be getting through to him now. --Jza84 | Talk 11:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If only it were that easy. See user:78.148.124.171. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's said here that he is sorry for any distruption. We may be getting through to him now. --Jza84 | Talk 11:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The next question is: What action is going to happen? Has someone blocked the registered sockpuppet accounts? What advice has and sould be given to the guy, given that he is only 12 years old? (And, as a more rhetorical one: where on earth was the parental/guardian supervision to help ensure appropriate use of the Internet in all of this?) DDStretch (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. It indicates we're dealing with a 12 year old child who lacks maturity rather than a disgruntled adult... which made me change my whole perspective on this rather odd episode to say the least! --Jza84 | Talk 22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that explains a great deal. -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm addinga few more IP addresses that seem to display the characteristic style of this child. DDStretch (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another (user:78.148.203.81), preceding similar edits by user:89.241.142.169. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another, with identical vandalism to Scotland: 84.13.96.170. DDStretch (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And 78.144.142.134. Typical fiddling with area maps and changing UK to Scotland. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And 78.148.191.141 added. The ISP is the same; however, the modus operandi seems now to be page-blanking. This flag once was red 10:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Protection for Scotland seems to have driven our favourite child to "Still Game": 78.144.86.67 has struck at Jack Jarvis (Still Game character), Victor McDade and others. This flag once was red 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, this user also exists on Wikimedia Commons as Scotland2345. He has posted numerous copyright-violating images there, including two used today in List of Still Game characters. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added 78.144.80.150. Excess subheads, changing UK flags to Scots, plenty of image adds to Kilmarnock railway station from the Scotland2345 Commons account. Kevin Forsyth (talk)
- Added Yes I Can Try, he's continuing to add images to Kilmarnock railway station and Ayrshire from the Scotland2345 Commons account. In desperation, his first edit was an attempt to request admin status. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Ohhh nooo; not another sock? GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding Nimbley6, which is itself a sock of Bennet556, I count 21 socks as of 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC). Of those, six are accounts and fifteen are IPs. At what point does it become appropriate to range block. -Rrius (talk)
- Well, a range block is to be used as an absolute last resort. Presently, I'm more in favour of using mentoring with a combination of WP:RBI. However, I'm open to suggestions on how to manage this child as effectively as possible. --Jza84 | Talk 01:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You had an exchange with the puppetmaster on 15 July wherein he at one point said, "The only way ill stop is if the scotland page gets protected because that seems to my most eddited point so far. So i would probiably portect scotland." He later said, "Sorry for annoying wikipedia. Ill just use what the site is for reading information."
- I doubt that he was serious with that last bit. If he was, he went back on his word in less than 40 minutes and made 15 more useless edits at that IP. He has subsequently made more from other IPs. A week later, I find it hard to believe that he has any interest in being mentored.
- Moreover, he is violating policy by evading a block. If he wants to be mentored, he should go back to Bennet556 ask for it to be unblocked and in exchange for being adopted and behaving himself (perhaps with additional promises). Mentoring a person who goes from IP to IP and account to account in knowing violation of policy without bothering to attempt the avenue of appeal he has been informed of seems both wrong-headed and futile. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think that's fair - I'm certainly not from the school of thought that this child should continue with his distruption. We need a user/admin who is familliar with range blocks to take a look at this case then in that case. Does anybody know of one? --Jza84 | Talk 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't, though I agree that action needs to be taken quickly now: I've just reimposed protection to Scotland for example. I think we may need to request a CheckUser on all the IP addresses he has used to see if there would be any legitimate users who might be inconvenienced by a range block. (We may also flush out some other sleeping socks that way too.) I still wonder if the age of the child would merit finding out who might be responsible for any supervised access to the Internet on the machines that have been used for this vandalism, given that it is so extensive and determined: it certainly ranks above a one-off series of actions that a child might blunder into through accident and momentary lack of attention by any responsible supervising adult. I'm not pushing for this, but I think it is something worth considering if only to clearly reject it. DDStretch (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's also a measured observation and consideration you put forward. Likewise, I'm coming round to the idea that we need some impartial and experienced bodies to actually take a thorough look at this case and advise accordingly. I have to say though, that as frustrated as we all are, and as liberal as some other admins can be, I would be comfortable with "no action" at all - we're editors, not mole whackers. --Jza84 | Talk 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I just came across Wikipedia:Long term abuse, which may be an appropriate page for us to look through as a collective. --Jza84 | Talk 02:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had been indefinitely blocking the IP addresses so that only registered users could use the addresses, with a suitable message advisng people to register and telling them how to. However, I've just been told that we must not do this (see User talk:Ddstretch#IP blocks), as it locks out legitimate users, and so I'm not sure how else we can solve this without calling in other help now with some urgency. I'm not able to do much for a while now for various reasons, but something should be done with some urgency, I think. DDStretch (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure an indef block is necessarily that effective, anyway, since our mutual fiend gets a new IP address every 24 hours or so. If you're able to block for, say, 24 hours each time that should be just as effective (I do appreciate you may not be around Wikipedia as much as you have been, however). Cheers, This flag once was red 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- This is too big for SSP. Request a range block perhaps. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]