Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/September 2008

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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:Canada Supreme

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Canada Supreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Alan Levy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

-- Jeandré, 2008-09-23t19:16z 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Single purpose libel/vandalism only accounts, see contributions. See [1] for a summary of original libeling.

Comments

Now editing with account name of one the people he's libeling - please blank and lock Alan Levy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and this subpage when done.

Conclusions

There is a strong correlation between the purpose of the edits conducted by the two named accounts. It's clear to me at least, that is Alan Levy is certainly a sockpuppet of some active user, and my bet is it is of Canada Supreme (talk · contribs)'s origin. Both edit the same pages, have relatively similar views and these are the only one's active with that view on that page, so presumably they are connected. Blocked indefinitely unless the sock wishes to overturn that through CU findings (which he'd have to do reasonably soon given the timeframe CU works best at). Caulde 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Bureaucrat note:: Following a request at WP:CHU, User:Alan Levy was renamed User:Renamed user 15 --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 25 September 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:Ace2690

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Ace2690 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Unknown2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Power250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Teriko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Liurane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nicrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.142.240.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Darkryuken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Shrinkyaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All three accounts have made virtually no edits outside of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tekken theories. All three used similar "stay" rationales in the afd itself. Power250's first edit was to the afd.

Comments

User:Teriko has also used a "stay" rationale that was rather tl;dr and may be related.

Conclusions

IP blocked for a month, all socks indef, and main account for a month. Pretty obvious. Maxim(talk) 22:01, 30 September 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:Webkinzman

Suspected sock puppeteer

Webkinzman (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by

Kww (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Webkinzman is currently blocked for repeated insertion of false information into Lindsay Lohan album articles. Now that he is blocked, 71.17.107.153 pops up to insert the same thing. Time to extend Webkinzman's block, methinks.

Comments
Conclusions

Quack, quack. Webkinzman's 72-hour block reset. If only all SSP reports were this easy. Blueboy96 12:27, 30 September 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:Noobhunter

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Noobhunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Noobhunta12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter123456789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter2164684 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter4568 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter514644646 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter546489 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter5678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunter93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunterdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunterisbackforgoodnoobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunterisbackwithballsoffury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunteriscoolandstuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunteristhecoolguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunteristhedude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunterpics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunterreturns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Noobhunterthetenth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

   SIS  01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The history of Noobhunter and his many, many puppets is more evidence than I can sum up. A number of those above haven't edited yet, but I strongly suggest to nip this in the bud.

Comments

This is certainly an obvious case of sock puppetry. It looks like Noobhunter789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is in it as well. ~ Troy (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Pretty obvious socking there. All of the accounts have been blocked, so, there's not much else to see here. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:31, 28 September 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:Duuechkie

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Duuechkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
DQ77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jaredd45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.33.238.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Largo Plazo (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User DQ77 created nonsense page Duuechkie, then user Duuechkie removed the speedy delete template and added an irrelevant See Also link. Likewise, DQ77 created The scooper and then Duuechkie removed a speedy deletion notice, and likewise for Johnstown JV Boys Soccer Club, on which the two had been "collaborating".

As of 16:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC), user Jaredd45 has been added to this activity.

Another instance: Sahara turkish gyro shop, NYC

Comments


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.

User:Leoncolaco

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Leoncolaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
121.55.240.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

--GoodDamon 02:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Montvel_Cohen&diff=241028109&oldid=240674491

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Montvel_Cohen&diff=240637508&oldid=240626516

Comments
Pretty sure that they're the same person. The IP made 5 edits and all are towards Evan Montvel Cohen while the registered account made 8 edits, and all but 1 of those edits go to the same article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Main account blocked by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry indef. I will leave the IP unblocked for now, but if there's more vandalism happening then I will go ahead and block. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:32, 28 September 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:MWNF

Suspected sockpuppeteer
MWNF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
UrsulaJust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Isafala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

TravellingCari 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Isafala, especially, is adding the same copyvio promotional material to Museum With No Frontiers. After a final warning for spam, UrsulaJust pops up, modified the material slightly but it's basically the same. She also added it to the user page of the original account (now deleted as G11). Unsure whether these are the same person or two or more museum staff creating a host of duplicate articles. MWNF is spamusername blocked, but there's no evidence s/he applied to change username instead creating another account.

Comments

Museum With No Frontiers (MWNF) is a network involving about 500 institutions from 21 countries. During a recent partner meeting the MWNF board was asked to enter information about MWNF into the Wikipedia database. The text was elaborated by the MWNF editorial team. It is the first time we are using Wikipedia and are therefore discovering for the first time how it works. Isafala and UrsulaJust are two persons sharing the same office and simply UrsulaJust didn't know the access data of Isafala and therefore created her own account. We think our mistake was that we wanted to test how it works by putting a not final text online as we thought it would be possible to edit it afterwards. The first text was then replaced by the final text. After that one of our partners discovered that the final text had disappaeard and, instaed, the old text has appeared again. Thus, yesterday, UrsulaJust edited the text again. Also the fact that the information was entered twice - once for the full name "Museum With No Frontiers" and once for the abbreviation "MWNF" - is a mistake due to the fact of not being familiarised yet with the Wikipedia rules.

The issue is, you need to read WP:OWN the museum and/or the board do not have control over the article's content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promotion by the museum, its editorial team, etc. You also need to read WP:COI and the business FAQ. Plus, the MWNF "page" is a that of a now blocked user -- not an encyclopedia page. You also need to read the notability guidelines, not every aspectof the museum's operations are encyclopedically notable. Remember, the goal of Wikipedia is not to be a brochure for the museum. TravellingCari 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the MWNF network is absolutely aware of this and we are also doing our best to read all available information and guidelines and to act accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrsulaJust (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

MWNF is already indef blocked. As the other user is trying to comply I'm taking no further action. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 28 September 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:Fila3466757

Suspected sock puppeteer

Fila3466757 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • Tharnton345 was indefblocked as a self-professed sock of Fila3466757 with a continuing pattern of disruptive behaviour. 89.242.19.188 has continued with the same behaviour,[2] and has claimed to be Tharnton345.[3] This disruptive user is evidently able to find new IP addresses to continue with sockpuppetry and disruption.
  • Special:Contributions/84.13.94.57 details the activity that mostly replicated previous edits by 78.148.240.181 (following the block on that account), this time on 9 September 2008. These edits are typical of the responses being received from Tharnton345 just before blocking. [4], [5] & [6]


Comments
Conclusions

Closing. Seems handled. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 28 September 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:Lando247

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Lando247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
HanSolo247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jabba247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chewbacca247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.155.244.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Clear tag-team vandalism to Rossett School by a group of new accounts with a clear thematic link, and a consistent IP address. IP address geolocates to the same general area as the school.

Comments

I'm inclined to block all of them per WP:VOA. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report declined as "stale", but vandalising again. Reported to AIV again Mayalld (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

This has been resolved as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lando247. KnightLago (talk) 22:31, 27 September 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:John-Joe Vollans

Suspected sock puppeteer

John-Joe Vollans (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

John-Joe Vollans made a article about the Bourne Publishing Group after she/he created this article it has been tagged for csd by me and after a removal by user:JavierMC. After that he removed the tags which where then reverted. Suddenly after John joe Vollans stopped editing John-joe85 turned up with similar names to John-joe Vollans (note:John-joe85 removed the csd tag)

Alexnia (T) @ 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree I was active on this article today and it appears that the the three main edits are one in the same. All edits appear equal and rarely are edit summaries made. I've left message at two of the editors talkpages, none have replied. I concur that there seems to be a sockpuppet problem with these editors. --«JavierMC»|Talk 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I User:John-joe85 made a WP:Article for creation submission which was declined . User John joe Vollan created the article which was then deleted that also suspects these two accounts as sock-puppets

Alexnia (T) @ 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the sock indef. Warned master. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 27 September 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:Farahmichael

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Farahmichael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
LevantinePrince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LebanesePrince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:LevantinePrince recreated the vanity page Michael Farah, which was created by User:Farahmichael, and later deleted by an admin.

Comments

LevantinePrince and LebanesePrince are pretty obviously the same editor. Farahmichael might or might not be the same editor - the articles could be on the same people or different people. However there is definitely no abusive sockpuppetry issue with that account; a two year gap between its last edits and the edits of the newer accounts indicates that they are not overlapping. GRBerry 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Farah could be the same person, but with the 2 year gap, it's not convincing, besides the account is long dormant. The two listed socks are now indef blocked. No action on Farah. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:35, 27 September 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:Wtcsurvivor

Suspected sock puppeteer

Wtcsurvivor (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

There are serious issues going on over on the William Rodriguez page -- involving BLP, COI, sockpuppeting (most likely by the subject of the article), personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, and outing/intimidating users. Someone editing as User:Wtcsurvivor was involved on the page from late 2007 until May 2008 when he was blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption/incivility The user has come back with sockpuppets, and the page has been problematic for months now. I am not a neutral, uninvolved admin, so can't do anything.

1) Wtcsurvivor has reappeared as Sharphdmi, who has used yet another sock User:Celeronel, and also frequently edits logged out. All of these accounts (Wtcsurvivor Celeronel 69.116.203.23) often include four tildas "~~~~" in edit summaries. Sharphdmi/Celeronel sockpuppets are confirmed as "likely" by checkuser. - Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wtcsurvivor This alone is enough for a block. When I filed the checkuser request, I thought that maybe Contrivance was also a sock but looked at his edits in much more detail and convinced he is not related, and that Sharphdmi is related with the "~~~~" edit summaries, the content of edits, and other characteristics.

2) Sharphdmi (aka 69.116.203.231) also has mentioned the real first names of other users (Jazz2006) in edit summaries or on the talk page, even though Jazz2006 has never mentioned her name on wiki. Wtcsurvivor/Sharphdmi knows this information from elsewhere, and with using her name, I believe he is trying to intimidate her. [8]

A few months ago when Wtcsurvivor editing, he also used people's real first names. In that case, it was a personal attack against both myself and Jazz2006. I have never mentioned my name on wiki, but have posted on occasion to a discussion forum outside Wikipedia, where I had mentioned my first name. I don't really care much at all about the personal attacks, but it's obvious that Wtcsurvivor and Sharphdmi are the same individual. [9]

3) Other similarities are that Wtcsurvivor and Sharphdmi both have a relatively poor command of English, same writing style, and other characteristics.

4) User:Ithaka84 came along on September 12, making two edits so far. I don't have proof that this is a sock, but wouldn't be at all surprised.

I also suspect that Wtcsurvivor/Sharphdmi is the subject of the article. I don't have 100% proof, but quite sure. I'm perfectly sympathetic per WP:BLP if he has a legitimate complaint. Also agree that the article needs to be reliably sourced, and fair to him. I don't take it lightly to need to block the subject of the article, but it's beyond that and he has edited abusively, with socks, edit warring, personal attacks, etc. With him mentioning people's real names, and now he is mentioning Jazz2006's initials, I can't let this go any longer. The last time he was blocked, he sent an abusive e-mail to one of the admins. [10]

Problems on this page have been going on for too long, so this case needs attention. --Aude (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have blocked Sharphdmi and 69.116.203.23 as socks of Wtcsurvivor based on the above evidence, and on my own knowledge of the original 3RR case where Wtcsurvivor was blocked. The other two accounts listed above haven't done much yet. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also please check 67.82.153.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I believe he has switched IPs or uses multiple IPs. The latest comments [11] from this IP were entirely uncivil with personal attacks. --Aude (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the check. --Aude (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I have unclosed this case as I ran a CheckUser inquiry.

Sharphdmi is  Confirmed to be 69.116.203.23 and is  Likely to be Celeronel. Ithaka84 is Red X Unrelated. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

67.82.153.235 is  Likely to be the same user. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there's more development to this after 10 days. Closed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:18, 26 September 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:Leoncolaco

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Leoncolaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
202.151.66.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.151.79.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

--GoodDamon 15:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These highly similar IP addresses are warring to add the same content to Evan Montvel Cohen.

Comments


Conclusions

Note: Please merge this into the other (open) case regarding the alleged use of IPs by Leoncolaco. It is unnecessary to have to two cases running concurrently on the same user. Caulde 16:52, 26 September 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:RhoLyokoWarrior

Suspected sock puppeteer

RhoLyokoWarrior (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • FalconPunch2 had a fairly dedicated focus to articles relating to Code Lyoko, see Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2. Some of the contributions were challenged. When challenged, FP2 would usually resort to personal attacks and violations of civility. These diffs from FP2 are indicative, not inclusive, of their behavior:
  • User:RhoLyokoWarrior recently appeared on August 31 2008, and has already been reported and blocked for civility: [16]. RhoLyokoWarrior has the same focus on Code Lyoko with the same behavior patterns of attacking when challenged. Again, not exhaustive, but indicative diffs:


Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
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.

User:Hear_the_voices_in_my_head;ISwearToGodItSoundsLikeThey'reSnoring

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Hear_the_voices_in_my_head;ISwearToGodItSoundsLikeThey'reSnoring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
I'm not sick, but I'm not well, and I'm so hot 'cause I'm inHell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Quaeler (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

identical vandalism

Comments

The user names are both lines from the song Flagpole Sitta by Harvey Danger. swaq 20:00, 22 September 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.

User:Benjamin Austin

Suspected sock puppeteer

Benjamin Austin (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • I wouldn't normally do this, but this person seems to have no problems posting personal info, so I should bring it up. User:Benjamin Austin created an MFD for User:Wixon's talk page here. The next day, User:Doduo Doduo adds some "personal info" to Wixon's page ([21]), and almost immediately User:Benjamin Austin adds another MFD ([22]). Later on, some phone numbers were added to User:Wixon's page, [23], and almost immediately, the MFD was updated to include this info that phone numbers were now included on the userpage. ([24]). Both users also have asked similar questions about personal info using the {{helpme}} template [25][26]. This looks like a "good hand-bad hand" thing, and the fact that this person is posting phone numbers (whether they belong to someone or not) in order to get another user's page deleted is very...troubling.
Comments
Conclusions

Convinced of it. Clearly two deceptive accounts whose edits have co-incided in such a way that there co-incidence is not to be used as a reason. Both blocked indefinitely. Caulde 15:09, 25 September 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:NPOVfan8

Suspected sockpuppeteer
NPOVfan8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 18:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Another NPOV clone by Altai Khan

Comments


Conclusions

Blocked indefinitely. Caulde 15:01, 25 September 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:Altai Khan

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Altai Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
NPOVfan8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Yet another "NPOVfan" puppet.

Comments


Conclusions

Blocked indefinitely. Caulde 15:03, 25 September 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:Altai Khan

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Altai Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
NPOVfan9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Not only is the name the same, he edited the NPOVfan8 talk page... He is also using what appears to be a bot to purge the NPOVfan9 page whenever the tag is reverted.

Comments


Conclusions

Blocked indefinitely. Caulde 15:03, 25 September 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:Qwerty1234

Suspected sock puppeteer

Qwerty1234 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments

Comment: I'm not a sockpuppet, in fact I'm a sysop in he.wiki (I don't want to reveal my name). I believe most of the user here are Israeli. I was invited to vote on Kamer's article on the he.wiki. So I believe many of the voters here come from he.wiki. I vote on many AfD's. I've a proof that I'm not a sockpuppet: I'm using Linux. Probably the rest of the users here are using Windows (Linux is not a common OS). So checkuser can show that we use a different OS. --Qwerty1234 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a guess, but i find it rather unusual that a sysop in he.wiki would be so enthusiastic about porn:
(Explanation: he.wiki is strongly anti-porn.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I write about porn in en.wiki because I'm not "allowed" to write about porn in he.wiki. Writing about porn doesn't make someone a sockpuppet. Qwerty1234 (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Amir E. Aharoni. The subjects of interest, the editting profile, even the English style are suggestive of the troll Haham hanuka. I am one of the sysops on HE:WP, and am very doubtful this is one of the sysops there. I believe any sysop would have been editting under his/her own username, without reverting to sock puppets. I suggest to ban Qwerty1234 and any associated puppets. Odedee (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a sock puppet?? I'm from the Hebrew Wikipedia. --YYOOYY (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sockpuppet, which presents itself as an editor in HE WP, has made fewer than 10 edits there, some of which were disruptive, and is now banned from HE WP. Odedee (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, YYOOYY it's not my user name at he.wiki. Odedee, read this article. It may save your life. --YYOOYY (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...And a personal attack, too. Enough of that, i'm blocking y'all. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I blocked all the accounts for apparent socking, revert wars and personal attacks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:31, 25 September 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:LACMAadmin

Suspected sockpuppeteer
LACMAadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
66.218.40.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sunkyokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Contemporary Projects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

TravellingCari 01:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Rampant COI and promotional editing to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's article. Admitted COI editing here from the IP. I was thinking Sunkyokim was possibly related but did not have confirmation of same until this edit when s/he declared his/her user talk to be the official museum page since the repeated copyvio deletions on the main article page.

Comments
Conclusions

Admitting socking, name violation (...admin), and COI. All indef'd and tagged (IP one month). — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 21 September 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:Oxyman42

Suspected sock puppeteer

Oxyman42 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by

Abd (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

79.67.147.3:

79.67.241.120 continues Talk thread, then runs up to 3RR on Routemaster, then Oxyman42 takes over, using similar edit summaries and arguments.

79.67.241.120:

  • 21:45, [32] 18 September 2008 Talk:Routemaster (→Get that bus out, Butler)‎[33]
  • 21:47, [34] 18 September 2008 Routemaster ‎ (→London Transport Routemaster heyday: deleted irelevent image see discusion)[35]
  • 21:55, [36] 18 September 2008 (Talk:Routemaster (→Get that bus out, Butler)[37]
  • 22:30, [38] 18 September 2008 Routemaster ‎ (Undid revision 239389838 by MickMacNee (talk) [[WP|OWN}}see discusion)
  • 22:36, [39] 18 September 2008 Routemaster ‎ (Undid revision 239393333 by MickMacNee (talk)OWN discusion relevent to all those who don't own article)

Oxyman42:

Oxyman42 specializes in London transport. The IP range 79.64.0.0 - 79.71.255.255 is Tiscali UK Ltd. Oxyman42 was previously questioned about possibly using IP 79.68.135.210, i.e., from the same range, to avoid 3RR violation.

MickMacNee asked Oxyman42 if he was the IP editor who had reverted previously, and Oxyman42 responded only with a question, "Have you done the same thing?" which appears to be an admission that he did, indeed, edit previously. Because of the prior warning above for use of IP to avoid 3RR violation, and because the admission was not clear, I'm filing this report but will also assert a 3RR warning for this user, given that the time-connection is so clear and, as well, Oxyman42 asked for "editor assistance" before he had done any recent editing on the article under that account, but only as the IP. --Abd (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Oxyman42 was previously blocked for 3RR violation on this article, same dispute was involved.--Abd (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Oxyman42 was blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violation,[51] apparently based on likelihood of the IP usage described. In his comments on the block, he acknowledged being the IP editor.[52] No further action required, in my opinion. Please close. --Abd (talk) 13:35, 19 September 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:Tmpafford

Suspected sock puppeteer

Tmpafford (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
—SlamDiego←T 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CorrectedTmpafford (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Error on my part. First time dealing with someone like you.Tmpafford (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—SlamDiego←T 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to his assertion that he forgot to sign-in prior to the anonymous edits, the pattern shows the opposite, which is to say that he made all of the vandalistic edits anonymously until one point at which he forgot to sign out before making one. —SlamDiego←T 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

After investigating this report, it appears highly likely that 65.66.204.17 is an IP sockpuppet of Tmpafford. The second and third IPs also appear to have been used by this editor, however as their last edits were 93 and 91 days ago respectively, no action is necessary for them. Otherwise I am implementing the following:

  •  IP blocked for three months
  • Semi-protected the article for ten days
  • User(s) blocked. for 48 hours (in addition to his current block for edit warring)

Hopefully this will resolve the issue. Otherwise the primary IP may need to be hard blocked and/or the article protected for an extended timeperiod. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:03, 18 September 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:Upward15

Suspected sock puppeteer

Upward15 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User's contribution history, naming scheme and registration time all fit the profile of Upward15 who is a King County Republican operative that has whitewashed the Wikipedia pages of Republican politicians and inserted POV and unsupported OR into Democratic candidates' articles.

New: added Truthseeker509 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has made substantially similar edits to those made by Upward15 and its socks. See that article's history for more information. I suspect that the autoblock on Upward15's IP has expired, and they've begun socking again. I would recommend a hardblock of that IP, if possible.

Update, per below: at the risk of letting the cat out, there is no overlap in edit times between all accounts. This again lends itself to support the case.

Ok there's something seriously fishy going on here. Several new accounts have been registered to edit Eric Cantor which match the naming scheme and slant of all these other socks. User:Mountain23 registered on 17:11 29 August 2008 and made a single procedural edit (MOS required) to that article and then disappeared. User:Ziva11 registered on 19:45 27 August 2008, made a single edit to (correctly) cite a source and then disappeared forever. User:Majorpush15 returned today at 19:37 29 August 2008 to make another procedural edit.

Following the edits made by Upward15 and the geographical diversity of candidates they either promoted or vandalized, and given the strange new trend in new registrations and edits on the page for Virginia's Eric Cantor, I believe this is an organized partisan effort being made to discredit Democratic politicians and promote their Republican counterparts on Wikipedia by one or few people within a central location. For more evidence of the range of candidates, check the contributions for Upward15.

Added another one who appeared on Geoff Simpson inserting the same POV smear as his predecessors.

Comments

Every politically-aware person is western Washington knows about the governor's race and Mr. Simpson’s situation was well-publicized. I only contributed the bit about the primary race as it was actually a contested election between three individuals. I am not affiliated in anyway with truthseeker509. Majorpush15 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Closing and archiving case. Anthøny ✉ 18:21, 18 September 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:KairiAl-Qaeda

Suspected sockpuppeteer
KairiAl-Qaeda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
RickK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ammar gerrard117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
kairiXd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
K13yry43XD221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amir beckham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ofcourse6767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
wd3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Prince of Canada t | c 09:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Quoted from my talk page:

Theres no need to lie. I am:

Edit 1, 2

Comments
Conclusions
Since RickK left 3 years ago and the puppetmaster is a new user, we can assume that RickK is not a sock then. And I don't think User:KairiXd is an actual user, but just a userpage faking to be a real user. If you go to the page and look at toolbox, you can't see the section that says "user contribution" or "block user" so it's not a real user. Regarding Ammar gerrard117, this account cannot be sock because he's blocked for 1 month starting on August 21. Today's the 18th of September, which is 3 days away before his block expires. Therefore he's impossible to be a sock and edit. K13yry43XD221 is blocked indef by User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Amir beckham is blocked indef in May by Zzuuzz already, so no chance for him to sockpuppet either. Same goes to Ofcourse6767, which is blocked in November 2007 by Kafziel. Wd3000 hasn't been editing since October 2007, so that can't be sockpuppet either. I think KairiAl-Qaeda is just trying to mislead you, but KairiAl-Qaeda picked wrong accounts to try get them banned. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:20, 18 September 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:AlexLevyOne

Suspected sockpuppeteer
AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
NORD74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Pretty clear sockpuppet. Performing exactly the same unthinking deletions of anything fact-tagged, linking years without good reason.

Comments

It doesn't seem so clear to me - do you have some diffs showing similar edits? Kevin (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is pretty compelling to those of us who've been following the AlexLevyOne saga and laboring to clean up the messes he leaves behind. This is at least the fourth user id associated with this user. In one of the ANI items about this user, he admitted to being the same person as User:Elsass3. User:AlexLevyOne is the second. After that account was blocked for two weeks for vandalism, he created the (rather obvious) sock puppet User:AlexandreLevy, which was itself also quickly blocked. Now we have User:NORD74, created on September 5 during the AlexLevyOne block (which ran from August 31 through September 13) and the day after AlexandreLevy was blocked as a sock.
The evidence is not only that which Mayallid alludes to (a representative pair of diffs here - NORD74 and AlexLevyOne) but also the very quick accumulation of commentary on the user's talk page about non-notable entries, vandalism (Osama bin Laden is a popular target, see AlexLevyOne and NORD74), followed by an equally quick blanking of the warnings by the user. The history of the two user's talk pages betrays the similarity clearly. Compare ALO and NORD74.
User:NORD74 also edits two or three very obscure pages (or types of pages) in common with AlexLevyOne - see History of Jews in Alsace or any number of pages about French cinema such as Jean-Pierre_Bacri, Jamel Debbouze (both NORD74) and Marguerite Durand, Alain Mamou-Mani (AlexLevyOne). (The foregoing pages aren't offered as examples of bad editing, but instead just to show the commonality of interests between these two users.)
The typical absence of edit summaries is another clue. And both users, when they *do* add an edit summary, tend toward unhelpful single words ("useless" being employed often).
I'll quit there. Honestly, it's too much work to go through this guy's edits (typically scores in a day) to find more egs of similar edits when the *only* thing he does is make the same kinds of edits, all the time. User:NORD74 is User:AlexLevyOne. He created the sock to evade the block of his account when another, too-obvious sock failed to accomplish his purpose. JohnInDC (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Confirmed and sockpuppet blocked indefinitely as well as user:VingtSix and user:Elsass3. fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:17, 16 September 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:DavidYork71

Suspected sockpuppeteer
DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Behz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.76.80.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 08:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits identical to many of the other DavidYork71 sockpuppets:

etc

Comments


Conclusions

Filled a RFCU, but Behz seems awfully familiar... -- lucasbfr talk 14:52, 15 September 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:Theresa Hubsburg

Suspected sock puppeteer

Theresa Hubsburg (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • Basically the same edits being constantly reinserted into Rakhat Aliyev by these two users. Given the consistent, singular focus on this material and article, it sure seems like the same person.
Comments


Conclusions

Obvious. Blocking User:Theresa Hubsburg for a week, User:Theresa Hubsburg indefinitely. -- lucasbfr talk 16:58, 17 September 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:Kumarrao

Suspected sock puppeteer

Kumarrao (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • Basing on edits of both users on Talk:Rajus like ther Phrases, presentation, qouting similar historical words n forcing ther POVs, I am apprehending they are of one and same user Kumarrao using two diff IDs with diff IPs. Can you please clarify me whether two users made ther edits from same place/region (n also same network) on september 1st, 14th, 15th.
I don't agree with this evidence. Some ISPs may not provide static IP and they provide DHCP instead. Dynamic IPs change every time whenever user reconnects the client. ISP provider do not voluntary provide two or three different IPs to same user even if he\she uses multiple computers via same subscriber line. Even my IP address can change whenever I reconnect. That's because we have DHCP system. It is possible to assign either single static IP or DHCP that has bulk number of IPs. It is not possible to assign just 2 or 3 IPs in contrast to static IP and DHCP.

Kumarsarma (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

I don't see any problematic editing here. Perhaps the submitter, User:Swaq, could explain how this matter came to his attention? MigratoryRefRequest has no edits outside of Rajus and Talk:Rajus and I don't notice Swaq being involved on that page. This editor seems quite civil. The claimed puppetteer, Kumarrao, also seems to behave well. I suggest that this report be closed unless some evidence of misbehavior can be found. Does the signature of Indianprithvi below this report mean that he endorses it? He seemed to be getting along fine with MigratoryRefRequest in the discussion at Talk:Rajus. Perhaps there is more evidence that has not yet been submitted. If not, I suggest that the report be closed with no action. I notice that neither the claimed puppetteer nor the sock have yet been notified, which is the custom. I am notifying them now. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: What follows is the signature of Indianprithvi. I will write to him to see if he is endorsing this report: EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont say they are vandalising. when asked them about sockpuppeting, MigratoryRefRequest told he is from a different Region, just wanted to confirm whether both IDs are being used from same Region, as it was important from discussion point of view. If can tell whether they are from same region that info will be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianprithvi (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation of WP:SOCK so far as anyone can determine. If there is no abuse, admins will not make a study just to satisfy curiosity about where an editor is from. Indianprithvi, there is still time for you to withdraw your allegations if you wish. That might help to ensure good relations with these editors in the future. Note that you appear to have made a mistake when you submitted the original sockpuppet report. You attached Swaq's name to the report, but he was never involved. I am going to change the records on this. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely unfortunate that this kind of allegation has been made against me. Wiki administrators may investigate the matter. If proven false, action should be taken against User:Indianprithvi for making false allegations.Kumarrao (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. I now observe that the report was actually submitted by Indianprithvi not Swaq, so I'm changing the name of the submitter above. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets does not (for now) deal with technical investigation. We therefore can't tell you whether or not they tell the truth about their location.

I note that User:MigratoryRefRequest's editing interest is only on Raju, so he is technically a WP:Single Purpose Account. While I suggest caution, it can be a legitimate user. I doubt these two are the same user. If the behavior becomes disruptive, you may wish to ask a checkuser to perform a technical investigation but I don't think it is warranted here. -- lucasbfr talk 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello there (wiki admin),

I do not know why Indian Prithvi filed this sock puppetry report. I think it is unfortunate. Infact he was the one that made allegations against me and then deleted them. Please track back and check the conversation b/w us. Its strange that he has filed this report. Apparently he assumes that Kumar Rao and I are the same individual. Please verify the IP addresses of Kumar Rao and mine for his satisfaction. And am sorry to say that I find him fussing over the wiki page Raju with a seemingly very casteist attitude. Thanks. MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest[reply]

I am sad that the administrators haven't taken till today any action against Indian Prithvi who made false complaints against me. I reported the matter in September 2008.Kumarrao (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2009 (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:VigilantEd

Suspected sock puppeteer

VigilantEd (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets


Report submission by
Evidence
  • Either they're a team or actually two accounts used by the same user. Both accounts created a nn bio for Ed Parkes and fiddled with the same school page.
Comments

Not sure if I am supposed to comment here, however I am inclined to believe they are two separate users. Given each user name, I assume that they are coleagues at the same school (linked above), and each has created a bio page for themselves (VigilantEd created one for Ed Parkes, and SilverMatty for Matt Maidment). Simply my comments. --RazorICE 10:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

I tend to agree with RazorICE. I also don't see any obvious policy violation (such as double voting on pages) in their contribs, I am unsure it will be useful to treat them as a single user. Thanks for the report though. -- lucasbfr talk 16:38, 17 September 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:Onceloose

Suspected sock puppeteer

Onceloose (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by

Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After some research, I think we have another sock after comparing these two edits here and here. "came equal last" is not a common phrase and the user is pushing the same views as the other confirmed sockpuppets did. Also, use of the word "valid" [54][55] and the identical claim that there is an "administrator approved" version of the page [56] [57]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of GaryGazza!. My impression is that the duck has returned to the old pond. Also, one has to ask why this matter should be brought up by even the most avid Eurovisionphile... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by EdJohnston

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman and perhaps even Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bruce99999. (GaryGazza is a person in common between those two cases). If anyone wants to file an WP:RFCU on Onceloose, they will need to pick a code letter and collect some evidence of abuse. I.e. diffs showing bad edits. So far the report just says that Onceloose edits a bit like some previous editors who are blocked, but it doesn't say what Onceloose has done wrong. Another approach is to show a cluster of editors who are all interested in one topic, showing the relationship of the current editor to others who were blocked before. It takes some patience to assemble that data. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

After reading through the evidence again, I blocked Onceloose as a sock of GaryGazza, who checkuser found to be the same person as Eurovisionman. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 15 September 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:Guroo

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Guroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Guroo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

   SIS  12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Guroo created the speedy deleted Guroo Ltd article, and got blocked for having a promotional username. Guroo1 recreated the Guroo Ltd article a little later.

Comments


Conclusions

Guroo1 blocked as abvious block evading account continuing spam.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:31, 16 September 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:65.216.70.60

Suspected sock puppeteer

65.216.70.60 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
  • Anon IP 65.216.70.60 has been blocked four times in the last month and is currently under a one month block (as of September 2) for repeated vandalism, 3RR violations, uncivil edit summaries and numerous WP:CIVIL breaches. There's already been a sockpuppet case where 72.72.118.129 received a two week block for edit warring in its own right and block evasion. That block has now expired, and in violation of the block still on 65.216.70.60 (which has three more weeks to run), 72.72.118.129 has started editing again; unfortunately, with edit warring, adding loaded POV (the comment in the first diff about a character being added to a TV show "in an apparent and pathetic attempt to "black" the show up" indicative) and hostile edit summaries.  RGTraynor  13:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence
  • Diffs at [58], [59], diff with hostile edit summary at [60].
Comments
Conclusions

Both IPs blocked, no further action required. Kevin (talk) 07:16, 16 September 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:JoemerCAM

Suspected sock puppeteer

JoemerCAM (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by


Evidence

User(s) have been putting biographical accounts on the article Eddie Villanueva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and then (improperly) nominating the article for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Villanueva (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Villanueva|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Eddie Villanueva), saying that the article has a malicious content and should be removed. All registered users are registered on the same date {September 12 '08), first account was on 05:30, 2nd account about 30 minutes later, and the third account after 5 minutes. User:JoemerCAM and User:122.53.119.86 also edited the acronym section of the Cam (disambiguation) page[61][62][63], linking a (deleted) page created by User:JoemerCAM about a ministry team in Jesus Is Lord Church.

Comments

I (abruptly) canceled Step 5 of the process after discovering that User:Redvers blocked all registered accounts (including another one that I didn't found) (I only applied Step 5 to User:122.53.119.86).

Conclusions

All blocked, nothing left to do here. Kevin (talk) 07:11, 16 September 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:Bofors7715

Suspected sock puppeteer

Bofors7715 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

Both accounts edit the same time of day, though separated by a few minutes apart (time to log off and on again). I think users need to be autoconfirmed before uploading images on English Wikipedia, which takes a few days. User:MichiganMilitia account was created two days ago on September 11, thus not old enough to upload images. --Aude (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Bofors on 911blogger.com: [73]

I am using this to make some progress on Wikipedia (which is over-run with corrupt administrators).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks#NPOV_challenged_b...

You can help out by politely posting some supporting comments, you do not even have register (but you should because we want to get Wikipedia to follow its on rules on 9/11).

So, we are now getting meatpuppets too. --Aude (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
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.

User:Dstern1

Suspected sock puppeteer

Dstern1 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
Conclusions

Accounts have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. --Aude (talk) 04:48, 16 September 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:Wtcsurvivor

Suspected sock puppeteer

Wtcsurvivor (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

There are serious issues going on over on the William Rodriguez page -- involving BLP, COI, sockpuppeting (most likely by the subject of the article), personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, and outing/intimidating users. Someone editing as User:Wtcsurvivor was involved on the page from late 2007 until May 2008 when he was blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption/incivility The user has come back with sockpuppets, and the page has been problematic for months now. I am not a neutral, uninvolved admin, so can't do anything.

1) Wtcsurvivor has reappeared as Sharphdmi, who has used yet another sock User:Celeronel, and also frequently edits logged out. All of these accounts (Wtcsurvivor Celeronel 69.116.203.23) often include four tildas "~~~~" in edit summaries. Sharphdmi/Celeronel sockpuppets are confirmed as "likely" by checkuser. - Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wtcsurvivor This alone is enough for a block. When I filed the checkuser request, I thought that maybe Contrivance was also a sock but looked at his edits in much more detail and convinced he is not related, and that Sharphdmi is related with the "~~~~" edit summaries, the content of edits, and other characteristics.

2) Sharphdmi (aka 69.116.203.231) also has mentioned the real first names of other users (Jazz2006) in edit summaries or on the talk page, even though Jazz2006 has never mentioned her name on wiki. Wtcsurvivor/Sharphdmi knows this information from elsewhere, and with using her name, I believe he is trying to intimidate her. [74]

A few months ago when Wtcsurvivor editing, he also used people's real first names. In that case, it was a personal attack against both myself and Jazz2006. I have never mentioned my name on wiki, but have posted on occasion to a discussion forum outside Wikipedia, where I had mentioned my first name. I don't really care much at all about the personal attacks, but it's obvious that Wtcsurvivor and Sharphdmi are the same individual. [75]

3) Other similarities are that Wtcsurvivor and Sharphdmi both have a relatively poor command of English, same writing style, and other characteristics.

4) User:Ithaka84 came along on September 12, making two edits so far. I don't have proof that this is a sock, but wouldn't be at all surprised.

I also suspect that Wtcsurvivor/Sharphdmi is the subject of the article. I don't have 100% proof, but quite sure. I'm perfectly sympathetic per WP:BLP if he has a legitimate complaint. Also agree that the article needs to be reliably sourced, and fair to him. I don't take it lightly to need to block the subject of the article, but it's beyond that and he has edited abusively, with socks, edit warring, personal attacks, etc. With him mentioning people's real names, and now he is mentioning Jazz2006's initials, I can't let this go any longer. The last time he was blocked, he sent an abusive e-mail to one of the admins. [76]

Problems on this page have been going on for too long, so this case needs attention. --Aude (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have blocked Sharphdmi and 69.116.203.23 as socks of Wtcsurvivor based on the above evidence, and on my own knowledge of the original 3RR case where Wtcsurvivor was blocked. The other two accounts listed above haven't done much yet. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also please check 67.82.153.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I believe he has switched IPs or uses multiple IPs. The latest comments [77] from this IP were entirely uncivil with personal attacks. --Aude (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the check. --Aude (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I have unclosed this case as I ran a CheckUser inquiry.

Sharphdmi is  Confirmed to be 69.116.203.23 and is  Likely to be Celeronel. Ithaka84 is Red X Unrelated. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

67.82.153.235 is  Likely to be the same user. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there's more development to this after 10 days. Closed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:18, 26 September 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:Wikinger

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Wikinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
FingerToe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Self-confessed ban evading vandal

Comments


Conclusions

Dealt with. GbT/c 15:28, 15 September 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:Noseonastick

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Noseonastick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Arkellisatotalfraud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Australianfraud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.231.207.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

-- Jeandré, 2008-08-30t15:15z 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See contributions.

Comments

Please block this user and IP and prevent account creation from IP. VRTS ticket # 2008072410005164.

Could also be some connection to User:NoseNuggets and User:NozeNuggets--Cmedinger (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I have hardblocked the IP. -- lucasbfr talk 15:13, 15 September 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:214.13.192.187

Suspected sock puppeteer

214.13.192.187 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by *Sottolacqua (talk) 17
08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidence
Comments
  • This user has made similarly structured edits to the userpage of a blocked editor.

Oh yeah? WELL I ACCUSE SOTTOLACQUA OF BEING A SOCKPUPPET OF KERMIT THE FROG ALSO A BANNED POSTER AND MAYBE HE IS TRYING TO TAKE THE HEAT OFF OF HIMSELF MAYBE? EHH? JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE CHALLENGED TO THE FIELD OF HONOR ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nor3aga (talk • contribs) 08:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Maybe, or maybe not. I suggest you treat Nor3aga's edits on their own merits (Nor3aga's account was created in 2006), I don't think further action is required at this point. Don't hesitate to poke me if the IP starts vandalizing again. -- lucasbfr talk 15:00, 15 September 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:DavidYork71

Suspected sockpuppeteer

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Makesmelaughso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NPOVreducer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Enigma message 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[78] [79] Both edit-warring over removal of information added by Toward500 (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of DavidYork71. Enigma message 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Checkuser

The following accounts are  Confirmed as being socks of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs):

  1. NPOVreducer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Makesmelaughso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. AccountabilityAssurer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. PeeEyeEmPee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Humoric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Selfcopulative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Wangthiswood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Smegfester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. ProfamilyBDSMconservative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. Raceaffirming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and  IP blocked again - Alison ❤ 00:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to mention the second to last one as well, but I it was indef blocked. Engaging in similar behavior. Enigma message 00:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All sockpuppets uncovered by checkuser have now been blocked indefinitely. Thanks again Alison! I suppose this could be closed now. If anyone wants to close it, feel free. If not, I'll wait a day or two to see if anything else comes up. Enigma message 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

All are blocked and tagged, so this may as well be archived. Kevin (talk) 07:07, 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.

User:Moroccansahraoui

Suspected sock puppeteer

Moroccansahraoui (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
MS:I definitely disagree on this. It's simply a manipulation to discredit my efforts to rectify the distored information in Wikipedia.
Report submission by
Evidence
MS:Stop these kind of attacks, you are making so much unbelievable investigation to support your wrong/distored information on Western Sahara issue.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • WHOIS indicates that the anon ip is from Morocco and Moroccansahraoui has said that he lives in Western Sahara. Since Internet access in the latter is provided by the former, it is possible that this WHOIS information can link these accounts and the anon ip. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MS:FYI, as the kingdom of Morocco is the administrative power of Western Sahara. The telecommunication infrastructure of Western Sahara is connected to the moroccan network. Internet accesses exist in the main cities of Western Sahara : Laayoune, Dakhla, Smara, Boujdour et Aousserd and all of them are connected to the moroccan network. Please look at http://www.sahara-developpement.com and go to Telecom infrastructure menu.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MS:Justin, the hard supporter of "SADR" is apparently an administrator or closed to administrators in Wikipedia. He is tracking my connection from my side which I guess isn't a fair and not authorized in the american law (you aren't the FBI to do so). There is no evidence in what Justin is affirming. Justin is trying to discredit my comments because he doesn't want to admit his mistake on considering Western Sahara statute. He has been imposing his personal point of view in Wikipedia since many years without any contradiction or opposition. He's profiting on the absence of contradictor to post in Wikipedia many many many wrong and distored information. It's simply too much. Finally, I don't know if the profile of Justin is 100% correct. Are you in touch or closed to Ms. Faten Aggad? I am sure you know here. Isn't it?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MS:Instead of giving strong arguments against my logicial comments, you are simply continuing allegating to discredit my comments.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Obviously, I am not going to respond to all of these charges, but I will say that I am not an admin and I have made no attempts to contact any admins other than this listing (and the checkuser entry that I had delisted.) Also, let me reiterate that I was not the first person to make this suggestion. Your claims about my biography being untrue are positively bewildering considering how much personal information I have on my page. And, no I do not know Faten Aggad. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS:Anyway, you seem to be well armed to face me than I am. The intellectual fight is not balanced. You know the rules and you can do whatever you want in Wikipedia. You made as a simple Wikipedia user a technical investigation to check the provenance of the comments while you have no right to do so. Here for example, I would like to relate to whom it concerns what you have done illegally to protest on your manner to deal with our discussion BUT I have no idea how to do. As you see my hands are bound and I am so frustrated to not being able to react. I am afraid to give you a chance to block my account and posts.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC) MS:Anyway, say hello to Faten. For those who don't know Faten. Faten is a hard supporter of Polisario. She gave a great help on the Western Sahara Wikiproject. I know here and she knows me.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? I swear that I have no idea what you're babbling about at this point. I cannot block your account as I am not an admin. I have no idea why you think that I have no right to check the provenance of the comments. I have no idea why you insist that I know Faten. If you need help, you can check Help:Contents. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS:You don't have to swear (swearing isn't commun to western people!!!). Anyway, I would like to ask Wikipedia admins to track Justin connection. I am not confident with the stubborness of Justin on keeping a wrong statute of WS in the list. Something could be behind the name of Justin. Could anyone give a help on that? How can I ask for socket puppet regarding Justin?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and fill out the form. This will be fun. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I took some time to review the case, following the recent developments that popped into my watchlist.

Here's what I think from the contributions of these users:

  • There is not much to work on but Jacquo and Samcommentator do seem suspicious to me (as socks of someone else, created the same day, for the purpose of this discussion only). Maybe Moroccansahraoui, maybe someone else, maybe they are friends pointed to the ongoing discussion. I'd disregard their "votes".
  • The IP user is probably Moroccansahraoui (very similar interests), and this is making me raise an eyebrow because if this is true then Moroccansahraoui broke WP:SOCK. I hope not to see that IP edit again.
  • I have no opinion on Terrygazoulit. The contribs do point to Morocco, but he might be related or just crossed the discussion by chance.

Note that I am not giving any opinion on the dispute at hand, and won't comment on that. I am not comfortable acting on the contributions alone because the material is IMO too small not to give the benefit of the doubt. I suggest you to reopen the RFCU case if you want a technical investigation. -- lucasbfr talk 14:40, 15 September 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:Cooksi

Suspected sock puppeteer

Cooksi (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets


Report submission by
Evidence

This IP is the previously indef banned Cooksi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) see the multiple edits adding info to Cooksi's user page here [80]

The IP has also returned to Cooksi's pattern of adding inappropriate cats to pages such as this one [81] and this one [82]

Comments
Conclusions

IP blocked. Nothing left to do here. Kevin (talk) 06:57, 15 September 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:Undeadelliot

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Undeadelliot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Programmedpanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

   SIS  00:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Making similar edits to the same (now speedy deleted) vandal pages.

Comments


Conclusions

Programmedpanda is an obvious sock, and has been blocked indef. The main account is also blocked indef, for vandalism, creating inappropriate pages and the sockpuppetry. Kevin (talk) 06:55, 15 September 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:Aeronbrau

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Aeronbrau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

see contributions...

Comments

Circumstantial evidence at first blush. Aeronbrau has also not caused enough of a problem to inspire me to go digging further. Burden is on accuser to provide better and more convincing evidence than "See contributions."--Tznkai (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A check user will confirm - but the newbie has Davkal's MO all over him. Shot info (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

This is a new account whose first edit is a lengthy tirade against ScienceApologist on Talk:Parapsychology. There is no way this is a new editor. His obsessions are a good match for Davkal, and I think it's more likely than not that this is a Davkal sock. On the other hand, it's somewhat academic; this is someone's bad-hand account being used to bait ScienceApologist, and I've blocked it indefinitely. MastCell Talk 04:34, 15 September 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:Wikipéire (5th)

Suspected sock puppeteer

Wikipéire (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • This is 78.16.112.32 talking to 78.19.72.243:


It's gibberish already. Why would Ireland be called ROI ? Maybe if WP explained why, it would help the reader. I was aware my wording needed improvement, but I'm on the right track on this one. 78.19.72.243 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article title is completely wrong, but the explanation of the term roi is correct in the article.78.16.112.32 (talk)

  • 78.19.xx.xx from around this time was shows to be Wikipeire (see his suspected socks).
Comments

A specific interest is piping Ireland to ROI in Manchester United articles. Wikipeire always had an interest in doing this at Manchester united specifically. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlistac is already blocked by Alison in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikipéire (4th). I would suggest a CU to investigate. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been done - you can close this one (UncleFisty is now tagged as a wikipeire sock). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:37, 14 September 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.

User:Iluvteletubbies

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Iluvteletubbies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Nowthatwasawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.220.177.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - possible original sockpuppeteer, see note
68.220.173.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.0.184.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Nowthatwasawesome is a brand new account created one minute after yet another of Iluveteletubbies bad edits was reverted. Accounts sole edit was to immediately revert the revert. Strong likely hood of sockpuppet by a user who has already been put on notice that they are likely to be blocked for their refusal to stop refactoring article talk pages, including editing multiple editors remarks. Also suspect IP is at least one of the ones used by one or both, as both editors have refactored that IP's talk page[84] and the IP has done the same sorts of edits as Iluvteletubbies.

From the IP address and the style of the edits, it is highly possible that all three of these are socks of the already multi-time indef blocked Disney vandal, whose list of known IPs include: User talk:68.220.180.163, User talk:68.220.184.91, User talk:65.0.160.81, User talk:72.28.33.218, User talk:68.220.162.165, User talk:70.146.241.244, User talk:65.0.163.131, User talk:70.146.242.139, User talk:68.220.174.133, User talk:68.220.175.46, User talk:65.0.187.144, User talk:68.220.174.184, and User talk:68.220.173.251 and who has already been indef blocked under the user name User:Bambifan101.

Comments


Conclusions

Nowthatwasawesome's first edit made it obvious that he and Iluvteletubbies are one and the same. An examination of the edit history confirms that this is also Bambifan101. All blocked indef. Blueboy96 21:42, 14 September 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:Wikipéire (7th)

Suspected sock puppeteer

Wikipéire (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • These are Wikipéire's latest sockpuppets. Used to continue an edit war over "Ireland" v. "Republic of Ireland".
193.203.157.252 editing Roy Keane
194.125.76.142 editing Roy Keane
213.202.155.219 editing Roy Keane
Footballfanirl editing Wes Hoolahan
Footballfanirl editing Andy Reid (footballer).
Footballfanirl editing Frank Stapleton
John O'Shea article is probably more obvious.
Footballfanirl diff
Here42secs diff
UncleFisty diff
78.16.230.91 diff
194.125.110.104 diff
Here42secs, UncleFisty are already known sockpuppets.
Comments
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.

User:Wikipéire

Suspected sock puppeteer

Wikipéire (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

Main IP: User:86.42.119.12

August 26th - September 11th, 01:03 (but no futher edits after being accused of being Wikipéire here).

  • The first edit was on August 26th - which was the day User:Pureditor was exposed as bing a sock of Wikipéire here. - State & Canada (both per Wikipéire) [86], many Irish nationality edits etc, British Isles etc. Possibly nothing outside of known interest.

Todays editing:

12th September edits: (a uninterupted line - all Wikipeire)

Most recent common interests: Pipe-linking Republic of Ireland to Ireland, as always. Interest in Mooretwin's talk page, and the British Isles talk page. Personalised comments to Matt Lewis. General legality of nationality.

Comments

User Wikipére, a lon-time puppet master, is finally now just using a group of IP addresses it seems. is last checkuser (a few days ago) is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ovlem.

Recent case:

Checkuser evidence.
All the above accounts/IPs are  Confirmed, except 86.42.119.12 which is  Unlikely and 78.152.255.89 which is  Possible. Revealing IP information here per checkuser policy due to egregious abuse. And yes, he's also logging in and out constantly, mostly to edit-war with Mooretwin (calling his edits 'vandalism') - Alison ❤ 20:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So User:86.42.119.12 is the wrong part of Dublin? This is useful to know when cross checking times. And how does he get from 78.16 to 213.202 - is that a nearby location?--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me - you can't divulge! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct! No technical stuff. Bad enough that I'm confirming IPs-to-editors (it's warranted here, IMO) but that's all you can have, sorry! - Alison ❤ 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Watchlistac has just MOVED two Ireland articles - what's going on, guys? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

User:Watchlistac IS STILL DISRUPTING! COME ON! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, chill out. I'm only checkuser here. I don't like blocking accounts I've been involved in checkusering, unless it's egregious (like Grawp). Best that someone else like a RFCU clerk do it. In this case, nobody blocked the sock account, so I went ahead and did it anyways - Alison ❤ 07:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the score is - it's lack of available hands. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Alison did it already, case closed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipéire (6th)

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 sock puppeteer

Wikipéire (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • These are Wikipéire's latest sockpuppets. Here4asec sprung into life a moment after his latest sockpuppet User:Watchlistac was banned, and was used to continue an edit war over "Ireland" v. "Republic of Ireland". All of this user's edits remove the words "the Republic of" from the article and are reversions of reverted edits by another sockpuppet User:78.16.60.78 who in turn did the same thing and yet another User:78.16.217.76. The similarity in the ip addresses is not a coincidence and all of these user accounts are single purpose accounts for engaging in a adit war. I'm not going to list all the diffs, please just look at the contributions pages. Just before these accounts he was using User:78.16.183.8, an account which has already be listed as one of his sockpuppets: #User:Wikipéire.
Comments
Conclusions
Obvious, blocked. -- lucasbfr talk 16:22, 14 September 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:Skyeromer

Suspected sock puppeteer

Skyeromer (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

These users have all been single purpose accounts, popping up for a while and then after their content is reverted another one of these SPAs appears. Their edits are solely adding to Mission Australia POV or copyvio content (persistently in the case of User:Missionaustralia), most of which is from the Mission Australia website, and adding extensive links to that website. See diffs from Missionaustralia([87], [88]), Skyeromer ([89]), Mika kassarian ([90]) and Charitiesdeservesupport ([91]). And Not-so-harmnless started vandalising my userpage ([92], [93]) at the very same time as Mika kassarian ([94]), right after I reverted Mika kassarian's wholesale POV copyvio.

Comments
Conclusions

Indef'd all and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 14 September 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:GulizSahdur‎

Suspected sockpuppeteer
GulizSahdur‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Gulizcik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Adoniscik(t, c) 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

GulizSahdur‎ is on the verge of getting blocked (if she isn't already) for vandalizing Eastern Mediterranean University, so it's not a hard to guess who this person is. I don't really want her banned outright as she has invaluable information, but she is breaking the rules. Take what action you consider appropriate.

Comments

I guess we should probably regard them as being the same person. Incidentally, the editing pattern is more that of a disruptive editor, than a vandal.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should correct my terminology. She also uses an IP address. All sockpuppets are self-confirmed. I'm trying to make sure the debate stays civil. At the rate the allegations are flying, my hunch is that 2K and Guliz are going to agree to remove the whole section and let it slide. --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no progress. Guliz is now removing portions that I believe we had previously agreed to keep, so I request punitive action in order to stop the edit war. I already reverted the removal once myself, but I'm leaving it up the second time so you can see for yourself. --Adoniscik(t, c) 14:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd point this out: [95] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, because of the edit war, I've protected the article. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the contribs, and they both look quite similar, because they are both editing the user pages at the same time. Frankly, it probably is a sockpuppet. If so, ban them outta sight. RoryReloaded (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt they are the same user; she admitted it herself. I think she does not know the rules and probably forgot the password to her old account. In any case, the issue has moved from sockpuppetry to tendentious editing. The debate in the article's talk has died down a little bit, so I'm hopeful we'll see some resolution soon. Let's see how it goes. (For the record, I think they both have COI.) --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Blocked GulizSahdur‎ since she's not actually using two accounts at once, with the autoblock turned off. At this rate, the other account will be indef'd soon too. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 14 September 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:Bentecbye

Suspected sock puppeteer

Bentecbye (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)}

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

Although CU said technically Mabemabe uses a different IP from Bentecbye's, it is quite possible that the user edits different places and shows very similar editing habits. Mabemabe is seemingly a newbie whose edits are identical to Pabapa as inserting copyrighted image.[102][103] As the result, at Commons, Mamamabe (Puhaha) is indef.blocked for sockpuppetry per a duck test.

At Second Sino-Japanese War, Bentecbye tried to insert {{seealso|Allied war crimes during World War II#China}}[104][105], and then Boobom assisted to do the same.his is Japanese casualties.chinese POV On the talk page, Bentecbye left this.[106][107] and Boobom did.[108] Also, one of Pabapa's sock previously left almost same comment.[109]

Bentecbye only appeared to edit what Pabopa edited, and does the same edit. I think it quite obvious that the users are evading the block sanction.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bentecbye uses his sock ip to avoid revealing himself and 3RR violations that he did on Gaya confederacy.[110] Bentecbye also did identical edits as HISTORICAL POLICE 1009 (talk · contribs) who also violated 3RR on the same article and disappeared.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
See also
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/4.23.83.100 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/4.23.83.100. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 8 September 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.

User:Kashmircloud

Suspected sock puppeteer

Kashmircloud (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by Soman (talk) 14
07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidence

At 12:12, 6 September Kashmircloud (talk · contribs) is warned for conducting canvassing for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir. An hour later, the account Cast788 (talk · contribs) appears, with a similar canvassing for the same AfD.

Comments
Conclusions
CU investigation reveals to be  Confirmed:
  • J-3b56
  • Jimb56
  • Cast788
  • Casth7878
  • Snowolfol4
  • Jóhann Heiðar
Kashmircloud is unrelated.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:14, 7 September 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:Ovlem

Suspected sock puppeteer

Ovlem (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikipéire_(3rd)#User:Wikipéire (to avoid duplication)

Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    • Comment I was just looking at the odd patterns in this user's (Ovlem) edits when BenWBell opened this sock note. Even if not a sock, (although the evidence would suggest it is) the patterns of Ovlem's edits suggest at least issues with WP:SPA (user singularly removing all refs to "Republic of Ireland" and little else), and WP:STALK (focusing purely on reverting the edits of a single user). Guliolopez (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can 100% deny the charges of sockpuppetry, those accounts have nothing to do with me. Those other accounts maybe well be socks of each other but again have nothing to do with me. A check user will back that up. Also that stalking accusation is a bit strange. You're looking for something thats not there.Ovlem (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a check user run on this. I wouldn't be blown over if these accounts were socks of a better known editor, although I'm not suggesting any particular one, as I don't know! The edit histories show a remarkable knowledge of policy, edit summaries etc etcTraditional unionist (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None will be forthcoming. The evidence appears damming, and if it is incorrect, suspicions are nonetheless utterly warranted.
What evidence? I am disappointed to hear that. It is a poor reflection of yourself, as an editor and more importantly as a person.
I have added User:Pureditor to it (in case he is missed when checking for Wikipeire) and another recent case, Bell V Bell (here).
For whatever reason (no-one has explained it to me yet!) I am being accused of being a sock puppet of this editor. I would encourage a checkuser so people can stop bothering me!ThatsGrand (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have linked you to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ovlem#Ovlem, where you have have been suspected, not the Ovlem SSP. Please follow the link.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that thanks.ThatsGrand (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

The RFCU case has now been concluded. Please check here for the results. Thanks - Alison ❤ 05:42, 9 September 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:Plyjacks

Suspected sock puppeteer

Plyjacks (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Fairly obvious sockpuppet of User:Plyjacks
same information on his main user page, same initials as original user (K.G.C.), only edits thus far have been to add himself to WP:World's Oldest People, which is exactly the area where User:Plyjacks focused on in the past.
Comments
Conclusions

Sock blocked and note left on talk page. Cheers, CP 19:59, 6 September 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:Nukeh (2nd)

Suspected sock puppeteer

Nukeh (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
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.

User:Supervox2113

Suspected sock puppeteer

Supervox2113 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

[New as of September 10 08]

Report submission by
Evidence

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&diff=236815497&oldid=236815259 [User "Evenin' Scrot'" begins argument]

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evenin%27_scrot!&diff=236840384&oldid=236822063 [User "Evenin' Scrot!'" is notified of username ban"]

c) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&diff=236833857&oldid=236821038 [Using anonymous/IP access, same user continues same argument]

d) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&diff=237224828&oldid=237222316 [Still using anonymous/IP access, but from a different IP, same user continues same argument]

e) More generally: review the article talk page history for an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&action=history

  • Evidence of identity of Snookerhorn and Evenin' Scrot! et al.:
  • Animus towards Admin: Lar over spoiling his fun:

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snookerhorn&limit=500&action=history [Conflcit of Snookerhorn userpage] b) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snookerhorn&diff=206190143&oldid=206185440 [Continued attacks on Lar using IP address] c) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snookerhorn&diff=prev&oldid=206114941 [Personal attacks on Lar by Snookerhorn, amdist wikilawyering] d) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&diff=236833950&oldid=236833857 [Personal attacks on Lar by Supervox/Anons amidst yet more wikilawyering]

  • Additional Evidence Connecting New Usernames"'

[ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Supervox2113&diff=237517118&oldid=237411559|admission] that Sirreal123, ompton2000, and ConeyIslandWhite-fish are socks of same puppetmaster.

Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
  • Some of the above socks have already been identified and banned; some are now. Same user continues to abusively use sock puppets. Appropriate sanctions are requested.
Conclusions
All the named users (Supervox2113, Evenin' scrot!, Snookerhorn, Dong-gook, Mornin' scrot!, Harry_Balzagna ) are

 Confirmed... the IPs change over time although they all correlated at one time or another. Supervox has been arbitrarily tagged as the puppet master for now.

Add as well the following not mentioned above.
++Lar: t/c 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have blocked all the names accounts. Tiptoety talk 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't wrong, necessarily, but Non Curat Lex and I think this user should get one last chance... see this on my talk. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supervox2113 has been unblocked. Tiptoety talk 00:49, 13 September 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:82.22.108.123

Suspected sockpuppeteer
82.22.108.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
82.22.205.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Quaeler (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tandem edit vandalism performed on Time dilation

Comments

This type of vandalism by dynamic IPs is probably better reported at WP:AIV, where the response will be faster. Kevin (talk) 04:49, 10 September 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.

User:Pondybaba

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Raulmisir‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Pondybaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Indianbhoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Suigeneris (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

seems like an account created by User:Raulmisir to edit only one article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pondybaba

Text moved from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Indianbhoot

The account has contributed only to the article Arundhati Roy and has made identical edits like Raulmisir. I strongly suspect that user Raulmisir has created one or more new accounts after he had been given last warning for adding unsourced info in a WP:BLP

Comments

I've merged this page with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Indianbhoot, as these two SSP's are regarding the same users. SQLQuery me! 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text moved from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Indianbhoot
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.

User:Oschaper

Suspected sock puppeteer

Oschaper (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions
  • Editing style and areas are way too similar for this to not be the same person. As you noted, they're all obviously from the same timezone and the IP edits indicate they are from the same area as well.
  • Blocks applied:
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:Bjrothschild7

Suspected sock puppeteer

Bjrothschild7 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets


Report submission by

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandalism on Star of David, as shown by the edit [115]. Compare to edit [116] by User:Gogandmagog2, previously banned as an SSP -- hence my listing this at SSP under the previous puppetmaster.

Even if not a sock puppet, see also the other edits by the suspect user; AIV may be warranted.

Comments

And after I wrote this up, NawlinWiki (20 minutes earlier) had already blocked the suspected account. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:07, 11 September 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.

User:Kékrōps

Suspected sock puppeteer

Kékrōps (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets


Report submission by
Evidence
  • Compare the two accounts and you'll you see how ΚεκρωΨ (Greek for Kékrōps) is even redirected to the other one.
Comments
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.

User:Lyle123

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Lyle123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
AirForceMovie2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Has the trademarks of a Lyle123 sock: Created Air Force (2009 film), an obvioux hoax about a fictional Pixar Movie, also has a CamelCased name relating to movies.

Comments


Conclusions

Indef'd and tagged — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 12 September 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:4.23.83.100

Suspected sock puppeteer

4.23.83.100 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • Although Objectiveye rarely edits wikipedia, when he appears, 4.23.83.100 is almost always around him/her (like this). Objectiveye usually supports 4.23.83.100's edit. To be accurate, Objectiveye reverts others' edits to 4.23.83.100's edit or the other way around.

Japan1
4.23.83.100[117]
Objectiveye [118]

Japan2 4.23.83.100[119]
Objectiveye[120]

Korean swordsmanship 4.23.83.100[121]
Objectiveye[122]

Kumdo 4.23.83.100[123]
Objectiveye[124]

At talk:Kumdo, Objectiveye explains about 4.23.83.100's edit, calling 4.23.83.100 "the writer"[125], as if s/he knew what "the writer" was thinking. It seems to me like Objectiveye is pretending to be a differnt person in order to show that there's someone supporting 4.23.83.100.

One of the biggest reasons I suspected Objectiveye to be a sockpuppet of 4.23.83.100 is these two edits [126] and [127]. Objective eye states "You can't just leave out the Editing Agency" and 4.23.83.100 states "The Editing Agency by Japan is a part of Asian history, you can't just leave that out" (see the Edit summary). They are too similar expressions.

Objective suddenly states something about Emperor Kammu, Zen, rice cultivation, 16th century pottery, Buddhism, Sumo, sword-making, introduction of Chinese writing system for some reason and says "it all has to mention Korea" and that "they all have arguements like this page"[128][129] although s/he has never edited any of them. But actually, 4.23.83.100 has edited them ( Emperor Kammu[130][131][132], Zen[133][134], 16th century pottery[135], Buddhism [136], Sumo[137][138], Chinese writing system[139][140][141][142][143]). If Objevtiveye were not the same person as 4.23.83.100, how should he have known there were such arguments?

What Objectiveye says and does shows that s/he is the same person as 4.23.83.100. S/he pretended to be a different person in order to show that there's someone supporting 4.23.83.100[144] as I stated above. This must be against the rules. Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed similarities in Objectiveye's and 4.23.83.100's writing habits. In the diffs provided by Michael Friedrich above, and a few from a quick perusal of the two users' contributions, the two consistently misspell:

One thing that really clinches it for me is that both of them talk about things they remember from their East Asian Studies courses (and they both spell it "east Asian studies courses"): Objectiveye 4.23.83.100

I think that these two users are either sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer or someone who very, very frequently forgets to log in. Either way, they look to me like the same person. SunDragon34 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • If these two are the same person, and I am fairly certain that they are, This user may just be frequently forgetting to log in. The only things that trouble me are the seemingly deceptive behavior mentioned my Michael Friedrich above and the username "Objectiveye". I don't see how this user can refer to him/herself as "the writer" without being up to something. We should ask the user about that. I think that s/he can solve the problem by editing only as Objectiveye. SunDragon34 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Has the user been contacted yet about this case? I can think of two different options we could give him/her. Either s/he uses the current account, Objectiveye, as his/her main account and stops acting like they are two different people, or s/he can start a clean account and we can block Objectiveye. Does that sound right? (This is my first sock puppet case and I'm not familiar with the usual procedure to deal with this kind of situation.) SunDragon34 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i think this report is personal attack. Condemned someone as a sock puppet although there's no evidence[147] i am not involved with Objectiveye. do not mistake. i think reporter want terminate this user, because he and Objectiveye engaged edit war. Manacpowers (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Resolved at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/4.23.83.100. Jehochman Talk 08:50, 9 September 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:Someonehasparanormalactiviy

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Someonehasparanormalactiviy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Buckbuckawwww09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amystandpaperfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These three users have all made edits related to the hoax page Troy Rodriguez (singer). The host created the hoax page, Amystandpaperfu edited it, and BuckBuck created equally hoax pages on the singer's songs.

Comments

Buckbuck also vandalized this sockpuppet listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All are socks of User:Troyrodriguez361, all now blocked indef. Kevin (talk) 05:13, 11 September 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:Fipplet

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Fipplet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Habibimustafa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85.230.109.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

RolandR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits to User:Fipplet, incliuding [157]. Edits to Palestinian National Authority, including [158], identical to earlier edit by User:Fipplet at [159]. These accounts appeared, and these edits were made, after Fipplet was blocked for "Edit warring at Palestinian National Authority." The IP address is in Sweden, as is Fipplet.

Comments

I have blocked Habibimustafa and 85.230.109.191 for 24 hours based on the evidence of their contributions, which closely resemble those of Fipplet. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you blocked Habibimustafa for only 24 hours? Surely a sockpuppet created for the purpoe of evading a block should be banned indefinitely; it serves no legitimate purpose. RolandR (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To RolandR: I'm hoping that Fipplet will respond to my latest message. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the dispute at Palestinian National Authority dies down, I'm thinking of closing out this report in a couple of days. Habibimustafa would be indef blocked, the IP blocked for 30 days, and no further sanctions against Fipplet. Let me know if anyone disagrees with this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you first confirm that Habibimustafa is indeed a sockpuppet of Fipplet, or do you intend to leave this unresolved? RolandR (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the indef block, I am planning to leave it unresolved. The only available data are the contributions. I'm not planning to ask for a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Habibimustafa indef, and the IP one month. No further sanctions for Fipplet; the dispute appears to have settled down. Closing this report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 10 September 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:Wikinger

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Wikinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Orlowski pokemaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Orlowski pokemastr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User (under two variant names) has suddenly popped up, and started attempting to refactor links in long obsolete talk page comments made by User:Wikinger, and attempting to recreate deleted pages as cross-wiki redirects. User:Wikinger, in his later incarnation as User:CBMIBM was indef blocked for massive cross-wiki disruption in June of this year. The pages that he's been breaking have now been semi-protected, so he's trying to get other people (me included) to make the edits for him. He's also asked me to get User talk:Wikinger deleted. Why would we want to delete a page that contains so much valuable information about his antics. Per WP:DUCK, I can only conclude that he's back, and he's disruptive.

Comments

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_large_numbers&diff=237140754&oldid=236894802 Wikinger never did such things, but I did them formerly when I was angry. Orlowski pokemaster (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identical reaction to User:CBMIBM when he was accused of being a Wikinger Sock Mayalld (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction is not so identical - he never used middle fingers when becoming angry. Orlowski pokemaster (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is an identical reaction, in terms of creating some artificial personality trait for the new sock that can be used later to "prove" that you aren't the same person. Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

My wikingometer just made a strange sound that sounded a bit like "quack", then it hit its limit and exploded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And somebody beat me to the block by a few seconds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that...just before my wikingometer exploded, I believe it managed to issue two indefinite blocks for block evasion. Had you installed upgrade v.2 on yours? GbT/c 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, mine was actually still one of those old, hand-driven mechanical ones. They are usually quite robust. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah - a traditionalist. I think you can pick up parts on Ebay. Meanwhile, back on the ranch... {{SSPa}}. GbT/c 14:13, 10 September 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:Karmaisking (5th)

Suspected sock puppeteer

Karmaisking (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by --Gregalton (talk) 13
41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidence
  • Admission that these are socks of Karmaisking by puppets directly on page (and that this is explicit strategy to avoid ban), these users also continue to edit his own previous talkpage comments. User:Karmaisking already banned for multiple instances of sockpuppeteering, personal attacks, etc. Please see edits here and here.
Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions

All named users already blocked indef. Kevin (talk) 09:45, 10 September 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:Korea4one

Suspected sock puppeteer

Korea4one (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
Conclusions

I am satisfied that these are all the same user. All accounts blocked indef, and tagged as Korea4one socks. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 10 September 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:Guitaro99

Suspected sock puppeteer

Guitaro99 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

IP created an article for creation[160] for singer Matt Lee (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 8/17 which was declined. On 8/29 user account Guitaro99 was created and the article for Matt Lee was created on 8/31. The two accounts only seem to edit this article and always edit around the same time. The sock issue is that they have both !voted in an AFD discussion on the article.

Comments

Check user case opened after multiple !votes resulted in keeping of the article. WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99 GtstrickyTalk or C 21:19, 9 September 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.

User:Fipps revenge2

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Runtshit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Fipps revenge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fipps revenge2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chewshit rancie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Prince of Canada t | c 06:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Evidence? Striking similarity in usernames. Vandalism 1 2 3 4 very similar to vandalism by Runtshit 1 2 3 4, in terms of copypasta across multiple articles.

Comments

Blocked all accounts so far. Look at contribs; they're all the same. Pretty easy to spot. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Random Runtshit socks, please report to WP:AIV in the future where they get blocked pretty fast. --Oxymoron83 09:37, 9 September 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:Snowy9111

Suspected sock puppeteer

Snowy9111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by February 15, 2009 (talk) 07
01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidence
  • I know this boy in real life - during classes, he often talks about how much he (claims to) hate(s) Mario. Snowy9111 vandalised Mario previously, [161] [162] and I suspect Mario520+6206 may be him because 6206 vandalised Mario with a comment that I have heard <redacted> (that's his real name) say. [163]
Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions

Snowy is already blocked as vandal only. No proof these are socks either. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 8 September 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:Brianyau323

Suspected sock puppeteer

Brianyau323 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

Well, aside from his editing pattern, which includes his objection to the redirect on Cheetah Love, which was my initial encounter with Brianyau323 and his sock Cheetahbrian, his userpage tells us that his name is "Brian Yau". Brianyau was blocked on September 4. FrJonas was created on September 5. Anyone care to doubt that he is the same editor as Brianyau323?

Added 200.149.50.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for restoring FrJonas's edits.Kww (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions
  • Sockpuppets tagged, and FrJonas blocked indefinitely. I did not block the IP, as I'm not sure whether or not it is a static address. I also did not up Brianyau323's original one month block, placed on 4 September 2008, but will contact the blocking admin for input. Obvious sockpuppetry here. - auburnpilot talk 17:55, 6 September 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:DreamGuy

Suspected sock puppeteer

DreamGuy (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • As per this edit, which is written in the style of DreamGuy - and the only other person than an anon and DreamGuy who might be interested in posting such a comment.
Comments
  • DreamGuy is under specific ArbCom [164] to be more civil and not edit from anonymous IP addresses which, if the 206.IP is indeed that of DreamGuy. would constitute a violation of his parole.
  • If the comment was from DG, then IMHO it is a double arbcom violation, being a direct violation of the "No IP" ruling, and a rather blatent violation of hiw civility parole from the original arbcom ruling. OTOH, I can definitely think of at least one other possible scenario. Given all the animosity that DG has stirred up against himself over time, I would not consider it implausible that someone among his enemies could try to frame him by making an IP post attack against Arcayne, knowing that Arcayne would assume it's from DG and a violation, thus stirring up trouble against DG. I don't know if this scenario is true, but it seems plausible to me. If this CU is accepted, then hopefully it can shed some light on which, if either, theory is correct. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, this is SSP, not CU. Still, I see my alternate scenario as plausible. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne actually filed a CU on this before he even filed this SSP report. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've confirmed with another Checkuser that the account is not related, lending more credence to TexasAndroid's theory. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm glad that's been sorted out. I missed the checkuser request because the case was named for the IP account. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean we shouldn't find out who the anon belongs to, though. If someone is framing DG, I'd like to know who it is, so we can open a truck-sized can of whupass on them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Checkuser has disproven any link between Dreamguy and these accounts, and likely would have taken appropriate action against the perpetrator, if there was one. No further action required here. Kevin (talk) 09:48, 5 September 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.
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:Musicmogul09

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Musicmogul09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Musicmogul08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

freshacconcispeaktome 02:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

An apparent sock to evade a block for edit warring on Ontario College of Art & Design and Ryerson University

Comments


Conclusions

Both accounts already blocked. (Obviously sockpuppets, however) SQLQuery me! 08:11, 4 September 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:NepaliBoy7

Suspected sock puppeteer

NepaliBoy7 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions

All three accounts have already been blocked, by the reporter. SQLQuery me! 08:09, 4 September 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:Disneysuit

Suspected sock puppeteer

Disneysuit (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • Disneysuit likely is the former plaintiff in a highly publicized lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company alleging copyright infringement over the Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl motion picture. Nearly all first-day edits by Disneysuit on July 25, 2008 involved adding references to the lawsuit throughout Wikipedia, including a link to the plaintiff's website. Additionally, Disneysuit twice created a presumably autobiographical article about filmmaker Royce Mathew, the lawsuit's plaintiff, both of which were deleted. When immediate concerns were raised about WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO, Disneysuit began posting lengthy argumentative messages that included sentences such as I am seeking to file formal complaints and I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE A SUPERVISOR. Eventually the user was indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. An archived WP:ANI report is here. Note that Disneysuit apparently followed his or her block with a legal threat sent to an administrator through Wikipedia's e-mail system.
  • Edits by IP address 72.189.4.182 and 68.202.250.31 appear to be coming from the same person. They show the same tendentious qualities, the same hostility to Wikipedia policies and the same determination to promote the lawsuit against Disney and the plaintiff's website. Curiously, the website reveals that the plaintiff dismissed his own lawsuit. It appears that the former plaintiff is now seeking to press his case outside a courtroom. Additionally, 72.189.4.182 is now engaged in wikistalking editors who have challenged his or her edits, accusing them &#151; and Wikipedia itself &#151; of bias, conspiracy and corruption. WP:AN/I reports are here and here. Also, someone tried to add similar information to Wikinews[165] [166]; the articles since have been deleted.
Comments
Conclusions

All reported users have been blocked. SQLQuery me! 08:06, 4 September 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:Bell V Bell

Suspected sock puppeteer

Bell V Bell (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by Guliolopez (talk) 17
23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidence
  • User added an uncited/OR version of article subject's name[175], and then created "impersonation" sockpuppets to revert every editor who removed it on the grounds that it was OR, with a sock account that had one letter changed of the reverting editor's name.[176][177][178] Possibly to avoid 3RR, to confuse WP:CON or similar disruptive reasoning.
Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions

All related accounts blocked. SQLQuery me! 08:04, 4 September 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:KoziKaz

Suspected sockpuppeteer
KoziKaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Kazi22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Miquonranger03 (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Has exact same contents on user page, similar usernames

Comments


Conclusions

The accounts are quite likely connected, however Kazi22 has not edited since early July, and has not been used to evade the block on KoziKaz. Please re-report if there is further abuse. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 4 September 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:Yuppio

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Yuppio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Ebfilms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

triwbe (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence


Comments


Conclusions

Obvious block evading sock - already blocked indef. Kevin (talk) 02:42, 4 September 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:212.121.193.253

Suspected sock puppeteer

212.121.193.253 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets


Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
Conclusions

It's either the same guy getting a new IP, or more likely 2 vandals at the same school using the same network. In any case, both have been blocked for vandalism. Kevin (talk) 02:40, 4 September 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:Mooretwin

Suspected sock puppeteer

Mooretwin (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
This diff shows that the ip and User:Mooretwin are the same editor and here Mooretwin corrects his earlier comment made with his sock ip address.
This diff is his sock account reverting an edit he made with his puppet account, I'm guessing to avoid 3RR.
This editor has a history of being banned by breaking the 3rr rule so using a sock account is obviously to 'his benefit'.

He has previously denied using a sock here:

But I think the evidence is quite clear, especially the first diff.
Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions

While it is possible that the IP is Mooretwin editing while logged out, the IP has not edited for 2 weeks, and I couldn't find any indication that Mooretwin has evaded the most recent block. I don't think there is any further action to be taken here. Kevin (talk) 02:31, 4 September 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:Salutti

Suspected sock puppeteer

Salutti (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • Salutti has been inserting a POV paragraph at Human shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I gave Salutti an NPOV warning at 21:02 [179]. Salutti made no edits for an hour after 20:58 [180].
  • NormaLisa was registered at 21:04 [181]. NormaLisa reverted to Salutti's version of the article three times. I gave NormaLisa a 3RR warning at 21:45 [182]. NormaLisa made no edits after 21:51 [183].
  • Salutti started editing again at 22:02 [184]. Salutti reverted to NormaLisa's version of Human shield (which was originally Salutti's version).
Comments
  • I think it is more than coincidental that NormaLisa registered at precisely the moment that Salutti stopped editing, and that their edit patterns mesh so neatly. I think they are evading 3RR.
Conclusions

These 2 accounts are clearly the same person, pushing their POV. NormaLisa is blocked indef, Salutti issued final warning. Kevin (talk) 01:16, 4 September 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:Brianyau323

Suspected sock puppeteer

Brianyau323 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

The edit histories and name similarities are pretty compelling by themselves, but one account correcting his signature to show the other account is the smoking gun that these two accounts are one person.

As for the sockpuppet violation, note that both accounts voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fly_On_The_Wall.Kww (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions

Obviously the same person. It makes things so much easier when they forget which account is which. Cheetahbrian is blocked indef, and Brianyau323 is blocked for 1 month.

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:Dodgechris (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by

Frickative 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • User:Notdoppler first began contributing the day after Dodgechris made his final edit, having been indef banned for a second time].
  • Notdoppler's contribution history show's that he edits almost solely Coronation Street related articles on a highly frequent basis, as did Dodgechris. Prior to Dodgechris joining Wikipedia, and in the brief lull before the Notdoppler account began editing heavily, these articles received much less traffic, and were edited noticeably far more infrequently.
  • Notdoppler has stated his intent to nominate the Molly Compton article for deletion [185], something which Dodgechris did twice in two months, despite its content being on very much the same level as almost all other Coronation Street character articles.
  • Notdoppler's contribution history shows that he spends a great deal of time merging, unmerging, redirecting and unredirecting various Coronation Street articles, something which Dodgechris spent a great deal of editing time doing also, to the extent that even he clearly can't keep track of his own edits [186].
  • Despite editing almost nothing but Coronation Street articles, Notdoppler is almost the sole contributor to the article List of Horrid Henry characters [187], and has also edited the main Horrid Henry article [188]. Prior to being indef banned, Dodgechris would also often edit Horrid Henry related articles [189] (User:PAWSFORSPORT, User:Killerboyratz and User:Chesseman,ganster rabbit here are all confirmed and blocked sock accounts of Dodgechris), and listed Horrid Henry as an interest on the userpage of various sock accounts.
  • Notdoppler's first direct contact with me was to leave praise on my talkpage [190], a tactic Dodgechris previously emplyoed with his sock account User:Kingsausages [191], presumably hoping I'd be so flattered I wouldn't notice it was clearly still Dodgechris...
  • And while it's less conclusive, just reading talk pages both the Dodgechris and Notdoppler accounts have contributed to [192] [193] demonstrates a similarly poor grasp of spelling, punctuation, and the same inability to correctly format a comment thread. Frickative 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Conclusions

This edit where Notdoppler admits the sockpuppetry seals the case. Already indef blocked. Kevin (talk) 00:34, 4 September 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:Dumdumcity

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Dumdumcity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
dumdum vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
dumdumcity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

LiteralKa (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

see WP:UAA

  • Matches the regular expression ^dumdum. The portion that matched was Dumdum.
Comments

I see no such user as dumdum vandal (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there even been any abuse here? KnightLago (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Closing this one up. Reporter admits he was confused by a WP:UAA bot report. Someone may want to ask the bot what is up. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 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:Zim2007

Suspected sock puppeteer

Zim2007 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • Hacker2000 has a very similar editing history to Zim2007 and other alleged sockpuppets. Please refer to here for more information on the previous case.
Comments


Conclusions

Quite possible, but supply good diffs next time. Zim is already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 3 September 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:Dogtrainernyc

Suspected sock puppeteer

Dogtrainernyc (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets


Report submission by

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Each of the 59.93.xxx.xxx IPs added references to articles about breeds of dogs, linking the website trainpetdog.com. In each case, the reference was first in the article and the website name was bolded, giving the impression of a "link placement" campaign. Soon afterward, User:Dogtrainernyc replaced the external links section in each article with a single DMOZ search, thus giving even more prominence to the added link. User:Dogtrainernyc inserted a reference to trainpetdog.com here. See also this ANI thread.

Comments

I make no claims about the accuracy of the information, but please see http://nancyrichards.org/ with regard to this case and the involved site. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a related thread at WP:ANI. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is also a related thread at Talk:External links. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Final warned user. Note the IPs are probably dynamic. Much of this has gone stale. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 3 September 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:Thetruthtruth

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Thetruthtruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Enlitened one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Briskfix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.216.176.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
1worldspace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Themfromspace (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The following users are single-purpose accounts created for the purpose of editing the 1worldspace article. The user 1worldspace first deleted criticism and negative financial statistics from the corporation's article. After I restored the statistics and rewrote the article to clear up major POV and promotional problems, Thetruthtruth reverted my edits saying they were biased against the company, although I gave detailed explanation of the reasons of the revision on the article's talk page. 65.216.176.5, who's IP belongs to the corporation, jumped in and reverted the article and then disappeared when his talk page was tagged saying the IP originated from 1worldspace. A user Briskfix now enters and says he agrees with Thetruthtruth and reverts the article again. After I cleaned his edits up, Enlitened one comes in saying he agrees with me while practically reverting the article to its prior stance.

All of these accounts are single-purpose and outside of 1worldspace they all focus on restoring the article to a highly problematic state; filled with POV, fictitious claims, and promotional language. You can find my recent revision here which attempted to clean up the problems with the article that still exists in its current form.

Comments
User:1worldspace is an easy username violation. I'll go over to WP:UAA. The rest are also pretty obvious. Maybe we should get a checkuser to confirm it. Paragon12321 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked User:1worldspace for the username violation, which as you say is obvious, but looking at the edits, it would appear that User:1worldspace removed criticism of the company in early August here and here, while User:Thetruthtruth restored similar criticism here. Of course, that does not prove that they are not the same user but I'm not sure what to make of it. --MCB (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought those edits were strange as well. I figured that once the person realised how blatantly obvious those reversions were, especially with all of the criticism being cited, he decided it was best to hide that material under lots of detailed information arranged in a positive (and biased) manner. Themfromspace (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to understand this claim. I am being marked for sock puppetry because I agreed with what somebody wrote? There is no doubt in my mind that 1worldspace is a member of worldspace, it only makes sense seeing that somebody from the company's IP address responded, but allow me to bring up the track record of Themfromspace, who has been THE ONLY USER offended by any changes made to the site. I assume that Griffendd is a puppet as well? Simply because the user agrees with what thetruthtruht and enlightened one have said. I am a new user to wikipedia, fine, 1worldspace was my first article...does that make me a sock puppet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briskfix (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think ThemfromSpace is mad that people don't agree with him. Poor darling. Sweetheart, I suppose that rather than accept facts that I have posted, you have chosen to revert all of my edits. More than that, he has accused me of being a sock puppet. Imagine my surprise to see this message when I signed on wikipedia. I would like to add that Themfromspace's contribution record should be taken into strong consideration. Just as stated above, he has had nothing positive to say about the company and continues to litter the page with defamatory material. I would like to advise that user to keep his baggage at the door before he makes contributions to this site. As for this sock puppet claim, I would like to understand why I am being brought into this, considering that I only searched the company's 10-K to add citations where they were needed. Aside from that, I made sure that the unnecessarily complicated worldspace system was explained. If anybody has the impression that it is a simple or easy system, as was previously noted, they are sadly mistaken. Even potential investors will be scratching their heads. I do not know how this situation gets resolved, but I would really appreciate if the administrators would fix this quickly. As much as I am flattered by the blue writing for my username, this sock puppet business is an insult. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlitened one (talk • contribs) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
All confirmed at RFCU, blocked IP 6 months and names indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 3 September 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:Wikipéire

Suspected sock puppeteer

Wikipéire (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ovlem#User:Ovlem (4 new acounts and a 78.16 IP) all created in the last few days, all on the same topics. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report submission by
Evidence

User:Pureditor has just had a (I think incontested) 48-hour block for using an IP and suggesting it was another IP who did it (here). The blocking admin User:Thatcher noted that Pureditor had also used the undisclosed account User:Mulacho as a sock puppet (here). When I saw the 78.16.xx.xx 'link' (he was checkusered on this before the 48-hour block here) I realised that Pureditor is surely User:Wikipéire. I helped bring Wikipeire to light over his User:Petitspois sock in May (his second case after User:Melvo), and remembered that he has a string of 78.16.xx.xx edits (most listed here). I had been suspicious about Pureditor before, over a national anthem issue, but I failed to act at the time.

All the editing patterns between Wikipéire and Pureditor are identical, and the post-ban account creation fits too. The idiosyncratic interests are, almost inclusively: National anthems, Wales, Scotland, national flags, British Isles (all are especially regarding national sovereignty - eps the word "country"), "Ireland"-piped-to-Republic of Ireland (he prefers the pipe-linked "Ireland" and will change existing text to this), Canada, and crucially, the band called 'Editors' (as edited by User:Mulacho).

Pureditor's recent slip with Mulacho and the 78.16 link completely seals it for me, as the interest in Editors is also there. Special:Contributions/99.232.55.119's edit on Wales here is a giveaway link for this particular IP (showing an inside knowledge of a poll at Wales), and is an interesting IP range to add too.

These are the non-previously-recorded 78.16's I've found:

Special:Contributions/78.16.77.86 This was used to vote twice in a poll here.

Special:Contributions/78.16.60.135 (from May at Editors, just after his indefinite block),

Special:Contributions/78.16.77.212 (a recent August one at Editors),

Special:Contributions/78.16.122.227 (an old one come to light from March, but from Northern Ireland),

Special:Contributions/78.16.103.84 (goes back to 2007 on Ulster, but with 9 months between edits)

This last one is close in proximity to edits by User:Derry Boi, who has edited recently on Editors in his own name, and very few people do when you remove Melvo/78.16.xx.xx/Wikipeire/Petitpois/and now "Mulacho" from the picture. Derry Boi edits on similar Irish issues to Pureditor (like Derry). I actually don't think there is anything in it now as I can see that Derry Boi has been editing mostly on Gaelic football for years, but I'm still pointing it out as it seems reasonably valid enough to do so (so apologies to Derry Boi), and it could save somebody else some time. Someone from Derry/Irish articles called User:Violetriga actually edit-warred with Wikipeire's sock User:Melvo on Editors – so maybe the band are linked to Northern Ireland in some way, although I can’t see a link - they are all English people in an English band, it seems to me.

Another editor had earlier suspicions (here). When Pureditor was asked if he was Wikipeire, he replied:

"I'm not what some old banned editor has to do with anything of what's going on here, but I can deny your acquisition. I've been editing on Wikipedia before this account without registering, mostly on Canada/Toronto related topics. Apologies on you being sick of this debate, but I didn't know that this name issue had been discussed before, even though I have Irish heritage I've never edited any of these pages before, it was actually only after holidaying in Ireland and Scotland that I began to get an interest in editing these pages about this part of the world."

Extra information:

User:Wikipéire wasted weeks of people's time when he joined forces with the multi-sock-user User:Iamandrewrice's puppet 'User:Gozitancrabz' on Wales (not sure if they are related, though). He is willing to use the 78.16 IP to push someone towards 3RR, and to troll people on their Talk page too.

If you look at his earliest edits from his rarely-used User:Melvo sock from (active from Dec 2006) here - it seems reasonable to assume that throughout 2007 there could have been socks we didn't know about, and possibly still don't. There was no editing gap between him editing as Melvo and starting Wikipeire in Feb this year, just a few days - so it was certainly made for a purpose. If he was 78.16.103.84 on this 2007 Ulster page - he could be somebody else on it too. A 78.16 appears recently on Derry here, but 'Pureditor' appears only on the talk page. I'm sure the majority of (if not all of) the 78.16's involved in these areas are him.--Matt Lewis (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Looking at User:gold heart and his socks, I think he could be a red herring. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GH has become an infamous character on Wikipedia. Well known for his many socks, which he uses to intentionally get editors fighting on British/Irish related articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure - looking at gold heart's history and his proven socks, I can't see enough direct links (only the interest in Ireland). His suspected IP's are very different too. Maybe somebody else can see a link to gold heart here - but I can't right now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're correct. Let's stick with Wikipiere. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Both accounts indef blocked for socking. The IPs are dynamic, by the look of it, and haven't edited for a while (a long while, in some cases). No blocks - I'm afraid that people editing around the targetted areas are just going to have to take edits from 78.16's with a heft dose of salt...GbT/c 12:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would finding more help? Looking through Google (which I've done since) there are scores of them with clear links. I wouldn't normally want to block a range - but this seems to be almost owned by him. Is there anything you have to prove to block a range?--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 2 September 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:Iloveyousarah

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Iloveyousarah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Pornstarforlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Blackandblue2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Beeblbrox (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Three users whose only contributions are to the same 2 articles. A pattern of removing AfD and speedy notices by the socks. This will require an admin who can look at deleted contribs, everything the 2 socks have done has been deleted. My bad, I guess I wasn't supposed to have the "User" prefix already on there.

Comments
Conclusions
Indef all. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/September_2008&oldid=244473906"