Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RingWars2007/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


RingWars2007

RingWars2007 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Fall of Darkness and RingWars2007 are the two most ardent editors of Brimstone (wrestler), both have been opposed to any substantial changes made to the article. The talk page is filled with complaints about the state of the article and the behavior of the editors, the complaints date back to 2007, however these two accounts have worked in unison to prevent any of these corrections from being made. Currently these two are in an edit war over such changes.[1][2][3]

The sockpuppets were also used for leverage in a 2007 AfD and a 2010 AfD.

Fall of Darkness created the Brimstone and the Borderhounds article in March 2011 (an article which currently has 12 edits in its history), RingWars2007 performed a revert on that article as well.[4][5]

Despite their long stay at the article, both accounts have less than 400 edits. That makes it hard to explain the back-to-back edits on Levittown Union Free School District.[6][7] WrestlefnLI also made numerous edits on Brimstone (wrestler) but also edited Levittown, New York.[8] There may be even more accounts out there, some tend to remain stale for long periods of time, until the editor needs them for leverage in an edit war (RingWars2007 was dormant for over a year until yesterday).

User:YeLLeY511 is likely the puppetmaster in this case as that user is the oldest and created the Brimstone (wrestler) article. They also made edits to Hanukkah and Levittown, New York related articles like the sockpuppets. YeLLeY511 was briefly banned in 2007 for being a "spam-only account. dozens of spam images. apparently a paid promoter for a wrestler named 'brimstone'". The banning moderator noted that "You don't have a single non-brimstone-related contribution to your name."[9] YeLLeY511 apologized and was unbanned, then did make "non-brimstone-related" edits, while making few edits to Brimstone at first. Eventually the account stopped editing the article altogether. The ban occurred in April 2007, two of the sockpuppets were created in the month following the ban. LM2000 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I recently made various edits to the Brimstone (wrestler) article, and both were without a proper reason by both Fall of Darkness and RingWars2007. Both edits were made with the excuse that I had blanked sections, when in fact the edits were made in accordance with multiple Wikipedia policies regarding reliability of sources, original research, self-published sources, poorly sourced text, and self-promotion. If not a sockpuppet, I believe it would certainly go against WP:COI, as the extremely defensive and attitude towards editing the Brimstone with such ridiculous amount of detail suggests this is the case. WP:COI says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest." The account has had multiple edits down the years by the accounts which perform such edits. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by some odd twist twist they aren't socks then they have some WP:OWN issues. If they're not blocked for sockpuppetry I would suggest that some action be taken in WP:OWN's name. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 01:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this accusation is in bad faith and the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. I am NOT a sockpuppet. I make edits on Wikipedia when I have the availability. The edits made by RealDealBillMcNeal on the article in question seemed to be non-constructive. Information had been removed when instead the article could've been cleaned up with a little more effort. User seems adamant on editing this article with mass deletion rather than editing actual content. Two users were edit-warring, so I stepped in to revert to the previous edit and break up the edit war. The article does need a clean-up, but section blanking isn't the answer. LM2000 and RealDealBillMcNeal have it all wrong. Fall Of Darkness (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should assume good faith, though you have a history of doing the contrary. Do you have any explanation as to how four users were all created within a relatively short time of each other in 2007, all have less than 400 edits, happen to be Brimstone-editing enthusiasts, but also have a knack for editing Levittown, New York articles? I'm sure even you hear a little WP:QUACK. As far as I'm concerned, the current edit war is just the latest episode in this very long series. We could ignore everything about it and there would still be enough evidence to see that something isn't right here. The Brimstone (wrestler) talk page is filled with complaints dating back six years about the state of the article. Some there have speculated sockpuppetry, others have complained about your reverts, where you also assumed bad faith by listing them incorrectly as vandalism. It would indeed be an "odd twist" if there wasn't sockpupptry going on here.LM2000 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like a WP:WITCHHUNT to me. Fall Of Darkness (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you ever googled "Brimstone wrestler wikipedia"? You should. The results show that the article in question has apparently been comedic fodder for bloggers and forum posters who have speculated the same thing. So let's recap for a second. In order for your theory to be correct, that this is all a witchhunt, and it is a conspiracy against you, how many coincidences are we willing to accept.. how many people would have to be in on the conspiracy against you? Well, me and User:RealDealBillMcNeal for one. Then we've got User:Matticusmadness who never even posted on the article and knows that something stinks. We have those (ballpark estimate) dozen talk page posters who have complained about the edits. That moderator who saw the article as a promotional tool back in 2007 would be in on it too. There's also those forum posts and blogs that show up when doing that google search.LM2000 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm personally not interested in what the internet finds to be "comic fodder". You're incredibly cynical and assuming bad faith on my part. Who's to say you and RealDealBillMcNeal aren't sockpuppets based on your common edits/interests? Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Also, I stated the article needs to be cleaned up. Big time. But cleaning up an article by providing information with references, or just section blanking are two completely different techniques- hence my reverts. Fall Of Darkness (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've only made two edits on the article in question, and one of them was to undo a prod that RealDealBillMcNeal placed on it, so our edits aren't all that common. This situation, however, has been brewing for six years, and this is not the first sockpuppet allegations thrown in the direction of the accounts listed (although this is the first time anybody has sought any action against the accounts), so to say that this investigation was created prematurely is rather silly.LM2000 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

PriceMatt's first and only edit occurred today, adding massive amounts of content back to the Brimstone (wrestler) article. The edit summary was identical to Fall of Darkness's last comments above this posting.[10]LM2000 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

'Obvious up witchhunt' as the edit summary? hmmmm, for a new editor to know about WP:WITCHHUNT is actually near impossible to believe, I didn't know about that page until it was mentioned here and I've been here 13 months!
Same article, same WITCHHUNT viewpoint, I think the edit summary is a DUCK giveaway. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't know about it either, which is why I didn't say it until after I saw the tag and read the WP article. Otherwise I would have said it here in my first post, and if I were to revert the Brimstone page yet again I would have made the edit myself stating WITCHHUNT, rather than creating a new user account. I'm more intelligent than that. Fall Of Darkness (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's not you then it seems a lot like a meatpuppet. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 17:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RingWars2007/Archive&oldid=1138678585"