Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smoore95GAGA/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Smoore95GAGA

Smoore95GAGA (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

24 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


User began editing directly following the main sock's block, and is editing the same exact articles, pertaining to new music releases, and is obsessed with removing and edit-warring over Metacritic scores. If it quacks like a duck, it might just be a duck. Is also creating the same kind of directs that main account did. Has created Ariana grande focus, while Smoore95GAGA created a long-list of them, including Carrie underwood storyteller, Justin bieber purpose, among others. livelikemusic my talk page! 12:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


I have reason to believe this user is a sock of the main user; is again talking about Metacritic scoring, and is focused on the same kind of pages that previous socks were editing, including Purpose (Justin Bieber album) and "Focus" (Ariana Grande song). And creating the same kind of redirects the previous socks did (see: Adele 25). Not to mention their continued addition of Ultimate Music as a source, despite being notified that it is unreliable. livelikemusic my talk page! 13:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Their creation of Adele 25 is the exact same kind of redirection they've made with Justin bieber purpose, Carrie underwood storyteller, Ellie goulding delirium, Selena gomez revival (All created by Smoore95GAGA). Also this edit] mimics long-history of removing Metacritic scores from review iboxes on album articles]. livelikemusic my talk page! 14:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hi, I don't know who Smoore95GAGA is. I can honestly say that I am not the same person as them. Have I done something wrong? I'm really just trying to make Wikipedia a better place. If I've done something wrong, please let me know. Also, I didn't know Ultimate Music was unreliable. I won't add it again, though, now that I know it isn't. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the metacritic score because I've been told it only needs to be on a page once. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TswiftARTPOP: Which there within displays the fact that I believe you are a sock, because checking the edit history and your talk page, you were never specifically told by any editor that it must be listed once. livelikemusic my talk page! 14:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, people that I'm friends with who have Wiki accounts told me. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That excuse seems to make me suspect that  Looks like a duck to me. Your edit history speaks to mirror that of Smoore95GAGA; we'll have to wait to see what the CheckUser finds. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. I'm friends with Smoore95GAGA. He told me that he got banned from Wikipedia, and when he tried to make another account, that one got banned too. He asked me to make an account so I could make some edits for him, however, most of my edits have been for me, not for him. I don't agree with everything he says, but he did tell me that the metcritic score only has to be displayed once. I promise on the grave of my mother that I am telling the truth. I created this account to make Wikipedia better, and have only made a few edits that Smoore95GAGA asked me to make. TswiftARTPOP (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Additional information needed - @Livelikemusic: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


User edits newly established music-related articles, and has a habit of removing Metacritic scores, claiming they are not needed. Username also indicates a fan of a famous pop star, and also references numbers within their username, as well. Plus, their continued edit summaries (especially on their talk page) semi-mirror each other into a borderline battleground-like behavior.

  • 1 (via-confirmed sock account of Smoore95GAGA)
In comparison to 1 2 3 3 4 5 livelikemusic talk! 02:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Admitted to it in this edit. Katycat3567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of this sockmaster. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm just going to go ahead and say this because I know I'm going to get banned. Livelikemusic, you are one sorry person. All you do, from what I've seen, is make my time here a living hell. Any time I make a new account, you try your hardest to get it banned. Jesus Christ, get over it! I don't know what your beef is with me, but you have some issues!

Cabrera, I'd like to apologize for my comments I made to you today. I said a lot of things out of anger, and it wasn't ok.

HOWEVER, you, livelikemusic, need to back off. Seriously. You're like a fly that never goes away. Shoo fly, don't bother me! Snugglebear123 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Per  Looks like a duck to me their username follows the same pattern that previous sock-names have followed; their focus on newly-created musical articles is another standout. First it was Gwen Stefani, and now it is both Ariana Grande and Meghan Trainor. And their edit summaries with all-caps is another tell-tale sign that this just might be a sock account. Their last sock account they made it very clear they were going to come back, without waiting that six-month period. They are not here to edit constructively and should not be allowed back onto this website. Also, much like previous socks, has redirected their userpage to their talk page in the same fashion. Not to mention user joins and makes first edit on the same even previous sock was banned? Seems a bit too close for comfort. User also has habit of strong edit-warring when it is them who thinks they are "right" in an argument. Account seems to mirror previous socks.

Diffs — Smooth95GAGA · Katycat3567
Diffs — TswiftARTPOP · Katycat3567 livelikemusic talk! 02:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User is brand-new and follows the same exact naming patterns, to support the reported sock above to avoid evading a potential edit-war at Thank You. You cannot tell me {{Duck}} does not apply here. livelikemusic talk! 04:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given their post above, seems to mirror the main sock's ability to join on new accounts, acting as "friends" to try and defend themselves from a potential block. This is getting way out of hand right now, and is even seeming to be a personal vendetta against myself. {{Duck}} is truly applying in this situation right now. livelikemusic talk! 04:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I was clearly right about you. You can never admit when you're wrong. You convince yourself that I must be the same person as GwenyGwen and Smartypants. I'm not them! Get over yourself! Loverboy156 (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am friends with the Loverboy account, and they told me what was going on, so I decided to join to defend him. Livelikemusic, I saw my friend leave you a message to discuss what was going on, and in response, you deleted it. It's interesting, because you were the one that asked him to leave you a message in the first place. From what I've seen, you do not seem like the kind of person who deals with these kinds of situations well, so maybe you should just back off a little? I'm really not trying to be mean, I just don't like the way you're treating my friend. Smartypants476 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first of all, I don't know GwenyGwen, so accusing them of being a sock just because they agree with me is ridiculous. You strike me as the kind of person who can never admit that they're wrong. Like when a bunch of people say you're wrong, you probably say to yourself, "Oh, it's probably the same person, because I know I'm right." But you're not right. Not about the article, or about how you're choosing to handle this. You asked me to discuss this with you on your talk page, so I left you a non-confrontational message, and what do you do? You delete it! That makes no sense! I have tried to reason with you, but you clearly can't be reasoned with. I may get blocked from editing for edit-warring, but guess what? You were edit-warring yourself. So we're both at fault here. Loverboy156 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I may ask, what do you mean by "all-caps edit summary"? Do you mean that I start my sentences with a capital letter? That's proper grammar. Loverboy156 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Why would a brand new user thank me for work on page he/she hasn't contributed to? Also, why would they bring up a previous sock outta the clear blue sky?
  2. Continually condensing their arguments, similarly to their previous socks.
  3. Changing film's reviews, similarly to what they've done on album pages. Carbrera (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hi, I just want to say that I wasn't changing the reviews on that page, I was simply changing one word. Also, I can't contribute to that page because it was protected. MoonlightMusician (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why were you looking through previous contributions then? Because you wanted to try to get on my good side. Carbrera (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know why it got protected. Why do you dislike someone who thanks you? MoonlightMusician (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. [1] Continual unexplained removal of material of Dangerous Woman (album), much like previous sock.
  2. [2] Accusations of vandalism despite one revert on Misery (Gwen Stefani song), extremely similar to the original sock.
  3. [3] Addition of unsourced genres on Whoa, Nelly!, again, very similar to the previous sock. Carbrera (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


19 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. [4] Deleting talk page history like all of the other socks.
  2. [5] Changing public opinion of a music article like all of the other socks.
  3. [6] Moving the Metacritic's mention in an infobox like the original sock. Carbrera (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hahahahaha ok so yes, I am a sock (as soon as I get accused, I see no point in denying it, as it's going to be proven soon enough). I just have to say, the whole "removing the MC score" thing is total bs, because there are other people that do that (Tomica, hey), and you haven't accused them of being a sock. Sigh. You're ridiculous dude. Whatever. On to the next account! (I've already made 10 more) :) Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and good luck getting rid of me forever. I've found a way to edit Wikipedia even with the ban on me until May 20th :) Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful to know. Requesting CU to detect said sleepers. GABHello! 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: I believe that the sock puppets of User:Mathiassandell and User:Smoore95GAGA are directly related. I think they are the creations of the same person. Carbrera (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sock is clearly not here to edit constructively, so if there a clear-cut way to make sure they're off Wikipedia, permanently? livelikemusic talk! 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


23 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Same insults from previous sock
  2. Edit warring with me again Carbrera (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Personal attacks in edit description Carbrera (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


25 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Admitted to being a sock here Carbrera (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Lol, dude, they didn't do anything about it before, what makes you think they'll do something about it now? Do you just spend your time doing nothing but trying to find my socks? That's just sad. Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider constructively editing Wikipedia, instead of edit-warring and harassing other users. Carbrera (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've edit-warred yourself, my friend, so don't even try that one. And you know what? I did attempt to edit Wikipedia constructively when I first joined last year. Then I realized that Wikipedia basically favors people, and let's those people make decisions that may or may not be right. Case in point, you and I have both edit-warred, but you have never been banned. Only I have been. Wikipedia is not consistent with its rules, and I think that's not right. For the most part, I do edit Wikipedia constructively, but it really sets me off when I get banned for edit-warring, and other people get away with it. If it's a rule, it should be followed by everyone. Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between my edits and yours is that mine were constructive. You continually added unsourced material to articles, which is in violation of standard Wikipedia procedures. Carbrera (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't appreciate the fact that you seem to be obsessed with reverting almost all of my edits. And you also get away with reverting it way more than three times, which goes strictly against the 3 reverts rule. Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my message? My edits were constructive, yours were not and included insulting edit summaries. What makes you think that's an okay method of editing Wikipedia? Carbrera (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any response to my claim that you are obsessed with reverting almost all of my edits? Also, here's an example: when I put in Stargate's full names, you became obsessed with reverting it back at least ten times, even though they are credited that way in every song they write or co-write. You never gave a source for that, so how do you justify that? Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that the pages you're editing are in my watchlist? And by the way, I did give a source for the Stargate edits; that's how they're officially listed in the album's linear notes. Check the article and you will see the source. What don't you understand? Carbrera (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the pages I edit are in your watch list? Dang, that's a lot of pages! How obsessed ARE you with Wilipedia? It's not like Wikipedia is known to be a trustworthy site. Almost every one of my teachers has told us to never use Wikipedia for our papers. I'm just saying, I know I've edit-warred, but you have as well. You just can't ever admit you did anything wrong. Even the person who banned me told you you should have stopped reverting my edits. I'm aware that I'm a jerk who edit-wars, but I'd rather be that than be obsessed with Wikipedia. Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think Wikipedia is a trustworthy site, why are you here? And no, I do not edit every page you do. Hey, what happened to your supposed "I won't edit Wikipedia for three months until my ban is lifted" that you said from your KatyCat account? If you had waited those three months, you could have returned with a clean slate. Carbrera (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. I get that you think you're a good person and all, but come off it. You told Livelikemusic you like finding every sock I create and getting them banned. You're telling me if I left for three months, even if you knew it was me, you'd give me a clean slate? Yeah right. Get real. Stop acting like you're a perfect human being. This is like Mean Girls. I'm Regina, and you're Cady. We're both mean people, you just act like you're so perfect. Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Mean Girls reference? Really? And yes I really would give you a second chance; I gave User:Potguru a second chance after he disrupted edits on several meme-related pages. If you had proved you were on Wikipedia to positively edit, who am I to attack you? Clearly you aren't here for that purpose as you stated "I'm aware that I'm a jerk who edit-wars". I'm not a perfect human being; I make mistakes. I should've left the pages you vandalized alone after the 3 edit warring, but I wasn't aware of standard procedure. The admin who viewed those pages recommended I read a certain article regarding edit-warring, so I did. I took a lot from it too. Perhaps even you'd like to read it. Lastly, why the personal attacks? Why are you constantly degrading other Wikipedians for zero purpose? Livelikemusic is here to constructively edit, and you've made several mean comments regarding him. Any explanation? Carbrera (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna know why I hate Livelikemusic? Ok, when I first joined Wikipedia, I tried to edit constructively. Then, one day, LLM came and reverted some of my edits. I felt that the edits I made were valid, so I messaged him on his talk page, and he ignored me. Didn't even give me an explanation as to why he reverted my edits. Then, after my third revert, he reported me for violating the 3RR rule. At the time, I didn't know about that, and he didn't tell me about it. I ended up getting blocked for a day, and when I came back, it was the same story. He reverted my edits, I tried to talk to him, he ignored me, and then he reported me. So I have no tolerance for him, because he is unapproachable, and intolerable. Also, it would be nice to believe you when you say you should've left the pages alone after three reverts, but let's face it, you knew what you were doing. You violated the 3RR rule deliberately to get me banned. I know this to be true because after I was told not to revert anymore, you reverted again, and when I reverted back and got banned, you reverted and said "Thank you." Thank your for what? Getting myself banned? Exactly. You may think you're here to edit constructively, but your main goal is to get me banned every time I make a new account. And then you say you'd give me a second chance. Get off your high horse. Antonio Bononcinis (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't User:Antonio Bononcinis yet been blocked due to WP:No personal attacks alone? --MuZemike 05:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Cabrera did not violate the 3RR, as it clearly states reverting sock accounts does not violate said-rule; Antonio Bononcinis admitted to being a sock, therefore, any reverts Cabrera made was not against the 3RR rule. And to continually throw personal attacks against myself and Cabrera is absolutely unacceptable. The main sock was told, under another sock account, if they waited six months they could come back and try to appeal their block. Instead, they continue to sock and admit they will continue to sock. This user is not here to edit as a constructive member of this website. Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privilege. One that Antonio Bononcinis has worn out. Also, talk about edits, not editors. Is there some kind of mass-ban we can implement from keeping them from creating more disruptive accounts? Administrators have better things to do with their time. livelikemusic talk! 23:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


26 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Now first off, my evidence for this sock isn't as clear as previous socks, but I have my case in order. This user just created his account yesterday (after the ban of the previous sock) and has been editing almost all of the same pages the previous socks worked on. I don't know what is wrong with this user that makes him keep coming back; he's so obvious every time.
  2. Dogtagging my pages like the original sock
  3. Thanking me
  4. Removing my edits on Gwen Stefani-related pages again Carbrera (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

You really are the most obsessed person, aren't you? Of course you're right, I am a sock. Go ahead and be all proud of yourself for being a snitch, and say, "He admitted to being a sock! Yayyyyyy!" Like no one cares. We all know I'll be back. I just want to say though, there really is no way to win with you, is there? Just because I happened to edit the same pages as you, you became suspicious? Like what the heck, man? I literally did nothing wrong. Your reasons for banning me are: thanking you, editing the same pages as you, and reverting one of your edits. ONE. And seriously dude, thanking you is a reason for you to become suspicious? You really are just a mean person, aren't you? I'm tempted to bring up "Mean Girls" again. So this is how it goes with you. Someone sends you a kind thank you message, and you go, "They must be a sock!" Like, wowwwwww dude. Way to be the most suspicious person on the Earth. Other than Livelikemusic (who is also an awful person himself), how do you make any friends? NickJonasLover365 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try not being so obvious. Everyone here (including Livelikemusic) is getting tired with your antics. Maybe it is suspicious when a brand new account starts editing all of the same pages you've been. Yes, that does occur as suspicious to me. Carbrera (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


26 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


User's editing began around the time the last sock-investigation was opened, and has the same editing pattern that the previous socks have used; username pertains to a recording artist they apparently have interest in, and includes a series of numbers at the end of their username.

User also engages in slight-edit wars and may be editing via-an IP address (90.208.254.174). livelikemusic talk! 16:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed:
Flash100yarddash (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ohmylantas (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Isthisthingon0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
HarmonizerFTW (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
BBTalk123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
CabreraAndLivelikemusicArePathetic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. First off, the account was just created within the past 24 hours, after the ban of the sock's latest account was filed.
  2. Light edit-warring on the same article: [7]
  3. Removal of information/producers on album pages, like the original sock: [8]
  4. Editing the exact same pages as the previous sock: [9] Carbrera (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Edit warring report on this user currently filed and open here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • These three accounts are  Confirmed:
Constructionworkerz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Carnagecontrol (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Reputy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 18:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Account was just created today after the ban of the previous sock
  2. Light edit-warring on Meghan Trainor-related pages... again. [10]
  3. Addition of 'positive' summaries to reception sections, like the previous sock, despite the song also receiving negative reviews. [11] Carbrera (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

No surprise here. Carbrera's being his usual obsessed, freakish self. However, I have one thing to say. You say the song also received negative reviews. I only saw one, and also, that's why I said "MOSTLY positive reviews", not "positive reviews." But whatever, everyone knows you freak out over every little thing. "A song got all positive reviews except for one negative reviews, and someone said 'mostly positive reviews'... they must be a sock!" I actually think it's quite bold of you to be reporting me this much, considering your ass should've been blocked when you made those ten reverts, hence violating the 3RR rule. But I guess Wikipedia just didn't notice that , or they didn't give a shit. Because we all know how Wikipedia is: "Hmm... two people have violated the 3RR rule... let's ban one of them! Because we clearly pick favorites here!" Isn't that right, Wikipedia ;)FluffyPandars (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) So, let me get this straight, Carbrera. Every time I disagree with you and revert your edit, you report me. Therefore, I'm basically forced to agree with you no matter what? Where do you get off thinking that's ok? You're a real prick. 21:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FluffyPandars (talk • contribs) [reply]

I'm not here to get into it with you. You do not have to agree with me no matter what, regardless of what page we're editing. The page you discussed where I reverted your edits 10 times was because you were vandalizing the page. This is now your 23rd sockpuppet, why even bother? I really wish you would just stop so your vandalism will end, and your foul language will end as well. Carbrera (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha it's "foul", not "foul." Please, get off your high horse. I don't have to agree with you? Then why is it, if I revert your edit just once, you report me? I only reverted it once, dude. You need to calm down. Every time I revert your edit once, you report me. That's not fair. Now, if I was edit-warring with you, then that would be a different story. I don't think you know what edit-warring is, though. You said I was "light edit-warring", but I only reverted your edit once. That's not edit-warring. Edit-warring is when you have reverted three or more edits. I don't think it's right that most people can revert edits just fine, but not me. And I use foul language with you because you are a disgusting human being, and you deserve this kind of language. You are despicable. You reverted my edits 10 MOTHERFUCKING TIMES, and any time I edit just one of your precious edits, you report me. "Oh, it's ok for me to edit-war, but even when Scott only reverted one of my edits, he's wrong." Also, you're wrong about something: you keep saying that because I'm a sock, edit-warring with me is ok, EXCEPT IT ISN'T. And you know it isn't, because an administrator told you it wasn't. You need to learn to take what you give. Why do you think it's ok for you to edit-war with people, but it's not ok for others to edit-war with you? You disgust me. FluffyPandars (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, do you know what "vandalizing" means? "Vandalizing" means putting something up that is an opinion. For example, "Miley Cyrus is the best singer in the world!" That's vandalism. The time that you reverted 10 of my edits was when I put the names of Tor Erik Hermansen and Mikkel S. Eriksen that way, which is the correct way to cite them (but you insisted on being butthurt about it). You consider that vandalism? I added their fucking middle names!!! FluffyPandars (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were vandalism because they were going against what was stated in the sources, which you didn't bother to look at. I'm not edit-warring when it's vandalism. It's funny how you state "you need to learn to take what you give", yet you have created 23 sock accounts. 23. I've learned from my mistakes with administration, but you obviously haven't. Your edits here are deconstructive and don't add anything notable to the articles. Carbrera (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is me creating 23 accounts (also, you keep track? That's fucking creepy as shit) not taking what I give? FluffyPandars (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a casepage for you that lists 23 accounts. Carbrera (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're still wrong about the "vandalism" thing. Like the Lunchmoney Lewis thing? Yeah, he has never been credited as "Gamal Lewis", to my knowledge. FluffyPandars (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is wise not to assume. He very well may be credited as such on several songs. The only way we can find out is if we check the sources given for the song, which you haven't. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the album page, he is credited as "Lunchmoney Lewis", so how can you still defend yourself? FluffyPandars (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator credited him as that, I'm not saying whether or not that is correct or not, but you didn't provide a source to state otherwise. You can't remove information from a page without a valid source or explanation. Carbrera (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, the source comes from the album page. Saying one thing on an album page, but a different thing on a single page directly contradicts what was said on the album page. The way people are credited needs to be consistent. FluffyPandars (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


30 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


No need for checkuser because this case is so obvious. Hairball...Nasty's first-ever edit was an admission that this was a new account, with an angry mention that Carbrera had reverted ten times yet not been blocked.[12] The same angry accusation had just recently been seen here at this SPI page when FluffyPandars said to Carbrera "your ass should've been blocked when you made those ten reverts..."[13] A self-admission of socking, and the same behavior. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Same behavior? Actually, my edits have been constructive, you're just butthurt because I should be blocked. You can't get over the fact that perhaps I've changed. You do realize on my original account, I have been blocked indefinitely, correct? Therefore, I should never be given a second chance, is that what you're saying? If so, you're an awful person. It's fine though, I've learned form the mistake of letting Carbrera know it was me, so I'll just make another account and keep making my constructive edits, probably only to have them reverted by another asshole like you. I don't know how you sleep at night. Hairball...Nasty (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I wanted to believe you'd edit constructively; you haven't. You will never be allowed to edit on Wikipedia again given your behavior and excessive sock puppet creations. Your language here is completely unacceptable and I have learned today that my 10 reverts on Asking 4 It were acceptable. If you don't believe me, read this. Carbrera (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your first account was blocked because you were constantly edit warring over Selena articles. Your behavior hasn't changed since then, so I agree with the original block and the continued work to keep you away from Wikipedia, per WP:EVADE. Your only chance here is the WP:Standard offer, which means you have to stay off of Wikipedia completely, 100%, for six months, and then ask an administrator to unblock you. You must demonstrate the maturity it takes to sit still for six months, or nobody will think you have changed. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: User was offered this last month, accepted it, yet created 20+ more accounts since. Carbrera (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When did I edit unconstructively with this account? Now you're just saying things. Whatever. I'm so done with this bullshit site that everyone knows is bullshit. By the way, Carbrera, I saw on your talk page that your friend thinks Wikipedia is biased. Well it is, because of people like you and Blinksternet. Hairball...Nasty (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am edit-warring with you because you are reverting my edits simply because you can, not because you have a reason to. Hairball...Nasty (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


30 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Removing Metacritic scores like the original sock
  2. Adding unsourced producers again, like the previous sock
  3. Removal of information without valid explanation Carbrera (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

31 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Removal of information from Selena Gomez-related articles
  2. Unexplained changes to a writer's name
  3. Use of troll, similar to the Katycat account Carbrera (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The change to the writer's name is because he changed his name, thank you very much. 156.12.252.175 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might as well just say it's me, because let's face it, you already know. By the way though, I've made edits on other IP addresses that you didn't pick up on, so way to let those slip past you! Also though, the reasons for being suspicious here are some of your weakest ones yet. The one isn't a valid reason, because he changed his name, and the others are just weak. Then again, you are the most psychotic person ever, so I would expect no less from you :) 156.12.252.175 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@156.12.252.175: Why are you doing this? You're never going to be let back onto Wikipedia after all of this. I'm extremely disappointed in your continual attacks against myself and other users, your profane language, your disruptive editing, and hurtful editing summaries. It's pathetic that you may find this editing acceptable, but it's not. Leaving Wikipedia alone for six months is your best option at this time. Please think carefully about this. Carbrera (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've never been able to say why this editing is unacceptable. Most of my edits are actually accurate, you just report me because I'm a sock. It's not like you revert my edits after I've been banned, so you must know they're accurate. And I have thought about it. The reason I'm not going to wait that long is because I shouldn't have to. If people like you weren't on here, I would be able to get away with making sock accounts. You just report me simply because I'm a sock, not because what I'm doing is wrong, and that's just sad, and unfair to me. 156.12.252.175 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


IP created mere minutes following previous block to continue edit-warring on pages linked above. livelikemusic talk! 02:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Damn! You don't take a second to ever just live your life, do you? 156.12.7.142 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have a feeling you and Carbrera are the same person. You were the one that made the report, yet it was Carbrera who left me the message... 156.12.7.142 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the page's history, you will clearly see that I made the first report, but Livelikemusic made a brand new report. It is laughable that you are alluding to us being sockpuppets now. Carbrera (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. User undid my edit and convicted me of "vandalism"
  2. Addition of unsourced material to a Fifth Harmony article Carbrera (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. The main piece of evidence is that the IP is from Kutztown, Pennsylvania, just like the original sock
  2. Calling me "butthurt" over an edit difference, like the original sock
  3. Removed MC scores from album pages, need I say more? Carbrera (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I called you butthurt because you are butthurt, and this proves it. You are reporting me simply because I'm a sock, not because I did anything wrong, and you know it. You're mad that I proved you were wrong by citing another page, and now you're taking it out on me. You're honestly pathetic. 166.170.34.204 (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera:  Looks like a duck to me Other sockpuppet above. Peter Sam Fan 02:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I'm just ignoring it until an admin patroller is able to overlook it. Carbrera (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: Overlook it? Peter Sam Fan 02:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant look at it, whoops lol. Carbrera (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Another sock blocked per this. SQLQuery me! 03:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. I forgot to add this one to the last case, so I'm adding it now; they admitted to being a sock here and admitted to "stalking" my contributions log: [14] Carbrera (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Per {{Duck}}. Username follows the same pattern of using the year "95" in their username, and also making all-lowercase redirects of songs that are not necessary to make. Also, their decision to only edit new music-related articles.

Example 1

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The account is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After spending an inordinate amount of time comparing the behavioural evidence of this new account with previous socks, I've found it more likley than not that this is another Smoore95GAGA account. There is some checkuser data from logged-out edits that tip the balance for me. I've blocked and tagged accordingly.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Despite just settling the dispute with the above user, the IP address is demonstrating behavior very similar to the original sock. Here he/she becomes very defensive when the accusation of a sock is brought up and here he/she continues reversions of the same pages the sock has edited in the past (in addition to further defensive behavior). This user may also be a sock of User:MariaJaydHicky instead, but it truly could be of anyone at this point. I've had some bad associations with this person in the past and would like this to be resolved. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Carbrera (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

IPs are actually from Kutztown, Pennsylvania.[15]123.136.111.131 (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

IP 156.12.248.144 resolves to Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. So does 156.12.251.74 and 156.12.250.102 and 156.12.250.103. Looking at the archive circa March/April 2016, I see 156.12.7.142 implicated and 156.12.252.175, 156.12.7.3, all of which resolve to the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. Seems pretty ducky to me, but I'd like another opinion from an admin or a clerk. I think a range block might be in order to prevent further disruption. I would also add 73.81.126.156 (ISP: Comcast) to the list, as they self-identified with these other IPs here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't get the sense that they're MariaJaydHicky. That user exuded a chav flair, which could be an act, but it's a lot of work for nothing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioral (edit summaries) agtx 03:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Per  Looks like a duck to me, user name is exact replicate of previous sock-user, and is once again targeting a newly-released song release. livelikemusic talk! 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smoore95GAGA/Archive&oldid=1079534837"