Suspected sockpuppets

• RodewayInn (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Talk:Atlanta#RFC_of_.22Black_Mecca.22 and Talk:Atlanta#Sock_puppet_RodewayInn, this is all in connection with a dispute over use of the term "black mecca" (and what may be a larger racist agenda) - see Talk:Atlanta other entries for details Keizers (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I have no relation to this user, and he is certainly not a sock puppet. On what basis is this claim made? Because edits have similar times? This is ridiculous. I have been involved in edit wars before (check my history) and in those cases I never made a sock puppet. Why would I do it now?--Mmann1988 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a re-check. I had an issue with use of the term "black mecca" in the lead, but I never challenged the use of "mecca" in the overall article.--Mmann1988 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that there was an IP address check and that both users were working from the same IP address. Also:

• User is too slick: The user is new and his first action was to make an edit at 0:09 GMT on 3 January, and then at 00:20 make an entry on the Atlanta Discussion page. Pretty good for a new user. In my experience, first-time users often clumsily make an edit, often with syntax errors, using their IP address, and do not participate in the discussion, we are lucky if they include an edit description.
• Timing: 00:20 was 4 minutes before another "anti-mecca" editor was active on the Atlanta "black mecca" issue. Are we to believe that this person came out of nowhere exactly at the time this issue is disputed?
• Though the user was new, 1.5 hours later (1:51 GMT on 3 Jan) he knew to assign himself a username and to enter text (he entered a single symbol, a right parenthesis) on his empty user page in order that his sockpuppet username not show up in red on the Atlanta Discussion pages. Knowing to enter any character on his empty user page is a trick that only experienced Wikipedians know.
• The person who wrote the fake comments was not a Muslim:
  • "Racist" Anyone who knows much about Islam knows that it is a religion which is very determined to unite different races (Middle Eastern white, African black, Indonesian, etc.). Muslims do not think in terms of race, they think in terms of religion, Islam. Muslims do not decry anti-Muslim bias as "racism" since it has nothing to do with race but purely religion.
  • Mecca - Use of the term "mecca" in the generic sense is generally not offensive to Muslims, unlike disrespectful uses of the name of Mohammed or Allah.

- Keizers (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is  Likely these two are the same:

• RodewayInn (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mmann1988 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 15:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Mmann1988 blocked two weeks per WP:AN3#User:Mmann1988 reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Blocked). User:RodewayInn blocked indef for abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ganway (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

new "user" appears to have exact same opinions, on exact same subject as was contested this morning, see: Talk:Atlanta#.22Atlanta_is_international.22_-_meaningless_statement. Compare to an example of a previous previous edit of Mmann1988's which insists on using the term "international" (this is one of several times he has put that word back in, without any sourcing). User has already been banned for two weeks starting this morning because he was using one sock puppet. Keizers (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Clerk endorsed. I find it exceedingly likely on behavioral grounds, but I've added a CU to confirm this one. If it's the same, then we may have to look at a longer block for the master. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've gone ahead and blocked it, it seems tremendously obvious to me. WilliamH (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. I guess the 2 week block on the master is fine for now, but relist if it happens again and we'll handle it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• ATLcolts99 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User Mmann 1988 was suspended for two weeks for using a sockpuppet during an edit war. Subsequent to his suspension he also used another sockpuppet. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mmann1988/Archive. Now, literally the minute that I am improving a subject that he is very sensitive about (Culture of Atlanta: I am creating logical topic pages for the various more or less unrelated subjects on that page), a new user appears, User:ATLcolts99. This "new user" is suggesting that what I am doing is not "consistent" with how it is done other cities. It is very suspicious that an entirely new user would have such a strong opinion on how such topics are classified or that they would feel strongly enough to comment on my Talk page. Oh, and now he is editing an article that I just created, Museums in Atlanta, "fixing the bullets" since he thinks that that's not how articles should appear on Wikipedia. It's very strange indeed that a new user would be so concerned about a formatting issues such as prose vs. bullets Keizers (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's removed information about African Americans from the Atlanta metropolitan area article, which is his hallmark. He does not permit information about African Americans to be added, it irks him. Keizers (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting CU for this one. Calabe1992 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - Likely, but I'll endorse to confirm that Mmann is evading their block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, the technical evidence does not add much to this, but it is not impossible and the behaviour is extremely suggestive. WilliamH (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Alright, I've had enough. Blocked and tagged the sock per WP:DUCK; blocked and tagged the master as a, well, master. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]