Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Simulation12

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BetsyandKevin89 (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 16 January 2010 (→Report date January 16, 2010, 17:44 (UTC)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Simulation12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report date April 16 2009, 23:51 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Avruch (talk · contribs)


[1] Admission. Account in current use (Simulation13 (talk · contribs)) shares obvious characteristics with Simulation12 (talk · contribs). Check for additional sleeper accounts, and leave for a WP:DUCK block? Avruch T 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Avruch T 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed: Self-endorsed. Avruch T 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No new sleepers found. No collateral damage likely from extending a block on 154.20.62.173 for a while, I think. No other IPs found at present.

Please advise of any questions. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Synergy 22:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date September 14 2009, 01:58 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by AussieLegend


After User:Suiteman, another sock of User:Fjfhgfhdstty, was blocked I noticed the following:

  • 15:52, 7 July 2009 - User:Extremeguy is created.
  • 16:04, 7 July 2009 - Suiteman changed his talk page.[2] I reverted and added a sockpuppet notice
  • 16:14, 7 July 2009 - He again reverts
  • 16:18, 7 July 2009 - Administrator changed block settings to prevent editor from editing his own talk page
  • 16:26, 7 July 2009 - User:Extremeguy edits FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman, adding some uncited information. He then proceeds to edit the same group of articles that Suiteman had edited. Edit summaries use the same terminology and spelling used by Suiteman. eg "no proof"[3][4][5][6][7][8][9], "dealte" instead of "delete"[10][11][12][13]

I expressed these concerns on the talk page of the administrator who blocked Suiteman.[14] Extremeguy continued editing the same range of articles as Suiteman however, his edits were generally constructive, with the exception being that to this day he persists in adding copyrighted material to List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes,[15][16] despite numerous discussions we have had about not doing this. Eventually, User:JimConroy38 was created and has directly supported Extremeguy,[17] which immediately raised a red flag. Extremeguy admits on his userpage that he is an "alternative account" of MAIN ACCOUNT, a permanently blocked sockpuppet.[18][19] On 30 August 2009, User:NrDg, a sysop, noted on his talk page that he had been identified as a sockpuppet.[20] While the evidence linking User:JimConroy38 is thinner than that identifying Extremeguy as a sock, I believe JimConroy38's actions pass WP:DUCK. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Extremeguy has repeatedly declared himself to be the same as MAIN ACCOUNT (in this edit [21], for example). MAIN ACCOUNT has been indefinitely blocked as a Sockpuppet of a permanently blocked user. Is this not sufficient reason to block Extremeguy?
As for JimConroy38, I think there is a striking relationship between his editing and Extremeguy's. Apart from editing the same articles to a considerable extent, and one another's user pages/user talk pages, they also share a tendency to write without or with erroneous punctuation and capitalisation, e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc. This tendency is also shared by other confirmed sockpuppets of Fjfhgfhdstty, e.g. [28], [29], [30] etc etc. It looks pretty much like a duck to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note I am waiting until what happens with regards to the block on User:JimConroy38 that was placed today. If that user is not actually Jim Conroy, then the case will be much more clear. MuZemike 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't. Brandon (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed as:
Conclusions

information Administrator note per the above CU results:

All other accounts have already been indefinitely blocked and tagged appropriately. MuZemike 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 4 2009, 05:15 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Beeblebrox (talk)

Made an RPP request identical to one made by another blocked sock of this user in September [31][32]. General editing pattern is consistent with previous socks. There are several "layers" of SPI tags and reports here, but it seems to ultimately resolve to this account via User:Extremeguy and User:Fjfhgfhdstty. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Simulation12

Simulation12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date November 23 2009, 06:32 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Gladys j cortez

The 2 IP's and the RuffRuffman user are obviously connected--they admit it in the series of diffs beginning here: [33] and ending here: [34] (Note that in the second diff, the named user copyedits the last IP's comment.) Accordingly, I have blocked the named user, since the IPs were apparently already blocked (though the block has expired by now on the IP's.) I am more concerned, however, with the possibility of the user being de-facto banned user User:Mayme08 The users' areas of interest are very similar; their language use is similar; and they make similar non-beneficial edits.GJC 06:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions:

 Clerk note: They're clear socks of Simulation12, and they've already been blocked. Accounts tagged myself. MuZemike 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date December 28 2009, 18:10 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Beeblebrox (talk)

General editing pattern very consistent with previous socks, however unlike most of the others this account is denying the allegation of socking. Although I have already blocked them, I have also indicated that any remarks they post on this matter on their talk page will be copy/pasted here.Would like to verify this sock, and perhaps CheckUsers could gather evidence to form a rangeblock based on the large pile of socks of this user. See also: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fjfhgfhdstty. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's just admitted that it is him in an unblock request, so there's no need to confirm, but it would be good if you could check for other accounts nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
>Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.</small


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed – I don't know what good it's going to do, as the previous SPI cases indicate different IPs in other places. However, Simulation12 has been known to create sockfarms, so a check for sleepers wouldn't hurt here. –MuZemike 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed, unsurprisingly. I couldn't find any obvious sleepers. J.delanoygabsadds 02:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Thanks for the effort anyway. I'll just keep blocking them as they spring up. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 16, 2010, 17:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by --Mikey (talk) 17
53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Mayme08 is a sockpuppet of Simulation12 cause Mayme started using Wikipedia in December 2008 Simulation12 used user names based on his Simulation account I don't think Simulation12 used those accounts. So I don't think Mayme08 is a sockpuppet of Simulation12. --Mikey (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayme08 can't be Simulation12 look at her edits and compare it with Simulation12 I don't think they're exactly the same cause Mayme08 did not edit what Simulation12 edit. Mayme08 created an account just for herself not to sockpuppet from another user. I don't think that's Simulation12 period. --Mikey (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simulation12/Archive&oldid=338233253"