Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

User:Petergriffin9901

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Petergriffin9901

Petergriffin9901 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date February 2 2009, 02:28 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by (EhJJ)TALK


Petergriffen9901 has changed information on several Mariah Carey related articles in contradiction of the references, thereby violating WP:V. Petergriffen9901 has received repeated warnings from several editors who have reverted Petergriffen9901's edits and asked to discuss the changes on the talk page. All of these reverts have, in turn, been reverted by Petergriffen9901. After receiving a uw4, the editors has now begun using the two IP addressed listed above to continue reverting edits without discussion. He is in violation of the 3RR, both on his account and by using the two IP addresses. Evidence is clear from the two IP's contribs logs versus that of Petergriffen9901. Assistance would be greatly appreciated. (EhJJ)TALK 02:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

Closed. Each of the above blocked one week. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date February 5 2009, 07:03 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Tcncv (talk)


  • IP 72.28.159.237 began editing shortly after blocks of users and IPs from prior case. Edits such as this one continued the same pattern unsourced changes to sales figures as prior case users, and as before ignored messages and warnings by other users requesting that sources be identified.
  • The last edit by 72.28.159.237 here appeared to show an attempt to locate a source.
  • The first mainspace edit by Balto9902 was again an unsourced change to sales figures. This was followed by this talk page edit, which appeared to be a new user asking for reference/citation assistance, and which appears consistent with a continuation of the last edit by 72.28.159.237. Writing style is similar (all lower case).
  • After receiving assistance and adding updated sales figures to the the Mariah Carey discography article, another editor objected to the sources and the changes were reverted. The led to a brief edit war, with Balto9902 reasserting the changes several times, even after reasons for the revert were explained.
  • The final edit summary by Balto9902 was "i have up to date facts and sources not some 3 year old garbage". This attitude appears consistent with user Petergriffin9901.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

This case came to a head today, with 72.28.159.237 and Petergriffin9901 edit-warring over The Ballads (Mariah Carey album). AuburnPilot handed out the blocks ... indefinite against Petergriffin9901 and Balto9902, two-week soft-block with account creation disabled against 72.28.159.237.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note I've indefinitely blocked both accounts and blocked the IP for two weeks with account creation and registered editing disabled. --auburnpilot talk 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions




Report date May 1 2009, 01:15 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)

Virtually identical edit pattern: edit-warring in bad edits to Mariah Carey articles, most notably The Ballads (Mariah Carey album)‎, which was Petergriffin9901's final edited article. Combine that with the similarity in user names, and I think we have a match without needing a checkuser.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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

, Mammamia9905 blocked indefinitely per evidence in http://toolserver.org/~eagle/spi/1241158423.html as well asWP:DUCK. That's at least three users that have used 9901, 9902, and 9905 that are all socks. I wonder if there is a 9903 or 9904 out there. Be on the lookout. Clerk, please tag user and close. Valley2city‽ 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 5 2009, 20:04 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by SKS2K6 (talk)

So the first thing the user does is to say "Hello everyone!!!" on both his userpage and his talk page. Look familiar? Anyway, the next batch of edits is related to The Ballads (Mariah Carey album). Please see the last sock's edits and compare. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(To clarify, this user continues to edit articles related to Mariah Carey and basically inflating positions and sales numbers unsourced, which is a continuation of the pattern set by Petergriffin9901 and Mammamia9905. SKS2K6 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I think WP:DUCK applies with this one.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, his edits on The Adventures of Mimi Tour try to reintroduce the content added by previous socks. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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

Please tag/archive. Sock blocked. —— nixeagleemail me 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 15 2009, 00:09 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Quacks too loudly to bother with a checkuser. The -9901 is certainly a hint, the contributions are all articles edited by Petergriffin9901, Mammamia9905, or Theoldknight89, all confirmed socks. Reverting reversions of previous sock. Created May 10, a scant 3 days after Theoldknight89 was blocked.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Account blocked. It seems the user has a signature edit. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Icestorm815 • Talk 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date May 22 2009, 00:53 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


User's edit patterns are very similar to those of blocked sockpuppeteer User:Petergriffin9901, but is claiming to be innocent. So, I'm going to "trust but verify."

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

 Completed the alleged sock was blocked by the reporter as a sock. Nothing further to be done. Mayalld (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mayalld (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 25 2009, 02:38 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

The last SPI request against Aldamira wound up fubared. The reporter blocked Aldamira, then did a checkuser. The checkuser wound up being denied because the sock was already blocked, so the reporter then unblocked because the check wasn't run. Let's try not to have that happen again.

Anyway, Aldamira clearly is Petergriffin9901. Petergriffin9901's last blocked sock was JustarR24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was miscategorized as a JuStar sock. Strangely enough, Petergriffin9901 decided to pretend to be JuStar. I know not why, but the discussion on JuStarR64's talk page was pretty clear about it. JustarR24 was blocked on May 19, and argued until May 20. Aldamira's first edit was May 21. Aldamira's first few edits were restoring edits of Katamari38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), yet another one of Petergriffin9901 socks: [1][2].

I think this is a duck case personally, but apparently PMDrive1061 has doubts, given his previous request for checkuser, and his subsequent unblock when the checkuser wasn't run.—Kww(talk) 02:38, 25 May 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 —Kww(talk) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined Like you said, this really is a DUCK case, so we won't be doing CU. My investigation revealed stuff like this [3] [4] (Katamari38 is a previously confirmed sock), and of course plenty more. If PMDrive doesn't want to block, then someone else can, now that he has unblocked. — Jake Wartenberg 04:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Confirmed - it was WP:DUCKy, but I've confirmed User:Aldamira shares multiple IPs with several other confirmed socks of Petergriffin9901. I've also blocked JustarR23 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a sock of Petergriffin9901 based on the CU results. --Versageek 04:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Tagged; looks good. — Jake Wartenberg 04:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date June 23 2009, 12:42 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Max24

The same behaviour as Petergriffin9901 and all his later socks, especially Aldamira. Most active in Mariah Carey related articles.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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

Syn 19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date August 9 2009, 03:18 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901 was merged into WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zach Benjamin. As best as I can tell, this was done based on a name similarity between Petergriffin9901 and PeterGriffin11298 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't see a behavioural similarity between these two accounts.

The problem is that Petergriffin9901 is under editing restrictions (with me as his parole officer), and has been since June 24. One of the restrictions is that he cannot use alternate accounts or edit anonymously. If, indeed, he is the same editor as Zach Benjamin, he is in violation. If, as I believe, the merging was done without good cause, he's not. I asked Synergy, and he said to try Tiptoety. I tried Tiptoety, and the question aged off his talk page.

It's important that we keep these things straight, and I think only a checkuser can definitively state if the merging of these reports was done properly or not.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after checkuser results: Based on the results, I have undone the merge of the two archives. Someone should double-check that everything is straight. I'm reasonably confident that it is.—Kww(talk) 01:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
31 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

When any IP attack my userspace I like to know why he or she did it. Most of time is the typical vandal who attacks you because you are ruining his/her fun, a few times is a sockpuppeteer, but unfrequently are people who are Wikipedians (according to them). Time ago, Nathan and I had a strong discussion, and since then we do not talk to each other. Recently, after I saw the IP 108.64.1.166 blanked my page I checked that he vandalized Theuhohreo (no one would vandalize his page because he has done nothing to anyone). He added the summary "That bastard don't do shit to help" while he removed nothing vital, but later he removed my name from his "need help?" section, giving the impression the message was not to him. (also see filter log for the real message)

According to Nathan's page he comes from Miami Beach, well so the IP. Nathan can argue that exist 90,000 persons on that city, but unlike most of them, their IPs have not been checked. I found that the IPs 207.244.160.102 (talk · contribs) and 72.144.228.37 (talk · contribs) were blocked time ago with his name on them. Apparently not relationed, those IPS comes from the same city, and the three IPs share, according to IP2Location, the IDD Code, the Area Code and the Weather Station, and matches the Latitude/Longitude and ZIP Code with 72.144...

Also note that this IP has edited the article The Adventures of Mimi Tour, one of the frequently edited pages from Nathan. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. You think that I vandalized your user page? Are you kidding me? Why on earth would I go anywhere near your page, I have already expressed how I would really like nothing to do with you again. So let me get this straight; because an IP from my city vandalized your page, that means its me? Wow, you obviously have too much time on your hands. I've dedicated my time on wiki to one thing; Mariah Carey articles, nothing more. I have worked hard and tediously to bringing soon to be 25 GAs, I'm not going to waste my time and defend myself from these ridiculous accusations. And so you know TbHotch, editing as an IP is not sock pupperty, in fact there is no problem with it. Sock puppetry is using alternate accounts for the wrong reasons. One las thing, check when the last time I even edited The Adventures of Mimi Tour, probably 3 times in my life, why would I IP edit a Mariah Carey page when I control her entire discography? Educate yourself please.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked this over enough to satisfy myself that Tbhotch's suspicions are worth investigating further, and requested checkuser. I was Petergriffin9901's mentor for quite a while, and believe that he got over the sock-puppeting habit. That said, he has the occasional slip in some areas (witness nonsense like this), and has a noted animosity towards Tbhotch. An IP from Miami that edits Mariah Carey articles and insults Tbhotch certainly raises suspicion. A smoking gun? No. Sufficient smoke to check out? Yes. I also believe it's one of those cases that will fester harmfully if not resolved reasonably conclusively. A network match/mismatch would go a long way towards doing so.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Kevin, how is that edit you linked to a "slip" into sock puppetry? Because I placed a banner that was present last year? Yeah, not really. Secondly, the IP if you will has 1 edit on a Mariah Carey page, over two months ago, let alone the fact that it wasn't a vandalism edit, it was reverting another IP vandalism. You believe this will fester harm? This guys page has been vandalized a total of over 200 times, seriously, listen to yourself. And I'll say this again, I do not harbor animosity towards Tbhotch, I just do not want to have anything to do with him. He stabbed me in the back when I trusted him and was his friend, so thats all I want. Kevin, you are trying to connect dots that don't even exist.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He stabbed me in the back when I trusted him and was his friend" would normally be seen as a sign of animosity, Nathan. I'm not saying that there's anything conclusive here. What I do believe is that if a checkuser is run and there's no network match, Tbhotch will probably be persuaded that the Miami location is a coincidence. If it's not run, the suspicion will probably fester into a larger and damaging dispute. If there is a network match, we'll have to think things over.
As for the slip, it wasn't a slip into sockpuppetry, but it was a slip into the kind of behaviour I thought you had outgrown. Edit-warring a "Happy Birthday" wish into an article is something I associate with your behaviour two years ago, not last week.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan has edited five time The Adventures of Mimi Tour (with his account). Only he knows how many times he has edited with IPs (e.g. User:72.144.228.37). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said, I had a reason for it. And I wouldn't call that an edit war, just a level one revert, not really a big deal. Anyways, thanks for the explanation. Back to the issue now, why does this accusation even constitute as sock puppetry? This is an IP edit, which is technically OK with Wikipedia, aside from the vandalism. So thats issue number one, this isn't a sock of anyone, just an anonymous edit. Lastly, per Tbhotch, why would I revert an IP edit anonymously, when I am in complete control of her discography? I've already re-crafted probably 30 percent of it--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a named account uses an IP in order to avoid scrutiny, which is what the motivation for anonymously vandalizing another editor's talk page would be, it constitutes sock puppetry.—Kww(talk) 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I simply don't know, I'd know people who has commented me that they log out to make some edits. I opened this SPI because, if this IP is you, was really coward to log out to vandalize my page and tried 8 times to vandalize my talkpage. Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry " the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden. Sock puppetry can take on several different forms ... Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP". I remember an user who, even he combated vandalism, he logged out many times and created many accounts and used many IPs to vandalize. So this falls into sockpuppetry. Nathan, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, if you are saying the truth, the checkuser won't match and this will be archived. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad you know the rules, however, I still uphold the fact that I had nothing to do with your talk page, whether or not the IP comes from my city.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
You really shouldn't state that so definitively. You are well within your rights not approve the CU request, but IPs can be and frequently are tied to accounts by checkusers, so long as they agree the IP is being disruptive. There's been a recent trend to be pickier about it than in the past, but it isn't an absolute rule.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since checkuser has been declined, there's no way to gather sufficient evidence to do anything here. That's one of the problems with interpreting the IP address linking guidelines automatically, and giving no allowance for linking disruptive IPs to user accounts via automatically declining the checks. Note that WP:CHECKUSER contains "a user who is disruptive and needs to be addressed as such may have to accept that the price of disruption is that their IP becomes linked to their account" and "Users who engage in problematic conduct to the point that requests for administrative action or blocking are raised and considered valid for CheckUser usage, and where CheckUser then determines that the user probably has engaged in such conduct, must expect that the protection of the project is given a higher priority than the protection of those who knowingly breach its policies on editorial conduct, if the two conflict or there is a problematic editing history." In my view, given the editing linkage, personal conflict, and past history of sockpuppeting, there was enough smoke here to warrant a check, and it would have been clearly within checkuser discretion.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under normal circumstances, we avoid commenting on an IP's identity because they are usually only incidental to the case and the logged-out edits may well have been accidental, making it harder to justify. However, when someone deliberately utilizes an IP to anonymously vandalize another's user page and call them a bastard, I have no qualms about doing so. So, I am reopening this case. And I can say it is  Confirmed that the IP is Petergriffin9901. Dominic·t 18:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Dominic. I just got home after a long day, and I'll contemplate what action seems most appropriate tomorrow. I don't think the usual indef is appropriate in this case, but clearly something needs to be done.—Kww(talk) 06:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, you haven't confirmed anything. You claim an IP links to me somehow, that doesn't say anything. I still stand by the fact that I had nothing to do with it. A). I have never heard from or spoken to User:Theuhohreo in my life, so why would I even visit his page? I don't know him or have ever even seen him or his work. B). I have worked tirelessly on improving Wikipedia for months, and have re-crafted over 30 articles to GA status. You're not going to come here and tell me that you suspect me of some ridiculous claim and expect an IP claim is going to push it through and even bring up the word indef to me in the same sentence. Listen to yourselves, you're blaming a random IP edit on a 2 year veteran who has accomplished more than most here. I'm off to bed, I'm done here. And Kevin, to you, I'm quite insulted by you're form of handling things here. You act like you don't know me and haven't ever had anything to do here. All of my actions, even past ones were rational and had reason. For you to come here after everything between us and act as though I'm a random IP and try and condemn me, seriously, its screwed up. I am not ashamed of anything, link the entire web here, it isn't me, won't ever be me or any such thing. There is no support here from anyone, the system is flawed, I hate every second here, I only do it for one reason. You people are inconsistent, and condemn the innocent. There are users, IPs etc. that all but help Wikipedia, vandalizing and ruining it, and they get a nice template. You're gonna dare open up a sock puppet investigation over 2 random IP edits? At a 2 year veteran? Honestly, it sickens me to have any part here, and I can assure once my artists discography is done I will return no more.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've indeffed after seeing that comment. After the SPI equivalent of being caught red-handed, all we get is this tirade. Enough is enough. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Petergriffin9901/Archive&oldid=1143403014"