Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/August 2007

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:Jason Gastrich

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Nascentatheist 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
Originally posted 20 August

In addition to some of the edit history [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], which is indicative of a veteran Wikipedia editor:

  • Insisted on inclusion of known banned user domain site [6]. One of the reasons JG was banned was due to his constant inclusion of self-promoting web sites into articles and discussions. The ban has since seen a number of editors and administrators who remove JG links as soon as they are discovered, as a consequence of the ban, a bot that automatically prevents known Gastrich-owned domains from being used as links in articles, and the creation, by Jason Gastrich, of numerous sock puppets on frequent occasions [7] [8] so that the links are surreptitiously inserted into articles at Wikipedia.
    • Insisted on inclusion of the link because it is "pertinent" for "obvious reasons," but is not inclined to provide those reasons, in part due of a conveniently sudden lack of time [9], after which there is apparently plenty of time to post a number of substanceless edits, mostly about sports figures and celebrities, including a number of San Diego Padres [10], [11], [12], [13].
  • Coincidental appearance of Uncle Davey into the discussion after a 4-1/2 month absence, and, except for a couple of token edits, appearing only to make accusations of another user [14], [15],[16],[17], even to the point of declaring that he didn't care about the subject under discussion ("I could care less about American High Schools, it really is remote from my experience of the world"). Uncle Davey has a history of appearing in discussions about Jason Gastrich when called, and also has a history of accusing others of sock-puppetry as a means of diverting attention from the topic under discussion (references available on request, as most of them are from off-wiki exchanges).
  • These comments and this edit, categorizing a celebrity as an atheist. JG was known for his habit of going ensuring that known and suspected celebrity atheists were cited and tagged as such in Wikipedia (for example, this edit).
  • Additional evidence and comments (26 August): Most of the evidence provided follows a clear pattern of behavior demonstrated by Jason Gastrich in Wikipedia and in other venues, and by observation of Jason's comments, style of writing, and the behavior exhibited in sock puppets. It is significant that these patterns have been mirrored by Creashin. Following the posting of my evidence, there have been attempts to influence others without presenting any refuting evidence, mitigation, or the use of Wikipedia dispute resolution [19] [20] [21] [22]. Creashin was advised to use WP:DISPUTE [23] and to suggest this process for reporting sock puppets [24], and it is characteristic that he availed himself of neither of these options. Instead, in actions also characteristic of Jason Gastrich, Creashin deleted the sock-puppet notice from Wikipedia user page [25] and removed my commentary from the talk page, as well as "old posting" that he referred to as "purning," but that he almost certainly meant as "pruning" [26]. This "pruning" of earlier conversation from talk pages is characteristic of Jason Gastrich, especially if the commentary is incriminating in some way [27] [28] [29] [30]. Creashin has also claimed that my postings are "out of control" (see previous references) and has claimed that I am harassing him when the truth is that I had actually nothing further to say on the matter, wishing to leave it to site administration, and only responded when Creashin responded to me. Creashin represents this as attacking, bullying, and harassment [31] [32] [33] [34], representing that this entire affair is over a single edit at the Kearny High School page, which resulted in a minor dispute from which I withdrew quite some time ago [35]. Claims of harassment, bullying, and belittlement are also common to Jason Gastrich and previously established or suspected sock puppets and this wouldn't be the first of Jason's sock puppets that's flown under the radar for a while [36], though the community seems to be more aware of them since his banning and reactions tend to be more rapid.
  • As before, it is my intent to leave the above as my position on the matter and allow site administration to decide what action, if any, to take. If the patterns of previous behavior persist, we may expect Uncle Davey to complain that I am a sock puppet of someone else [37] in an effort to justify Jason Gastrich's behaviors. Uncle Davey has tried to justify these behaviors in the past (specifically, Jason's habit of typosquatting [38]). He has blamed Jason's banning from Wikipedia not on Jason, but on others [39] [40]. He appears to be currently involved in a fairly surreptitious attempt to get Jason's banned domains restored as allowable as Wikipedia references [41]. Creashin may also continue to claim that he is being bullied, harassed, and belittled. These tactics are intended to distract us from the discussion at hand. For the record, I am not a sock puppet of another user, that other user was not permanently banned from Wikipedia and, in any case, that would be a separate issue. My previous comments on the issue were, in my view, sufficient, and I did not intend for it to extend beyond my original posting, in part, because I was not aware of this additional mechanism and in part because I wasn't really that interested in pursuing it further. At this point, I remain ambivalent to further pursuit of the matter, preferring to leave it to site administration. That concludes my statements and evidence. - Nascentatheist 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Bigglove

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Quaiqu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

csloat 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Quaiqu (talk · contribs) is the name that replaced User:Elizmr, a contentious and abrasive user with whom I had several unpleasant interactions surrounding various Middle East related pages. Elizmr asked to "disappear" from Wikipedia, blaming me in the process, and took the name Quaiqu. A few months later, Bigglove (talk · contribs) began editing, curiously drawn to similar obsessions as Elizmr/Quaiqu:

Such examples do not tell us much, of course, but the user showed a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and customs early on; his/her earliest edits showed an understanding of how sources are cited here, an understanding and use of the term "wikify" (an odd term to use on one's second day of editing), and his/her aggressive participation on a deletion review suggests a user with a far longer familiarity with Wikipedia than a few weeks.

I was a little taken aback when this user rather suddenly and viciously went after a page on a Muslim community newspaper, first raising a notability case that appeared incorrect to me, and then being very aggressive about pursuing an argument about notability but never actually listed the case for AfD. I did not want to waste time arguing with him/her since such a debate was useless outside of an AfD context, and I urged him/her to list the article for deletion if s/he felt it was non-notable. I should add that this user's participation on the page came after I had been attacked in talk by User:Isarig and User:Armon, two users who Quaiqu (then Elizmr) used to ally with against me in long and fruitless (and often acrimonious) arguments in talk pages and on my user talk page. Bigglove's appearance on that page seemed sudden and seemed intensely committed and vehement -- to the extent that I began to wonder why he/she was so focused only on going after me. I protested his/her actions, and made comments that were perhaps inappropriate and uncivil (for which I have apologized). But the more I thought about it, the more I saw a familiar pattern between this user's attacks and those of Elizmr. Then the user launched an RfC against me based on incivility. Again, I found the RfC completely out of line and uncalled for, and it made me wonder if this was the same user who had attacked me in the past and then "disappeared." It seems very strange for a user that has been around just over a month to already be filing a conduct RfC.

Comments

I don't know at all if this user is a sockpuppet, and I'm not sure it would be so bad if he/she were, since the Quaiqu/Elizmr account is no longer active. But I do think it is problematic if this user created a sock account just to cause trouble for me and try to get me blocked (he/she asks for a week long block in the RfC). I ask only that an admin look into it; I am not accusing this user as I honestly don't know. But my suspicions are strong enough that I think someone should look into it.

Conclusions

I have not reached any conclusions about this at all, but I hope someone who understands how to look into the issue can offer evidence that he or she is or is not a sockpuppet. If he/she is not, I apologize for bringing up the case, but I could not in good conscience let it go, especially after the RfC.

Discussion
  • Comment from the Accused party:
  • It does not look like the user Quaiqu (talk · contribs) or User:Elizmr was ever blocked from editing Wikipedia for any infraction of policy
  • This user is not currently editing the encylopedia. The last note on the talk page of this "contentious and abrasive editor" is a thank you (from what appears to be a Muslim editor) for helping to improve a page on Hezbollah [49].
  • I have made many edits on many pages; there is no evidence that this is a single purpose account established to create trouble for another user.
  • Commodore Sloat mentions the user conduct RFC that I have filed against him for calling me "Islamophobic". I feel this user should concentrate there, and own up to breaking the WP:NPA policy rather than sidestep into other accusations such as this one. Bigglove 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response -- (1) and (2) are not relevant to this case. I don't know about the comment referred to in #2, but if one looks over Elizmrs comments on my talk page one will find ample evidence of said contentiousness and abrasiveness. But it's really not relevant to whether this new user is a sock. (3) I think I mis-worded the above - I don't think the sock was created just to make trouble for me, but I do think it was created so that the user could get involved in disputes without being identified as Elizmr/Quaiqu. (4) The fact that this frivolous RfC was filed is itself evidence that this user could be Elizmr. If s/he is not, it would be great to have that known in the clear so the suspicion subsides.
I notice that the user did not bother to address the evidence I presented. Particularly, s/he has no explanation at all for why s/he came to Wikipedia with such a vast knowledge of its policies the first couple days, and was advanced enough of an editor to be filing conduct RfCs within the first month of use. Again, I could be totally wrong here and I welcome the evidence that disproves this, but it is all very suspicious. csloat 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I addressed any relevant issue rasised by CSloat in the four points I have already mentioned above. Bigglove 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask whoever does the checkuser on this case to also compare Bigglove's IP to that of Isarig (talk · contribs), who has also been involved in these disputes, and who is now confirmed as a sockpuppeteer. csloat 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • There's no overlap between User:Bigglove and User:Quaiqu. Quaiqu stopped editing in March 2007, and Bigglove started in July 2007. Neither Bigglove or Quaiqu has been blocked or banned from editing. Even if these users are the same person, there's no sign of a violation of WP:SOCK. (Of course, if the same person has used both accounts, it would be polite for him to acknowledge that.)
  • No evidence has been presented that User:Isarig is connected to Bigglove or Quaiqu, and thus, I have not looked into the matter. If you're going to toss an established user into a sockpuppet case, you need to present a substantial case; otherwise, it looks like you're fishing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2007 (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:PEAR

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

RucasHost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mrwalkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TotesBoats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hornet35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Draken36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ornis (t) 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Common Interests

Timing

Edit summaries
Frequent use of the edit summary "Revert of vandalism" or variants, regardless of whether the edit was vandalism or not.

Also their pattern of edit summary use is very similar: PEAR, RucasHost, TotesBoats

"Not vandalism": [110], [111], [112]

Closing remarks
I would also point out —though purely circumstantial— their shared habit of obsessively linking dates, and drive-by tagging is suspicious.

The writing style, interests, use of edit summaries and timing make me almost certain that PEAR, RucasHost and Hornet35 are being operated by the same user. user:Mrwalkers and user:TotesBoats I think are highly probable, but mrwalkers and Draken36 have made too few edits to tell for certain, and I would like to request a check user if possible.

Comments

MarkBul seems to do very little except pop up on AfDs after Hornet35, always agreeing with this suspected sockpuppet. Suspicious? Lurker (said · done) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do not always agree. Skarioffszky 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I really don't think MarkBul is one of pear's socks. His/her style is rather different, pear socks when the vote usually just vote: "Delete per X", whereas mb gives reasoning, and in any case doesn't always agree. ornis (t) 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, merely a plot to banish Christians from Wikipedia by accusing them all of being sock-puppets. --Hornet35 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make false accusations of plots, this was a good-faith request for someone to check this user. Lurker (said · done) 09:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some evidence that we are in fact different people (look at the times). [113] [114] --Hornet35 19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The two diffs reflect edits that took place after the initiation of this SSP report and so, if the charges of sockpuppetry are accurate, may constitute an attempt to generate "evidence". On the other hand, it is impossible to find diffs that took place before Aug. 24 since Hornet35's account was created on Aug. 25. I'm neither suggesting nor arguing against the possibility that Hornet35 is a sockpuppet of PEAR, but just want to highlight the need to be careful about what implications one draws from the diffs. They do not constitute definitive evidence either way. — Black Falcon (Talk) 07:31, 29 August 2007 (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:75.10.121.55

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Cheers,JetLover 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Me and other editors were in a dogfight with 2 or more IP vandals on the page Brenna. After the IP stops, Traxamillion comes in and takes over. Some diffs:

[115] [116][117]

Suspicous much?

Comments


Conclusions

Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. MastCell Talk 19:21, 30 August 2007 (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:Everetthighschool

Courtesy-blanking (information still available)

I've courtesy-blanked this page, so a Google or Wikipedia search on the name of the victim of the sock puppet attacks doesn't lead directly to this page, with the inappropriate user names used as part of the attack. If I'm not supposed to blank an old sock report for some reason, feel free to revert. Old version can be found here. --barneca (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2007 (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:Everetthighschool2

Courtesy-blanking (information still available)

I've courtesy-blanked this page, so a Google or Wikipedia search on the name of the victim of the sock puppet attacks doesn't lead directly to this page, with the inappropriate user names used as part of the attack. If I'm not supposed to blank an old sock report for some reason, feel free to revert. Old version can be found here. --barneca (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2007 (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:Sptx

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Startvtk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Simsvc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by
Erik Warmelink 00:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC) today is Bommen Berend, I should be having fun[reply]
Evidence
All 3 users have very few edits (24 August 2007; 06:54 - 07:18), all spamvertize www.email-unlimited.$SPAM, all user names are /S[a-z]+/.

"Sptx" is the shortest name and it posted first (to pages on my watchlist), but I have no reason to suspect it to be the puppeteer, instead of just another puppet. If these socks are part of a known puppet gang, my apologies.

The spammer was too eager (quickly posting; same link), otherwise these spams would have been hard to correlate. Usernames allow link spammers to hide their identity. This is the kind of spambot which might have had some success in e-mail spamming several years ago.
Comments

The timing and style of these edits - all links to the same web domain - make it clear that these accounts are from one editor whose only goal is to promote spam. I suggest an indef-block for all three accounts. Shalom Hello 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yup. All blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 19:26, 30 August 2007 (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:CorpsReformNetwork

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Y4kk 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • [1] First Edit - Reverted
  • 2 Ban due to username policy
  • from user creation log: 22:12, 27 August 2007 CorpsReformNetwork created new account User:Gsorvalis
  • 4 sock puppetry
Comments

I apologise if I have made any mistakes, its my first sock puppet report Y4kk 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

It is clear that these two editors are the same person, but it is not a violation of policy because the first account was blocked as a username violation. I agree with Coren. Note, however, that the only contrib by these users has been reverted as an improper external link. Shalom Hello 18:37, 28 August 2007 (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:Lester2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lester2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

John and James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Another user and myself believe serial edit warmonger Lester2 has taken our repeated requests to find consensus too literally and has now engaged in sockpuppetry, and is using socks to "votestack" and claim consensus on the contentious article John Howard. A vote to include article content is being conducted at the John Howard talk page here [118] "John Howard's secret ancestry revealed". User:John and James has made one edit to the entire wikipedia and is included in this vote. Brendan.lloyd also loves a good edit war on the Howard article and seems to divide his wiki time with Lester2. If you check their contribution history you see that;

  • They are never on wikipedia at the same time. One logs off while the other logs on,
  • They make the same edits, (see here and here)
  • For people involved in the same edit wars they never acknowlegde or talk to each other.
  • All three refer to 'New Guinea" instead of it's more popular "Papua New Guinea" or "PNG".
  • Lester/Brendan have edited here using the "comment" tag. The first two twoto do that on this thread, in recent Archive histrory.
  • Both "read" the same. See for yourself below in the long winded off topic replies.

I think all parties concerned have made comments and discussed at length. Both Lester/Brendan have claimed they have nothing to hide and freely submit to a "checkuser". Both are posting around wikipedia demanding apologies, and decrying how humiliated they both are. I think everyone agrees that the checkuser has to take place. Due to my failure in due process I already have a Checkuser request posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lester2. The admin Lar advised waiting until this page had run it's course. I believe all parties agree this should be taken to checkuser to settle this once and for all. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As the "other user" referred to above, I echo Prester John's evidence above. I freely confess to massive and very naughty sockpuppeteering during my long ban,[119][120] and I gained familiarity with the techniques for hiding sockpuppets. It seemed to me that Lester2's contributions contained a good deal more wikilawyering and familiarity with procedures than a new account should, as well as being a single purpose account dedicated to adding negative material to the John Howard article and then being disruptive on the talk page. I was also suspicious of the fact that Lester2 was not continuously logged into his account, occasionally making anon edits which he later claimed. This is a common mistake amongst sockpuppet/eers logging in and out of accounts. --Pete 00:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lester2

Hi everyone. I'm not a sockpuppet, so you can run all the checks as I've got nothing to hide. Did I forget to login before making a comment on a talk page? Maybe I did, but I'm not aware of it. Firefox browser automatically signs me out of Wiki after a period of inactivity. Look at this recent edit by Jimbo Wales where his comment is "duh, forgot to sign"[121], and nobody says he's a sockpuppet! Also, I would have thought that someone would have to actively use an IP address and a user-account together to be accused of misusing the system.

Just looking at that link to the talk page posted by User:Prester John. Prester mentions that I'm trying to avoid consensus on the subject "John Howard's secret ancestry revealed"' by what he calls "votestacking". I just looked through that section of the talk page and I can't find an example of where I forgot to log on, let alone using that to manipulate a "votestack". It seems to be a case that a consensus was achieved on the talk page, which is how Wiki is meant to work, but the consensus was not the verdict that 'Prester' and 'Skyring(Pete)' wanted, so they're bringing the issue here, with no other evidence except to link people who voted against Prester & Skyring(Pete)'s ideas.

To put this into context, though, User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) have a long history of listing me on every complaint board they can think of, so this one is the latest of many from those two users. It would be kind of amusing, except that it wastes the time of Wiki volunteers to follow up these fallacious complaints.

User:Prester John seems to be desperate to find a way to have me blocked, and has filed 2 erroneous 3RR reports about me in the past few weeks. One resulted in User:Prester John being blocked himself after filing the report. Another 3RR is on the list here which turned out to be 3 edits over 3 days so the case was dropped. You'd think the administrators would be getting a bit bored of this string of false complaints. So now I get to learn what a sockpuppet report is. I don't know how to defend it except to say I haven't done anything, and I hope the investigation doesn't waste too much of your valuable time. Cheers, Lester2 01:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Lester gets our accusation here. It has nothing to do with forgeting to sign on. Let me clarify. we are charging that he created sock number 1 called User:John and James to introduce contentious material on the articles talkpage to make it look like someone else has introduced this particular point. This user has only ever made one edit to wikipedia, has never been heard from again, yet made a link to reference Lester/Brendan have repeatedly tried to reinsert. This original sock has the benefit of being added to the straw poll that is going on. Lester then uses User:Brendan.lloyd a sock he previously created to continue reinserting the reference. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be fooled by his Bart Simpsonesque "little boy lost" act in his above statement. The entire statement is a lie and a smokescreen. He knows we are not talking about IP edits. Check his block logs to see the real story about his numerous 3RR violations on this articleand how "erroneous" they are. And his accusations of wikilawyering are are the biggest case of WP:KETTLE yet see here and here. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Lester2: The accusation that I log out of my account and use a anonymous IP address was made (above), so I answered that accusation. The claim I resemble Bart Simpson is silly and irrelevant.
If the IP thing is not the reason for this complaint, the only evidence left is that I voted the same way as 2 other editors, which was the opposite way to what User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) voted. I would have thought a bit more evidence would be required before bothering the Wikipedia Admins with a complaint.
I filed that previous Wikiquette report about User:Prester John because I was tired of him following me around calling me "troll", "liar", "votestacker", "Bart Simpsonesque" and other completely unnecessary terms. Unfortunately, use of such terms continues.
User:Prester John is obviously trying to portray me as some kind of heinous person, but has that got anything to do with the subject? Isn't this to look purely at the Sockpuppetry allegation? Do I need to defend all the other personality accusations as well?
So now the arbitrators have now learned this is part of an on-going war between editors where every Wiki "court" under the sun is used against the other. It's like a schoolboy fight. I hope it doesn't deter the other two Wikipedians who are co-accused in this. Lester2 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, please. I mentioned the IP address thing because it demonstrates that you log in and out of your account, and I recognise that as a symptom of sockpuppetry, because I've been there myself. Your edit history itself is suspicious. An account created over a year ago and left dormant, and then suddenly revived to commence robust edit-warring on one article, including appeals to wikiprocess. The appearance of a fresh account that makes one edit on a talk page to kick off a new round of conflict also rings alarm bells.
I'm not saying that where there is smoke, there is fire, but I'm within my rights as a wikicitizen to report the smoke. --Pete 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Lester2, for jumping into your commentary section, but crikey, Pete, mate, from the moment you maligned us on the talkpages, you clearly were saying "there's a fire". Who are you to tell us to calm down? You and Prester John fire off accusations, flout numerous Wikipedia policies, engage in Wikilawyering, mark our Userpages as suspected sockpuppets, attack me despite my relative "newness", and then, as the inevitable dawns that you are incorrect on this occasion, you expect those who you falsely accuse to just happily shrug it off? And Prester infers (on the Hicks talkpage) I am the deluded conspiracy theorist... goodness gracious! The honourable thing and civil thing would be for the two of you to apologise before your foolish accusation embarrases you both any further. Jeez Louise! --Bren 18:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Lester2: I also would like an apology, and I'll tell you why. If User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) really had true concerns about sockpuppetry, they would have researched and compiled some strong evidence (not just who voted which way on an issue in the talk page), and they would have quietly provided that evidence alone and let the arbitrators deal with it. The completely unnecessary humiliation comes from the personal embellishing of the complaint, and the use of colorful but derogatory language designed to paint a poor image of myself. But that was not all. User:Skyring(Pete) first raised the issue by plastering it on the John Howard talk page for everyone to read, and to cause maximum humiliation, and to drum up support against myself. User:Skyring(Pete)'s previous public announcements that I am a sockpuppet are probably what inspired User:Prester John to file the complaint, after the two discussed it.
So, after destroying the reputations of myself and Brendan, User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) will probably skulk away giggling to themselves at the humiliation they've caused, having the term "sockmonkey" headlined on the user pages of their opponents, and on the discussion page. I ask the arbitrators to take a look at that John Howard discussion page that User:Prester John links to at the top of this page, to see how this whole accusation started.
As for the other user, John and James, I can't be responsible for another user who makes his first Wikipedia edit by making a comment on the John Howard talk page. What an introduction to Wikipedia! First edit and he ends up entwined in this. I hope he returns again. It should be noted that the John Howard article recently made huge newspaper headlines in Australia, so large numbers of people are coming to view the page for the first time, and the discussion page is full of new entrants who followed the newspaper headlines.
I don't know if it's against Wiki rules to launch sockpuppet allegations on a high profile discussion page, but my view is that sort of action is very wrong and counter-productive, serving no other purpose than to humiliate. I wish there were some Wikipedia rules against airing such allegations publicly Lester2 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User:Brendan.lloyd

Despite User:Skyring and User:Prester John tag-teaming to judge contributors instead of content, deny/avoid concensus, and avoid substantive relevant discussion on the Howard talkpage (re: Howard "New Guinea interests" mention & reference), I am not discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia. I am no "sock puppet" nor "puppeteer". I have never created multiple Wikipedia accounts. I have never masqueraded as another Wikipedia entity. His "evidence" concerning me is flimsy for good reason -- the inferences Pete has made about me are false. I'm happy to give my contact number to the adjudicator for private independant verification, if emailed a request by them (to my email address recorded on my Wikipedia account) to end to this farcical diversion. I eagerly await the only credible outcome of the part of the inquiry involving me, after which I expect an unreserved apology and commitment from User:Skyring and User:Prester John to participate more constructively on talkpages, in good faith, and duly acknowledge concensus when it occurs instead of overt wikilawyering. --Bren 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • Checkuser returns as unlikely.
  • No blocks required.
  • Sock tags deleted from userpages.
  • Closing case. Sarah
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:Produke

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Scjessey 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Adding external links to personal site (diff, diff) in various Apache and HTTP-related articles.

Comments

Might be the same person, but it makes no difference. Produke voluntarily stopped editing at the end of May without being blocked, and Apacheguru started in August. There is no sign of a coordinated attack by the two of them. I've warned Apache, and that should be sufficient. Shalom Hello 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Agree with Shalom; no violation of WP:SOCK at present. However, if the accounts begin to be used together or as a tag-team, please come back. MastCell Talk 19:15, 30 August 2007 (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:Disturbedrcool1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Disturbedrcool1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

The Immortal Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Disturbed02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edit to Chaos Space Marines exactly the same as User:Disturbedrcool1 and confrmed sockpuppets here.

Comments
Conclusions

Obvious sockpuppets. Second chance given after Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Disturbedrcool1 but this user is apparently not interested. Pascal.Tesson 01:49, 29 August 2007 (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:Redlightdistrictmanagement

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

aliasd·U·T 09:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contribs

Comments

Obvious by similarity of names, editing times, and editing interests. One of them is blocked; the other is not. Shalom Hello 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yup. Blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 19:13, 30 August 2007 (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:Green108

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Bksimonb 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Lwachowski appeared as a single purpose account and immediately started editing the BKWSU and related articles disruptively and trolling users talk pages [122] [123] [124]. Similarities with Green108 are shown below.

  1. A previous sock of Green108, Shortskirtlonglegs questioned the "G.V. Mody Rural Health Care Centre & Eye Hospital," statement in the article, including concerning how it was funded. Lwachowski raises the question in almost exactly the same way.
  2. Lwachowski also supports Green108 by defending a fair-use challenge by claiming that 1702 × 2379 pixels is not high resolution using a BS argument. A similar approach was taken by Green108. This POV has also been supported by Faithinhumanity. It is strange how all three users seemed to know that the scanner used was set to 72 dpi. Lwachowski also puts forward the same argument as Green108 that the pictures are challenged because of some kind of BKWSU cover-up of embarrassing information. Also, Lwachowski re-introduces the images after IPSOS removes them requesting a fair-use review. It would seem Lwachowski is representing Green108's interests quite strongly here.
  3. Lwachowski and Green108 both introduce similar types of bias into the article. From Lwachowski [125] [126] (esp compare this). From Green108 (with this, see end of diff) [127] [128].
  4. Green108, Faithinhumanty and Lwachowski all keep re-inserting sections of the article that were removed with consensus of the collaborating editors [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138].
  5. Lwachowski and Green108 express identical POV, using almost exactly the same words, on the article talk page, such as "i am emphasising is that channelling and mediumship ARE utterly central to the Bkwsu", compared to, "Mediumship and channelling (both) are utter central and defining of this religion".
  6. Sometimes Green108 edits logged out, on this occasion as 212.126.146.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It is possible that this edit was made by Lwachowski whilst logged out as 77.101.156.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) immediately after this edit. According to Maxmind, both IPs are in London but Green108's is using Claranet ISP and the possible IP of Lwachowski is using Telewest Broadband. Green108 has not posted since Lwachowski became active. If both the same user then this may be due to an ISP switch although this will be difficult to confirm unless Green108 posts again.
  7. Green108 and Lwachowski both make a point of highlighting the affiliation other editors have with the BKWSU and use this to discredit them or imply a conspiracy. From Lwachowski, "As Bksimonb correctly discloses of himself, Riveros11 is also a BK follower. Their intention appears to be block the development any of these topic beyond the limitations of the current BKWSU own publicity material.", and from Green108, "the contributor wants them removed is that they are a member of the Core Internet PR Team for the organisation involved, the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. A millenarianist new religious movement." and also "those making up the consensus are both BK members and part of the Bkwsu Internet PR team , so i dont think it really counts" (posted logged out to evade a one week block for previous sockpuppetry and disruptive editing). Bksimonb 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments


Conclusions

This case has already been sent to checkuser - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green108 - so I'll close this and results will depend on the outcome of checkuser. MastCell Talk 19:06, 30 August 2007 (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:Jetwave Dave

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jetwave Dave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

65.102.180.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 65.102.180.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
65.102.184.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 65.102.184.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
71.35.158.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 71.35.158.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
168.103.149.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 168.103.149.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
168.103.148.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 168.103.148.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
168.103.147.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 168.103.147.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
63.226.202.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 63.226.202.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
70.58.66.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 70.58.66.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Report submission by

Parsecboy 20:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The contribution logs make clear that the IPs are all related, follow similar edit patters, and are controlled by Jetwave Dave. Here is an instance of one of the IPs signing his name as Jetwave Dave. Several IPs have also stated "Jetwave Dave will kick your ass" in edit summaries.

Also as shown by WHOIS all IPs are from Seattle and are registered to Qwest Communications Corporation. --Chris  G  02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The user Jetwave Dave was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, outright vandalism, and incivility. He has repeatedly circumvented the block by the use of sock IPs, listed above, as well as creating an impostor account User:Parasec boy, that has already been indef blocked.

Conclusions

Yes, these are all presumably dynamic IP's used by Jetwave Dave. I don't see any that have been active in the last day or so, meaning that a block would be pointless. The best approach is probably to report the next occurrence to WP:AIV immediately for a block, and consider requesting semi-protection if particularly heavy IP vandalism is hitting a certain article. MastCell Talk 19:04, 30 August 2007 (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:Ohsunnysgod

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

PBP 04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Brookelittle mainly vandalizes pages with information about "Slovak Director Arvin Brdarevic", as seen by his contributions, like Ohsunnysgod did in this edit. He also uses the name of one of the pages that Ohsunnysgod liked to vandalize, John Brooke-Little, as seen in his contributions.

Comments

Brooke Little is my real name, I've got nothing to do with that John Brooke-Little guy, who's page I found when I searched my name on Wikipedia. And the cinema of Australia Page doesnt have anything about the Slovak director, the ohsunnygod guy just added a movie name with the name Arvin in it.Brookelittle 06:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Little recently had an autoblock removed(see here) as his IP was used by Ohsunnysgod. --Chris  G  11:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recent vandalism by Brookelittle: [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]. Also note this edit made by 77.232.80.10 (talk · contribs). --Mathew5000 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Indef-blocked by Blnguyen. Shalom Hello 23:20, 27 August 2007 (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:SallyForth123

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SallyForth123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Francis45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.37.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.204.176.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.204.178.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.203.48.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
75.37.14.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
75.36.174.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
75.37.9.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)


Report submission by

Sancho 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SallyForth123

Special:Contributions/Francis45 matches pattern of Special:Contributions/Mineo3

Contributions of the IP users undid reversions to the articles that Mineo3 (a suspected sock of SallyForth123) was working on.

Better evidence

From Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SallyForth123

  • SallyForth123: was blocked for a 3RR violation 00:35, 22 August 2007
  • 75.36.172.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Checkuser confirmed that SallyForth123 was using an IP to evade the original block. That IP was blocked and SallyForth123 was notified. 01:33, 22 August 2007
  • Mineo3 (talk · contribs): active from 06:18, 22 August 2007 to 06:31, 22 August 2007 with contributions to articles/discussions previously visited by SallyForth123
  • Mineo3 (talk · contribs): active from 10:07, 22 August 2007 to 11:26, 22 August 2007
  • 76.221.186.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): active from 18:01, 22 August 2007 to 19:39, 22 August 2007, with edits picking up where previous IP left off with replies to replies to 75.36.172.192
  • 75.37.15.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): active from 19:43, 22 August 2007 to 21:11, 22 August 2007
  • diff linking 75.37.15.138 and 76.220.200.86
  • diff linking 76.221.186.28 and 76.220.200.86
  • 76.220.200.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): activity commenced at 21:15, 22 August 2007, ended at 21:20, August 2007, linking evidence on two previous lines
  • Mineo3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): active from 21:22, 22 August 2007 to 23:11, 22 August 2007,
    • diff linking Mineo3 to 75.37.15.138
    • diff linking Mineo3 to 76.221.186.28
  • 75.37.12.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): activity from 23:21, 22 August 2007 to 23:49, 22 August 2007, see contributions for editing patterns
  • 76.204.178.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): activity from 23:57, 22 August 2007 to 01:30, 23 August 2007 (continuing contributions from 75.37.12.173 to Barbara Morgan)
  • Mineo3 (talk · contribs): activity from 01:13, 23 August 2007 to 08:38, 23 August 2007
    • diff linking Mineo3 to 76.204.178.173

From this report

  • Francis45 (talk · contribs): created at 22:37, 23 August 2007 with initial activity until 23:02, 23 August 2007
  • 76.204.176.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): activity from 23:10, 23 August 2007 to 23:13, 23 August 2007. Reverting content on 9 articles to restore version established by Mineo3
  • 75.37.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): activity from 23:14, 23 August 2007 to 23:15, 23 August 2007. Reverting content on 3 articles to restore version established by Mineo3
  • 76.204.178.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): activity from 23:50, 23 August 2007 to 00:00, 24 August 2007. Work on PT-109 article
  • Francis45 (talk · contribs): activity from 00:01, 24 August 2007 to 00:05, 24 August 2007. Used peerreviewer script on the PT-109 article.
  • 76.204.178.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): activity from 00:07, 24 August 2007 to 00:09, 24 August 2007. Work on Lisa Nowak article.
  • Francis45 (talk · contribs): activity from 00:11, 24 August 2007 to 03:40, 24 August 2007. Work on many space related articles, including Lisa Nowak, and Space Tourism
  • 76.204.178.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): activity from 04:30, 24 August 2007 to 04:43, 24 August 2007. Final edits were contributions to Anousheh Ansari
  • Francis45 (talk · contribs): activity from 04:45, 24 August 2007 to 05:25, 24 August 2007. First edits in this period were contributions to Anousheh Ansari
    • Francis45 was blocked at 05:27, 24 August 2007
  • 76.203.48.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) single contribution at 05:30, 24 August 2007. Copied text from User_talk:Francis45 to User_talk:Sanchom.
  • 75.37.14.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) two contributions at 05:33 and 05:35, 24 August 2007. Completed copying of text from User_talk:Francis45 to User_talk:Sanchom.
  • 75.37.9.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) activity from 15:31, 24 August 2007 to 15:41, 24 August 2007. Reversion to restore content established by Francis45
  • 75.36.174.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) single reversion at 16:06, 24 August 2007 to restore content established by Francis45.
Comments

I'm just listing this here to better organize evidence and provide a location for others to add other sockpuppets of this user to. There have been many in the past few days, both IP users and registered accounts, making edits to many articles on astronauts and other NASA related topics. Sancho 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, matches what patterns? And now she's accused of using any ATT IP in the world or what? This is a witch hunt, because SallyForth123 was silly enough to work on articles owned by editors who appear willing and able to do anything to get rid of her. You should go look at how MrDarcy handled socks, and how diplomatically he dealt with people, as if they were human beings. KP Botany 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the better evidence above. The user is not accused of using any ATT IP in the world, only those above. This is not a witch hunt due to SallyForth123's "silliness", it is just an attempt to enforce a block. This enforcement is ignorant regarding the initial reason for the block. Sancho 18:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So you send someone to jail falsely, then you're surprised when they escape, then you jail them for escaping, even though they were innocent (according to AreilGold) of the original crime. And this user is using ATT DSLs from Texas to California--anything ATT that has an edit that anyone in the world can fake as being hers is certified as hers. This is a witch hunt--played by editors who have made it clear she won't be allowed to edit. And these editors will keep creating "ATT" exclusive computer sock puppets (it is nice ATT has less than 100 customers, so one can certify with certainty that any ATT computer used by anyone imitating SallyForth is 100% certainly SallyForth) until you give up being a participant. You've been had. You're destroying a newbie who was a good editor who had the stupidity to think that Wikipedia MOS and policies and good English had a play in creating an encyclopedia--and you're destroying her as the tool of those who've taken every opportunity to actively take her down in every dispicable manner possible. I knew that no administrator would call ArielGold to task for her personal attacks on SallyForth--the writing was on the wall: this will result in a permanent ban no matter what has to be said and done. You might have just politely told her to leave, instead of playing this absurd game. KP Botany 19:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Range block covering four moderate sized ranges has been applied. The blocks cover a total of 6,144 IP addresses.

Block on SallyForth123 extended to indefinite. See block log.

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:Wolfowit

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

THF 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Making same edits as previous sock User:Jewbaccas. E.g., [144]

Comments


Conclusions

Both accounts are indef-blocked (not by me). Shalom Hello 16:47, 26 August 2007 (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:Hayden5650

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hayden5650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Phral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Comment:User:Phral is a suspected sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Hayden5650 (indef-blocked for sockpuppeteering)--Ramdrake 11:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phrallus Secondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Phral von Phralstadt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Commander Phralson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sir Phrallington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Muntuwandi 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Excessive use of the term "Negro"

  • Phral- this is a recent single purpose account. The user is already familiar with wikipedia so is a putative sockpuppet.
  • [148]
  • [149]

Hayden5650 was claiming to edit from New Zealand, a checkuser should be able to tell whether there is a connection. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650

User:Phrallus Secondus has opened this account unde the name Phral the second and has imediately given his position in a mediation case on the Talk:White people page, a page that User:Phral was heavily involved in. This is surely a simple case? Alun 05:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a Phral von Phralstadt making similarly disruptive edits - could someone please confirm that he is a sock-puppet and block him if so? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Comment I don't find the evidence of a link to Hayden5650 to be very compelling. But I wonder why we should care. All the other accounts are clearly sockpuppets and that in itself justifies the indefinite block of all the Phral accounts (especially given the racist trolling of all of them). Pascal.Tesson 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

All of the accounts have already been blocked indef, not much really to be done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:01, 26 August 2007 (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:Zelogan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Zel999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

JasonCNJ 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

For the last few days, Zelogan has continued to add/re-create an article on the Dennis Kucinich website. After it was speedy deleted, he re-created it. After an AfD that showed a clear consensus for deletion, he re-created it. He was warned repeatedly by an Administrator to stop and was given a final warning earlier today that he was not permitted to re-create the article or he would be banned. Then, User Zel999 appeared and created "Kucinich website" (which has already been deleted) and created a link on the Dennis Kucinich site.

I suspect Zelogan and Zel999 are the same person, with Zel999 having been created to skirt a warning that was issued to Zelogan to stop recreating deleted content. Since the articles in question have been deleted, I will use their link from the subject's main page as evidence of their activities. Perhaps an admin or someone else will have access to the logs of the deleted articles.

Actions by Zelogan:

Action by Zel999:

It appears that Zel999 has only re-created the Kucinich campaign site article and posted a link to it on the main page; he appears to have no other user contributions

Comments

Looks like a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry to me. Similarity in names, same interests, recreated the article after a final warning on his main account. Block, I'd say. Melsaran (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Clear enough case. Sock blocked indef, puppetmaster blocked 72 hours since (s)he was clearly warned to quit recreating that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:58, 26 August 2007 (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:Poop4700

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Poop4700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Poop4701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Poop4702 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Poop4703 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Poop4704 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Pointe LaRoche 05:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The five have been registered within the same period and active the same period and have very similar usernames.

User:Poop4700 registered on 05:04 UTC, 24 August 2007 and was blocked indefinetely six minutes later by User:Keegan. User:Poop4701 registered nineteen minutes later, on 05:29 UTC, 24 August 2007. User:Poop4701 was indefinetely blocked eight minutes later by User:Grandmasterka. Another Poop470x was registered, User:Poop4702, on 05:44 UTC, 24 August 2007, six minutes later after User:Poop4701 was indefinetely blocked. Six minutes later, this account was indefinetely blocked by User:Grandmasterka. Then, another one, User:Poop4703 was registered two minutes later. This account was indefinetely blocked two minutes later by User:Grandmasterka. Then again, another one appeared, User:Poop4704, one minute later and this account was indefinetely blocked two minutes later by User:Gogo Dodo

Comments


Conclusions

All accounts blocked as violations of the username policy. No further action required.--Chaser - T 03:35, 25 August 2007 (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:DigiFilmMaker

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

James8445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Girolamo Savonarola 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • Both user contribution histories are nearly identical, with virtually all edits only pertaining to Red Digital Cinema Camera Company article.
  • Edits are always solely to restore the link to a webforum called redcamcentral.com
  • Suspected sock-puppet's first edit includes an edit summary with similar language about the "growing forum" as the original user's comment from the the day prior.
  • Overlapping activity periods with similar lulls in edits.
  • Editing periods for each user are contemporaneous in date and time.
  • Similar syntax and editing style when each user chats. See [150] and [151] each from DigiFilmMaker and compare with [152] and [153] by James8445. (Edit: now also with [154] by DigiFilmMaker.
  • The sock puppet is deliberately being used for two purposes: circumvention of the 3RR rules, and creating the illusion of community consensus on the talk page.
  • Besides sock puppetry, the larger outstanding violations for these accounts are 3RR (possibly applicable even independent of sock puppetry) and spam violations. The accounts only exist to promote this website, and have made no substantive edits outside of this purpose. The user talk space of DigiFilmMaker is consistently and swiftly blanked by the user so as to create the illusion that he has received no warnings about either of these problems.
Comments


Conclusions
  • Clear use of a sockpuppet to break the 3RR, several times. DigiFilmMaker hasn't edited in several days, but will be blocked for 48 hours; James8445 is indef blocked. If DigiFilmMaker returns after the block, it may be worthwhile reporting him at WP:COIN for promoting his own website. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2007 (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:Jebbrady

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

208.253.158.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.68.9.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Lisasmall 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

To save space here and your time, please glance at any of the archived or active article talk pages on Herbert W. Armstrong for examples of Jebbrady using various IP's and then manually typing in his Jebbrady name, rather than signing in. This practice means his activity is dispersed among at least three accounts and is very difficult to track in article history pages, where the manually typed "Jebbrady" does not appear. It has been explained to him by more than one editor, more than once, that the manual signature is not enough, and why. In violation of the explicit policy laid out in Sec. 2.2 of WP:SOCK, "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors," he continues to use multiple IP's and the typed sig, rather than signing in as Jebbrady and using a tilde sig. There is no question that Jebbrady and the first two IPs listed are all one person; he acknowledges it when he manually adds his signature to the IP tilde sigs.

Evidence for the third IP puppet differs. This account 72.68.9.131 may be a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet, or it may be an innocent situation in which a brand-new account on Wikipedia has an editor who knows what a barnstar is, knows how to give them out, and goes immediately to grant one to one and only one deserving individual -- and makes no other contribs at all.

Please see here for numerous WP:WQA comments from me and from other editors regarding his persistent use of sockpuppets.

Please see here for the first SOCK report July 21 and its resolution.

The July 26 intervention by MastCell is here.

The July 29 intervention by MastCell is here.

Please see here for my July 29 - July 31 messages where I followed up his violation of initial sockpuppet warning by asking a third party (MastCell) to gently intervene, rather than just file a second formal report at that time. At that point, I was still assuming GF; but see subsequent developments and current conduct.

Please see this part of MastCell's talk page for yet another editor's third-party expression of concern on August 10 re Jebbrady's puppetry, followed by a comment by me on August 17.

Please see User_talk:EdJohnston#Sockpuppet_Issue for EdJohnston's August 3 attempt to correct this behavior.

The behavior continues.

Comments


Conclusions
  • Ok, I'm convinced that his use of multiple IPs is a problem, so I've blocked each one listed here from editing anonymously; he should still be able to edit under his username from any of these IP addresses. Of course, this is only one facet of the problem, and I advise you to start a user conduct RfC, if you haven't already. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2007 (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 sockpuppeteer

Zim2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Thehalo1noob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Angrygamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flnclan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.178.194.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.178.195.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--milk the cows (Talk) 02:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

They have very similar editing styles as shown in the contributions. They were each created within weeks of each other after one got a warning message about vandalism.

Comments

I agree totally with milkthecows. I initially discovered the similarities between Zim2007, Thehalo1noob, and 69.178.194.212 and I posted a question on all three talk pages asking about this. Shortly after that, an admin blocked Zim2007 for vandalism. Almost immediately after that, the Angrygamer account was created and started making very similar edits to the earlier accounts. After I again posted a question about similarities between Zim2007/Thehalo1noob/69.178.194.212/Angrygamer, the Flnclan account was created. It seems as though this user doesn't wish to deny or verify the connection between all of these accounts. Instead, the individual is more inclined to ignore any and all questions, put his most recent account into hibernation mode, and create a new account. All of these user accounts have been warned about these suspicions of sockpuppetry, but — again — there has never been really any kind of response. --MatthewUND(talk) 02:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point that Zim2007 seems to actually want people to access his account see here. It seems like he wants people to think that, because it is so easy to access his account, that preemptively explains any wrongdoing by the Zim2007 account. --MatthewUND(talk) 02:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the actual password (did you try it)? I'm just making sure if Zim is being serious.--milk the cows (Talk) 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As shown here, Zim2007 blanked its user page and replaced it with THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW CLOSED. Shortly after, Thehalo1noob replaced it with the Sockpuppet tag and a link to the The1halonoob account. I also reverted an edit on this page by 69.178.195.77. The IP also blanked its talk page.--milk the cows (Talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that 69.178.195.77 is also involved with this too.--milk the cows (Talk) 23:21, 18 August 2007 (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:Disturbedrcool1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Disturbedrcool1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Immortallord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Immortal lord 00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pak21 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeated editing of Chaos Space Marines to introduce incorrect edition information

Comments

Obvious.

Conclusions

The sock accounts are indef blocked; the main account (Disturbedrcool1) looks like there's been some attempt at productive edits in addition to vandalism, so I'll leave it unblocked in case the guy comes back. It looks like it's been abandoned, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2007 (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.

190.53.15.171 (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Cartagenagirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.161.18.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

 LaNicoya  •Talk• 10:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence
  • As with the 1st sockpuppet case {IP 190.53.15.171) Cartagenagirl and 66.161.18.212 both Vandalize the Nicaragua article, particularly over the tourism section and the crime subsection (on El Salvador article).
  • Here Cartagenagirl is seen vandalizing the article (tourism section) removing sourced information without giving prior notice or a countersource [155].
  • In the previous diff the text left on the edit summary is extremely similar to the previous ones left by 190.53.15.171 previous sock puppets Bacanaleranica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Holand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • As seen here on the previous sockpuppet case sockpuppeteer 190.53.15.171 had a long history of vandalism and personal attacks, personal attacking mostly me. Here, user 66.161.18.212 chooses to personally attack me [156] [157].
  • Also notice many of the previous sockpuppets claimed Nicaragua has the most is extremely poor, corrupt governments, or something along that line linking corruption and Nicaragua. See here by Bacanaleranica [158] [159] and here by 66.161.18.212 [160] [161] [162].
  • When vandalizing the San Salvador article by erasing the crime sub-section 66.161.18.212 uses an edit summary very similar to the previous sock puppet (which erased the same section). Edit by 66.161.18.212 [163] and edit by previous sockpuppet [164].
  • When user 66.161.18.212 personally attacked me here [165] , notice they wrote the header (==CRIME==) in uppercase letter, as did previous sockpuppet Bacanaleranica here [166].
  • When Cartagenagirl posted her "concern" over the tourism section in nicaragua in her edit summary she said editors had merely contributed what they call a "fairy tale" (see here [167]. Previous sockpuppet Bacanaleranica also stated the toursim section was a "fairy tale" as seen here [168] [169].
  • Many similarities occur in all the suspected (and past) sockpuppeteers. Lack of uppercase, commas, periods, ect. Also how the user would always put my name in parenthesis ("lanicoya"), most commonly in undercase letters. See user 66.161.18.212 here [170] and the past confirmed sockpuppeteers here [171] [172] [173] [174] (by Bacanaleranica) here [175] [176] (by Holand) and here [177] (by Judith Gonzales).
Comments


Conclusions
  • I'm not sure about Cartagenagirl, but I've just blocked 66.161.18.212 for a week for its edit to User:LaNicoya. That IP has made the same kind of edits as 190.53.15.171, but it looks like it's dynamically assigned and shouldn't be blocked for a long period. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2007 (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:Dissectional

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by
Evidence
  • Both users show big interest in the inclusion of nu metal in the infobox of the article on System of a Down as can be seen on the article's talk page. By looking in User:Dissectional's contributions, one can see 48 edits to the article's talk page, and judging only from the edits with edit summaries, 23 of those edits were directly related to the band's genre. User:74.124.33.181 has also shown similar interest in the System of a Down article: out of the user's 44 edits, 18 of those edits were on the article itself and its talk page (see user's contributions). The IP account has claimed that "System of a Down is not nu metal" here, and User:Dissectional expresses the same point of view here and here.
  • The users have shown similar ways of editing. User:Dissectional does not use apostrophes in terms like "I'll" or "Here's" (diff), and the IP account does the same (diff). Both accounts tend to leave the personal pronoun "I" uncapitalized (diff for Dissectional, diff for the IP).
  • Looking through the list of edits by User:Dissectional, one can see that he has never edited between 07:00 and 17:00 (Server time). Looking through the list of edits by the IP address, one can see that no edit has been made between 07:00 and 17:00 (Server time).
Comments
  • I am the same editor for both of these users. I'm not doing it to make it seem as if more people agree with me. Im just too lazy to sign into my user account sometimes. Sorry for any confusion. 74.124.33.181 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both myself and Zouavman Le Zouave have tried to assume good faith about this user. The above comment by 74.124.33.181/Dissectional doesn't really cut it as he has made these rather specific actions
  1. Decided a poll would be a good idea
  2. Was informed that the poll wasn't a good idea, so he removed it with his account, Dissectional, saying the poll was "unsuitable"
  3. I reinstated the post but put strikethroughs
  4. Editing under the IP address he tried to start the poll again despite telling another user that he knew it was not suitable already.

You can see from his talk page that I've tried to be as helpful as possible but circumventing discussion using IPs is very disruptive.

Seraphim Whipp 09:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason i was always signed on as Dissectional was because i never logged out. I must have deleted my browsing history which caused the log out, and my laziness caused me to use my IP adress instead. 74.124.33.181 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • Self-admitted sockpuppetry. Despite the user's protestations, it does appear that he was trying to make it seem as if the named account and the IP were different people. However, now that the masquerade has been exposed, I don't see a pressing need to place any blocks; of course, any further disruption should be greeted with a firm response (e.g., a substantial block). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2007 (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:SallyForth123

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

SallyForth123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

76.221.186.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.220.200.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
75.37.15.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
75.37.12.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.204.178.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)


Report submission by

Sancho 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
Comments

It seems that SallyForth123 was blocked, then used sockpuppet 75.36.172.192 which was blocked, and is now using 76.221.186.28. Sancho 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this IP is from the same ISP (AT&T) and has a similar editing pattern to the other SallyForth123 socks. I recommend blocking and increasing SallyForth123's original block if possible. --Coredesat 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added 76.220.200.86. Sancho 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have enough evidence to block these IPs and extend the block on SallyForth123. I'll block the IP addresses for 48 hours and add notices. Sancho 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The following have been blocked for a period of 48 hours.

76.221.186.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.220.200.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
75.37.15.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
75.37.12.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.204.178.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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:Samuel Luo

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer
Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Yueyuen3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) et al (see table of differences below)
Report submission by

Ohconfucius 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Yueyuen has been established as a sockpuppet of User:Samuel Luo, a known activitist who runs a website denouncing Falun Gong. There has been persistent vandalism on the Falun Gong article, and occasionally sister articles by different users using fairly anonymous names, mostly bearing the prefices 'G', 'US', or 'Free' followed usually by a string of numbers. The characteristic is that each "user" account is used two or three times, and then apparently abandoned so that no account ever violates WP:3RR. In actual fact, the versions of vandalised text are virtually identical. One of the user names adopted is Yueyuen3, similar to another sockpuppet account used by User:Samuel Luo. The socks appear to be active only on FG-related articles. Since before User:Samuel Luo was banned, there has been recurrent vandal activity from these socks. The table lists the vandal's attacks in chronological order.

G432
version# 148430694
*User:F44u 132084332 G432/F44u
*User:Yueyuen3 132278217 G432/Yueyuen3
*User:Free222 134340961 G432/Free222
*User:Free111 134392026 G432/Free111
*User:Usr99 134395080 G432/Usr99
*User:Free333 134628457 G432/Free333
*User:Free555 136450658 G432/Free555
*User:Free456 136900517 G432/Free456
*User:Free986 138016023 G432/Free986
*User:Free667 138382890 G432/Free667
*User:Free141 139545599 G432/Free141
*User:G712 140406227 G432/G712
*User:G190 140841709 G432/G190
*User:Free152 141248792 G432/Free152
*User:G777 142764742 G432/G777
*User:US333 142782089 G432/US333
*User:Free1324 144120022 G432/Free1324
*User:US343 144445238 G432/US343
*User:US133 144934033 G432/US133
*User:US543 145108681 G432/US543
*User:G751 146191545 G432/G751
*User:Free1999 146685926 G432/Free1999
*User:G431 147309385 G432/G431
*User:US986 148371983 G432/US986
*User:G432 148430694 G432/G432
*User:G7411 150272936 G432/G7411
*User:G752 150784915 G432/G752
*User:G7777 151320307 G432/G7777
Comments

Isn't it possible just to do some IP ban of him or something? Is it possible to vandalise these pages in this fashion with an automated process?, that is, could this go on indefinitely, or are we relying on the fact that he is mortal and will tire?--Asdfg12345 07:37, 19 August 2007 (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:John Smith's

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:John Smith's has been arguing for WP to use the BC/AD dating format (as opposed to BCE/CE) across multiple pages here on WP.

There are other pages as well, but I won't list them all here. Then along came User:Foula, who created the now-deleted Template:History of China - BC. The template was an exact duplicate of Template:History of China except that all the BCE/CE was replaced with BC/AD. The new account then inserted the template into several articles.[178][179][180][181] Then John Smith's proceeded to mass insert the template into a number of other articles as minor edits.[182] John Smith's and Foula were the only two accounts that tried to insert the duplicate template into articles.

Note that Foula has so far only made edits related to this BC/AD vs. BCE/CE date format issue. Normally this is perfectly acceptable usage of a sock. However, there is possible vote fraud going on.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Wow this clear and blantant sockpuppetry at its best, for a case this strong you could probably contact an admin directly. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Then we can close this silly thing. John Smith's 09:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just briefly, I think the allegations of meatpuppetry (as certainly any IP check would come back negative) are baseless. Foula starting editing a month ago on articles I had no interest in until recently, so it's not possible that account was set up to support me. I was agreeing with Foula (so does that mean I set my account up in anticipation of the dispute over the template?). In other cases Foula has disagreed with me such as here. I'm just sorry to see that Foula's user page now only consists of a suspected sockpuppet template! John Smith's 10:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In more detail, it appears that the deleted template in question was created either on or before 15th July - Foula added it to about 4 articles. It was not until nearly three weeks later that I found the template and tried to use it to create consistency between the article content and the template. However, Hong has left that rather important fact out, as well as that I never edited Naval history of China despite the fact that was one article Foula added the deleted template to (yet was removed by Hong without complaint) and edited more than once.
  • I did take part in two discussions with Foula. However, during the first one over the deletion of the template I was not the only other user apart from Foula to vote to keep it - User:Septentrionalis also argued for it for it not to be deleted. On another related vote here at the China Project, Foula did not take part in the discussion. This is in addition to Foula's comment here that was in opposition to what I had said/agreed with. Also on the WP:MOS talk page here, Foula did not take sides with me, only asking whether myself and PHG should be arguing over the point that was in dispute.
  • As I mentioned earlier, it's not logical to imply that I would have created a sock to carry on some work weeks before I'd taken any interest in the use of BC/AD on wikipedia. Indeed during this point (mid July) I was going through a phase of checking fair-use images for deletion, as well as editing other articles. Given that edit history (showing no interest in Chinese history or date terms at the time Foula was editing), the allegation of sockpuppeting Foula doesn't make sense. John Smith's 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the strongest part of this case are the mysterious "Hungarian friends" not Foula although her tempering with the template is quite suspicious. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. All I can say is that I don't believe I know this editor/these editors. I've been involved in various disputes over the last couple of months - I think the recent edit was the first time that I can remember anyone with a Hungarian IP cropping up on articles I've had a dispute on in that period. By the way, where did Foula tamper with a template? Or are you refering to the creation of the "fork"? John Smith's 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He/she created a clone of an existing template and edited it to suit his/her likes that's tempering with an existing temlate regardless of it being created somewhere else, if the user had a problem with the template as it was he could create a discussion about it on the template's talk page and would have warned the users that created and/or worked with it, the user's intention was clearly to replace the existing template with his/her own creation without any consensus first. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the "fork" as it was called. Foula's comments are here. He/she seemed to think it was a way to ensure articles could have a template that reflected their style, or some such. In retrospect I guess a better solution would have been insertion of code to make it adaptable, as has been discussed on the China Project. John Smith's 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe one of those "Hungarian friends" have been through a checkuser already and it came back negative. The matter was closed as far as I was concerned, but then another "Hungarian friend" showed up again to help John Smith's out after he made three reverts. Really, anybody with the capability can find an unrelated IP and make a sock out of it. We may never prove anything, but having two IPs from the same range show up only to make the same reverts that John Smith's did, after he made three reverts, is suspicious enough to warrant a bit of attention.
  • As far as Foula is concerned, the most suspicious thing is that the account was recently created and the only thing that the user has edited (so far) concerns the date issue - something that John Smith's has been involved in for a while now - and that Foula and John Smith's were the only ones to try to mass insert that duplicate template into articles. Now as I said, this is normally a perfectly allowable use of a sock (if it is indeed a sock), but Foula has also voted in two polls that John Smith's has voted in, and it would be vote fraud if Foula really is a sock of John Smith's.
  • Do I know for certain that Foula and those "Hungarian friends" are socks? Of course not, I am not privy to that information. But I believe it does look suspicious and that's why I've filed a case here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, there's not much I can say about this/these Hungarians, only that I have no ties to that country. If the editor(s) is/are on floating IPs that might give a reason why you'll only see them make a few edits of the same sort at one time, but that's a guess from me. The only other point is that, as I said, I was involved in other disputes where no such people appeared despite the fact I had also made a number of reverts.
    You ignored my point about Foula and the time the account was created. Why would I have created an account to take part in an activity (date style formating) in July that was not connected to anything I was doing at that time or had done in the lead-up to July? The only reason I would have done that was to hatch some sort of complex plot - why not just have got on with it myself if I cared? It's not as if there'd been a big existing argument over it on the Chinese pages (that I can see at any rate). You also ignore those "polls" where Foula either disagreed with me or didn't back me up. John Smith's 13:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually both you and "Foula" voted the same way in the two polls that I listed. If Foula really is your sock, there could be a number of reasons why there's a time lapse and a disconnect between what you were editing and what "Foula" was editing. Maybe you didn't want what "Foula" edited to show up on your main account's contrib history. Maybe you wanted to "test the waters" on the edits that "Foula" did to see if there were any objections. However, admittedly without a checkuser, arguments that you are using socks - and your counter-arguments against them - are all circumstantial. Unfortunately, vote fraud where sock votes did not affect poll outcomes do not qualify for checkuser requests. I don't know what else to say about this. I think I've outlined my suspicions pretty clearly. And of course, it's only natural that you defend yourself - I think anybody would do the same. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that Foula never voted with me - in an earlier post I pointed out places Foula either did not vote with me or contradicted me, even though it concerned similar discussions. I also think it's a rather shaky argument to allege that I used Foula to "test the waters" when, as I pointed out, I was showing no interest in BC/AD at that time - I was quite clearly involved in completely different areas of editing. You're essentially saying that I hatched a plot in the middle of going through uploaded fair use pictures to get involved in the use of BCE/CE and BC/AD in Chinese history articles. I have no idea how likely that seems to you, but to me it couldn't be more unlikely.
    I also didn't try to help Foula when his/her changes were reverted in July, and Foula did not help me when my edits were reverted at any point. Additionally Foula was rather slow to revert changes back, whereas I'm much quicker if I do it at all. So unless you would claim that I deliberately waited up to a week to change back edits made with an account that I had supposedly gone to great lengths to create/activate/whatever, again this doesn't seem credible in my view.
    On a separate matter, I would appreciate it if you could ask an admin that actions these reports (you could look on the SSP talk page) to process this case, as I have already asked on your talk page - I have no idea how long the backlog will take to clear. John Smith's
  • For what it's worth, I've had the pleasure of interacting with John Smith's for a few months now, and I must confess that I'd be shocked to hear that he would stoop to sock puppetry. I believe that while he certainly has his own opinions and zealously defends them, he has, in my opinion, always presented himself as an upright, honorable, and rule-abiding fellow, and NOT one that would tolerate sockpuppetry (see the case of User:TingMing) or resort to it. If a checkuser must be done, I think it will quickly reveal these accusations to be baseless. --Folic Acid 17:46, 16 August 2007 (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:Tiffelie

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Soundofcourage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Valente1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vespatiff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.241.37.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Matthew_hk tc 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Creat Valente (artist), once replaced Valente page, uploader of Image:Valente.jpg (see old image deletion log)

assume bad faith, by no need to multi account to edit one article

Valente (artist) currently on AFD

Comments

These accounts come from the same person and maintain the same agenda. I'd recommend to limit this user to Vespatiff, his most recent user account, but not to impose any other sanctions on him because he has not tried to subvert process using multiple accounts. Shalom Hello 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • The named accounts are almost certainly operated by the same person, but it looks like the earlier accounts have been abandoned. I don't even see a need to block anyone. The IP address belongs to a Panera Bread outlet, it looks like, so the edits probably belong to many different people. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2007 (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:Astrotrain

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

81.79.203.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
163.167.129.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - if any, this would be the user's home address.
90.240.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.77.251.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.68.13.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

The Evil Spartan 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The three IPs are clearly all sockpuppets. They show extensive knowledge of WP and its policies (see additions by 81.79 to WP:RPP), and are being used to circumvent scrutiny and often 3RR. I believe that they are sockpuppets of User:Astrotrain, who has been around since early 2005, and accumulated something like 9 blocks in the meantime, all for edit warring (and has recently been issued another warning by User:John for edit warring). It just so happens that the IPs are adding information in accordance with Astrotrain's POV, and often step in right after Astrotrain is does editing. In particular, I would like to point out:

The only other users engaged on this side of a POV in any of the edit wars all have a much cleaner history, are edit warring less often than Astrotrain, and are willing to at least try to use the talk page to come to a consensus (Astrotrain is not); in fact, some of the said pages have only had an edit war with Astrotrain and these IPs pushing a POV, which is pretty damning evidence. To the closing admin: if you are unable to conclude that these are the same users, I would ask that you could kindly copy the information over to WP:CU, where hopefully the checkusers will look at the IP's. The Evil Spartan 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Astrotrain (talk · contribs) has been extensively involved in the controversial Northern Irish flags issue and has a penchant for wishing to add a particular flag into a number of highly visible templates. While this sounds trivial on the surface, there's an underlying sovereignty battle going on beneath all this. From the timings of the accounts above, I strongly suspect that the 8x.xx accounts are belonging to Astrotrain as the revert-times and articles targetted are too similar to be coincidental - Alison ☺ 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is the holiday season we know that Astrotrain is located in Scotland (as far as I am aware) and while the first and third ip's have a non-specific location the second is from the University of London (which would imply access to that instition, unlikely in a traveller) while the fifth is in on Stoke-on-Trent (the 4th being of unnamed location in London). The London university ip also has an extensive edit history making it unlikely and indeed if all the IPsn had been in Edinburgh I might have been convinced but this one isnt looking good to me, SqueakBox 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four of these IPs trace back to the Energis UK network, two of which go through cable & wireless > Energis UK, the second in the list is University of North London, so it is possible that four of them are the same person.--padraig 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ecd by Alison) My ip locator gives 2 from Energis and 2 from Cable & Wireless (including the Stoke on Trent address). Are these companies connected. I would suggest thast the claim that the UoL is his home address would need to be backed up as this one is looking the weakest of the 4. What I see (from my IP locator) is 3 editors, the Uol one being unlikely and the Energis and Cable &Wireless being possibly 2 users, one of whom might be Astrotrain, SqueakBox 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order;
  • 71.203.79.81.in-addr.arpa. 14400 IN PTR user-514fcb47.l3.c4.dsl.pol.co.uk.
  • 124.129.167.163.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN PTR n129-124.unl.ac.uk.
  • 121.21.240.90.in-addr.arpa. 14400 IN PTR user-5af01579.wfd96.dsl.pol.co.uk.
  • 19.251.77.81.in-addr.arpa. 14400 IN PTR user-514dfb13.l4a.c1.dsl.pol.co.uk.
  • 116.13.68.84.in-addr.arpa. 14400 IN PTR user-54440d74.lns1-c10.dsl.pol.co.uk.

- Alison ☺ 23:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS - 84.68.13.116 mail iconEmail link to results Generated by www.DNSstuff.com

Location: United Kingdom [City: Stoke On Trent, England]


Using 1 day old cached answer (or, you can get fresh results). Displaying E-mail address (use sparingly -- this will make it more likely that you will trigger our rate limiting system).

% This is the RIPE Whois query server #1. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % Rights restricted by copyright. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/copyright.html

% Information related to '84.64.0.0 - 84.71.255.255'

inetnum: 84.64.0.0 - 84.71.255.255 netname: EU-EN-20040315 country: GB org: ORG-CaWT1-RIPE descr: Cable & Wireless Telecommunication Services GmbH admin-c: GNOC4-RIPE tech-c: GNOC4-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-lower: CW-IPGNOC-MNT mnt-domains: CW-DNS-MNT mnt-domains: ENERGIS-MNT mnt-routes: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-routes: AS5378-MNT notify: ipadmin@eu.cw.net changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20040315 changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20061206 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070130 source: RIPE

organisation: ORG-CaWT1-RIPE org-name: Cable and Wireless Telecommunication Services GmbH org-type: LIR address: Landsbergerstr. 155 address: 80687 address: Muenchen address: Germany phone: +49 89 926 99 111 fax-no: +49 89 926 99 808 e-mail: ipadmin@cw.net admin-c: DS3356-RIPE admin-c: MG10145-RIPE admin-c: SM6163-RIPE admin-c: DOM12-RIPE admin-c: SA79-RIPE admin-c: RS27341-RIPE admin-c: AB14382-RIPE admin-c: TOC-RIPE admin-c: JO361-RIPE mnt-ref: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20040415 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20040511 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041019 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041112 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041122 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041217 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041228 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050201 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050310 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050315 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050406 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050418 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050502 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050623 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051014 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051014 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051117 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051117 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060224 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060330 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060406 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060509 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060628 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060711 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060817 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061005 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061009 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061011 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061016 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061017 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061124 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061124 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061130 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061206 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061207 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061207 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061213 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061218 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070110 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070212 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070215 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070221 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070308 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070308 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070322 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070416 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070416 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070716 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070727 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070808 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070809 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070813 source: RIPE

role: Cable and Wireless IP GNOC Munich remarks: IP Admin Department address: Landsbergerstr. 155 address: 80687 Munich address: Germany e-mail: ipadmin@cw.net admin-c: TOC-RIPE tech-c: TOC-RIPE tech-c: SM6163-RIPE tech-c: RS27341-RIPE tech-c: SA79-RIPE abuse-mailbox: abuse@cw.net nic-hdl: GNOC4-RIPE mnt-by: CW-IPGNOC-MNT changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20040203 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20040727 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20041105 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20051014 changed: annette.moll@cw.com 20051126 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20060714 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20060807 changed: smorhoff@cw.net 20070403 source: RIPE

% Information related to '84.64.0.0/13AS5388'

route: 84.64.0.0/13 descr: Energis UK origin: AS5388 mnt-by: ENERGIS-MNT changed: matt.mcintyre@energis.com 20020916 source: RIPE


[The following lines added by www.dnsstuff.com per requirement by RIPE] This service is subject to the terms and conditions stated in the RIPE NCC Database Copyright Notice. Contact dnsstuff.com's 'info2@' address to report problems regarding the functionality of the service.

This is one of the Cable and Wireless results from whois, as you can see from the bottom it links to Energis UK, the other Cable & Wireless one does as well, I am not totally convinced this is Astrotrain or him working alone I suspect someone else involved in this.--padraig 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In such an issue I would say good faith means if we think there are 2+ people that is likely true, SqueakBox 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • This data is inconclusive. It seems probable that there are at least two people behind the IP edits, and I'm not confident that any of them are connected to Astrotrain. If problems are continuing semi-protection and a Checkuser are in order. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2007 (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:Thedeadmanandphenom

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Lostinspace123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Johncenaiscool123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dasaniisgood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Deep Shadow 03:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Thedeadmanandphenom began a dispute with Darrenhusted on June 24 2007 at 18:04 (UTC).[188] At 18:43 (UTC) Lostinspace123's account was created and the first post was to Darrenhusted.[189][190]

On 3 August 2007 at 21:07 (UTC) an account with the same 123 affix was created (Johncenaiscool123) and at 21:08 (UTC) they awarded Thedeadmanandphenom with a barnstar.[191][192] They made no further contributions.[193]

On 3 August 2007 I addressed a concern I had to Thedeadmanandphenom about their edits.[194] The responses I received were totally uncalled for.[195] Darrenhusted informed me that I was reported for "vandalism".[196] On 12 August 2007 at 22:48 (UTC) Dasaniisgood's account was created and their first post was at 22:55 (UTC) to Darrenhusted, attacking both him and me. It is also similar to Lostinspace123's first post.[197] Both also claim to be from Maryland.[198]

Comments


Conclusions

Clear sockpuppetry, and all accounts are now indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2007 (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:Ghetsmith

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Jbntj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Power2708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admitted on [199])
Bhlimn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
Smilth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) only made edits on 5 July 2007
164.107.167.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.75.18.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Jbntj assessed {{environment}} as stub [200], then added {{climate change}} [201]. I spotted the error that he assessed the article Fossil fuel power plant as stub (even though that article is long and has references), so I corrected it back to B-class. I also removed climate change template. [202] 1 day later, Ghetsmith came and add back the climate change template and reassess the article back to stub class. [203]

In Ghetsmith's contribution page and Jbntj's page, both are involved mainly on articles and talk pages related to energy, renewable & conventional energy resources.

Another editor, mbeychok, left me a message on my talk page questioning the coincidental edits the 2 users made. Mbeychok suspects that they are using Wikipedia articles as propaganda for environmental issues.

An interesting note is that Ghetsmith's editing stopped after July 9 and resumed on August 7. During this period, Jbntj edits between July 12 and August 6. It is not a concrete evidence, but this is a hint that Ghetsmith used Jbntj in mid/late July.

Comments

There is circumstantial evidence of sock puppetry, but no "smoking gun" that I can see. The incident cited above, where the two users made the same controversial edit regarding article assessment, seems to be the only blatant violation of the user account policy.

I think the correct response is to block Jbntj, the newer of the two accounts (and the currently inactive one), and to advise Ghetsmith that sock puppetry is a Bad Thing. Shalom Hello 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologise if any of my edits were viewed as sockpuppetry. Also I would like to point out that using multiple accounts is allowed under wikipedia policy but I will promise to avoid sockpuppetry in the future. Especially when editing controversial topics I will try to justify my edits to reach a consensus on the talk page first. Regarding the issue of alternative/renewable energy: the unfortunate truth is that present scientific knowledge tells us that none of the resources available are truely renewable. Solar power is not completely renewable, which means that wind, hydro, wave, tide, biomass, (which depend on solar) aren't either. Geothermal resources are large but exhaustable over thousands of years. Also the word energy source is misleading. According to conservation of energy, energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just changes form. Energy conversion would be more appropriate. Also it might be a good idea to merge renewable energy with energy development since both articles discuss the same thing. Regarding environmental issues, renewable energy tends to be more clean than fossil fuels. Nevertheless, estimates on cleanliness of a given technology may vary widely based on the assumptions made. By stating nuclear as renewable, I am assuming there will be no major nuclear meltdowns, terrorist attacks, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. I enjoy writing wikipedia and will try to adhere to {npov} as much as possible. Sincerely,Ghetsmith 07:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Regarding the {{climate change}} tag on the fossil fuel power plant, it clearly states here in the article that fossil fuel power plants are directly responsible for {{climate change}} and global warming.[reply]
I'm an environmental science student so I am fully aware of the issues. The main issue here is NOT about what you are editing in, but what you are editing WITH. You are using 5 suspected sock puppets, which are more than necessary for legitimate uses of multiple accounts. In my opinion, your edits are considered to meet one of the forbidden uses of sock puppets. Even if you want to discuss about the edits, you haven't answered why you kept changing {{environment}} class despite the fact that I left a message on Jbntj's talk page more than a week ago. You continue to edit, ignoring my message. This consitutues disruptive editing, and is a blockable offense. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His response was to blank the user page and add that he also used Power2708 for edits. 199.125.109.108 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Block them all as recent sockpuppets and do a checkuser to find out what username they have been using. 199.125.109.58 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • As Ghetsmith points out, WP policy doesn't prohibit the use of multiple accounts, and this case doesn't demonstrate that the sockpuppet accounts have been used to violate policy. In addition, most of the accounts haven't edited recently, so there's not an urgent need to take any action. Nevertheless, I would advise Ghetsmith to limit himself to the use of a single account in the future, as editors tend to distrust users with multiple accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (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:Potters house

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Potters house (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Daniel Case 05:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

I was clearing out expired prods when I came upon Harold Warner, from which the tag had been removed[204] by Sapienz, who claimed that sources had been added as xlinks. Since he turned out to be a relatively new user, I decided that I would list the article at AfD and leave a note about removing prods on his talk page.

But as I looked at his history,[205] and the article's, I noticed that there seemed to be a focus on articles related to Potter's House Christian Fellowship. I noted also that there seemed to be an edit war between Sapienz and Darrenss ([206], [207] and [208]) who he claimed was an ex-PHCF member biased against the group. Darrenss's userpage does seem to suggest this.

I then decided to put this on WP:AN/I. But then I decided to look into Potters house, who had originally created the article[209]. And things got interesting.

Potters house was blocked indefinitely in May for an inappropriate username. This was after two blocks, one for spam and another for 3RR, (the latter lifted after two of the 24 hours) last summer.[210]. But I noticed Potters house has a similar thing about Darrenss and his purported agenda ([211], [212], [213]). Sapienz has been, and Potters house was, actively editing Wayman Mitchell.

It also seems to me their language is similar. Is Sapienz simply Potters house, trying to evade a ban?

Comments
  1. IMO, yes - same editing styles, same allegations being made. It's been reasonably confidently established that Potters house, along with several IPs (see User talk:Darrenss for an extended conversation between them) were a PH member by the name of Nick, who had some personal beef with Darrenss regarding the latter's former involvement with PH, and regularly vandalised that user's user page. I put it on semi-protect and things seem to have rapidly slowed down there. Orderinchaos 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can verify that this is true. The same user aka user:Potter's House, aka User:Xsxsxsxs, aka user:Sapienz, aka heaps of anon IP's. I recently placed an incident report for his behaviour under the heading user:Sapienz - Incidents on the 3rd of August outlining his various IP's that he has used to harrass me and others. I already had 2 posts I left on Sapienz talk page and he deleted them both, besides only Nick aka potters house guy knows I used to attend his church, that fact he uses against me. I tried to be civil to him to explain my edits on those talk pages and even invited him to discuss it but so far he has chosen to complain to other editors about me and has avoided any coversation regarding his favorite articles. One more thing, on the Wayman Mitchell talk page Nick explains that he runs a site http://www.waymanmitchell.com and has scanned onto his site a book he is using for reference which is copyrighted. Also Nick is the web admin for http://www.cfmau.com and http://www.pottersclub.com which he has furiously fought to get into the Potters House related articles.Darrenss 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • Sapienz is almost certainly Potters house editing under a new username. Potters house was blocked for an inappropriate username; his new name is not a username violation, so this is not really block evasion. There may be COI or other problems with Sapienz's editing that might warrant a block, but no evidence of such is provided in this case--therefore, there is at current no reason to take action against Sapienz. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2007 (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:Madsurrealist

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

BenjaminPeret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Worldeater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thikeboylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Madsurrealist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RedAnarchy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
notey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--TextureSavant 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

PRIOR EVIDENCE: This sockpuppetry is repeated vandalism by Keith Wigdor, who has been harrassing other users associated with the Surrealism article. This same individual, Madsurrealist for a long time was using the account of Classicupiter2 and is a previously proven sockpuppeteer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Classicjupiter2

The arbitration committee looked into the problem, but they didn't do anything about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/TextureSavant


RECENT EVIDENCE:
Here are some of the most recent diffs: [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221]

A checkuser analysis was recently completed, confirming that the above accounts are indeed socks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thikeboylove


Comments


This Suspected-Sockpuppet case is being filed in order to take further action in preventing this individual from causing further disruption to the Surrealism article.

The first four user accounts in this case are all new and use the same disruptive language and mannerisms that suggest that the Classicjupiter2 sockpuppeteer has returned from a few months' reprieve in order to cause more trouble for the Surrealism article. His usual motive is the skewing of consensus & disruption of discussion regarding the article. In particular, he has a beef with the Chicago Surrealist Group, and repeatedly attempts to remove references to them that appear in the article. Keith Wigdor is sore because he can't succeed in getting his own name and website (http://www.surrealismnow.com) into the Surrealism article. --TextureSavant 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These various sock accounts should be blocked, so as to prevent Keith Wigdor/ User:Madsurrealist from causing more disruption to the Surrealism article.

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:EdwinCasadoBaez

EdwinCasadoBaez

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Jimmyjones1122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jonathanmbaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Memeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
130.245.239.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.118.48.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.190.180.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by
64.131.205.111 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Please note two accounts listed were already blocked for disruptive behavior 70.177.181.129, 69.119.127.181 in another sockpuppet case [222] 64.131.205.111 04:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [223] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [224] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [225] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [226] ,[227]. He has been warned numerous times [228], [229], [230] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [231] . Can be seen here. [232] . New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [233] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [234] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [235] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [236] refering to other users as idiots [237] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [238] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [239] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [240].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [241] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [242] [243] Later he was "Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)" ignoring the block which using his 69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Just got off of block [244] and violates Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as well as Wikipedia:Civility [245] [246] . Has been noted to not be able to control his temper by an admin. [247] His previous block was lengthened because of ban-evasions [248] Also please take a look at the block log http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:EdwinCasadoBaez and an admission of using sockpuppets http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:69.119.127.181&diff=prev&oldid=140359231 Tells other users to "suck it" [249] Adding a Checkuser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Memeco[reply]

He stated that I was using a sockpuppet when I wasn't [250] . And was answered by Jpgordan that creating an account was perfectly alright [251] . When I did create another account it wasn't in any manner to be disruptive as EdwinCasadoBaez did. He was reported on numerous occasions to AN/I [252] , but all they did was lengthen his ban. He was given a pass the first time around b/c he seemed apologetic [253], but came back full force and was put on a week long block. His disruption of checkuser cases was unprecedented [254] . He would carry on, invite meatpuppets (i.e johnathenbaez) [255] to further disrupt articles, and more. His personal attacks were hard and hurtful. [256] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). I left numerous warnings on his page as did many other wikipedians as to his unruly behavior [257] and he would simply ignore them or attack others verbally. He would also mock his blockings [258]  ; encouring the use of MEATPUPPETS [259] ; stating that people (banned users) were his family when it seems very likely that it was him as shown by checkuser [260] He has warred with many different wikipedians in articles . [261]. He also disrupted other AN/N cases [262] 64.131.205.111 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

I couldn't help but noting while browsing the IP's contributions that he/she contributed to a case (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111) involving his/her account where it was confirmed that it was a sockpuppeter (confirmed socks are User:YoSoyGuapo, User: DMVGuy, User: BoriquaStar and User:Bombaplena, those are the ones on the checkuser at least, that is an awful lot of sockpuppetry in my humble opinion) how is it possible that a user that has been proven as abusing multiple accounts is still active and of all things contributing to the sock puppet board? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had two account for 2 different purposes. One day I had a cookie error on my browser and edits were switching back and forth (I thought i forgot to sign off and switch but i later learned my browser was configured wrong, thanks Mozilla. I ended up getting suspended and blocked. I was suspended for it and served my time. [263] The user EdwinCasadoBaez who as can be seen above than made a checkuser on my accounts. At what point is it not ok to have an IP account and a username account? The username account was to write to administators and for pages that were semi-protected. Admin:Jpgordan said it was ok as well. [264] ""The page was semi-protected, meaning only people with usernames can edit. So it's entirely likely that an IP user registered a name and waited a few days so he could edit the article non-anonymously; that's the whole point. You can do the exact same thing." Anyway wikipolicy on sockpuppets was "Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy in a nutshell is Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. I have done none of this." [265] . I am only using an IP at this point I don't want any confusion with sockpuppet cases. I served my ban, but was not a blatent user of sockpuppets as was EdwinCasadoBaez. As is highly evidenced. 64.131.205.111 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, the accounts listed up there (and to be fair they are four not two) all have a main focus on their edits: the Dominican Republic and so do you, I actually examine the allegations at hand before commenting wich means I check the contributions of both parts, this particular case drawed my attention because it involved a member of the Caribbean WikiProject and judging that 64.131.205.111 has made references to Puerto Rican culture in his user names (Bomba y Plena a style of traditional music and Boriqua although its actually spelled Boricua) we might have a issue involving ethnic tension, and that worries me. Can someone that knows the history of Yo Soy Guapo or Bombaplena or whatever explain this further? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This particular conversation [266] linked in the checkuser may support my racial tension hypotesis, the edit in the diff was a response within an argument where the aforementioned anon was debating if his edits were racist, when the Dominican user Avfnx explained his point of view he replied with that edit, it literally reads: "Avfnx no that was because your uncle told you that when you where younger and after that your grandfather touched your penis" all that in broken spanish but the translation is pretty accurate, there are worse broken spanish comments aganist the Dominican users in that conversation including several of them where 64.131.205.111 threatens to fill EdwinCasadoBaez's face with leche, that literally translates into "milk" so you must have an idea of what he meant. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking soundbites and out of context. This issue carried on from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic "Weeeeeeepaaaa!!! 64.131.205.111 16:30, 24 May 2007 - Wepa means cool to which he replied "Actually if you going use Dominican slang use it right...mira te di lu, tamo cloro...oh what should I use your slang okay pai. Avfnx 22:40, 24 May 2007" - which means more or less "look here, what you do in the dark, you take it in the dark" referring to "getting F**** by another male in the dark"
i replied "thats dirty but cute. do you want milk" -- meaning what he said was dirty, do you want milk -- because kids with dirty mouths talk like that
his reply " dejame dalte lu de nuevo, pork parace k te k daste en lo oscuro. ------ en tu cara? tamo cloro or is to much for you. Avfnx 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" meaning "listen here you dickhead, you freakin take it in the darkness in your face. take it now..is that too much for you"
my reply "Avfnx no eso fue porque tu tio te lo dijo oh cuando tu eras mas joven i despues que tu abuelo te toco el pene" which was "avfnx that wasn't me that was you and your uncle. you learned that after your grandfather touched you."
I never reported these attacks b/c they went both ways and were in spanish. User:Avfnx has stated things in english such as "full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are", "This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR." This though does not take away from the fact that said user EdwinCasadoBaez was using sockpuppets. 64.131.205.111 01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it just leaves clear that this is a bad faith nomination and that the problem behind it its not going to be resolved by blocking EdwinCasadoBaez alone, I'm not taking nothing out of context actually it was you the one that began the entire flame war in your first comment you said:"Tu quieres leche en su cara" (translated Do you want milk in your face?) then EwinCasadoBaez made an edit where he called for civility and it is then that the exerpt of text that you posted above comes in. Now considering this uncivil conversation and the acts of sockpuppetry from both sides I would support a month long block on both users with autoblock on the IPs to avoid the creation of further socks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look. I've served my ban for sockpuppetry and it lasted over a month. I was even instructed to make a new account "I probably shouldn't be telling you this: just register a new account (if you can't, then wait about a day and try again). If you contribute constructively, you will not be connected to the blocked accounts; should you vandalize pages or harass users, you will be blocked, sockpuppet or not. -" [267]. I'm not creating another account for a while. He never served anything longer than a week and continued to use sockpuppets on multiple occasions even during his ban. Bad faith no (a point to be made, yes), but point blank he used a large amount of sockpuppets. 64.131.205.111 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS also take a look at the commentary made by EdwinCasadoBaez and sockpuppets for their edit summaries! 64.131.205.111 02:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rosoft gave you stupidest choice ever, I am proposing another block because you evaded the block, how do I know? because I actually interacted with User:BoriquaStar in Talk:Puerto Rico, naturally I had no idea that BoriquaStar was a sock or I would have informed tha you were evading your block back then, you were blocked on June 11 and BoeiquaStar was created in June 9 however the account itself was still active. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I served a month long already for the "block evasion" Luna told me to reapply after a month. After that month I did and was told to make a new account by PMC as well [268] I find it highly strange how you are trying to have me blocked again after 2 admins said I should simply make a new account; while an individual who utilized extreme personal attacks in english and spanish [269] and is well documented (as I provided many links) goes unpunished. I understand that you have a relationship with him in the Caribbean WikiProject but throwing that aside it is easy to see it is easily viewed. You stated that I started that I started the flame wars, but you ignore that he was calling people idiots and stupid way before this. You give a translation (a poor one I may add) and but ignore the whole dialogue. 64.131.205.111 10:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at this checkuser


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Memeco

Actually I am not defending him, but I'm supporting blocking you both, you for uncivil violations and action on bad faith (you could have ignored him now istead of opening this case that will undoubtly extent the conflicts further) and him for actually having sockpuppets and because he engaged in WP:CIVIL violations as well. Although since it seems the main problem here is the Dominican Republic article an editing ban to that article can be imposed to both to avoid any edit warring. My translation was actually pretty accurate since I am completely bilingual its not my fault if the Spanish you wrote there wasn't your best(thought I admmit that I have never taken any Dominican slang classes since I'm Puerto Rican, but in common Spanish this was pretty violent), but nevermind that what is being discussed here is how these petty conflict between you two are affecting the Caribbean WikiProject.- Caribbean~H.Q. 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 64.131.205.111and User:EdwinCasadoBaez, you both are from the Dominican Republic and I believe that you both want to do the best work possible for your countries. I see that both of you have used sockpuppets which is against Wiki Policy and therefore I will keep my eye on both of you in that respect. However, what concerns me the most is the uncivil manner in which your discussions have been handled. Not only are you both violating our policy, you are also creating an erroneous impression of how the Dominican People conduct themselves. This is not fair for either of you nor for your people. I am tempted to block you both because of your conduct, however I would like to see if you can both come to an agreement here. I know that it is difficult to post negative information about ones country in an article. Everything that is added to an article must provide a verifiable reliable source. I will invite User:EdwinCasadoBaez to discuss the issues since I know that User:64.131.205.111 has expressed himslef before, plus I would like my friend Dargon to be here also. Let's see if we fix this the civil way. Tony the Marine 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am puerto rican with some dominican members of my family via marriage. EdwinCasadoBaez is dominican. Just to clarify. 64.131.205.111 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


EdwinCasadoBaez simply negates any type of information that is even perceived to be negative about DR and will not posted in regardless of the sources. Amnesty International, the UN, etc. When references such as ESPN are used as recently as his reply was "What the hell does Steroids has to be in the Dominican Republic article?!!!go put it in some other page!!!do You see steroids being mentioned in the United States Article, where atlethes use it the most?" [270]

He stated that I was using a sockpuppet when I wasn't [271] . And was answered by Jpgordan that creating an account was perfectly alright [272] . When I did create another account it wasn't in any manner to be disruptive as EdwinCasadoBaez did. He was reported on numerous occasions to AN/I [273] , but all they did was lengthen his ban. He was given a pass the first time around b/c he seemed apologetic [274], but came back full force and was put on a week long block. His disruption of checkuser cases was unprecedented [275] . He would carry on, invite meatpuppets (i.e johnathenbaez) [276] to further disrupt articles, and more. His personal attacks were hard and hurtful. [277] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). I left numerous warnings on his page as did many other wikipedians as to his unruly behavior [278] and he would simply ignore them or attack others verbally. He would also mock his blockings [279]  ; encouring the use of MEATPUPPETS [280] ; stating that people (banned users) were his family when it seems very likely that it was him as shown by checkuser [281] He has warred with many different wikipedians in articles . [282] . 64.131.205.111 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your version. So far you seem to be the only one interested in looking for a solution. Now, I am waiting to hear what EdwinCasadoBaez has to say (I left a message on his talk page). Tony the Marine 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi my fellow wikipedians, I know that am not suppose to be here writing this and all, i recently got informed about this accusation of me being a sockpuppet of several other!this has been going on for weeks and i just want to tell once and for all that i am not a sockpuppet of no one here!!!i have six months being part of wikipedia and i have done wonderfull contributions,in the articles of Santo Domingo,Zona colonial,Santo Domingo Metro and many others i cannot recall in the moment. None of them Biased and only give a plain view of the situation. I would like to add that i do agree in that i have act wrongfull in arguing in talkpages, reverting edits, and doing several non civil acts. In the past month for that reason, i have stop using wikipedia as often and i stoped editing the Dominican Republic's talk page. I do understand that i did wrong but i do not want to be block. This account is the account that i have used for a long time and i do not want it to be block. if anybody has anymore questions please ask me in the talk pageEdwinCasadoBaez 23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • As I have stated before, I believe that you both have good intentions, but that the discussions have been over-heated and out of place. I'm not going to accuse any of you of using sockpuppets, but I must warn both of you that the use of sockpuppets can be proved and colaborated. If sockpuppet accounts are used in the future, I will not hesitate to block any of you.

Your contributions are valued in Wikipedia and who else then Dominicans to make their related articles better. I must tell both of you that if you are going to add any information to any article, you must provide a verifiable reliable source to proof the allegations as required by Wiki policy. If not added material my be subject to deletion, however if the material added contains the proper source and is reverted by anyone, that action maybe deemed as vandalism.

Do not ask nor instigate others to join in a discussion which may turn hostile. When entering a discussion, remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. If any of you enter a dispute ask for the help of an outsider, a mediator or arbitrator. There are times when people differ in opinions and which amy require a consensus.

Therefore, I am asking both of you to accept the following agreement for the good of the image of the Dominican Republic and its people.

  • 1. No sockpuppet accounts.
  • 2. Add only information to articles which are cited and verifiable by a reliable source.
  • 3. Do not revert verified information.
  • 4. Conduct yourselves in a civil manner when discussing an issue. Refrain from making personal attacks.

If you both agree, sign your user names here:

1.I Completely Accept!and thanks for giving me another ChanceEdwinCasadoBaez 06:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.

I will be watching, if either of you break the agreements or rules, you will be blocked and possibly banned. Tony the Marine 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I cannot agree that EdwinCasadoBaez goes unpunished for his actions. He was already given a pass for his unruly behavior [283] and proceeded to simply do worse. My account was suspended and I was blocked as a sockpuppet while he continued to go along his merry way as if what he did was perfectly alright. I served my suspension and as a result of his actions am without a user account. If my account YoSoyGuapo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was reinstated then I would have a change of heart (as well as him serving at the very least a token suspension). At this point I think the only thing that is fair would be the loss of his account due to the overwhelming evidence that shows his poor behavior and violations of wikibehavior. 64.131.205.111 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,i would like to add, that i have ceased from being uncivil!i have changed my ways of arguing in talk pages, check the Dominican Republic talk page, you'll find it clean and clear, i have ceased of using wikipedia as much as before(check my amount of edits for this month and the past month of July, i have tried to be more civil and forget about the past arguements and i have shown a more civil way of being. I have never used sockpuppets in wikipedia and probably i did use my annonymous account once or twice(at most) but not to use it in ballots or consensus acts.EdwinCasadoBaez 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

My final decision is that I will not block nether of you as of now. Both of you should have asked for a mediator before your arguments got out of hand and nether of you did. I have set up rules and asked for an agreement between both parties and EdwinCasadoBaez has agreed to follow the rules plus Wikipedia policy. Regardless of wheather the parties involved agree or do not, Wikipedia policy will be enforced and whoever breaks the rules will be blocked. If any of the parties involved does not agree with my decision, then said party has the option of seeking an arbitrator. Tony the Marine 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request for another admin to look over this

I find it a bit disturbing that with such heavy evidence against EdwinCasadoBaez concerning his use of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and multiple accounts that no one even bothered to confirm whether or not he actually used them. Even you can see this. [284] I was actually in the gathering evidence on EdwinCasadoBaez and made numerous reports on him to AN/I to no avail. I would like this to be looked over by another administrator. 64.131.205.111 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also why is EdiwinCasadoBaez allowed to keep his name account and mine was taken away? 64.131.205.111 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming old, yes there is evidence aganist him that's pretty obvious but...then again there is also evidence aganist you, actually I'm sure another checkuser is bound to expose even more sock accounts that you may have hidden, so if he gets blocked so should you but what we are pursuing here is a happy medium. The reason your account was blocked and your IP wasn't seems like an error, someone suggested that your checkuser was moved to YoSoyGuapo so I assume that was your original name right? Hey Tony how about we revert the block here, what I mean is indef block the IP and allow him to keep his first account, that way we can avoid the posibility of him changing IP to edit war without going unnoticed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my account YoSoyGuapo is unblocked you won't see the ip used anymore. The checkuser was a violation of my privacy with the use of an IP. Even if it is moved to YoSoyGuapo the original page wasn't deleted. Which is what I was asking for but no one is helping me at all. I understand that you have a special relationship with him (because of his membership in the WikiCarib project). This isn't becoming old it's simply the fact that the language used was agressive and people have been blocked on wikipedia for far less. Anyway, lets see what another admin says. 64.131.205.111 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (on library IP)[reply]

Checkusers aren't a violation of your privacy a checkuser will only stablish two things: your general location (state or region) and the accounts on your IP adress, not your house's location or the name registered as owner of the PC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry for writing in this board since am actually the accused one)Special Relations???because i am in the wikicarib project!!!!i think that does not make a difference here,what makes a difference here is the amount of constructive edits and the edit totals that we each have done to see who can be trusted or not!so i dont think he is defending anyone here by actually being in a project together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinCasadoBaez (talk • contribs)

region? http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation ? come on now. this again doesn't take away from the almost definitive use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets by edwincasadobaez. offering protection to a friend is sometimes fine. objection is typically best. 64.131.205.111 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the wrong program there, there is actually a checuser privacy policy they can't release any info and again they can't trace your house. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see what other admin's have to say. I guess you're ok with the strong use of sockpuppets and meat puppets so long as they are contributing to the wiki carib project. anyway, i said i'd drop this if 1) edwincadadobaez was blocked for his use of sockpuppets or 2) we both served a punishment and my account was restored. 64.131.205.111 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The view of another admin


HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONFIRMATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE SOCKPUPPETS USED BY HIM? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.205.111 (talk) 02:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)


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:Evil000

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Evil000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evilpeople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evilpeople2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Insanity Incarnate 07:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandalizing Cassowary at the same time, while I was reverting "their" edits, similar usernames. May also be the same person as User:Arsehole11, who was another recent, similar vandal on that page.

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:Jacksbernstein

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Jacksbernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Wikifixeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TheInnocenceProject (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

THF 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

SPA trying to "CSD" well-researched Richard Rossi article. Jacksbernstein (Rossi's press agent) created a different sock, The InnocenceProject, to try to edit article after being indef-blocked for legal threats; that account has been indef-blocked also.

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:Justlit

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Miley hilary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Xxdisneyxfanxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

James Luftan contribs 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First notice how both of their usernames are Disney related.

Justlit adds disney related content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justlit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laila_Richard_Sadeq According to this Miley hilary is a new user, editting on a improperly listed AfD, supporting the suspected sockpuppeteer. Notice how they both try to manipulate the time.(so far as two months back!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xxdisneyxfanxx According to that, the user lives in Florida and England.(?)

They have day old accounts, but tons of userboxes.

Both accounts were created minutes after the AfD began.

Comments

This evidence is overwhelming, and they both (sloppily) try to manipulate the system. I will request for checkuser once somebody responds. James Luftan contribs 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to waste the checkusers' time. This is plainly obvious by the writing styles at the AFD and the fact that they have not edited any other articles. I would block one account indefinitely and the other account for five days, until the AFD closes. Shalom Hello 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks, Shalom. This is my first sock case so I wasn't sure what to do. Unfortunately I'm not an administrator, so can you block one for me?

Thanks, James Luftan contribs 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is User:Justlit is the sock puppeter and the other 2 are his puppets. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laila Richard Sadeq for further details 3tmx 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably correct, but for that we would need a checkuser IMO. I can't block anyone because I'm not an admin either. (I just like to examine the evidence and recommend how the admins should respond.) Shalom Hello 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why would Justlit nominate his own article for AfD? James Luftan contribs 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Justlit James Luftan contribs 21:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Justlit effectivel;y nominated his own article:

I think they may have thought it had already been nominated (when it had just been flagged for notability).Its a possibility they were trying to make it look like an archived discussion as they pasted from an archived discussion, (although this was changed) - could explain the weird thing with the dates too. I don't think whoever is responsible totally new what they were doing, but had a good go. I'm 99.9% certain that he is the puppet master. One of the suspected sock puppets was created 10 min after his changes to the AFD - enough time to get a load of userboxes and create a sock puppet. Bit of a coincidence that another person was looking at the particular page at that time, made the same mistake of thinking it had been nominated for deletion, then decided to make themselves a page and contribute 3tmx 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also

On Justlit's very first edit to the AFD he formats his text to make it look like he's struck through a previous edit - like hes thought about the proposed deltion and changed his position from clean up to keep - what a joker. Block 'em. 3tmx 23:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Woddup, he copied from a previous AfD: "Comment: Justlit appears to have copied the first few lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexa Nikolas. WODUP 12:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)". James Luftan contribs 23:50, 8 August 2007 (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:Vinay412

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Vinay412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Miyamw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added 2 August 2007)


Report submission by

andy 11:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User is attempting to undo revisions to two articles that were favourites of banned sockpuppeteer Vinay412

The restored revisions are sections that were heavily edited by sockpuppets of Vinay412

User's only other edit is this - there is a link to this talk page from my contributions page and my archived talk but no other obvious link that Never bdsd might have followed

Miyamw - evidence

User has recreated Human_figure which was deleted and redirected after an AfD debate which included a lot of sockpuppetry.

The user is a single-purpose account

The recreated article contains a reference to Female body shape which was jealously guarded by Vinay412, as was the original version of this article.

The style of English is very similar to that of Vinay412's previous edits.

The previous discussion on the article has been archived, without any link to the archive

andy 09:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You say striked? I disown you, boor. What's your business in IIsc? Milching the buffaloes? 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Looks like a match. All the listed accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2007 (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:Florentino floro

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Florentino floro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Shrumster 10:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence
  • The major activity that caught my eye was the similarity of their edit histories, specifically their Edit Summary styles. Both accounts' edit summaries (Florentino floro (talk · contribs) and Juanatoledo (talk · contribs)) are of the similar "to ... " format. For example, both accounts utilize the "to add news on xxx".
  • The similarity of both accounts' edit summaries carry over to their talk page edit summaries. They both use "to explain xxx" as edit summaries for edits made on talk pages.
  • Comparing the contributions of both accounts, their edits never occur at the same time. The edits of Florentino floro (talk · contribs) are the more numerous and continuous, starting with a disruptive edit on June 28, 2007 diff. His edits continue daily until July 3, where he takes a hiatus. He starts editing again on July 7, daily until July 17.
  • Conversely, Juanatoledo (talk · contribs)'s edits start on July 5-6, 20, 22, 30 and August 6, the last one to add Florentino V. Floro to a particular list diff. The two accounts never edit at the same time and edit related articles. On the three days that they do have edits, July 20, 22 and August 6, the times of the edits never coincide.
  • For example, on July 20, Juanatoledo (talk · contribs) edits from 17:21 - 17:39 while Florentino floro (talk · contribs) edits from 15:30 to 15:54.
  • The similarity of the articles of the edits of the two accounts is also notable. First and foremost, both take a great deal of interest in the Florentino V. Floro article (of whom Florentino floro (talk · contribs) is the subject and has shown to have created and edited before).
  • Both accounts more-or-less edit Philippine judicial articles. For example, Alfredo Lim (Juanatoledo and Florentino floro) and Reynato Puno.
  • In fact, Juanatoledo (talk · contribs)'s later edits have more to do specifically with the subject of Florentino V. Floro than Florentino floro (talk · contribs). It is quite possible that the person behind the accounts has learned not to edit articles about him so he is circumventing WP:COI by using another account not named after himself.
Comments

I am Judge Florentino V. Floro. I want to submit evidence that I am not a sock puppet. First, due to limited knowledge of the Rules, I registered Judgefloro the first account, and then the correct present florentino floro. Fisherqueen notified me of this ambiguity, so I replied in my Userpage that I will from that time use the 2nd florentino floro; so I obeyed and never edited judgefloro nor used it.

I have no idea about the whereabouts of Juanatoledo. My problem is: I had been known worldwide and I made many enemies here in the Philippines. In fact I know that some of my detractors are using my name or any similarity of Floro to make it appear that that name or username are my ALTERS. If ever, juanatoledo or melanie almera are accused to me me

the BEST EVIDENCE is to call me since I am Judge Floro here at 123 dahlia alido malolos, 3000 Bulacan, with land line (044) 662-8203 philippines;

my contributions are the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Florentino+floro

I examined juanatoledo's contributions, and they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Juanatoledo

there are lots of differences and similarities

with respect to similarities

I judge and state this user juanatoledo, is also here in the philippines, and could have used the site, place and areas, where I edited, PLUS, studied carefully my contributions, TO CONTRIBUTE AND EDIT what I did edit, thus, making it appear to harm florentino floro to make a case of socket

But it is very clear that my own contributions are in favor of WIKIPEDIA and are very good and timely contributions especially for top people like reynato puno, gregory s. ong, teresita de castro, these are big people or justices here, and I got first hand info to write about them.

What is the harm?

my own article Florentino V. Floro was incorrectly written by such melanie, and then I committed a mistake of editing it, and Fisherqueen the admin re-wrote it coz of its world-famous value

Tito Pao even encouraged me to be at Tambayan


why? It is clear from the contributions that juanatoledo

Tito Pao, and I myself like Shrumster, I, I myself, graduated 1965 elementary at St. Mary's Academy Meycauayan Bulacan, then I graduated AB and LLB Ateneo de Manila University, 1974, 1982, so Shrumster should know me.

Based on my contributions, which are so FAVORABLE to WIKI, why should I be charged Sockpuppet?

At the very least, juanatoledo or melanie should be the ones charged not me, a JUDGE who already suffered INJUSTICE here in my own country.

Wikipedia is great, and my contributions are great. I followed the rules, why should other usernames make me a sockpuppet.

I do not advertise I never wrote on my friends, I just add and edit on great autos or events I first see on the internet to MAKE WIKI bigger.

Shrumster graduated elementary from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school from the Ateneo de Manila High School, and college from the Ateneo de Manila University. Currently pursuing a Master of Science in Marine Biology degree at the University of the Philippines' Marine Science Institute.

Just BECAUSE juanatoledo or melanie contributed in like manner is this a reason for me to be blocked.

Wiki should weigh the quality and greatness of the contributions rather than piece-meal and circumstantial evidence of sockpuppet.

I know what Shurmster is driving at, but he is unaware of the fact that I have detractors and enemies due to my predictions ... the deaths in the Philippine Judiciary and because of this, some may have read my dire death prophesies and took vengeance on me, even here....

If THERE IS HARD EVIDENCE in law, equity and under Wiki Rules, that these juanatoledo and melanie are sockpuppet, then, do not include me or accuse me of such actuations.

I had contributed many many good news and things about many big people here, to make NEUTRAL their articles and to let people know about them ...

I therefore, petition that the accusation against me, be DENIED for utter lack of basis, merit, and due to impetinence and misnomer.

--Florentino floro 05:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In addition to the above refutation, contradiction and traversing the accusations and allegations of Shrumster,

I am JUXTAPOSING the critical facts and proofs, that I Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. and Shrumster -

1) are from the same town of Meycauayan City, 2) studied from same Meycauayan St. Mary's Academy and 3) graduated from the same Ateneo De Manila University,

these SAME places reveal that the

MOTIVE behind the filing of this sockpuppet case against me: I want to show that NO WIKIPEDIAN outside the Philippines, outside my SCHOOL ATENEO, outside my TOWN MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, ever accused me of such violation of Wiki Rules.

It is UNTHINKABLE in law, morals, ethics and Wiki principles that a SCHOOLMATE, TOWNMATE would accuse me of such grave violations.

MOTIVE THEREFORE is so important: What is the AGENDA or HIDDEN REASON why he accused me

despite the fact that NOTED WIKIPEDIANS honored me and NOTED my great contributions here: Tito Pao

Joselito Basilio

[[User:Algabal|Algabal]

THE FOLLOWING IS MY OWN PROFILE - (PART OF)

The name of this writer is Florentino V. Floro, Jr. He hails from Calvario, Meycauayan City, Bulacan, a province where the historic Barasoain Church is located and produced notable Filipinos:


Florentino floro graduated elementary (1965) from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school (1969) from St. Vincent's Seminary, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, and college, Bachelor of Arts, pre-divinity and philosophy, from the Ateneo de Manila University. He earned the [[degree] of Bachelor of Laws (1982) at the Ateneo School of Law, with FULL SECOND HONORS. He placed 12th in the 1983 Philippine Bar Examination, with a bar rating of 87.55% in one of the hardest examination, where only 21.3% passed. He was duly appointed Regional Trial Court Judge of Br. 73, Malabon City, on his natal day of November 5, 1998, was placed under indefinite preventive suspension on July 20, 1999 until he was separated from service and paid 3 years back wages by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 6, 2006.

THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF THE PROFILE OF Shrumster -

Shrumster graduated elementary from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school from the Ateneo de Manila High School, and college from the Ateneo de Manila University. Currently pursuing a Master of Science in Marine Biology degree at the University of the Philippines' Marine Science Institute.

SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY AND CONTRADICTION SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSATION:

Verily, the foregoing CLEARLY proves that the MOTIVE, that is, the accuser Shrumster is my own schoolmate and townmate who knows me and who has a HIDDEN AGENDA of SHUTTING me out to contribute to Wiki due to personal and hidden anger, hatred and baseless and utterly without merit accusations.

--Florentino floro 05:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I assume that you're not familiar with WP:AGF. Actually, there is no hidden agenda here. All I saw was a possible WP:COI violation through WP:SOCK. I had no idea who you were or that you even existed before I stumbled upon the Wikipedia article about you. And while I am amused at the similarities you have pointed out, they're pretty much coincidental. I wasn't even born yet when you graduated law school, if that info is accurate. Shrumster 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Joinder and Additional Evidence against the accusation

I want to submit evidence that aside from the fact that I and accuser Shrumster both hail from MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, and both of us are ALUMNI of ATENEO de MANILA University, Philippines, I have contributed so much to Wikipedia: I quote parts of my User profile:

Florentino V. Floro is of Filipino and Chinese ancestry.

He is currently a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines.

Florentino floro graduated elementary (1965) from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school (1969) from St. Vincent's Seminary, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, and college, Bachelor of Arts, pre-divinity and philosophy, from the Ateneo de Manila University. He earned the [[degree] of Bachelor of Laws (1982) at the Ateneo School of Law, with FULL SECOND HONORS. He placed 12th in the 1983 Philippine Bar Examination, with a bar rating of 87.55% in one of the hardest examination, where only 21.3% passed. He was duly appointed Regional Trial Court Judge of Br. 73, Malabon City, on his natal day of November 5, 1998, was placed under indefinite preventive suspension on July 20, 1999 until he was separated from service and paid 3 years back wages by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 6, 2006.

This writer also contributes to the Wikipedia and expresses his views in his blog ANGEL OF DEATH, LUIS ARMAND and ANGEL. He is a practicing Roman Catholic; a mild environmentalist; and a strong advocate of healthy living.


Contributions to Wikipedia

I have an eclectic range of interests, but am primarily concerned with editing and creating well-written pages relating to my own country, specifically, concerning Law, the Philippine Judiciary and Filipino people. Contributing in Wikipedia since 2007 gives me a sense of fulfillment as I'm able to share to others what I know. I hope to expound more on articles related to Law. Florentino V. Floro is well-versed in subjects relating to Philippine politics, Law, media, society, popular culture, and entertainment.

Articles and categories created

--Florentino floro 12:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Articles and categories expanded, revised, improved or with minor edits

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, I request the Wikipedia administrators to DISMISS for utter lack of merit and basis, the accusation of Shrumster. Please weigh my contributions vis-a-vis his own HIDDEN AGENDA and impropriety or insult to WIKIPEDIA. Besides, of all Wikipedians, I, Judge [Florentino V. Floro]] stands out due to the fact I had been IMMORTALIZED in world judicial history (just type judge floro in google or yahoo, etc. search engines, and my world entries, reports, in forums and blogs etc. are unduplicated as far as Philippine judiciary is concerned). Wikipedia MUST BE PROUD to have a WORLD-famous and IMMORTAL Judge who suffered injustice and vindicated by international reports. Wikipedia is GREAT, and it must have GREAT and FAMOUS wikipedians too. AccuserShrumster cannot even show PROOF that he can match just 1% of my google entries and results.

It will be a great loss to Wikipedia if I am banned. MY conscience is clear and his accusation based on technicalities must perforce be branded as SPAM and suspicious. He is unworthy to be a Wikipedian, most unworthy to be an ATENEAN who goes for TRUTH and INTEGRITY.

I accuse Shrumster of being the ALTER and sockpuppet of some justices here, who do not want me to contribute to judiciary articles to make them NEUTRAL.

It is UNTHINKABLE that this accuser will DENY not knowing me, when he wrote in HIS PROFILE that he is from my OWN TOWN MEYCAUAYAN, and from my OWN SCHOOL ATENEO. That is EVADING the ISSUE and my CONTRADICTIONS. He is not telling the TRUTH, He is LYING.

PROOF: When I edited and added Extra-juidicial killings summit plus the twin deaths of Narcisa PUno and Luzviminda Puno, the mother and wife of our Chief Justice, per verifiable links, the accuser suddenly NOTICED my ALLEGED but unproved errors or technical mistakes here. Such editing of these twin deaths for sure MADE them got angry. So, why should Shrumster instead edit and delete these? Here is the auto

Reynato Puno our Chief Justice now

--Florentino floro 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I suggest that you read WP:AGF please, for your own sake. WP:CIVIL may also be a great help. Also, instead of throwing around baseless accusations, please attempt address the actual issue (the sockpuppet case) with your comments. Thank you. Shrumster 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and Contradiction

If you read carefully my above refutations, reply and contradictions of all your baseless and unjust accusation, when YOU SHOULD ASSUME GOOD FAITH in the editing of editors, as basic Wiki Rule, you can clearly comprehend that I utterly destroyed each and all your malicious accusations. You, yourself, never come out of the open, never identified yourself, hiding under an incognito or blank name, for hidden purposes, proving my point that you ARE verily a puppet or and alter of some ateneans or jurists in the Philippines whom I had caused pains by cleansing our corrupt judiciary by Imprecation under Psalm 109,and 53 Bible, towards 8 medical surgeries of incumbent justices, as God's will and punishment. Why don't you refute each and every contradictions that I submitted to you? Why can't your EXPLAIN my contra-accusation that as TOWNMATE and CO-ALUMNI of the ateneo, WHY in this big and prestigious Wiki world, that no other Wikipedia accused me CONSIDERING MY MANY CONTRIBUTIONS here, of being sockpuppet? Why a filipino, a bulakeno, my own town meycauayaneno, and co-atenean, and not others or WIKI foreigners or even other school wiki here should accuse me? This is a simple case of UTTER VENGEANCE to me by you, and I fervently pray that this injustice be undone. Every midnights starting your accusation I had prayed PSALM 109 and 53 including your name Shrumster in my very HOLY and BLESSED catholic and religous IMPRECATION of your and your family up to the 4th generation. This is my religous belief.

--Florentino floro 07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to another accusation of Vandalism

I read about vadalism, and I quote:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

I am a lawyer and judge. I read carefully the intent and literal meaning of vandalism. You accused me first of sockpuppetry and I read the rules, thus, I submitted evidence and counter-evidence against your defamatory and malicious allegations. That is the essence of protecting the intergrity of Wikipedia. For me, it clearly appears, that based on your accusations and replies, you are the sockpuppet of some ateneans or jurists here who are interferring in my legal, just, and neutral contributions to Wikipedia. Due process of law even in Wiki assures me of my right to submit not censored but full evidence to contradict your accusations. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm If you read this news today, some edit in Wiki as puppets really.

If you do not like my evidence, then you are free to delete edit or even erase your entire userpage and make a new one. I cannot accept your statement that you do not know me, since, you were not yet born when I graduated ... that is silly, if you are a good wikipedian as you claim, why did you not read my auto written by Fisherqueen Florentino V. Floro? Why did you not bother to ask from Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan who I am? Ask Dean Cesar L. Villanueva of the ateneo, my classmate who am I? You just filed this case against me without even knowing who I am. That is plain defamation and libel. In fact DOJ Gonzales filed a case of Libel against Co, now in the Courts. Read that news. I also notice that you did not even put your name in your Userpage and you have no picture. Why are you not brave enough to identify yourself? Ateneo is a school which deals with LUX IN DOMINO, integrity, justice and so on. You miserably fail to be a good ateneo alumni. I already suffered martyrdom in Filipino Justice, and I found kindness in more than 1,000 blogs and 100 forums that compassionately sided with me against the courts. If you read the news, under PERC survey our country is No. 1 in corruption. Now, even if thousands of Wiki users never accused me of such PETTY technicalities that you deal with, you, my townmate and co-atenean would file this UNJUST case? To silence me to contribute to this great encyclopedia. I do pitty you.

--Florentino floro 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply

The above-responses to the accuser seemed to be legal threats. To make it clear, I am not suing or filing any case in court against the accuser, just that my reply are layman's terms. For sure, in our Philippine Jurisprudence, there is no such this as libel in the internet, since our penal code in 1932 punishes only written in the papers and published. Since there was no internet in 1932, any and all defamation or threats in the internet and here are not actionable.

I am only traversing the accusations and allegations of sockpuppet against me. A cursory perusal of my above responses cleary shows them to be mere replies or re-joinders. I never did consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. It is the accuser who makes this case more baseless. Hence, I respectfully request the admins to look deeply at my contributions compared to his contributions and the merits of my submissions, instead of techinicalities. I admit that I am a new user and not familiar so much with computer. But with my little learing, I want to learn and my GOOD FAITH shows that I never used any other username other than this and the other judgefloro that I told admin FisherQueen that I would not use anymore due to my mistakes.

--Florentino floro 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
  • It's quite obvious that Juanatoledo is a sockpuppet of Florentino floro. However, there's been no activity from Juanatoledo since Aug. 6, so this is no longer a current issue. I'm going to block the Juanatoledo account to make sure that it doesn't get used again, and I will warn Florentino floro to observe the provisions of WP:SOCK henceforth. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2007 (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:Day Wrecker Core Ha

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Day Wrecker Core Ha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Acorah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

SpigotMap 08:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence


Comments
It was Acorah on a vandal/sock spree. This and his other socks have already been blocked. SpigotMap 21:39, 22 August 2007 (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:Wolfowit

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Jewbaccas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.116.118.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
Report submission by

THF 21:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical edit style of abusive editor, Jewbaccas reverted Jewish right page to version of 74.116 after latter was blocked.

Comments
  • With regards to this edit by Jewbacca, I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to determine if it is a valid edit, or has POV issues, etc. The {{originalresearch}} tag was removed, but the only reference added was from the "Jews for Morality" website, which is probably not considered a WP:RS. Someone may wish to take a look at that edit. Ariel♥Gold 22:43, 17 August 2007 (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:Kephera975

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kephera975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MA'AT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hogd2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mp474ret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tatenen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Leviathan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brahman0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

IPSOS (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:Kephera975 shows a remarkable similarity in POV-pushing for the articles involved in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with User:Frater FiatLux who has already been blocked for contentiuous editing and page move vandalism.

There has been a history of short term single-purpose accounts backing up the POV of both these users. Many but not all are listed above. Some are no longer accessible because they only edited deleted article Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. A whole series of these which appeared during a short period of time have already been blocked as sock or meatpuppets, but the puppetmaster was never identified. These, who were all blocked as obvious socks by Tariqabjotu are:

MA'AT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hogd2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mp474ret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tatenen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Leviathan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Both the primary users repeatedly accuse other established editors with edits over a wide range of articles of having a conflict of interest. After Kephera975 could not intimidate me into agreeing to change the name of that article without documentation of the actual name of the organization, he nominated a whole range of articles for deletion, apparently in retaliation for my insistence on his providing sources to verify his claims. Now that it appears that the ones he really wanted deleted will survive, he has continued with false accusations that I closed an AfD at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn.2C_Inc. and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JMax555 where he bases his bizarre accusations of sockpuppetry on the "fact" that I closed an AfD "prematurely" when it was actually closed by JoshuaZ.

The most recent apparent sockpuppet Rondus has repeatedly spammed AfDs and talk pages with a bizarre accusatory rant. He apparently has knowledge of 3RR, because when he was about to break it, suddenly C00483033 appeared and continue the revert to reinclude this rant multiple times until blocked for 3RR. He also makes the same accusations of conflict of interest against me as Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux, continuing to repeat them after I have clearly stated my lack of affiliation with the person and organization they accuse me of being an "agent" of.

Both Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux's methods include frequent accusations that opposing editors are "members" or "agents" of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. I have repeated truthfully stated that I have no affiliation with any of the Golden Dawn orders, but these baseless accusations continue to be repeated, for example in the AfD for the articles.

I am at the end of my rope with these baseless accusation, and since they seem to be coming from Kephera975, User:Frater FiatLux, and now from users Rondus and C00483033, I can only assume that there is either sockpuppetry or coordinated meatpuppetry occurring here. I feel that I am now being intentionally harassed and intimidated by the repeated accusations on the AfD and the opening of a suspected sockpuppet report based on a complete falsity. Please someone look into the relation between these users. I will help in whatever way I can, but much of the evidence has been deleted along with the articles:

Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ordo Stella Matutina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

primarily in the first article and primarily on the talk pages.

(The following was noted by Mattisse on my talk page.) "Look at User:Frater FiatLux's contribution history.[288] It's very interesting. There is a year hiatus. Look at User:Kephera975's contribution history [289] Almost the same hiatus."

An easier way to compare is using Interiot's tool, bring up a window for each: Kephera975 vs. Frater FiatLux. Both were active June-July 2006, inactive August 2006-April 2007. Both made exactly 14 edits in May 2007! Both inactive again in June. Only in July is there a difference, with Frater FiatLux making some edits and Kephera975 remaining inactive. In August, Frater FiatLux starts editing on the 1st until he is [290] blocked on the 2nd at 22:08. Kephera975 then reappears nearly immediately. I can't tell exactly when because his first edit was to a deleted article talk page Special:Undelete/Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega.

What happened in May 2007 is especially interesting, each having so few edits. Kephera975 appears first on May 2, and is especially interested in the dab at the top of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn: [291], [292], [293], [294]. His last edit to the dab was May 3. Frater FiatLux appears on May 4, to make further edits to the dab: [295], [296], [297], [298]

Also note that all the short-term socks listed above were active at this time supporting and reverting to Kephera975's changes. They were all blocked on May 3, just before Frater FiatLux became active.


Additional Evidence provided by other users

There is another open SSP case involving Rondus and C00483033 at this link.

While I can't say for sure, the actions of those editors do seem to be consistently in line with Kephera975 and the timing of their appearance to support multiple AfD's proposed by Kephera975 seems quite coincidental, to state it as fairly as I can and not imply that I know with certainty.

Aside from any other user names that may be involved, Rondus and C00483033 strongly appear to be puppets of a single user. These diffs of multiple almost-identical sequential disruptive edits on multiple articles are already listed in the SSP case I linked just above regarding User:Frater FiatLux, but they apply here as well so I will provide them for convenience:

Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

  • [299]
  • [300]
  • [301] (note this diff connects to an article that has since been deleted - the content was identical to the prior two diffs)
  • [302]
  • [303]


C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

  • [304]
  • [305]
  • [306] (note this diff connects to an article that has since been deleted - the content was identical to the prior two diffs)
  • [307]
  • [308]


  • From the block log, regarding another series of identical edits by this user on the AfD that resulted in the deletion of the article relating to the third listed diff under the name of Rhondus above:
15:09, 8 August 2007 Isotope23 (Talk | contribs) blocked "C00483033 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega)

There are more examples in the contribs --Parsifal Hello 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Further evidence confirming that C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same as indef blocked user Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is this comment, which is practically identical to an argument archived from Frater FiatLux's talk page, here (first section). GlassFET 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the permanent old-version link: Frater FiatLux/Archive 1 (first section) in case that page gets changed after the above info was posted. --Parsifal Hello 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
Hi User:IPSOS Just to say that the record of all AfDs is there if you click on the link and trace it back.

Also- for all readers- Kephera's sockpuppet filing against Ipsos was in response to Ipsos' filing one against him. [

For User:IPSOS- when users are scrapping over an article quite a few users will accuse you of being a fan of the org concerned, if you do edits they don't like. I had the same problem on Gillian McKeith- just because I removed some tripe, they thought I was a McKeith lover. As your edits are pro-Cicero and HOGD Inc, you are bound to meet these accusations. If they're untrue, simply deny them as you've been doing. This is more a matter for RfC or something than sockpuppeting.Merkinsmum 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, I have not added any material to these articles. The only thing I have done is to make minor improvements like adding text to external links in references, fix capitalization in headings and that sort of thing. Then Frater FiatLux started blindly reverting to a months-old version losing all of my improvements, and those of another editor, Isotope23. Both myself and Isotope23 reverted these edits and asked Frater FiatLux to please focus on changing what he objected to. He refused and continued to edit war until he was blocked. I challenge Kephera975 to find one pro-HOGD, Inc. addition by me. I have not made any. I have simply undo bad reverts. I invite other editors to review my edits to the article also with my explanatory edit comments. I am sure that you will find that what I say is true! (Note: this primarily involved the deleted article Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, so only admins can really review, but if you check my edits to the remaining articles, you will see that they are routine grammar, style, linking, etc. improvements, and do not add any pro-organizational information. IPSOS (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

I recently joined Wikipedia, only to be immediately persecuted by User IPSOS. My first impression at Wikipedia has been a very bad one because of him. I had not been a member here 24 hours before User IPSOS because stuck a "Suspected Sock Puppet" tag on my talk page (I have since learned that this was inappropriate behavior from him). Moreover, IPSOS has harassed me on my talk page non-stop ever since. Since the very moment that I arrived here, I have been forced to defend myself against one false accusation after the other coming from User IPSOS. He accused me of being a sock puppet after my very first contribution. He is now also accusing me of being an SPA (whatever that means). During entire time at Wikipedia I have been forced to spend hours and hours learning my way around an ocean of rules, merely to defend myself against the BULLYING tactics of user IPSOS. Along the way, I found a rule called "Be nice to newcomers." If only that rule were truly in effect, I would have had a very different experience here until now.

Upon joining Wikipedia, I immediately was given the impression that user IPSOS was using his superior knowledge of the rules here in order to manipulate discussions to fit his point of view as well as to silence any and all opposing opinions. I do not even know who user Fiat Lux or C00... are. I have never even had any contact with them. User Keph..., however, I have noticed is a frequent critic of User IPSOS tactics as well as of his biased point of view.

I would like to state clearly that I am not any of the users listed in this article. I am not a sock puppet of anyone nor do I use more than one account. I have not intended to break any other rules here either. A simple investigation of my IP address should be enough to clear me of this latest, baseless charge from User, IPSOS.

If I have broken ANY rule here, it is only due to my goofiness being new together with being forced to defend myself against bullying from the very first moment that I arrived. Unfortunately, what has happened here since I arrived has given me the distinct impression that what is really going on at Wikipedia has precious little to do with the accuracy of the Encyclopedia, but rather with the egos of the Editors and that the first and foremost rule here is: "THE BIGGEST BULLY WITH THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PREVAILS." I have also unfortunately been given the distinct impression that newcomers are most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator would ask User IPSOS to kindly quit bullying me once and for all.--Rondus 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Assuming good faith and that your story above may be accurate,... this is what I don't understand, please explain: Why are the three edits listed above under your name exactly the same - word for word - as the three edits listed under the name of User: C00483033? The above examples are only a few of many that were all added around the same time that day. If you and User: C00483033 are not the same person, how did it result that you made the same long, detailed and identical edits within a short time of each other? Thank you. --Parsifal Hello 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Response. I frankly have no idea. It is highly interesting though that this happenned right after I joined Wikipedia and that IPSOS slapped a suspected sock puppet tag on my account immediately following. I therefore suspect that C00483033 may actually IPSOS himself, using some sort of sophisticated bullying tactic trying to get me into trouble because I disagree with him. I do not want to be uncivil here, but consideriing how badly I have been bullied, the suspicion seems reasonable enough.--Rondus 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. I have no reason to frame you when you're shooting yourself in the foot. Doh! IPSOS (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Procedural Note: This report here and at the one at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) appear to be almost identical and contain much of the same information and list of accounts. As a result, the comment above by Rhondus and my question for him have been cross-posted for clarity. It might be useful to combine the two reports, but I don't know anything about those procedures or if it should be done. --Parsifal Hello 20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
  • All of the listed sockpuppets have already been indefinitely blocked, so the only remaining question is whether Kephera975 is the same person as Frater FiatLux et al. (or a meatpuppet working in tandem with him/them).
  • There are a lot of similarities in Kephera975's editing and Frater FiatLux's--both are virtual single purpose-accounts focusing on the same esoteric organizations, and both took a substantial wikibreak from July 2006 to May 2007, with apparently coordinated editing happening from almost the moment of their return in May 2007. This could be explained by their being the same person, or by being in off-wiki contact. Either way, the case that Kephera975 is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Frater FiatLux is strong, and since Frater FiatLux is now indef blocked for his disruptive editing, Kephera975 should be blocked as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (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:JMax555

Suspected sockpuppeteer

JMax555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hogd120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GlassFET (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Parsifal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kephera975 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:IPSOS shows a remarkable similarity in POV-pushing for the articles involved in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with User:JMax555 and User:999 who has already been banned for sockpuppetry. Since 999 worked and created these articles it would not surprise me if he has come back to defend the contemporary articles found here: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn and here: The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. . User:JMax555 is a prominent member of The Open Source and this behavior is remarkably familiar to his. The use of capitolized letters, for example, to emphasize a point is apparent in both User:IPSOS and User:JMax555: here Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 1 and here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Notice that an unknown new sigle purpose account COI driven User:Hogd120 just appears providing citations for User:IPSOS on the AfD page. This current AfD may be being disrupted by sockpuppets as was the case with User:999 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina in the first AfD nomination. Notice that User:999 was a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Baba Louis and User:Hanuman Das and others. Furthermore, User:JMax555 would understand that his editing could be discounted as he is a known member of that organization as can seen from his talk page: User:JMax555 . This would be why JMax would use socksAdditionally, it appears that User:JMax555 was somehow alerted that User:IPSOS was conversing with an administrator: User:Isotope23 without any evidence showing on his own talk page: User:JMax555 that he was alerted at all. It was my decision to put up all the contemporary Orders for AfD because they lack or lacked in verifiability but these users continue to manipulate Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP box for their own POV's. Their views are so similiar that they are almost clones of one another, and with the fact that User:999 created these articles, it would not suprpise me if he created more socks to defend them in an attempt to use Wikipedia for COI and advertisment on behalf of these two organizations. Could someone check if there is any relation between these users? Kephera975 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Response from JMax555: I can't find a specific protocol for defending oneself from SSP charges, so if commenting here is inappropriate, I apologize.
First of all, I deny running any sock-puppets whatsoever, now or in the past, on Wikipedia or anywhere else.
I have only this single account on Wikipedia. I am not the same person, nor related in any way to Users IPSOS, hogd120, Parsifal, or GlassFET. I do not know them or their identities, I have never met them, I have never corresponded with them in any form. I edited some of the same articles (last year) as did User 999, but I am not the same person, and I have never worked with any of the others listed as my "sock puppets". I had thought the GD edit wars were over with. I created one article here about Florence Farr, but the experience with the Golden Dawn edit warring generally soured me on Wikipedia and I have only sporadically visited since then, mostly for research not editing. I did continue to work on the Farr article when I had the spare time, simply because it was the only article I ever created and was given a (B) rating and suggested for peer review to be made a featured article. If it hadn't been for the bad experience I had here last year, I might have remained more active in the Wiki community.
I was unaware of this dispute until I was sent an e-mail by a friend last week that the OSOGD article was tagged for deletion, so I looked in on it, and saw the extent to which these edit wars had escalated yet again. I sent one message to Isotope23's User Page pointing out 3rd party verification regarding the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn article. (I received no reply or acknowledgment of any kind.) That was the total extent of my involvement. As for full disclosure, I am an officer of that organization, but I did not create the article about it, nor do any editing other than minor edits and adding the official seal JPG. As I said on the OSOGD Talk page, it seemed inappropriate for me to edit the article, so I only made suggestions via the Talk page for other editors.
With the single exception of one minor edit I made to the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article last February, I have not made any edits of any article concerning the Golden Dawn since June of 2006, or posted to any Talk pages about these topics since that time, under any name, IP, handle or account. I have not proposed or discussed any edits with any other editor, either here in Wikipedia or via any offsite communications with anyone.
Kephera975 has absolutely no evidence to support his accusation I am using sock-puppets or am in collusion with anyone, except to allude to a general agreement he imagines I would have with these editors on some of the disputed issues. I deliberately stayed out of the recent AfD debates concerning Golden Dawn articles, since I knew any involvement would likely cause certain persons to use me as a "lightning rod" and further taint what seemed to me an already tainted process. Now it appears I'm going to be accused of malfeasance by these people no matter what I do or don't do.
I apologize to the editors and administrators for any inconvenience my non-participation here may have caused. JMax555 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that User:Kephera975 questioned in his accusations how I found out that User:Isotope23 was involved in the AfD disputes over the Golden Dawn order articles, saying that I "was somehow alerted that User:IPSOS was conversing with an administrator: User:Isotope23 without any evidence showing on his own talk page: User:JMax555 that he was alerted at all." The answer is simple. It was Isotope23 who placed the (primary source) tag on the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn article on August 1st, as the edit log clearly shows. So naturally, when I checked the article after being e-mailed that it was AfD nominated, and finding that Isotope23 was an administrator, I sent a message to his User:Talk page informing him of a third-party book reference. At that point in time I had no idea IPSOS was conversing with anyone over it. I was "alerted" via e-mail by a friend who casually looked up the OSOGD on Wikipedia and saw that it was being disputed, and thought I should know.
From my (admittedly non-neutral) point-of-view, it seems that Kephera's accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry was made in bad faith. He simply included the User names of everyone whom he had disputes over these articles with, hoping to impugn or eliminate his opposition. Either that, or he simply can't grasp the concept that anyone could possibly support a position he imagines I would support based solely on the facts of each case, without some kind of conspiracy being involved. JMax555 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, You had collaborated in the articles created by User:999, User:Hanuman Das, User:Baba Louis and all of those users who created these contemporary Golden Dawn pages who have been proven socks: Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3 . There is incontrovertible evidence of that here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina where he talks with himself to effect the outcome of this AfD and gets it closed by consensus using mainly socks. This isn't personal. I'm simply wondering if there are any socks left of User:999 or if there is any meatpuppetry going on left over from that particular editor. Obviously, User:999 had misused socks to try to effect the outcomes of AfD's in the past. Kephera975 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why drag me into it now, seeing as how I didn't even participate in the discussions over the AfDs? I'm not listed as one of User:999's suspected socks, and no one ever accused me of being one before. Ultimately, the issue of what articles User:999 created under whatever accounts is moot. The articles have to pass the muster of notability and verifiability on their own merits, regardless of who creates or edits them. I voluntarily recused myself from the AfD consensus discussions to avoid being accused of sockpuppetry and tainting the process. But since you've opened up that can of worms now, I may well participate if the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Inc. article is re-listed, since I am one of the original editors of that article. If I do decide to join in the consensus process, I will openly disclose my associations and let the admin people take what I say with as many grains of salt as they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMax555 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 August 2007

Sorry, I forgot to sign the above. JMax555 23:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason an article's author should not comment on an AfD, even with a "keep" !vote. Opportunity to enter a comment is one of the reasons it's suggested to inform the author when an article is nominated for AfD. --Parsifal Hello 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Kephera975 says: "On The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, an AfD was posted in which IPSOS removes the tag before any consensus is reached on whether the article should be deleted or not." This is demonstrably false. The Afd was closed by JoshuaZ here and the AfD tag was removed by him as well, here.

Furthermore, I've never added any pro-organization content to any of the articles. I've improved grammar, added text to bare reference links, fixed the capitalization of headings, and undone blind reverts which undid these improvements and those of other editors. I have never added any significant content to any of the articles that Kephera975 is apparently obsessed with. IPSOS (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed, I've retracted the AfD tag removal argument. Kephera975 02:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not when I first posted this. You changed it afterwards. Either that or my browser cache the page for a bit. IPSOS (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bad Faith" report. User:Kephera975 apparently added my name to this report in retaliation for my comments on several AfDs (he nominated many Golden Dawn-related articles for deletion all at once) in which I pointed out the likelihood he is editing as an SPA, which appears to be the case from viewing his contribs. An example of one of my comments is this diff, in which I stated it as a question and not an accusation.
He appears to also be retaliating with this whole SSP in general for the SSP about him at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 and as part of his ongoing campaign (seemingly) to discredit User:IPSOS, for reasons I do not know or understand. I did not file that other report, but I did enter comments there. In my comments I was careful to stay as neutral as I could and mainly my comments were about two of the other accounts in that report, not about Kephera975.
Regarding my relationship with all of the other accounts in this report, I have never edited any articles in common with any of them (so far as I am aware), other than the large batch of AfD's posted by Kephera975 recently, which is where I first encountered him. I do occasionally edit topics related to religious or fraternal orders, such as Freemasonry so there may be some of those also edited by the other editors listed in this report. If so, I was not aware of it and I have never collaborated with any of those editors or had any significant communications with them.
Most of my editing is on music topics and dispute resolution, especially responding to reports at WP:WQA, which I believe is how I ran across this whole situation in the first place. --Parsifal Hello 03:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should also point out that User:Kephera975 added my name onto this report without any evidence. He did not include evidence about me in relation to the others he listed... because there isn't any. That further shows that his report is in "bad faith". If he puts a user on the list, he should show evidence. If he has no evidence, he should not list the user. --Parsifal Hello 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm unsure about the allegations of sockpuppetry, but there may be a case here under the guidelines on meatpuppetry; since those guidelines say to treat both in the same way it's a moot point really. User:IPSOS and User:GlassFET have a history of collaboration when it comes to AfDs it seems, and on article content in general. I doubt the links between IPSOS and the other users mentioned in this report. I also don't believe the 'bad faith' accusation in the comment above holds true. If there are valid concerns about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, then it seems appropriate to air them, as User:IPSOS has reminded me in the past about what I previously believed were 'bad faith' cases brought by him/her. In summary: I don't believe there is evidence to suggest these users are the same, but there may be some meatpuppetry going on. Really though, both of these users should take some time to cool off; it's getting into the realm of 'tit for tat'. ColdmachineTalk 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've collaborated with GlassFET on Mandrake of Oxford which IIRC he started. Other than that, I've run into this user only on Golden Dawn articles, that I recall. Since I've currently edited 2056 unique pages, that amounts to less than 1% intersection. Similarly for GlassFET, who has edited 1582 different articles. Looks like we both have an interest in the Golden Dawn, but otherwise our interests are different and don't overlap. IPSOS (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be just watch list items then, which overlap with my own, re Dune (novel), Mandrake of Oxford, the AfDs on these Golden Dawn articles (and the content of them all too). It seemed a fair few to me, but I'm new and the scope of my edits is far less than your own. To reaffirm my view though: I don't believe any of these users are the same person and, since the accusation specifically states 'sockpuppetry', it seems like a clear cut case to me... ColdmachineTalk 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used to have Dune (novel) on my watchlist, but I dropped it b/c my watchlist was getting too big. Didn't recall GlassFET from that context, but I see from looking at the history that it was another article we both edited while it was on my watchlist. IPSOS (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kephera babs, just to say that other users were claiming that you were User:999 lol on 13th August- check out User:IPSOS talkpage.:) Not having a go or an opinion about either team here, I just thought it was amusing. Maybe it shows none of those who've discussed these possibilities, are actually 999, or you wouldn't have thought that someone else is. This is a wierd 'list of puppets' you've suggested though, it includes people such as Parsifal, who's not a sole dweller on these golden dawn pages. You'll all be wondering who I'm a muppet of next lol, love Merkinmuppet.:) Merkinsmum 00:32, 17 August 2007 (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:Ausbuild

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

CanberraStudent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
OzTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DicksonCollege (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.22.237.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.176.58.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.51.24.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Golden Wattle talk 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

My accusation is of meatpuppet rather than necessarily sock puppet although I am not sure. The evidence is based on a single focus on an otherwise rather obscure candidate for the forthcoming Australian general election : Troy Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The single focus of their edits is clear in each of their contributions history and also through the talk page comments - see current version of the page [309] and also the talk page history.--Golden Wattle talk 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of claims to be students working on research assignments from CanberraStudent (1) and CanberraStudent (2). Also Ausbuild which contradicts his earlier assertion to User:Garion96 that he worked in Williams's office and is also contradicted in part by the article creation date of the article - September 2006 [310] which is not congruent with the Australian academic year (= calendar year) - ie not an assignment task. Three people seem conscientiously to be seeking references: Canberra Student's very first edit to wikipedia DicksonCollege has a lot of enthusiasm for referencing in his 3rd edit (all to the same talk page) and 1st day on the wikipedia and OzTruth also has been doing some googling. --Golden Wattle talk 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments


Conclusions
  • It's pretty clear that these accounts are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but since the Troy Williams article was deleted for a copyvio, I'm going to leave the accounts unblocked in the hope that some of them might learn how to create an article that adheres to Wikipedia policies. They seem to have stopped editing, but if disruptive editing starts again, that would be grounds for a substantial block. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2007 (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:Unfreeride

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

80.175.28.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.118.138.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.185.237.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Master of all Puppets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Negrit0 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Negrit0[reply]


Evidence

Identical edit summary reasons http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_height&action=history for different edits ie (sources are in fact valid, not original research) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149779813 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149780516

The same edits with different IPs to evade edit war rules - in all three edits Soccer is changed to Football http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149780516 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149637834 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149358198

Increasing Chinese height and adding information about lactose intolerance ( a pet habit of Unfreeride ) under the name of Master of All Puppets, that account is now currently blocked > be sure to block all of Unfreerides sock puppets! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_height&diff=150153484&oldid=150083902

pushing a POV that Unfreeride has been banned for previously, the use of sock puppets is designed to give further support to Unfreerides POV and also to evade the scrutiny of admins who have banned him previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unfreeride#Blocked_again


Comments

Unfreeride is a serial offender uses ad hom against people editing his work, uses sock puppets (to add weight to his arguements, to edit war and to evade admin scrutiny), has a racist POV and is on a soap box pushing the POV that Northern Chinese are superior in terms of height and intelligence to the rest of the world.

Unfreeride has resorted to using sock puppets to further his POV, participate in edit wars and evade scrutiny from Admins. All of the sock puppet accounts should be banned, and the favorite haunts of Unfreeride (Race and Intelligence, Human Height, Chess,Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians, etc) should be watched to ensure he does not come back with new sock puppets to push his supremacist POV.

Conclusions
  • Well, there's no activity from Unfreeride's account since the block. The IP activity looks related, but there's also some unrelated activity from at least one of the IPs, and they come from a variety of geographic locations. Someone might want to check if they're proxies, but they don't seem to be causing problems right now, so I'll leave them alone. User:Master of all Puppets has already been blocked as a sock of a different user. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2007 (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:Frater FiatLux

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Brahman0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

IPSOS (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Following on these two, C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is obvious.


Additional Evidence provided by other users

Further evidence confirming that C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same as indef blocked user Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is this comment, which is practically identical to an argument archived from Frater FiatLux's talk page, here (first section). GlassFET 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the permanent old-version link: Frater FiatLux/Archive 1 (first section) in case that page gets changed after the above info was posted. --Parsifal Hello 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I noticed these accounts doing multiple almost-identical sequential disruptive edits tonight on multiple articles. I came here to report them and found this report already open, so I am adding this note to confirm that I saw the problem also.

Examples of a few of the identical edits all within a half-hour or so tonight:

Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

  • [315]
  • [316]
  • [317] (note this diff connects to an article that has since been deleted - the content was identical to the prior two diffs)
  • [318]
  • [319]


C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

  • [320]
  • [321]
  • [322] (note this diff connects to an article that has since been deleted - the content was identical to the prior two diffs)
  • [323]
  • [324]
  • From the block log, regarding another series of identical edits by this user on the AfD that resulted in the deletion of the article relating to the third listed diff under the name of Rhondus above:
15:09, 8 August 2007 Isotope23 (Talk | contribs) blocked "C00483033 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega)

There are more in the contribs - those are the most recent. --Parsifal Hello 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion, please note, there is another open SSP case involving Rondus and C00483033 at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. --Parsifal Hello 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this looks like pretty obvious sockpuppetry. I tried to have conversations with Frater FiatLux and got similar legalistic responses, for example: [325], [326], [327] . GlassFET 14:50, 8 August 2007


Comments


Rebuttal

I am not a sock puppet of anyone as can easily be verified from my IP address by Wikipedia administration. What is actually happenning here is that user IPSOS is acting as an agent of HOGD, Inc. in an inappropriate attempt to manipulate Wikipedia to gain unfair business advantage in an ongoing legal dispute. I got involved in this when it was brought to my attention what user IPSOS has been doing. This nonsensical complaint by user IPSOS is merely an atempt to inappropriately use Wikipedia rules to silence anyone who disagrees with his POV that should be barred due to conflict of interest. User IPSOS is attemptiing to use this end run around Wiki rules in order to get unlimited reversions and suppress the following and highly relevant information

HOGD, Inc. Manipulating Wikipedia for Unfair Business Advantage

I would like to point out that what is actually happening here is that Wikipedia is allowing itself to be dragged into a fifteen-year old legal dispute between two esoteric orders. One of the parties, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., is presently sending its members en masse here to Wikipedia to “edit” in a misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their order in an attempt to 1. gain an unfair business advantage, 2. misrepresent the status and results of litigation, 3. misrepresent the current status of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn trademark, and to 4. falsely portray HOGD, Inc. as the successor of the historical, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, while depriving the other party of its legitimate and legal rights.

The following is true and correct information that elilminates the HOGD, Inc. biased POV:

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega, is, through its Chief Adept, David John Griffin, the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Owner of the Golden Dawn” trademark, registration number 000063295, in the European Union (making it the registered owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in all 27 member-states of the European Union, and “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark, registration no. TMA 510,385, in Canada. On November 20, 1996, David John Griffin and Patricia A. Behman, as general partners of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (H.O.G.D.), a general partnership, as owners of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” in the European Union, and Charles Cicero, as president of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (H.O.G.D., Inc.), as owners of the same mark in the United States, entered into an Agreement to manage the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” mark on a worldwide basis whilst preventing infringement of the mark by third parties. On May 8, 1998 Behman sold her partnership interest to Griffin, at which point Griffin became sole proprietor of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Griffin, however, always differentiated his organization in trade and commerce, while primarily identifying it as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega so as to differentiate it from a plethora of identically or similarly named groups in the United States relying on no more than the published Regardie materials.

On January 28, 2005, H.O.G.D., Inc. attempted to repudiate the November 20, 1996 Agreement by filing suit against Griffin for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Griffin counter-sued for breach of contract. This litigation consisting of 169 documents filed in the public record, may be accessed by any interested party at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?609863100750398-L_835_0-1 through the Pacer system of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

On January 17, 2007, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement read into the public record by U.S. Magistrate-Judge Maria Elena James as FTR 3:44-4:07 of date 1-17-2007.The Settlement Agreement provides that: 1) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in the European Union; 2) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark in Canada; 3) Griffin recognizes H.O.G.D., Inc. as the sole and exclusive owner of the same mark in the United States; 4) the parties will not contest the ownership of each parties respective marks and mark: 5) H.O.G.D., Inc. will not contest the use, validity or ownership of the mark “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega” in the United States; 6) the January 17, 2007 Agreement supersedes the prior Agreement between the parties; 7) the parties covenanted not to interfere with the operations of each other; 8) the Agreement inures to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. On February 12, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice both H.O.G.D., Inc.’s claims and Griffin’s counter-claims while retaining in perpetuity to retain enforcement of the January 17, 2007 Agreement through motion filed by either of the parties. Over a period of several months, editor IPSOS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly (nearly 30 times) vandalized the H.O.G.D./A.O. article from the first below quotation to the deliberate misrepresentation in the second quote below. “According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 2007 settled litigation with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. guaranteeing the Alpha et Omega's right to use the name of its outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in the United States without interference.[33]” has been repeatedly vandalized to: "According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 1996 contracted with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. a mutual "right to usage" of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® worldwide while acknowledging each Order's "exclusive ownership" of their respective nationally registered trademarks. A copy of this contract was filed for recordation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office." The repeated vandalism by Cicero-associate IPSOS shows a remarkable familiarity with the above-referenced litigation by the parties. Whilst Cicero’s attorney maintained that the 1996 Agreement was a “right to use” agreement in which each party accorded to the other party a “right to use” its respective mark or marks, Griffin’s attorney never characterized the 1996 Agreement but maintained that each party acquired a vested property interest in the mark or marks of the other party by virtue of the specific language of the Agreement. The matter was never settled in that the parties settled on January 17, 2007, two weeks before they were scheduled to go to trial on January 28, 2007, and the January 17, 2007 Settlement Agreement superseded the November 20, 1996 agreement. When the knowingly inaccurate and misleading defacement of the H.O.G.D../A+O article by Cicero-associate IPSOS was repeatedly corrected, IPSOS subsequently enlisted the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its legal name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article describing the order to “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.” It is therefore requested that the H.O.G.D./A.O. article be unfrozen and returned to its appropriate legal name of “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega).” In order to avoid confusion both with the HOGD/A+O, as well as with the historical “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,” the H.O.G.D., Inc. article should be re-named “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.” or “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Florida corporation).”--Rondus 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are simply wrong.
  1. I am not an agent of Cicero or HOGD, Inc. I met Cicero once. We didn't discuss any of these issues. I don't have his telephone number, email address, or snail mail address. We don't correspond or talk to one another. He most probably doesn't remember my name. I am not a member of his order, and have never joined any Golden Dawn order. Primarily because of people like you.
  2. I was not even implementing any particular agenda. Frater FiatLux was reverting to a months-old version of the article, losing all the intermediate edits. This was explained to him repeated as the reason the article was being reverted, by both myself and other editors: here, here, here
In short, Frater FiatLux refused to listen to advice on proper editing etiquette. Because his edits were rude and affected more of the article than he was actually concerned with, they were reverted by myself and other editors while asking him to be more focused with his edits. He chose not to do so, and instead to edit war. This got him indefinitely blocked. He made the mistake of thinking that his concerns were more important than and trumped the concerns of other editors, and simply kept repeating himself, just as you have been.
Your misunderstanding of the situation has led you to jump to conclusions: conclusions which to me seem bizarre and paranoid. But hey, if that's how you want to come off, that's your business. Your current path, however, will get you blocked, probably sooner than later. Try having a conversation with people rather than trying to lecture them on the law. Quite frankly, your organization does not meet our notability requirements and will soon be deleted. That's not the fault of your competitors.
Good day. IPSOS (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Rondus, Are you aware that the long legalistic post you entered above is exactly identical to this edit by C00483033? It doesn't make your rebuttal very strong that you show additional evidence of sockpuppetry in the text of your rebuttal. --Parsifal Hello 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I recently joined Wikipedia, only to be immediately persecuted by User IPSOS. My first impression at Wikipedia has been a very bad one because of him. I had not been a member here 24 hours before User IPSOS because stuck a "Suspected Sock Puppet" tag on my talk page (I have since learned that this was inappropriate behavior from him). Moreover, IPSOS has harassed me on my talk page non-stop ever since. Since the very moment that I arrived here, I have been forced to defend myself against one false accusation after the other coming from User IPSOS. He accused me of being a sock puppet after my very first contribution. He is now also accusing me of being an SPA (whatever that means). During entire time at Wikipedia I have been forced to spend hours and hours learning my way around an ocean of rules, merely to defend myself against the BULLYING tactics of user IPSOS. Along the way, I found a rule called "Be nice to newcomers." If only that rule were truly in effect, I would have had a very different experience here until now.

Upon joining Wikipedia, I immediately was given the impression that user IPSOS was using his superior knowledge of the rules here in order to manipulate discussions to fit his point of view as well as to silence any and all opposing opinions. I do not even know who user Fiat Lux or C00... are. I have never even had any contact with them. User Keph..., however, I have noticed is a frequent critic of User IPSOS tactics as well as of his biased point of view.

I would like to state clearly that I am not any of the users listed in this article. I am not a sock puppet of anyone nor do I use more than one account. I have not intended to break any other rules here either. A simple investigation of my IP address should be enough to clear me of this latest, baseless charge from User, IPSOS.

If I have broken ANY rule here, it is only due to my goofiness being new together with being forced to defend myself against bullying from the very first moment that I arrived. Unfortunately, what has happened here since I arrived has given me the distinct impression that what is really going on at Wikipedia has precious little to do with the accuracy of the Encyclopedia, but rather with the egos of the Editors and that the first and foremost rule here is: "THE BIGGEST BULLY WITH THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PREVAILS." I have also unfortunately been given the distinct impression that newcomers are most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator would ask User IPSOS to kindly quit bullying me once and for all.--Rondus 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Assuming good faith and that your story above may be accurate,... this is what I don't understand, please explain: Why are the three edits listed above under your name exactly the same - word for word - as the three edits listed under the name of User: C00483033? The above examples are only a few of many that were all added around the same time that day. If you and User: C00483033 are not the same person, how did it result that you made the same long, detailed and identical edits within a short time of each other? Thank you. --Parsifal Hello 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I frankly have no idea. It is highly interesting though that this happenned right after I joined Wikipedia and that IPSOS slapped a suspected sock puppet tag on my account immediately following. I therefore suspect that C00483033 may actually IPSOS himself, using some sort of sophisticated bullying tactic trying to get me into trouble because I disagree with him. I do not want to be uncivil here, but consideriing how badly I have been bullied, the suspicion seems reasonable enough.--Rondus 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need. You've already shot yourself in the foot. I'm not concerned with your accusation, because checkuser would easily clear me. I am concerned at your tactics though. Is your agenda really so important that it requires you to lie about other people? IPSOS (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note: This report here and at the one at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 appear to be almost identical and contain much of the same information and list of accounts. As a result, the comment above by Rhondus and my question for him have been cross-posted for clarity. It might be useful to combine the two reports, but I don't know anything about those procedures or if it should be done. --Parsifal Hello 20:10, 12 August 2007 (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:Fioranoweb

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

202.142.98.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.95.199.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fiorano Software (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fiorano123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Itpl fiorano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sanjaya fiorano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sanjaya123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sanjayakumarsahu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Webteam fiorano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

A. B. (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Fiorano Software has been waging an ongoing PR effort on Wikipedia for over 18 months, spamming links and articles

Links:

Accounts:

  1. Sanjayakumarsahu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  2. Webteam fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)
  3. Fiorano Software (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Software LinkWatcher search • Google)
  4. 61.95.199.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  5. Fioranoweb (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  6. Sanjaya fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)
  7. 202.142.98.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  8. Sanjaya123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  9. Fiorano123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  10. Itpl fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)

Spam articles created as blatant advertising and deleted by Wikipedia administrators:

  • Note that the spammer overlooked the commas when cutting and pasting article.
  • Note that the spammer overlooked the commas when cutting and pasting article.
  • User page created as a spam page.
  • User page created as a spam page.
  • User page created as a spam page.
  • User page created as a spam page.
  • User page created as a spam page.

Articles vandalized:

References:

Comments

I made mistakes in reporting this case, somehow creating an empty first case. This report is in fact the first real case, not the 2nd. Sorry. --A. B. (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2007 (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:Hariharan91

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hariharan91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Maddy20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chelsea123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Universal Hero 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Users have very similar edit history and see edit history of Trisha Krishnan and Chelsea FC which all seem to own.


All seem to claim to support Chelsea, similiar edit patterns. Universal Hero 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Has User:Maddy20 edited Chelsea FC? JodyB yak, yak, yak 17:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: The article interests of the three accounts are similar. I did not check any diffs to compare editing styles. Universal Hero, the user who reported this case, is himself suspected of sock puppetry below on this page (I have not yet examined that case, and I have no opinion). Chelsea123 has been inactive since Jan. 2007. Shalom Hello 02:10, 6 August 2007 (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:Muamshai

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

M12390 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

They are meatpuppets, pushing their collective agenda at MQM, Altaf Hussain and related pages.

What is the evidence for this statement? Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz: Please refer to Shehzadashiq's suspected sock puppets page. If you need further detials, then you can see their mutual communication on their and my talk pages. You can also see how they have buddied up by alternatively reverting my posts to avoid the 3RR rule. M12390 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Conclusions
  • More specific evidence is needed to warrant an accusation of sockpuppetry. If you can provide more specific evidence, then I'll take another look, but without that, there's no reason to keep this case open. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2007 (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:Green108

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Faithinhumanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

IPSOS (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Green108 has been editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) disruptively for some time. After a 20 July 2007 block for 3RR, there began a pattern that after Green108 has reverted three times, suddenly Faithinhumanity would appear to do the next revert.

Recently Green108 has been blocked for a week for using two sockpuppets, Bkangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Shortskirtlonglegs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). After these blocks, the regular editors (I am not one, simply have been monitoring the situation) were proceeding to clean up the biases which had been introduced into the article by Green108. Shortly thereafter, Faithinhumanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows up and begins to reinsert the same biases.

While I am not certain that this is a case of sockpuppetry, I am sure that it is either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I will continue to research and add evidence to try to determine which it is. In any case, it is Wikipedia policy to treat meatpuppetry as if it were sockpuppetry when they cannot be distinguish, so I believe there is a cause for investigation and possible action here.

In some cases the language and style of edits has a familiar ring e.g. [331] compared to [332] (removal of website figures) and [333] compared to [334] (phrase "entirely different"). The phrase "the practice" [335] re-appears also.
In addition the introductions of Faithinhumanity [336] and Shortskirtlonglegs [337] have some simularities. They both go along the lines of, "Hello, I know of a BK/the BKs, I've got some books...".
Regards Bksimonb 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


With respect to TalkAbout (talk · contribs):

  • 18:31, 7 August 2007: blocked used Green108 begins to edit as 212.126.146.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [338]
  • 18:49, 7 August 2007: Switched to 212.126.146.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and continues to edit [339]
  • 19:28, 7 August 2007, Green108's block is extended [340]
  • 03:00, 8 August 2007, Green108 is warned not to evade his block [341]
  • 04:07, 8 August 2007 TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) starts to edit the talk page, taking up the very same issues as both Green108 and Faithinhumanity [342]
  • 4:32, 8 August 2007 use same accusation "I see you guys are having a hayday deleting the article down to a PR JOB:-(......)" and use of ...... as Green108 [343]
  • 01:44, 9 August 2007 212.126.143.106 Green108 responds once again on this page to defend himself. (comment placed by self User:Green108

Reply by TalkAbout to False allegations :

Stating falsehoods as facts is not a proper thing to do and I am also requesting the link to lodge a complaint against this Admin IPSOS.
I am requesting that I be removed from this allegation, made by IPSOS and request that the tag on my page be removed as well. I am not a sockpuppet and take this as grave allegation against my integrity and my many contributions here as an editor. I find this insulting, degrading and an affront as I am well aware that Admins can see where the editor is logged in from and this only ads to the caustic attitude lodged against me. TalkAbout 06:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I am current blocked from editing while logged in but can still edit when not logged in.....I am trying to respond to this matter alone , it seems mad someone can be tried without being allowed to defend themself

I'd like to ask for evidence to support all this allegations being made against me ,(+diffs) not just for this case but also the previous one . I understand that as the one accused , I can ask for this

I really have no interesting in all this trickery , for me it is clear...the BKWSU Internet PR team are out to block , ban, revert or otherwise any informed independent voice with experience of the Bkwsu, see; [344] . The two Bkwsu followers are Bksimonb (talk · contribs) and Riveros11 (talk · contribs). I am not the sort to sit down making up accusation but if these two are not working a "team" who is!!!!!

I stand by my edits on the article which have included the addition of 30 plus references and the tidying up off them all.....once shown how. the issue is not about me , the issue is that the Bkwsu members have been resisting full exposure for months and months making just such accusations User:Green108

Comment- Much as I love him, User:IPSOS has a history of making sockpuppet pages on other users. That's a few he's done in the last week, such as Kephera795, he also did it gravely in the past to User:Coldmachine.

The pasting a 'this user is a suspected sockpuppet of' on someone's userpage is quite rude too and I would advise people that they are well within their rights to simply remove it. (I've heard of other suspected sockpuppet reports being filed and this template has never been used. Particularly mean as it seems to be only User:IPSOS who's suspecting any of these people.Merkinsmum 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply following the clear instructions at WP:SSP, where step-by-step instructions are given on how to report suspected sockpuppets. I don't report sockpuppets unless I think they are rather obvious, and the according policy, the tag may not be removed for ten days while the situation is investigated. IPSOS (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2007
I would like to try and throw some light on this. There are a number of editors over the history of the BKWSU article who I believe are affiliated with a certain website forum that I documented in the arbcom case here. One trait they seem to have in common is that they repeatedly make accusations of a "team" against any editor not aligned with their POV, especially any editor they think or deduce is a BK. I originally introduced myself as being from the BK IT Team but that is an internal team, not a team of editors, as seem to be implied by the accusations. This "team" thing has been used as a stick to beat opposing editors with ever since. In fact the article history shows the exact reverse of their claims is true and this is what IPSOS and other uninvolved editors are discovering. Sockpupptry has been identified involving Green108 and the now-banned User:195.82.106.244. There may be other editors involved to a lesser extent. They can be identified by the characteristic accusations they make and that they support each other's POV edits. Hope that helps clarify. Against this background I don't consider what IPSOS is doing to be unreasonable, even if mistaken, and, as he stated, he is only following WP:SSP which unfortunately doesn't allow for much discretion. Regards Bksimonb 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Any judicial system that does not allow for the accused person to defend themselves, or further accuses and punishes the individual for attempting to defend themselves, is very highly flawed and suspect. Especially one without imperial evidence. This is as much about Wikipedia standards and ethics as the topic in question and I ask IPSOS to withdraw the prejudicial and pejorative tone to his accusations.

I have been advise to sit this out but I wont for the reason above. I would like it noted that I have not attempted to edit any topic and I have instead attempted to answer this accusation, ask for advice and communicate with the admins involved to ask for their evidence.

I have not "switched" identity as I am accused nor attempted to hide my identity by sockpuppetry. I have signed each comment clearly with my user name. I have clearly document the reasons for this and the circumstances of my responding. Puppetry involves an intent to deceive. (And, no, I am not TalkAbout either, even Simon knows that !!! IPSOS lacks a history with this article).

I would not want the goodwill of the Wikipedian admins to be abused nor their time wasted. Just to clarify, the "Team" I have referred to is known as "The Internet PR Core Team" that writes "on behalf of the RCOs" (Regional Coordinators) within the BKWSU; and not the general IT team of which Simon was or is also engaged in doing server support.

The BK members working as a 'team' on the BKWSU article, which is quite different, are Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and others. Actually, in most cases we can or they have put specific names to them. Simon is engaged not just in actions such as the Wikipedia but also setting policy. He no doubt remembers that this was discussed at the the NCO (National Coordinators) meeting in February 2007 at the BKWSU headquarters in India.

As it is BKSimonb's stated intent to have me or any other informed contributor banned, he and Riveros11 continuing to work in tandem which I have therefore to interpret as an "official" policy of the BKWSU, I would ask that this is taken in consideration with these continued broad distortions and accusations; and especially remove any other user that might agree with any point I make from their firing line.User:Green108

Isn't Green108 engaging in sockpuppetry through the repeated acts of circumventing his temporary block? It shows a willingness to engage in sockpuppetry. Also, I have found IPSOS to be a careful and thorough editor and very complete in gathering evidence.
Procedural question -- is it normal for editors to know and reveal so much personal information about other editors? (e.g., above where Green108 says with regard to bksimonb "he no doubt remembers this was discussed at the the [sic] NCO (National Coordinators meeting in February 2007...") If bksimonb wanted to reveal this about himself, fine; but it seems inappropriate in terms of both privacy and safety for someone else to disclose personal information about another editor. --Renee 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Green108 just confirmed everything I said. I rest my case. Bksimonb 04:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole page has just ONE link to a post that TalkAbout made. If you are going to accuse someone of being a socket puppet you should provide much evidance, not just 1 post. By your logical anyone who posted next in that discussion could have been a socket puppet of green108.--Dacium 06:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me that an atmosphere of fear is being created, through these persistent cases, to stop any other editor from contributing except those approved by the organisation.
Faithinhumanity 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in any particular position in the article. I've not done any significant editing on it. I am monitoring for disruption. Reverting and/or reincluding things which consensus on the talk page is against, because they are clearly against WP policies by giving minor things undue weight or using unreliable sources is disruptive. Green108 edited in a disruptive manner. I am noticing the same pattern of disruption. If editors would follow dispute resolution, discuss on the talk page first, and only make changes to the article once there is a consensus, then I would be sure that new editors appearing are not Green108. IPSOS (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2007 (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:Universal Hero

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Universal Hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Prin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Prince Godfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Blegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

GameKeeper 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User has very similar edit history and style to blocked user's Prin (talk · contribs) and Prince Godfather (talk · contribs) which are both banned. see edit history of R. Madhavan edit history. He seems to have a particular WP:OWN issue with this article.

He started editing on a large scale after Prince Godfather was banned (prince godfather banned on [13:04, 5 March 2007]], Universal Hero's edits start in earnest on 2nd of April [346]. He has used a similar "wait and use another ID" technique before when he created his 1st sockpuppets.

He has uploaded an image which looks like a copy vio which was the original reason he was banned, before he engaged in sock puppetry. Sadly he looks like he is getting better at faking the copyright of these. The image in question is here Image:AVMstudios.jpg and it appears to have come from here. I have asked the user to explain this on his user page.

user Blegend appears to have been reverting to Universal Hero, edits in an unusual way. If this user is Prin then he has used this trick before.

For reference: the case that got Prince Godfather banned is detailed here [347]

Well, Universal Hero's edits resemble that of Prince Godfather. I mean, both of them love adding false citations to the articles they edit. Universal Hero is also an avid editor of the R. Madhavan article. Prince Godfather was a fan of the actor mentioned. A sockpuppet of Prince Godfather, User:King Dracula was a fan of Arsenal F.C. and also lived in London. "Coincidentally", Universal Hero also lives in London and supports Arsenal.
In reference to a point made by GameKeeper, Universal Hero created his account after another two sockpuppets of Prince Godfather were banned. They are User:Maddy92 (March 9 - March 12) and User:FA Maker (March 22 - March 29).
Comments
  • ??? - Those links don't mean anything in my eyes. User:Gamekeeper, after seraching your contributions you do nothing but run after sockpuppets and complain to User:Yamla. You seem very similiar to another editor. I'll request a check for you. Sorry, I've got no idea who Blegend, Prin, or Prince Godfather are, and after looking through their edits, I've noticed they add in junk. Look at the R. Madhavan page, it's slowly turning into a rather acceptable article..........unlike it was before, if you check my user page, it says I plan to this to some other articles. Look at the Sivaji: The Boss page, which I have done 490 + edits and then gave up editing the article showing I don't try to own the article...Universal Hero 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further evidence.
I asked universal hero to explain how he had uploaded a copyright violating image. He said that he had not but a friend had done at his house using his account. This friend had conveniently retired from Wikipedia. Unfortunately for Universal Hero this friend came back from retirement and has now denied the accusation. This kind of deviousness used to upload copyrighted material was one of the reasons prince godfather was banned. See the case I linked above. Full conversation regarding the copyrighted image is here User_talk:GameKeeper#Apologies and User_talk:Universal_Hero#Copyright. GameKeeper 19:08, 17 August 2007 (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:JJonz

Suspected sockpuppeteer
JJonz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
CrystalB4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kbmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.176.32.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JJonz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Marsmanhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Gscshoyru 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

JJonz and CrystalB4 joined within 3 days of each other, whereas Kbmann joined about a half-month later. All three of them have made the same kinds of edits to various comic book pages, usually making superman-favoring edits. I've suspected JJonz and CrystalB4 to be socks for quite a while, but when Kbmann suddenly started reverting all my edits yesterday, I took a look at his contribs, saw that his edits were the same as the other two, and figured it was JJonz getting revenge.

Added an ip address, edits are the same as JJonz and other socks.

The ip, today, just now, went about reverting edits to these articles, in order to get around JJonz's month-long block. Gscshoyru 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added JJonz2, whose edits were the same as the other socks during his short stint before he was blocked. His username and contribs speak for themselves. Gscshoyru 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the Jjonz2 indentity was immediately constructed when another ban was put on the 75.176.32.12 address. As for proof that the ip definitely is Jjonz, he continued a personal-attack monologue in mid-sentence without noticing that he had been logged out:

CrystalB4 has now just been indef blocked, the user went on a trolling spree, making non-controversial edits, but his edit summaries were trolling directed at me and others. I reverted the changes as vandalism originally, but realized my mistake, and stopped, waiting for an admin to block. Others reverted his changes, however. Please note that both JJonz2 and CrystalB4 refer to me as Gaashooru for some unknown reason. Gscshoyru 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when Jjonz said "Hey, baby boy!!!" and "Aww, are you feeling all right?" to me yeasterday, in his usual faux-Lobo imitation, CrystalB4 followed up today with "Hello DavidA, are you O.K. today???" As Gscshoyru just mentioned he's also currently blatantly trying to bait several users with pointless non-vandalism edits, while feigning a highly exaggerated "victimised pacifist" portrayal, since they by now assume that he's simply reverting again, as frequently othervise.
To summarise, we have a guy who constantly reverts all edits done in the last months for several pages, , uses street-level "yo mama" insults while refusing to take it to the talk, is completely unimpressed by warnings, thinks bans are funny, and circumwents them by using several cover-identities at once. Dave 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added another, recently joined sock, Marsmanhu. The user has made edits to the same articles as the rest of the socks, and when I reverted some of his POV'd edits, in his edit summaries he called me "Sir" and called what I was doing harassment, in much the same way CrystalB4 did to those who were reverting his edits before he was blocked. His first edit to the Wonder Woman article is very much like that of CrystalB4's first, as well, and the style of making a bad edit and then a good one, to try to get me to revert a bad edit, the same way CrystalB4 did, is evident. Gscshoyru 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I believe that these are all socks, based on the timing and style of the contribs, including articles of common interest to all three accounts. Kbmann has been indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account by Persian Poet Gal. The other two accounts have been blocked a combined four times for edit warring and personal attacks. Given the new information that this person has been using sock puppets to disrupt other editors, I would endorse an indefinite block. Shalom Hello 12:34, 3 August 2007 (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:Edwardsville

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

74.230.142.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
146.163.162.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Just David (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Jakew 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avi 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:Edwardsville has, for some time, been focused upon making a particular change to the circumcision article (eg. [348] [349] [350] [351] [352]). Recently, User:74.230.142.124 has made the same reverts (see [353] [354]), including on his first edit (an extraordinary coincidence). The talk page contributions are likewise remarkably similar in language and style of argument, both referring to 'truth' and 'censorship' (eg [355] and [356]), and neither acknowledging the 3-4 other editors other than myself who object to the changes.

If 74.230.142.124 is indeed a sockpuppet, there is a 3RR violation (Edwardsville has been warned on two occasions about 3RR). Edwardsville denies that he made 74.230.142.124's edits,[357] so I am unable to assume that he accidentally logged out.


Comments

I believe this is a match. Checking the contrib log, the IP edited at 20:00 on Aug. 7 and at 1:00 on Aug. 8, sandwiched around edits at 23:00 on Aug. 7 by the logged-in user. Since this is a case of 3RR violation, you might consider taking it to WP:AN3RR. Shalom Hello 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

146.163.162.184 resolves to Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. -- Avi 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this comment is correct, 146.163.162.184 may be a meatpuppet. But the style of writing, signing, and arguing is very similar to that of Edwardsville himself. Jakew 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just David (talk · contribs) has just been created and is continuing exactly the discussions of 146.163.162.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Avi 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope that this case is pursued to its conclusion and exposed for the false charge that it is and when my innocence is proved, I would like a public apology from the people who accused me. I happen to know now who made that revision and it is a man in Florida. The ISP address for my posts will be from Illinois and his will be from Florida, demonstrating that we are different people. If that is not enough, I am more than happy to identify myself by whatever means are acceptable to Wikipedia. I suggest you ask the other guy to do the same thing.

If a lot of our points are in agreement, that will be because I have been emailing poeple with my concerns and encouraging them to get involved with the Wikipedia article. I only hope that more people respond by posting on the article, instead of writing back to tell me that it is hopeless to try to get truth into Wikipedia.

Edwardsville 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, I do know Just David who is local to me. I am happy to ask the two people in question if I can publish their identities and email addresses, and/or to ask them if they can be telephoned to establish their identity. If I can get any more people, local or distant, to contribute the article, I assure you that I will do so.

Edwardsville 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note regarding WP:MEAT on Edwardsville's talk page,[358] assuming that he was simply unaware of the relevant policy. I quoted the relevant part of the policy, including that "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." Unfortunately, he has since stated that he intends to continue to do so. Jakew 12:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardsville [359] and Just David [360] both use the same misspelling of "definately". --Coppertwig 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Edwardsville [361] [362] and Just David [363] have expressed clear opinions that a letter should not be cited, and both of them have failed to specify (Edw J.D.) what letter they're talking about when asked for bibiographic details of the letter. --Coppertwig 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • All of these accounts make similar edits in a similar style, so there's good reason to believe they're all being operated by the same person. However, even if separate people are behind these accounts, Edwardsville's repeated statements that he's recruiting as many people as he can to support his side points to a violation of Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppets. Just David is indef blocked; Edwardsville is blocked for 48 hours. The IPs will be left untouched, as blocking them may cause collateral damage, but any further use of IP sockpuppets should lead to a substantial block. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2007 (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:IguanarayD:

Suspected sockpuppeteer

IguanarayD: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets
  1. 89.123.58.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Resolves to "RIPE" in Amsterdam
  2. 82.181.184.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Resolves to "RIPE" in Amsterdam
  3. 86.156.31.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Resolves to "RIPE" in Amsterdam
  4. 89.122.192.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Resolves to "RIPE" in Amsterdam
  5. 71.179.20.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Resolves to "Verizon" in Virgina, USA. Possibly proxy, or meat puppet.
Report submission by

Lie! (User:L)


Evidence

As noted above, the first four IPs are from the same ISP, in the same geographic area. The fifth is from a different part of the planet, but shows signs of puppetry, be it proxy or meat.

IguanarayD: first uploads an image intended to attack the creator of Ctrl+Alt+Del by sarcastically implying that he has no creativity, due to the similarity of their facial expressions in the selected frames. He adds it to the article, making another sarcastic note about the facial expressions. I remove it as a violation of WP:NPOV (based on the comments about the art being amazing, before I realized it was a thinly veiled insult), and it is added again by Sockpuppet#1 here, in a different part of the article. I remove it as an attack, having realized that, and tag the image.

Sock#2 adds a giant BLP violation in accusing the creator of the comic to be homosexual. A "rumours" section is added again by Sockpuppet#1, again violating BLP by accusing him of lewd acts with a minor. Sock#5 (Who seems to attend the same high school as Chultu and Rice Krispies...) agrees, and reinforces the "truth" of it.

Iguanaray has shown their tendancy to edit via IPs, by making this comment on Sock#4 and then immediately logging in to sign it. In addition, the only other edit on their user page is from Sock#1.

Sock#3 vandalizes my user page, again attacking web comic art (for those who do not know, Tycho and Gabe are the main characters in the Penny Arcade webcomic strip) in the same manor that the sockpuppeteer and sock#1 have. Again, it also resolves to the same ISP, in the same location.


Comments

Starting loads of proxy accounts for the sole purpose of making a few mock edits on CAD's page is just silly. I only posted a thread about my initial edit on a forum that might or might not be associated with Ebaumsworld.com, so I assume other, equally bored people thought adding more fake edits would be funny. It sounds a bit more rational if you ask me. - User:IguanarayD:

More rational to think that five people in the same area with the same ISP on the same topic on the same day with the same view points, than that a single puppeteer would use multiple IPs to vandalize? I'd like to hear the logic in that --Lie! 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I logged off and on a few times during my edits, but all I did was the CAD face pic and the rumor edit about Buckley showing his genitals to a young girl (which, while admittedly not worthy of Wikipedia, is a valid rumor considering Tim deletes *EVERY THREAD ABOUT IT* that pops up on his forum and bans the OP instead of giving a rational response proving it wrong). The other Tim edits and the Penny Arcade stuff on your page had nothing to do with me, aside from the Ebaums related forum thread I mentioned earlier. A lot of people harbor a dislike for Tim's work and, as it turns out, are bored enough to attack a Wikipedia article about it at the same time.
They also like to blow up yellow vans, according to reliable news sources. - User:IguanarayD:

For what it is worth, these IP-addresses are not all in the same geographic area. They are certainly not assigned to RIPE NCC. Two of the addresses are assigned to a LIR in Romania, one is in Finland and one in the UK. I recomend using a whois tool which is able to resolve assignments that are not done by ARIN. Havardk 19:57, 29 July 2007 (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:CenturyRain

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Cool Bluetalk to me 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

One piece of strong evidence is reviewing the contributions of Payapichit and those of CenturyRain. Payapichit repeatedly adds the photo Image:Srirasmi.JPG to the page Srirasmi, in which CenturyRain has made revisions to. They both also have made revisions to Srirasmi and Ploypailin Mahidol Jensen. CenturyRain has also loaded Image:Ploy Jensen.JPG in which CenturyRain added the picture, but Payapichit re-added it when it was removed. Payapichit and CenturyRain have both been adding information to pages about Thai royalty. Both accounts were created within] a few days of eachother. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Conclusions

Both CenturyRain and Payapachit appear to be the same user as MKPluto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FlamingSpear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Compare these edit summaries:

  • User:MKPluto:
    • "Srirasmi at a social function in 1994. I took the photograph myself and recently scanned it and cropped it. I'm releasing it to the public domain"[364]
    • "uploaded "Image:Srirasmi.JPG": Reverted to earlier revision"[365]
  • User:CenturyRain:
    • "Cropped photograph of Ploy Jensen taken at a social function in 2006. I took the photograph myself."[366]
    • "uploaded "Image:Srirasmi.JPG": Reverted to earlier revision"[367] (violates 3RR).

Proabivouac 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:FlamingSpear:
    • "Prem Tinsulanonda being received by villagers at an official function in the south. I took this photograph myself and then resized it."[368]
    • "I am a professional photographer. I took this photograph on a trip to the North. I believe in releasing as many of my photographs as possible in the public domain.""[369]

Per Luna Santin, both FlamingSpear and MKPluto claim to have taken Image:Prem.JPG.[370][371] Proabivouac 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I think CenturyRain and MKPluto are the same since they uploaded the same photo Image:Srirasmi.JPG and claimed the ownership. CenturyRain uploaded on 13 July 2007, then it was deleted. MKPluto uploaded again on 26 July 2007; already mentioned above. You might be able to find more info at Admin noticeboard --Manop - TH 06:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

05:05, 28 July 2007 MKPluto (Talk | contribs) (393 bytes) ({{hangon}})
05:08, 28 July 2007 FlamingSpear (Talk | contribs) (263 bytes) (←Created page with '==This photograph is public domain== I am a professional photographer. I took this photograph on a trip to the North. I believe in releasing as many of my photogr...')
2T 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I'm thinking the owner of those sockpuppets are still active in Wikipedia. Every sockpuppets help Wikipedia by adding {{unreferenced}} and so forth to many articles. See those from CenturyRain, from FramingSpear, and from MKPluto. I'm kind of surprised at first to see those sock know those templates including {{cn}} --Manop - TH 05:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

It's likely that CenturyRain and Payapichit are sockpuppets of MKPluto/Flaming Spear. There's a Checkuser case on this that's been pending forever, I guess it never got listed. Anyway, all of these accounts are serial violators of image policy, presenting copyrighted work as their own, and then supposedly releasing it into the public domain. I can't see the images they uploaded, but some of their uploads have been considered vandalism. I'm going to indef block all of the accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2007 (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:Toddy Ball 2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Toddy Ball 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kerry Perry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.251.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Short pat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Yancyfry 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These 3 accounts have been having an arugment about the Iraq War on Talk:Iraq War and Talk:Chili pepper. The accounts have responded to each other with a two-word insult.

Short pat has been a recent addition to the sockpuppets.

Comments

The first three accounts are single-purpose accounts focused on the Iraq War, so they appear to be sock puppets. It's harder to tell about Short pat. Shalom Hello 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Short pat didn't have a hard time finding Kerry Perry and Toddy Ball's pages. But Short pat is making some constructive edits. -Yancyfry 05:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching through other reports, and found another page with same socks. I added these socks to that report. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.29.240.115.

Conclusions

All the accounts listed here have received blocks of various lengths, let's see if this solves the issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2007 (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:86.29.240.115

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

86.25.50.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.246.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.248.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.244.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.251.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.255.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.255.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.247.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.241.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.241.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.25.52.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.246.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.56.232.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.240.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.25.51.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

VegitaU 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is one of the most annoying things I've come by…a real mess. I can't tell whether the above clowns are sock puppets, meat puppets, straw puppets or just a bunch of separate clowns all hailing from Great Britain. They've all descended upon the Iraq War talk page and just wreaked havoc. It all began innocently enough: some unregistered user (User:86.25.50.222) trying to voice his opinion. Soon, however, it began to unravel. User:86.29.246.148 added this offtopic nonsense. Some time later, User:86.29.248.245 added this personal attack, reverted it, and added it again. Next day, User:86.29.244.175 added this garbage. Later the same day, User:86.29.251.25 added all this nonsense over the course of several edits. Other users decided to embroil themselves and soon added further piles of trash. After a few minutes, User:86.29.255.64 added unnecessary tags. I promptly reverted all the nonsense. Things went well for a couple days…didn't receive any vandalism for a while. Then, they came back with a post about Iraqi feminists, veterans, and a picture of a dead Iraqi. For a few days, nothing happened, but yesterday they came back. At this time, we had begun a discussion dealing with what picture we wanted to have as our lead on the Iraq War article. I had hoped this would be a dignified discussion to lead to an agreement. A few posts by User:86.29.247.13 and User:86.25.54.26 began to come in. Then, User:86.29.241.244 posted this nonsense which I promptly reverted. He added this which I also reverted out of a bad faith suspicion. User:86.29.241.253 added this, and User:86.29.241.114 all this and this. User:86.25.52.233 came in, making more edits. User:86.25.52.233 added his subjective remarks, followed by User:86.29.246.193 with this and this garbage. User:86.29.240.56 decided it would be nice to blank the entire talk page (reverted). Then, User:83.56.232.180 walked in on his soapbox. Finally, User:86.29.240.115 finished up with and edit agreeing to another unregistered user's comments. I've used him as "puppeteer" because, unfortunately, I haven't seen any centralized puppet master. This just looks like a multitude of nonsense that fell on the talk page. Maybe a semi-protect would solve the problem, but I don't have an issue with the comments so much as all the IP addresses looking the same and all adding to a childish and misspelled bickering on the site. Looking at the talk pages of some of these users, you see the insults they like to throw at each other. If you can help me with this, I appreciate it. Thanks.

Update: User:86.25.51.217 just recently added vandalism to the page again. Interestingly found that User:86.29.253.55 is suspected of being User:Elspeth Monro's sock puppet. Though not a party to this issue, the question emerges: is this a related case? -- VegitaU 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:Freetown may be the scokpuppeteer. The problems continue on the Iraq War talk page. -- VegitaU 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

86.29.251.25 is on this list. This same IP has been making arguments on some of the same pages as these other sockpuppets. Such as the talk page on Iraq War. My report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Toddy Ball 2 is merged into this report.

-Yancyfry 03:06, 4 August 2007 (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:216.163.40.100

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Temp cleanup3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
77.232.80.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kekeke9181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Additional suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

Chunky Rice 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User Temp cleanup3 is an SPA which was created with the sole purpose of listing the article GameTZ.com for deletion[372]. 216.163.40.100, other than one edit, has existed solely for the purpose of advocating this deletion. At the AFD, 216.164.40.100 made unfounded accusations of incivility towards those who argue for keeping the article, including Seicer and myself, Chunky Rice [373][374].

Subsequently, Kekeke9181 is created and places civility warnings on my user page[375] and Seicer's talk page[376]. 216.164.40.100 adds the same template to Nihonjoe's talk page [377]. In all cases, the template was placed at the very top of the page. Kekeke9181, then uploads an obscene image, which 77.232.80.10 then places on Seicer's user page [378].

Comments

I'm fairly certain that there is a puppetmaster that I'm not aware of, since these are all single purpose accounts. I suspect that the same puppet master is responsible for the previous AfDs of GameTZ.com, as well, since they are littered with SPAs.

These may also be connected ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regrettably, I advertised the discussion to a few contributors I know. I did not encourage them to advocate the article's deletion, but to simply contribute their thoughts toward it. The discussion wasn't recieving much attention outside of a close circle of contributors whom are all apparently associated with one another in some fashion. I didn't feel that reaching an honest consensus among them would be possible without bringing in more opinions. Unfortunately, I believe the contributors I called in aren't very serious about using Wikipedia, and have instead caused further problems mentioned above. I sincerely apologize for any annoyance this has caused, and understand that it only further complicates the discussion. I doubt they will be bothering anyone again, though they do have active Wikipedia accounts. Whether or not they made these contributions from their real addresses is another story. 216.163.40.100 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All ranges involved are SPA. AfD nominations 2, 3 and 4 are bogus.

I guess I just wanted some kind of human contact, even if it has to be like this. I won't bother you anymore. 216.163.40.100 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • :If you want human contact, this isn't the way to get it. Go to a library, a party, a restaurant, a bar, or some other place with people. If you want to actually help with the encyclopedia, please do so. I strongly encourage that. But wasting people's time by making bogus nominations and either vandalizing pages yourself or getting others to do it is not productive or conducive to producing a good encyclopedia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The admission that his AFD was bogus (since this is the 4th attempt) would nuff the AFD? If he had been involved with the prior bad-faith AFD nominations of the article, then the user's latest attempt and all future attempts should be nulled and rendered keep through consensus and through admission of vandalism. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation is taken care of. All ranges involved in recent conflicts are proxies. This is evident by their contribution history prior to these events. You may want to take the liberty of blocking them. In fact, [here] is the entire list. At least 80% are already blocked. 216.163.40.100 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional accounts:
It's possible there may be more by the time this discussion is closed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I suspected:
I've added all of the socks to the top of this page to make it easier to see them all. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
  • Well, the AfD is long closed, and the behavior outlined in this report seems to have ceased. Since this activity was largely coming from IP accounts, semi-protection would have been a good way to limit the disruption in the AfD. It might be worth checking to see if the IPs are open proxies, if that hasn't been done already. But I don't see that any action needs to be taken at the moment. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2007 (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:SalvNaut

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Immediately after User:MarkCentury was blocked for WP:3RR in Steven E. Jones, User:SalvNaut made the same edit.

Comments

The evidence is very strong that these are sock puppets. Aside from the revert warring - the alleged evasion of 3RR occurred less than an hour after MarkCentury was blocked - an examination of SalvNaut's contribs shows a concentrated interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is not beyond the scruples of some POV editors to use sock puppets to win an argument, and I suspect that's what happened here. Shalom Hello 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • MarkCentury fits the definition of a single-purpose account--his contributions all relate in some way to Steven E. Jones, and he jumped right into a controversy in his very first day of editing. The similarity between his edits and SalvNaut's, especially the reverts given above, strongly suggest that both accounts are operated by the same person. Since MarkCentury is the newer account, I'm indef blocking MarkCentury, and giving SalvNaut a 48-hour block. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2007 (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:71.249.40.182

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

71.249.32.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.247.92.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.247.135.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.249.32.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.247.87.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.247.140.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.247.142.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kariteh 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387]

Comments

Keeps on re-adding a list or bits of a list of films in the post-credits scene article, even though this list was deleted as an article. Has been directed to that deletion page and warned for vandalism several times across his/her different IPs, but keeps on stubbornly re-adding the list.

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:Komdori

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Nightshadow28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Watermint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Endroit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kusunose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Komdori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kokiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by


Evidence

[388] [389] [390] [391] [392] [393] [394] [395] [396] [397] [398] [399]

Comments

Please see Liancourt Rocks, 2005 in Japan, Korea, Usan-do. This user has engaged in seriously edit war.also, also, he is not a korean. but he said he is a korean in his page.[400]Bason0 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the last bit about my ethnicity; it has nothing to do with this (ridiculous) report, is false, and is in violation of WP:BLP. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to get dragged into anything. --Cheers, Komdori 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello administrators and all Wikipedians. I thank you for all your works everyday.
Now, a serious edit war has been appearing in some articles among Japan-South Korea relations, Japanese local governments and the Korean Peninsula. The focus of the edit war is very trifles, how to write the islet where it competes for dominium between Japan and South Korea. But I think that abuse of the multiple account by the certain specific person is one of the causes of this edit war. Of course, the specific person is reporter of this report, a user named Bason0.
He submitted repeatedly bogus reports until now[401][402], and afflicted me and other veteran users. Each of they was rejected by the administrators (a blocking for Watermint is false. It was canceled as the mistake[403]). Other users including an administrator also suspect that Bason0 is the puppet master. RFCU for Bason0 is already ongoing[404], and a administrator applied a suspected sockpuppet template to puppets' userpage after this discussion[405].
I describe the reason which suspects Bason0 to be socks user strongly.
  1. A series of suspected sockpuppet users[406][407][408] appear in a short time during a month[409][410][411], and adhere to description of a small islet and "Sea of Japan."
  2. A series of suspected sockpuppet users uses characteristic wording, like "socket puppet"[412]. (please read my comment)
  3. I do not know about User:Kokiri well, but he has not been appearing to Wikipedia from 16 March 2007 and afterwards[413]. So Kokiri should not be included in this report. Only one thing I know about Kokiri is that the sockpuppet of Bason0[414][415] copied and used the Kokiri's user page with a barnstar[416]. Although I can not understand why it is, Bason0 attacks Kokiri.
  4. Simply, he seems to have entry in Wikipedia, in order to fight to something invisible and mysterious one. Please read User:Sandstein's comment.[417][418]
From the above, I conclude that this report is a bogus report by a fake user. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to, Bason0 was confirmed a massive sockpuppety at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bason0. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 23:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks completely bogus to me. John Smith's 23:40, 18 August 2007 (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:Campbells56

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Campbells56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Campbells59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EEBZ1414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

The sunder king 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of these accounts have been used to create a nonsense page called Frogloshean, which is being recreated and deleted slowly over the months, and I have relised this by looking on "What links here", on the page itself, linking to the talk pages of these users where warnings of creating the page are included. The sunder king 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It has absolutely no google hits, the word itself does not exsist, whilst the users have also added nonsense and WP:BLP violations in articles about people being in this religion. The sunder king 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I did not know it was a "nonsense religion", but thank you for providing context on my talk page, giving me more information your perhaps should have placed here. I therefore retract earlier statement; this does indeed appear to be true sock puppetry. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:47, 16 August 2007 (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:G-Dett

Suspected sockpuppeteer

main suspect:
G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
secondary suspects:
PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CJCurrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

JaakobouChalk Talk 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User G-Dett has made 6 edits in 24hrs and a 3RR notice was placed, by me, on his page (without a pursue of a block).[419] after the notice was made, a new anon. editor[420] appeared on the article and made the "Reverting to NPOV version by G-Dett"[421] and a "This version is unnacceptable"[422] commentary which reminds of language used by G-Dett before about "red lines; anything crossing them will be reverted"[423]. also, the timing of the edits, at 22:59 and 23:13 revols closely to 23:10, the time in which G-Dett issued his apology to the 3RR note.

Comments
  • user PalestneRemebered is mentioned as a secondary suspect (with very weak evidnce) only based on the footnotes that he was just recently assigned a mentor, which should make him avoid open frontal conflicts with his user exposed and he has had a close relationship with the article.

note: if PR is unrelated to this issue, i plan on issuing an apology for the suggestion of his possible involvement. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • user CJCurrie is mentioned as a possible secondary suspect (with very weak evidence) due to some disruptive behavior (some very recent) on this article.[424]

note: perhaps i'm over streaching the number of possible seconary suspects without real evidence, but this article has been a disaster to work on and i believe that a simple checkuser can find the culprit anon. abuser. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate Jaakabou on making one true statement, that Battle of Jenin has been a disaster to work on.
I hardly know what to add here. Jaakabou cannot fathom that three registered editors and one anon disagree with his edits and find his stated rationales unsatisfactory. That is the totality of his evidence. He realizes this is "very weak"; presumably he doesn't realize that it is also absurd, so he posts it here anyway. This is too idle and lackadaisical even to qualify as a conspiracy theory; it's just a waste of your time and mine. I encourage whoever is in charge here to do a checkuser and send the man on his way. May I ask that it not be back to Battle of Jenin, where he is making a mess of things.--G-Dett 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to dignify this nonsense with a response, but I should clarify that (i) I am not User:88.25.6.27 (or for that matter User:G-Dett or User:PalestineRemembered), (ii) Jaakobou's accusations of "disruptive behaviour" ring more than a tad ironic. CJCurrie 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its more likely this is a sockpuppet of Burgas00 who was blocked for 48 hours than the suspects that Jaaka has posted. Kyaa the Catlord 04:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have a very good point, i can't believe i missed it. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, a very good point indeed. Another great hunch, another great gut feeling, another great lead. Yes, Burgas00 is a sock I've been knitting since March, having him edit on things like Llanito and Papiamento and Venezuelan Spanish, all in preparation for a moment like this when I really need him. The research into Romance philology and contemporary Spanish history was time-consuming, but it really paid off when I got to send Burgas00 to Kyaa the Catlord's user page to call that esteemed editor and sockpuppet detective a "fuckhead."[425]
Sigh. By all means, go ahead and crank Burgas00's user name into the CU machine as well. In fact, crank in the name of every editor who has ever or will ever have the audacity to disagree with Detectives Jaakabou and Catlord.
While we're waiting for the machine to stop whirring and belch out '"UNRELATED", I'll take a small liberty due to me in light of this harassment. Burgas00's style is not my style, but I understand his frustration. These editors' contributions to Battle of Jenin have been, on the whole, every bit as frivolous, tendentious, and evidence-free as their posts to this page.--G-Dett 11:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your uncivil tone has been noted. Defensive much? Kyaa the Catlord 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP policy says one shouldn't feed trolls. G.K. Chesterton on the other hand said one shouldn't suffer fools gladly; one should rather enjoy them immensely. I try to chart a modest middle course between these two bits of wisdom.--G-Dett 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anon user is in spain. I think suspected sock requests need better research than this. Checkuser can't be used to fish like this. Mark Chovain 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I wasn't the one who started this RFCU, but I'd point out that based on the evidence none of the other users (I believe both PR and CJ-san are Canadians, and I have no idea where G-Dett is but, I never suspected her personally.) are in Spain. This leaves Borgas00 who, based on his edits, very well could be in the Canary Islands or Spain. Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest we close this one off and open a new one? I feel there's probably enough evidence to suspect IP is a Burgas00 sock. Mark Chovain 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tewfik's on the case.--G-Dett 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I opened the RFCU immediately, and I didn't even realise that this case existed until just now. While I disagree with G-Dett about many things, I don't believe she is engaging in sockpuppeting, and suggest that this be closed promptly. That said, I was once subject to an RFCU on equally shaky grounds from editors with whom I was in conflict, but I kept my speech firmly in the realm of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and would hope that these policies would still be adhered to by all parties, especially in such frustrating circumstances as these. TewfikTalk 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • There's no convincing evidence of sockpuppetry here, so I'm closing this case.
  • By the way folks, this is not the Requests for Checkuser page, and the handful of admins who bother to look at the Suspected Sock Puppets page don't have checkuser access. If you want IP checks, ask for one at WP:RFCU. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2007 (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:Gutocomplicated

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

WebHamster 02:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both seem to show an interest in reviving articles on Marc!o Mathers and his "works". User talk:Davizim seems to have appeared after User talk:Gutocomplicated was blocked for a month in March of this year.

Comments


Conclusions

Both the same person doing their level best to promote Marc!o Mathers.

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:83.131.24.159

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Spring Rubber 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The original IP was blocked for 24 hours by RockMFR. One of the edits made with this IP was a comment on User talk:RockMFR. Shortly after the IP was blocked, further edits were made to the aforementioned user talk page by the suspected sockpuppet IP in a style similar to those made by the suspected puppetmaster.

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:NORDKAPP

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

A Rotor Smote Marinaded Nun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
A Naiad Floored Oms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The range of ip's: 80.102.220.xxx and 80.102.248.xxx (80.102.220.4, 80.102.220.19, 80.102.220.9, 80.102.220.33, 80.102.220.11, 80.102.248.35, 80.102.248.43, 80.102.248.32, ...)

Report submission by

Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

The page Barcelona has become vandalized since begining of June, when Heliodore (talk · contribs) introduced unbalanced content with a strong POV against the city. Since then, many different anonymous users and newbies have been introducing more and more non sourced false information with an extremely pejorative and sensationalist point of view. Most of them contributed only in this article or just in another one. Most of them had an empty User Page and most of them were writting some sentences in Catalan in the Edit summary [426], [427], [428]. Also all of them are making reversions without mantaining the corrections made . In the worst case, NORDKAPP, has even deleted the categories, the interwikis with other languages, (s)he has truncated the article, and he continues reverting to this terrible version of the article (also without the "protected" template) [429].

Comments

During the time the users (sock puppets?) changed, and the dynamic ips changed also. So, in the suspected sockpuppet list I just report the last possible sock puppets, but, along the time, the users who have been introducing this information and therefore perhaps also sock puppets but with a different ip because of the dynamic condition of the ips and the time, are:

It started Heliodore (talk · contribs) (June 17th) introducing some non discussed controversial stuff and it was reverted. Then some vandalism was introduced and Notthebarcelonatouristboard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reverted to last version of Heliodore... mantaining the vandalism.

From June 19th till June 25, SERRALONGA (talk · contribs) introduces againg the controversial data until the page is blocked. It expires on July 2nd. Serrallonga (talk · contribs) adds again the controversial material from July 4th until July 9th, when (s)he is blocked by 3RR. The anonymous 88.25.242.192 adds again the info with a edit summary in catalan [430]. Another ip (81.32.134.180) adds again the info also with a comment in Catalan [431]. Some hours later, a symilar range anonymous (81.32.135.116) adds it again. The same anonymous adds the information twice again the same day (81.32.135.116).

On July 12th, an anonynous of the range 83.33.xxx.xxx (83.33.34.172) attacks again. Now 83.40.74.135 adds again more controversial info. After finishing the block, Serrallonga attacks again on July 13th. This day, the ips 80.102.xxx.xxx start adding again the information and... copying it TWICE the article: (80.102.248.12). 80.25.3.93 help reverting the "normal version", this is, copying twice again the article. Some more contributions of 80.102.248.xxx copy twice again the controversial info (80.102.248.46, 80.102.248.60, 80.102.248.11). On July 15th, the other range (80.102.220.xxx) start (80.102.220.35).

Then, some more ip reversions (some 81.32.xxx.xxx, 83.33.xxx.xxx and 83.34.xxx.xxx)(specially interesting this one, with a summary edit in Catalan which says "more info on Gaudi work", and (s)he adds the controversial part again) and then Maitedebarcelona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) adds again the same controversial info. 83.33.xxx.xxx adds again. Then some more 81.32.xxx.xxx and 83.33.xxx.xxx again. On July 24th, 80.102.xxx.xxx again.

On July 25th Barcelona is blocked again because of the anonymous disruptive behaviour. Some tranquility and on August 14th, 80.25.3.93 starts again. The new users A Naiad Floored Oms (talk · contribs), A Rotor Smote Marinaded Nun (talk · contribs) together with the ips 80.102.220.xxx and 80.102.248.xxx start the battle again. I ask to administrators to block the page for newbies, and they recomend me to report in to WP:SSP (here). I think it's quite hard to accuse someone of sock puppeting and I preffer still not to do it. Then, comes an "old registerd newbie" NORDKAPP (talk · contribs) vandalizing again.

Conclusions

There is some sockpuppeting, but it's difficult/not possible to identify the sock puppet master. Perhaps has never contributed directly with this article. Some users (administrators will decide after reading my evidences) should be brought to Checkusers and, if it is the case, be blocked.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:18, 19 August 2007 (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:24.168.46.238

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

64.38.198.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.38.198.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.38.198.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.38.198.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Edward321 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CyberGhostface 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After 24.168.46.238 was blocked for harassment and legal threats, 64.38.198.61 posted, admitting to be 24.168.46.238 and asking for the ban to be overturned [432] While the edits as 64.38.198.61 were civil, they were also obviously false to anyone who had followed 24.168.46.238's edit history.

Now 64.38.198.53 has posted [433]. Edit summariers show they are continuing 24.168.46.238's personal attacks on Spirot [434] and Cyberghostface [435] and is signing themself as ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you!

Also, User:64.38.198.54 (again in the same IP) has reverted CyberGhostface's removal of the previous vandals.

Comments

This user also went as much as going through my talk page and harassing people who I was having unrelated discussions with, as with the case of User:Famguy3 here. He also signed my talk page with "CyberGhostface, you are an antagonistic scumbag and a cowardly faggot!"--CyberGhostface 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the last three IP's are editing around a block, yet none are banned for anything near the puppetmaster's block lenght. Edward321 13:39, 21 August 2007 (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:Majoreditor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Peter cohen 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

(Please note At the time I started this report, I had miscounted the number of reverts by a second editor User:Anietor. I have now noticed this editor too had reached three reverts. Therefore please regard this user as a candidate for puppeteer. I shall leave the material building the case against Majoreditor unchaged before moving on to Anietor.)

The sockpuppet has only edited one page but by using reverts shows the behaviour of an experienced user.[436]

The sockpuppet appeared after the alleged puppeteer had already made three reverts to the article [437], [438], [439].

There is a shared pattern of misleadingly named edits. [440]includes a revert which is not implied in the title. [441] is not explained in the talk as claimed. [442] refers to a non-existent consensus as evidenced both by the talk page and the edit-warring in the article itself.

The puppet's three reverts [443] [444] [445] were in support of User:Anietor, (who had posted [446]) an ally of the alleged puppeteer as evidenced by posts to the talk pages with titles stating agreement [447] [448] and by posts about the article on each other's talk pages [449] [450]. (They also discuss other articles together.)

User:Anietor must also be considered as a candidate for sockpuppeteer having also made three reverts when the puppet appeared. [451] [452] [453]

Whichever is the true puppetteer, the three ids form a tag team. I believe that the motivation is a combination of WP:OWN and a strongly held WP:POV motivated by religious belief. WP:OWN is demonstrated by Majoreditor's immediate reversion of my first ever edit to the page [454], the same editor's subsequent indiscriminate rollback [455], which removed multiple edits of mine this reinsting typos and a cite tag which I had addressed, and Antienor's [456] which does not WP:AGF but instead accuses me of trolling for having a different opinion form the WP:OWNERS. It is further demonstrated by the previously cited claims that there is a consensus which can only be claimed by someone who reflexively discounts the view of the non-WP:OWNERS.

Apart from the general issue of edit-warring, the sockpuppet's and its allies' activities have also contributed to the appearance of blank entries in the citation list (notes number 53 and 57 in this version of the file [457])

Comments

No, I don't use sockpuppets. A simple ARIN lookup shows that 72.220.146.66 is a Cox IP; I edit from Comcast and AT&T. User Peter cohen has been engaged in edit wars and has become unnerved. Thanks, Majoreditor 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I should also mention that I don't use meatpuppets either. I have no idea who made the edits in question. Majoreditor 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it clear that there are two candidate puppeteers. As for the attack on my mental state, kindly keep your views to yourself.
On the subject of my alleged edit warring, whilst I'm not a saint in every article I edit (dare I say "(East) Jerusalem"?), this is the full list of my edits to Mother Teresa: a speeling correction, An insertion to make the lead less POV without all out attacking her, Making an internal link and italisising a magazine name, Improving a rudimentary section by indicating where criticisms are coming from, (note I am pro-Hitchens on this but indicated that he was coming from a POV,) citations and improving English, naming a ref for reciting source, Using that name to start addressing a cite tag, inserting the final citation needed and removing the tag, [Adding another source for criticisms and correcting English], a copy edit, another copy edit, explaining who a multiply cited critic is, reinstating the previous eight edits after Majoreditor had indiscriminately removed them en masse, (my one revert,) Inserting a reference to criticism of medical care in, arguably, the two most prestigious medical journals in the world, Correcting the suthor of a citation and, finally, removing a citation that doesn't actually support the sentence to which it is attached, whilst leaving the ref name functional. Majoreditor's only edits to the article in the mean time were his three reverts cited in the evidence section above at the end of second beginning "the sockpuppet appeared". I think makes it clear who is the edit warrior and who is the person who followed links from WP:GAR and tried to make constructive improvements to the article.--Peter cohen 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, try calming down and stick to presenting evidence.
You are very quick to hurl accusations: WP:OWN, religious bias, etc. That's uncivil.
I'd also suggest that, in the future, you join discussion on the talk page rather than launching into wholesale edit changes. Try to build consensus and discussing changes on the talk page prior to making disruptive, controversial edits. WP:Be Bold is most effective when tempered with consensu building.
In the meanwhile, let's get this false accusation resolved.Majoreditor 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Since the person who filed this case can't even decide who the sockpuppeteer is, this looks to me as if this is not a bona fide sockpuppet report, but an extension of an editing dispute. Please pursue discussion on the article's talk page instead of scattershot accusations of editing abuse. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2007 (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:Anietor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Peter cohen 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

I have named Anietor as an alternative candidate for puppeteer at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Majoreditor.

The following text is copied form there:

The puppet's three reverts [8] [9] [10] were in support of User:Anietor, (who had posted [11]) an ally of the alleged puppeteer as evidenced by posts to the talk pages with titles stating agreement [12] [13] and by posts about the article on each other's talk pages [14] [15]. (They also discuss other articles together.)


User:Anietor must also be considered as a candidate for sockpuppeteer having also made three reverts when the puppet appeared. [16] [17] [18]


Whichever is the true puppetteer, the three ids form a tag team. I believe that the motivation is a combination of WP:OWN and a strongly held WP:POV motivated by religious belief. WP:OWN is demonstrated by Majoreditor's immediate reversion of my first ever edit to the page [19], the same editor's subsequent indiscriminate rollback [20], which removed multiple edits of mine this reinsting typos and a cite tag which I had addressed, and Antienor's [458] which does not WP:AGF but instead accuses me of trolling for having a different opinion form the WP:OWNERS. It is further demonstrated by the previously cited claims that there is a consensus which can only be claimed by someone who reflexively discounts the view of the non-WP:OWNERS.


Apart from the general issue of edit-warring, the sockpuppet's and its allies' activities have also contributed to the appearance of blank entries in the citation list (notes number 53 and 57 in this version of the file [21])

I suggest that it is best to discuss the two alleged puppeteers together under the older case.

Comments

Yeah, don't really know what more to say beyond what Majoreditor said here. It's hard to prove a negative. I am among several editors who have been dealing with some borderline vandalisms in the Mother Teresa page. A small but aggressive group is trying to delist it as a GA (failing twice recently). I think they are just frustrated that editors like Majoreditor and me, and several others, have been keeping them in check and dealing with edits that violate various WP policies. I'll let my edit history speak for itself. Thanks! --Anietor 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These comments don't actually address the issue of the sockpuppet. I have now noticed that Anietor shares with the sockpuppet the habit of using misleading edit titles. [459] actually removes a sentence reporting that the two major medical journals the Lancet and the British Medical Journal have both published articles criticising care in Mother Teresa's homes; the edit title only mentions Penn and Teller. The sockpuppet's post [460] shares this misleading edit name trait in referring to a "consensus" that does not exist.
Similarly the sockpuppet's tone of dismissal of contributions by people with rival perspectives as "improper edits" shows the same WP:OWN and WP:POV and non-WP:AGF faults that the above post by Anietor mentioning "borderline vanndalisms", by an "aggrressive group" of "frustrated" editors "violat[ing] WP policies". Just as the supposed "borderline vandalisms" in the cited edit by Anietor involves references to the contents of the two medical journals, the "improper edits" in the cited sockpuppet's edit include an expansion on the content of the commentary in those journals. There is a clear common way of thinking about other editors shared by the sockpuppet and Anietor whereby disliked edits by other editors are disparaged in highly misleading terms however valid those edits may be.--Peter cohen 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Since the person who filed this case can't even decide who the sockpuppeteer is, this looks to me as if this is not a bona fide sockpuppet report, but an extension of an editing dispute. Please pursue discussion on the article's talk page instead of scattershot accusations of editing abuse. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2007 (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:Xia999

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Xia999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Xia8666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yuan666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

— Coren (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeat vandal posting disrupting rants to my talk page. Pupeteer and one other sock already blocked for that vandalism.

Case in point: [461] [462] vs [463] and [464].

Also, other pages similarly vandalized: [465], [466]

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:Neoballmon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Neoballmon II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Nyttend 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • Neoballmon II claims to be the owner of a previously blocked account. Neoballmon II's userpage (form when this case was filed) states "Hello! I am Neoballmon (II). This is my second account here, after already being blocked, mainly to prove to Bainer and Femto that I can change, and will be a GOOD editor on this site."
  • Neoballmon is a blocked account. Logs show that a user Neoballmon was indefinitely blocked on 30 July 2006, and Neoballmon II was created on 5 January 2007.
  • Neoballmon II has been engaging in vandalism. See this change to Tobias Mayer, or this change to Ranchester, Wyoming, both on 21 August 2007.
  • I can't imagine a more obvious case than this, since the user admits to having been blocked. Please note up above that the version of the userpage to which I link is my edit, but it is identical to the last time Neoballmon II edited it here; I simply reverted vandalism that left the page looking like this.
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:Azizbekov

Suspected sockpuppeteer(s)

Robert599 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Atabek 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Azizbekov was established for yet another campaign smear against Azerbaijan. Using this unsourced image [467], which he inserted here [468] and was one of short of 3RR, inserting it here [469], [470], [471], created page and inserted some OR here Azeri_Waffen_SS_Volunteer_Formations. The users aggressive OR seems to be of the same nature as the one at Ziya Bunyadov previously and this is clearly an experienced user, too much so for only couple of days of registration.

Comments

Yes, I agree that this looks like another incarnation of Robert599 (talk · contribs), who was engaged in similar POV editing. --Grandmaster 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe, this post today [472] at User_talk:Thatcher131, of the User:Azizbekov registered 4 days ago, should leave very little doubts that he is a suspected sock of an experienced user. Atabek 12:28, 10 August 2007 (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:83.26.34.139

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

83.26.37.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.26.45.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.26.46.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

–sebi 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence
  1. All have made the same edit to the Talk:Habbo Hotel:
    IP 1 (83.26.34.139):
    IP 1's first diff and second diff
    IP 2 (83.26.37.187):
    IP 2's first diff and second diff
    IP 3 (83.26.45.184):
    IP 3's first diff to Talk:Habbo Hotel, and another edit to The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, obviously enforcing the same message "pool's closed".
    IP 3 (83.26.46.65):
    IP 3's only edit. Not exactly the same as the other edits.
  2. WHOISs for all IPs show that the user is located in Poland (apart from IP 2, from Paris, France):
    (1,2, 3 and 4)
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:Pioneercourthouse

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Pioneercourthouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.58.51.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Powhome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nationalpioneer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Washingtonfan2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nationaly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pioneerusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Usworld05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Americadude34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dudoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ilovepioneercourthouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pdxdude20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pioneerfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pioneersquare1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pioneeramerica1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pioneeramerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Cacophony 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Continuned inclusion of unsourced POV at Pioneer Courthouse Square. The user was apparently permanently banned by User:Jayjg, but that has not stopped the edits of the article. There was a related Mediation Cabal case opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Pioneer Courthouse Square, but nothing seemed to have come of it (or maybe that was the start of the ban?). The page was semi-protected for a while, but it is a shame to do that to a page based on one bad-faith editor. In any case, the editor has shown a blatant disregard for Wikipedia guidelines including, but not limited to, WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR and WP:3RR.

Comments

Don't forget WP:SPA. It seems pretty clear to me that this editor either thinks this edit war is amusing, or is feeding his/her ego off the attention. I don't think there's a coherent or malicious POV pushing here, more just button-pushing. The longer the sock puppet issue goes unaddressed, the longer the page - which is not generally a target for vandalism - will have to remain protected, which is very unfortunate. -Pete 17:10, 13 August 2007 (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:Cz mike

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Cz mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Tewfikisrael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Moshe 230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Isacc3go (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dayan1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Isarig 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Cz Mike was blocked for 24h for edit warring & breaking 3RR on several related pages - Dalal Mughrabi, Coastal Road massacre, Wafa Idris and Baruch Goldstein. he was reported by me & by User:Tewfik, who also reverted him on those pages. New user User:Tewfikisrael then appeared, and proceeded to make the same edits as User:Cz mike on all the above pages. After User:Tewfikisrael was indef-blocked as a sock, User:Isacc3go appeared with same pattern, and after he was indef-blocked as a sock, User:Moshe 230 appeared, with same pattern of edits.

User:Dayan1967 has reverted edits by an administrator who removed edits by the other socks, and like User:Cz mike, has uploaded images with false copyright notices

Comments

The first three SSPs are indefblocked. Dayan1967 seems like a match also. I'd extend the block on Cz mike to a week, but not being an admin, I can't. Shalom Hello 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All four sockpuppets have been indef-blocked. As the admin who blocked all the sockpuppets, and extended Cz Mike's block to 31hrs for sockpuppetry, I have not extended Cz Mike's block any further. Cz Mike has not edited with that account since. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it.

User:Thefunk42

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Thefunk42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hip Hop Jin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.83.4.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Thefunk42 created an article called L.S., which is being considered for deletion. Mr. Jin, shown here and here deletes the AfD template and edits the article. He uploads an image for the article as well. The IP also does a similar thing here here and POV pushes here Jin is also an alternate account of CraftyKid™ who was blocked because of his username. It is suspicous that an account would be made and immediatey edit an article like that.

UPDATE: The article was deleted, but what they were doing is removing the deletion templates and editing the article in a similar way.

Comments

I don't even know who those people are, my guess is that they are fans of Jin and LS and decided to try and upload/edit the information on the pages. The only reason I've made mistakes with the articles I've created/edited so far is because I'm still new to creating Wikipedia articles and still learning from my mistakes.

All I know is that thefunk42 is the only account that I've created on wikipedia. If anyone has any suggestions on other ways to prove this, please let me know, thanks.

--thefunk42 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll checkuser request, see how that goes. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This too difficult. I'm making an RFCU request. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2007 (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:Hdayejr

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Hd3576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Orange Mike 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Aside from the name itself (I believe the human behind it is probably named H. Daye, Jr.), the only two edits this account has made so far were to blank a discussion from the blocked puppetmaster's talk page; and to remove a cleanup tag from an article the blocked puppetmaster guards, with an incivil summary abusing me by name (puppetmaster is angry with me).

Comments


Conclusions

Confirmed and blocked by Finlay McWalter. Shalom Hello 16:50, 17 August 2007 (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:Jj1010

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jj1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

216.141.201.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.140.166.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.140.163.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.126.177.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Banazir 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Suspected puppetmaster has been given repeated warnings for blanking the Controversy section of iTalkBB, the only page that Jj1010 and the above suspected meatpuppets have ever edited, and the only section and edit action that they have committed. Warnings for Jj1010 culminated in a brief (31-hour) temporary block on 20 May 2007.

None of these users has ever responded to requests to desist from blanking, nor edited the talk page to provide any sort of justification. At least three editors (Banazir, AndroidMouse, and Chetblong) have rolled back the page a total of about 20 times to date, to undo the section blanking. Since January, 2007, the Controversy section has contained negative allegations - one of them with a cited reference - of bad business practices by the company described in the article.

The discussion page for iTalkBB contains a calendar of section blankings, showing that the suspected meatpuppets are carrying out blankings in alternation that are cumulatively frequent. It is evident from this alternation that the meatpuppets are working in tandem to avert frequent vandalism blocks. In a recent case, one of the suspects, 216.141.201.178, committed two blankings in a three-day period, four in a one-month period, and six total within about three and a half months, but did not incur a block due to the individual frequency of vandalism being too low.

Circumstantial diff link evidence is provided in the section below.

Diff links

For Jj1010

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=131037479&oldid=128639074
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=125944267&oldid=125943713
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=119761028&oldid=119226718
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=118527792&oldid=118494064
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=109835972&oldid=108293231
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=105005184&oldid=104980260
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=104866372&oldid=104866031

For 216.141.201.178

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=147246406&oldid=146860933
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=146810550&oldid=145446660
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=140599773&oldid=136894117
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=136894050&oldid=133397741
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=122502626&oldid=121885200

Comments

All of the suspected meatpuppets are anonymous, and their IPs differ significantly, but the timing is suspiciously regular, and the blanking edit is identical in almost every case. I submit that the rotation is deliberately intended to subvert Wikipedia anti-vandalism policies by "slipping under the radar".

None of the suspected meatpuppets have ever even written an edit summary, but the puppeteer, Jj1010, once tagged a blanking edit as "delete unverifiable content". (Considering that the content in question is cited with a verifiable source, this rationale is invalid.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735

The frequency of vandalism is not high by absolute measures, but blanking and restoration constitutes almost all of the edits to this page at present, creating an extreme nuisance for its maintainers.

In one of the only cases where Jj1010 made any edits in addition to blanking the Controversy section, he or she demonstrated what I believe to be a vested interest in the company, adopting a defensive POV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=prev&oldid=104866372

I have collected the above evidence in the hopes that the apparent collusion among the users who are blanking this one page will be identified and discouraged.

Conclusions
  • It's quite possible that this is an instance of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but since these are dynamic IPs blocks would be pointless. I'm afraid that this problem has to be addressed through standard vandal-fighting means, i.e. reversion. If the vandalism is frequent enough page protection may be an option. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2007 (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:Crate321

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Crate321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wallyjack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pax6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Kl4m 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contributions should be evidence enough.

  • Special:Contributions/Crate321
  • Special:Contributions/Wallyjack
  • Special:Contributions/Pax6

Wallyjack removes {{prod}} from admin DGG.

My opinion : this user creates and edits a single article under 3 different user names.

Admins : decide if it's the same person.

Comments

I agree. These editors are singularly focused on Anti-procreation movement, which was created a few days ago by User:Crate321. It cannot be a coincidence that three separate accounts suddenly edit the same new article at the same time. The socks need to be blocked, and Crate321 must be limited to one account. Shalom Hello 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • It's highly likely that all of these accounts belong to the same person, but I don't see any policy violation. Remember, one can edit Wikipedia under multiple usernames, as long as the accounts are not used to violate policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2007 (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:Hearsayheresy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

KP Botany 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User contributions puppet master: [473] User contributions sock puppet: [474]

Comments

This appears to be a sleep account (the puppetmaster), or seldom used account, just reinvigorated to creat an attack article Martin Chretien. The puppetmaster's only recent edits are to this ariticle, and the sock puppet's only edits are to this same article. I believe both accounts should be permanently blocked. KP Botany 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) And the edits were removed because they were attacks, meanwhile I failed to follow the reams of densely worded instructions after spending ages just trying to find this page, who knows what else isn't correct. KP Botany 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it unlikely that Mrkilgoretrout is a sockpuppet of Hearsayheresy; by reviewing the deleted history of Martin Chretien, I can see that the users have been editing the pages independently of each other - for example: at 6:38 Hearsayheresy, 6:42 Mrkilgoretrout, 6:45 and 6:49 Hearsayheresy, 6:51 and 6:52 Mrkilgoretrout ... I guess that they are two different people who have decided to use Wikipedia to make fun of a non-notable crackpot, and one of them took deletion of their article quite personally. - Mike Rosoft 07:41, 14 August 2007 (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:Repda206

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Repda206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Daoutcastofrenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Datboireppinrenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Already known)

Report submission by

Papa November 09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
Comments

Looks like a match to me, based on the pattern in the deletion log of the respective articles. I'll ask User talk:Irishguy to render a decision. Shalom Hello 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious sock. Blocked. IrishGuy talk 21:19, 10 August 2007 (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:Godzilla1138

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Godzilla1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

ThuranX 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[475] and [476] show a ridiculous amount of overlap. At [477] the IP defends killing homosexuals, stating a list of nations that permit is intolerant of the cultures permitting such actions, [478] here, Godzilla also trolls the homosexuality page. Here, the IP trolls Captain America as a NAMBLA puppet, [479], only to see godzilla reverting it, [480], an hour later. Both also have hit the Global Warming page, as seen from the contribs, and both almost exclusively hit the talk pages to troll. I posted most of this text at WP:AIV as well, but thought bringing it to both would ensure a full examination. ThuranX 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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:Bremskraft

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Urgeback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ladeda76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RebelAcademics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sliat 1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Following Bremskraft's 3RR [481] block RebelAcademics and Ladeda76 weighed in on his behalf and got autoblocked. [482] & [483]. Ladeda76 claims they are living together. Sliat1981 gets himself blocked for image abuse [484] and Bremskraft & Urgeback get caught in that autoblock and all 3 use the same malformed unblock request. [485]. Bremskraft doesn't know the others by this stage but Urgeback does [486].

Given the correlation between these users, similarities of unblock requests, conflicting admissons of who knows who when and the suggestion that 5 people share one computer in one household; I'd say that the case of meat/sockpuppetry is fairly conclusive.

I have blocked all accounts indef until more credible explanations arise. I have raised this SSP for information and review. Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's obvious that Ladeda76 and RebelAcademics are throwaway socks of Bremskraft (the accounts were created just after that 3rr warning). The other three are unclear. First, Bremskraft doesn't appear to have any editing in common with Urgeback and Sliat1981. Tracing Bremskraft back to his/her first edit indicates what his/her IP address was [487], but it's not static, as there's a similar IP now [488], but this one strangely traces back to Louisiana. In any case, they aren't the same IP as that claimed by Sliat in unblock requests here. In fact, that IP traces back to California, not Nevada. What's more, Bremskraft's auto-unblock request had the wrong block reason for him to have gotten caught in Sliat's block [489].

I think there are perhaps two groups here. Bremskraft and the two obvious meatpuppets are one group. Urgeback and Sliat are the other group. Urgeback and Sliat share an interest in Australian football and may be the same person. Urgeback's light edit history is at least consistent with an alternate account and these two edits are similar [490] [491].--Chaser - T 01:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I've ran some checks on this, and there are indeed two batches, Sliat and Urgeback are different from the others. Voice-of-All 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VOA, I'm unblocking Urgeback now and reviewing the block of Bremskraft. Spartaz Humbug! 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fair resolution.--Chaser - T 00:31, 11 August 2007 (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:Dblock4 life

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dblock4 life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Gblock4 life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Nucleusboy 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Dblock4 life vandalised Sand and American Bison with remarks questioning the sexuality of someone named Elwood, among other things (diff). Gblock4 life has done the same thing, also on American Bison (diff).

Comments

They are w/o question sockpuppets. Patterns, edits match and they share almost the exact same username. James Luftan contribs 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... does this warrant a block? --Nucleusboy 11:30, 12 August 2007 (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:DJVaccar

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by
Evidence

Same M.O. as User:DJvac who was blocked for vandalism ...

As evidenced by his contributions, User:DJVaccar is adding the same dead links that got him blocked from Wikipedia under DJVac.

Comments
Conclusions

Yep. Already blocked (main = 1 week; sockpuppet = indef). MER-C 12:48, 14 August 2007 (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:Eep²

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Eep² (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Piet Delport 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • Eep² was indefinitely blocked on 2007-07-09, and last appealed on his talk page on 2007-08-02 (when it was protected from editing); Eeky started editing three days later, on 2007-08-05.
  • Eeky claims to be "new here", but immediately picks up using non-trivial markup and edit summary jargon reminiscent of Eep²
    • ...including exactly the same user JavaScript as Eep² [492] [493]
  • Eep² and Eeky both profess an interest in video games, and Eeky asks on Talk:Complete graph about a 12-vertex complete graph—the same illustration Eep² exhibits on his 3D Game Comparison wiki and Absolute Relativity page.
  • Eeky's edits follow the same pattern and style as Eep², including:
  • Some of Eeky's edits seem to resume right where Eep² left off. [503] [504] [505]
Comments

(Background on Eep²'s ban: request for comment · community sanction notice · admin incident notice)

As User talk:Eep² is protected, an admin might want to place the notification of this case there. —Piet Delport 2007-08-07 12:13

Nah, no point leaving a note on Eep2's talk page; in the unlikely event he's a different person than Eeky, he's probably stopped checking it anyway.
I was a new editor once, and I can assure you that Eeky is not behaving like a new editor. All the evidence presented above (I checked about 80% of the diffs) points to the bizarre and annoying editing style of Eep2, what with unnecessary links, Wiktionary links on disambig pages, and so forth. The final allegation that Eeky has picked up where Eep2 left off - particularly for Put down, where nobody else has edited the page except those two accounts - confirms the match beyond a reasonable doubt. Shalom Hello 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Wiktionary links on dab pages unusual? One has existed on Pickup for years and no one seems to have complained about it, yet when I did it once, suddenly it's not OK? Maybe Eep2's "paranoia" was justified... As for the other accusations, I came across Eep2's editing style and found a liking for it (and was checking out his/her edit history, making some refinements), which is why I adopted it. I found the javascript thingy while doing research on searching for redirects only. I may be new to Wikipedia but I'm not new to editing MediaWiki wikis so I don't appreciate the accusations. —Eeky 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links to Wiktionary on a dab page is not unusual. It is seen as unavoidable, hence the inclusion of the wikt template. However, other than that dictionary and/or search index style entries is contrary to the purpose of disambiguation pages and should be avoided.
There is a wide consensus that Eep's editing style was not making for a better encyclopedia. In particular his philosophy for dab pages. So emulating Eeps style is not a good idea. Taemyr 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you
  • came across Eep² by chance
  • studied his idiosyncratic editing style and decisions enough to "adopt" it to the letter
  • by unrelated chance, found and installed exactly the same "javascript thingy" as Eep²
...all without having made a single Wikipedia edit before is quite unbelievable.
Furthermore,
  • Having edited other MediaWikis still does not explain your highly familiar use of Wikipedia-specific features and jargon.
  • Where does your matching interest in highly specific "odd things like [12-vertex] complete graphs" come from?
  • What led you to choose Eep²'s username, with one letter replaced?
  • Was it, again, chance that you started editing the same weekend that Eep² stopped?
—Piet Delport 2007-08-10 09:07
"Eep²" and "Eeky" are not different by just one letter. I don't adopting Eep's style "to the letter" but my style is similar, yes, as is our interests. Amazingly, it is possible and not all that uncommon for two people to have similar interests who do not know each other. Eep seem to have stopped editing when he or she was indefinitely banned so when I started editing is weeks after that. Are you police? —Eeky 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to argue whether ² is a letter or not.
Similar interests are common; near-identical interests and editing scope (video games+dictionary-like disambiguation pages) are less so. Are you claiming that your interest in (12-vertex) complete graphs is independent?
You did not start editing weeks after Eep² stopped, but 3 days (2¾ days, to be exact): you can verify this through the contribution links above. —Piet Delport 2007-08-11 11:10

I've run across Eep² in the past, and while it does look like this editor has had previous experience with Wikipedia, I don't see the same style of additions to disambiguations as Eep² made. I don't see any objectionable edits, actually, so if it is Eep², s/he may have reformed. If the editing become problematic in the future, I will be happy to review again, but my opinion at this time is that there is no problem here so no solution is needed. IPSOS (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal here is only to determine Eeky's identity, not decide about action.
I'm not sure how you don't see the similarity with Eep²'s edits, but in any case, they are objectionable and counter-indicated by the guidelines for the same reasons. —Piet Delport 2007-08-11 11:47
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:70.12.117.27

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

Mushrambo 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I believe the users are one and the same due to the new IP adding "a douche nozzle" to the Andy Borowitz page, which the old IP also did frequently

Comments
Conclusions

Practically, it might be justified to extend the 31-hour block on the ...212.33 IP because the ...117.27 IP evaded the block, vandalizing within an hour after the original IP was blocked. However, since he stopped after one edit, I think the simplest thing is to ignore the problem and let the block run its course (which it already has). Shalom Hello 02:15, 6 August 2007 (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:67.98.206.2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Cerejota 04:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Multiple reverts with same argument, but different users. [506]

Admits being sock puppet and taunts for a checkuser: [507] In fact a checkuser should be performed to insure no further sock puppets exist, including registered accounts.

Comments

Raised related ArbCom enforcement here: [508]

  • I wasn't attempting to appear to be more than one person, here. I was simply doing anon editing from more than one location. While WP:SOCK doesn't strictly apply to anon editors in my understanding, I will gladly make it clear that this personal IP also edits under that other shared IP as well on my user page. -- 146.115.58.152 04:37, 5 August 2007
  • Now this ("admits to being a sock") is patently false. I admit to editing from two different IPs. WP:SOCK applies to registered accounts, not IP editors. I haven't voted on anything or tried to evade WP:3RR simply because I use multiple computers. I'm rather aghast that having addressed his concerns here he still insists on making an issue of this. -- 146.115.58.152 20:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently the point that running a WP:CHECKUSER on an IP address doesn't obtain any new information (duh) has sailed clear over Cerejota's head. -- 146.115.58.152 20:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the situation, but this is an editor that popped out of nowhere I do not want to do a RfCU myself, but do ask you (Newyorkbrad) or some other uninvolved admin did it. He *taunted* me to perform a Checkuser in my talk page, and admited the multiple IPs. And it is not based on a few edits, the editor is now editing in the RfAr for Allegations of apartheid, and for being a relatively recent editor, has an in depth knowledge of policy as obscure as WP:ASR. This is all highly suspicious.

In fact, when I started this, I was hoping that it would be a simple anon troll. Now I worry about actual sockpuppetry by a registered user...

Based on these things, I must state a suspicion that these might be sockpuppets of a registered user. Hence, my asking for mediated RfCU. If I am out of line, please let me know. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I'm a "troll" purely because I'm editing anonymously? This is all purely over a content dispute involving WP:ASR and Template:Allegations of apartheid, about which I've essentially given up the ghost, and as such this whole action borders on WP:HARASSment. Unless it can be suggested I've committed some actual action which warrants a WP:RFCU (per the list on that page) I would appreciate wikipedia respecting my privacy. I don't appreciate such an action being performed solely on the grounds of a vague "suspicion" that doesn't link me to any active registered account. -- 146.115.58.152 03:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Under category "G" for the reasons I have already stated and possibly a modified "B" and "F" (I mean, what are the chances of an recent anon user knowing the intricacies of WP:ASR???). To be clear, I initially thought it was a troll/vandal attack, but when you started to engage that suspicion disappeared, then you taunted me with checkuser and changed your tone from a WP:ASR-based objection to more classic edit conflict in terms only an editor with a year+ of experience in these articles could have. I mean, it was your own writting that made me suspicisious.

If you quack, people are naturally going to think you are a duck.

I got a proposal: reveal your possible registered accounts to Newyorkbrad, and he sends a message to the community that you are not a puppet/master for active registered accounts, or banned accounts or in any other way are anyone other than an anon editor of these IPs. I have no interest in knowing your identity, I do have an interest in making sure you are not a sock of a registered account, in particular one active the articles in question.

Lastly, I again request guidance, should I pursue RfCU or should a third party neutral admin do it?--Cerejota 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, without any evidence, you are calling me a "troll" and a "vandal" simply because I am editing anonymously, and we had a content dispute. I see this as a complete disregard of WP:AGF on your part. I would hope no third party, including Newyorkbrad, would put up with such an obvious attempt to harass another wikipedian. Were I ever a registered editor, I'm certainly seeing how the other half lives now. -- 146.115.58.152 13:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cool down. I have not called you a troll or a vandal. I did say that initially I supected this and then changed my opinion. I say this clearly, so I cannot understand how you can possibly say that I have called you a troll or a vandal: To be clear, I initially thought it was a troll/vandal attack, but when you started to engage that suspicion disappeared. I am quoting myself from above.
Please do not misrepresent what I said, or try to poison the well with a counter-charge. I am not harassing you. I am simply following the process the community has to deal with the kind of suspicions I have. I might be correct or incorrect, but following process is not harassment. I have remained civil.
However, your accusation is a very serious one, and I sugest you take it to the corresponding forum if you truly think it has merit.
Otherwise, I cannot take it seriously and must think of it as an overreaction at best, or an attempt to poison the well so that a checkuser is not performed that might reveal additional sockpuppets. Thanks!--Cerejota 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so your suspicions changed from me being a vandal and a troll to being a banned editor. Explain to me again when you ever assumed good faith? How about we just dead this, instead of this ongoing one-upmanship? I still don't think that link in the template does much good, but I really don't care any more. You have a strong resemblance to the guy who wrote WP:POOR, I think. -- 146.115.58.152 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have strong resemblance to the guy, but as the page history show, I *am* the guy who wrote it, based on a posting by User:Localzuk in a talk page, as noted in the talk page of WP:POOR. I ask you again to stop forum fishing and poisoning the well, and if you have a problem with my behavior, follow the process we have in wikipedia for it.
And I do not think you are necessarily a banned user, I do suspect one of your sockpuppets are a registered account. This account might be active or inactive, but you in depth knowledge of a long debate and of wikipedia policy as obscure as WP:ASR, which is not usual in anonymous users.
BTW, WP:SOCK clearly says that we have a sockpuppet situation, a user posting from two different IPs. This doesn't mean the user should be banned per-se, but sockpupetry in this case is beyond suspicion, as it is admitted by the user. {{SockpuppetProven}} needs to be put in. Some admin please make note of this. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I didn't realize that the template was about banning. We are not yet in that step.--Cerejota 07:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

If all that is involved here is the same individual editing anonymously from two different locations, then the anon is right that in and of itself there is no policy violation, particularly since the relationship is acknowledged.

Theoretically, checkuser could establish whether any registered users edit from either of these IP's, but I doubt that an RfCU would be entertained based on just a couple of edits. Of course, if this anon is the same individual as a registered user who has edited on the same articles, he or she should kindly say so.

Absent further evidence, I am inclined to close this case, but will await any further responses or input first. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 13 August 2007 (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:Eir Witt

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Eir Witt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Vix mouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Kurt Shaped Box 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Self-identifies as User:Ram four ever - a sockpuppet of banned User:Eir Witt.

Comments


Conclusions

Already blocked indef. MER-C 12:29, 14 August 2007 (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:Bob Lee Swagger

Suspected sockpuppeteer
MadeinFinland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Bob Lee Swagger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Jddphd 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Previous contribs suggest similar pattern

Comments


Conclusions

User:Daniel Case has already blocked Bob Lee Swagger indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MadeinFinland. Based on the obsessive editing to Romani people by both accounts, I endorse the block. Shalom Hello 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yup. Sounds like we're done here. MastCell Talk 18:07, 26 July 2007 (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:Fadix

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

Will (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[509] [510] [511]

Comments

Self admission. Will (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Clear and self-admitted sock of a banned user, blocked indefinitely, Fadix's one-year ban has been reset. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:29, 28 July 2007 (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:TurkmenstanSSR

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Bobabobabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TurkmenstanSSR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

The Clawed One 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

The user has stated right here User talk:WarthogDemon#Ryulong that they are Bobabobabo and have made similar edits to him, including edits to the pages of Bobabobabo's talk pages and the talk pages of his confirmed puppets.

Like all of B5's sockpuppets before him, please ban him right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Clawed One (talk • contribs)

Comments

User:TurkmenstanSSR has been indefinitely blocked by User:Persian Poet Gal - I will ask him to action/close this report. John Smith's 23:49, 15 August 2007 (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:Richard Deagon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Richard Deagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

At Choke (film), 209.212.28.50 attempted to add an unverifiable photo of a piece of paper that purportedly lists the production schedule for the film. Edit warring took place, at which I stopped at my 3RR limit and the anonymous IP exceeded his (he was warned after his third revert of the 3RR violation). I filed a 3RR violation report, seen here, which went through, and the anonymous IP was blocked for 24 hours. The article was left at the last revision by that editor, since I had exceeded my limit and the article receives no apparent traffic. Shortly after, Richard Deagon, not having edited since July 25, 2007, began editing the article. This evidenced sockpuppetry allowed the user, initially editing on his IP, to sign onto his registered handle, to continue editing on Wikipedia despite the 3RR block.

Comments

The evidence is compelling: both the user and the IP have focused on the articles Choke (film) and Choke (novel) on July 25 and again yesterday and today. An appropriate punishment, in my opinion, would be a long but not indefinite block for Richard Deagon - maybe one week. Shalom Hello 12:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nicholas has already blocked the IP for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Shalom Hello 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reverse situation. The IP edited first, then when it was blocked, the editor logged onto the registered handle to continue editing, despite the 3RR block. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

The editing patterns strongly suggest the named account and the IP are used by the same person, but this activity is now stale, and a block would serve no purpose at this point. If any further problems occur, blocks would certainly be appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2007 (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:98E

Suspected sockpuppeteer

98E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

PitOfBristol1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Cheers, Lights 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Before banned user 98E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned, he made undiscussed changes to templates and reverted it back whenever his edits were reverted (see [512]). PitOfBristol1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account. He has reverted to the old version of {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} (history) and {{SockpuppetProven}} (history) without discussion, and was reverted because his changes were undiscussed. Every time he was reverted, he reverted it back. He is currently blocked for violating 3RR at the time this case was created.


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:Wolly da wanderer

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Wolly da wanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
--Wooooooooly da Woog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

SLSB talk 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

*Same userpage

Comments

I have a hunch that they arent related, that "Woooooooooly" is User:Ockenbock, who tends to always create socks to troll User:The Hybrid, User:Metros, and my talk pages. I strongly suggest a checkuser.There appears to be two users with very similar names. User:--Wooooooooly da Woog and User:Wooooooooly da Woog.--User:Atomic Religione

I don't beleve in Sock Puppets!!!!And I Definately WOULD NOT USE ONE!!!! Wolly da wanderer 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) On a another note I didn't create my page on the 6/08/07 I created mine on the 5/08/07Wolly da wanderer 23:59, 6 August 2007 (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:Ideogram

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Declared accounts
  • IdeoBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - bot account, properly identified
Suspected sockpuppets

All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. [516]

Ideogram also admits operating other socks, but we don't know for sure which ones those are. [517]


Report submission by

Jehochman Talk 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Addhoc (talk · contribs)

  1. Suspicious edits [519], [520], [521] among other early edits that indicate an experienced user constructing a new identity.
  2. Addhoc shows up at WP:CSN to defend Ideogram. [522], but he has a history of patrolling this board.

You Are Okay (talk · contribs)

  • Trolling at RFC after being asked to stop disruption. [523]. Continues trolling [524] after warning from admin El C, who then issue a 24 hour block [525].
  • Incivility and trolling: [526]
  • Intervenes in disputes at AN/I and RFC within first dozen edits. Supports Ideogram against DreamGuy. [527] .
  • First edit uses the cite template. [528]

Wang C-H (talk · contribs)

  1. Ideogram is making odd edits to the User:Wang C-H page [529]. Ideogram has also blanked warnings from User talk: Wang C-H. [530] There's no talk between the two at all.
  2. Wang C-H created User:Wang C-H/navigation templates. [531]. Ideogram later created the exact same thing in his own user space, User:Ideogram/navigation templates. [532]
  3. In Wang C-H's seventh edit to Wikipedia, he copies a chunk of User:Ideogram/common article practices I dislike to his own user page. [533]
  4. Ideogram has a history of disruption. (See block log.) We see the same sort of disruption from Wang C-H, including improper AfD nomination and then improper removal of AfD tags [534][535]
  5. Both users seem to employ a "strike and run" tactic. Abusive motions are filed, and then retracted. Compare these AfD nominations by Wang C-H, [536] and [537] with this arbitration request by Ideogram: [538]
  6. Both users focus extensively on China and seem to be pushing a pro-People's Republic of China POV by deleting, or reducing the visibility of any negative information or any mention of Taiwan/Republic of China:
    Ideogram: [539] [540] [541]
    Wang C-H: [542] [543] with deceptive edit summary, [544] removing mention of Republic of China and deceptive edit summary, [545]
  7. These two users have not corresponded on wiki. The above pattern of editing strongly suggests sock puppetry or meat puppetry, in my opinion. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Editing sessions fit together neatly without overlapping. Editing sequences by Wang on Aug 5 - 6 do not overlap editing sequences by Ideogram.
  9. Policy violation: Sock puppet R1es (talk · contribs) was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. See [546] and [547] Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)
  10. Policy violation: Sock puppet Galindo (talk · contribs) was edit warring [548] [549] [550] along side Ideogram up to 4RR [551]. In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor [552].
Comments

Yes, it's my sockpuppet. My understanding was that sockpuppets are tolerated as long as no policy is violated, and I don't see any policy violation cited here. --Ideogram 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, and yes, there are legitimate reasons to operate socks, especially if they are openly declared which Wang C-H was not. We have to decide if there are violations of site policy. The most obvious would be operating multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny or for block evasion. Given your block history and excessive number of disputes, this is worth a bit more due diligence. Jehochman Talk 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's save some time. They are all my socks. It is up to others to determine if there are policy violations worth acting on here. --Ideogram 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Would you like to declare any others? Jehochman Talk 03:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time. --Ideogram 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. You think I was edit-warring with myself? I suggest you not waste time on this. --Ideogram 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion on this case, but editors edit warring with themselves, to create a false sense of what's right or controversy, or just to throw people off their sockpuppet trails isn't unheard of --L-- 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, okay. But you really are wasting your time. --Ideogram 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. There are only three edits by Galindo (talk · contribs) and the first is not a revert. --Ideogram 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion: The contribs of User:You Are Okay are completely explainable without an sock relationship; his first three contribs were sort of spammy ext links (the first one using the "cite web" template copied from the link in the line above his), and DreamGuy reverted them all; when he went to complain at DreamGuy's talk page he noticed the AN/I controversy and piled on against DreamGuy. Just a newbie, not a sock. Dicklyon 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a plausible scenario, but I think we should keep him on the list a bit longer so we can watch the situation. Jehochman Talk 13:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems suspicious that a newbie would even be able to find old RFCs from three years back, as they were not discussed recently. DreamGuy 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The contributions from You Are Okay (talk · contribs) are entirely spam, disruption and trolling. This looks exactly like an abusive sock puppet account. Jehochman Talk 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not amazing -- it was linked immediately above where he editted in this diff. And the archive he refers to was also just two clicks away using a link that was in his face. He's neither as stupid nor as devilish as you guys think. Dicklyon 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If You Are Okay found his way to the current RfC and saw it was titled DreamGuy 2, he could have inferred that it wasn't the first RfC regarding DreamGuy. A search of past user conduct disputes would then bring up other RfCs about DreamGuy, which is exactly how I found the old RfCs about DreamGuy a while back, even when they weren't explicitly linked to or mentioned. Not a solid explanation, I concede, but it's certainly a plausible alternative to sockpuppetry (which I won't deny is also plausible). --clpo13(talk) 07:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Addhoc

The idea that I'm a sock of Ideogram is laughable, unless evidence is presented, I'm going to ignore this. Addhoc 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Referred to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for further discussion. Jehochman Talk 05:03, 7 August 2007 (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:Elvisandhismagicpelvis

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Dibo T | C 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Elvisandhismagicpelvis is an editor who has a fondness for rugby league that crosses over to POV pushing and disruptive editing. For the latter he was blocked for a week for 'WP:EW|edit warring]] on multiple articles, despite being warned to stop. This is utterly disruptive behaviour.'.

The block period has now expired, but a new user, Tomasthetankengine, has arrived and is apparently going through recent edits of mine and another user, Tancred and editing in a similarly disruptive way.

For example, the insistence on referring to rugby league as rugby league football is characteristic.

See Tomasthetankengine's edit of Sydney Football Stadium and Elvisandhismagicpelvis's edit of Sport in Australia.

Essentially all other edits have been to disrupt pages that either Tancred or I work on from time to time with the aim of pushing a pro rugby league POV.

I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to suspect that this user is also User:Rugby_666, User:Ehinger222, User:Licinius, User:J is me and User:NSWelshman - all of which have engaged in the same sort of disruptive POV pushing. Some of the sockpuppets go about making constructive edits for a time but the common thread is wilfuland repetitive POV pushing and incivility.

Each time an account gets knocked off, even for a short time, the user goes and creates a new one essentially to bring the warning processes back to the start. It's not fun or funny to have edit wars crop up time and time again because one person can't stop repeating the same destructive behaviour. This person has been blocked countless times and returns constantly. It makes a mockery of WP's structure of sanctions and bans. It needs to be stopped.

Checkuser found  Likely. Dibo T | C 07:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

There's a decent chance that you're right about all this. The similarity of adding "football" after "rugby league" is solid circumstantial evidence, to go along with the logic that this editor may have wished to start over with a clean block log.

I recommend that you file a request for checkuser (code F) because you allege that these two accounts are socks of a banned user. Shalom Hello 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of rugby league football to the Sydney Football Stadium is pivotal in the first sentence to refer to the fact that stadium got its name from the fact that rugby league football was played there, not by any association with soccer, which is what the sentence may otherwise suggest. As to whether the phrase is "solid circumstantial evidence", you can decide for yourself[553]. If this is all the evidence that ties these so-called sockpuppets together(myself included), it is extremely tenuous as it is a relatively common name, and the phrase rugby league football, Friday Night Football (Australia), NRL football etc. are regular established mainstays of the Australian language. --Tomasthetankengine 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine. Dibo T | C 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

All accounts have been blocked as well as the following:

  1. Moretimefor (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Serendipitouscontributor (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Grooveyyoutuber (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Tosserandmasterdebater (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Russellthelovemussell (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Senibleconext (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

subsequent to checkuser and as per this comment on jpgordon's talk page:

Hi You asked me if I felt Elvisandhismagicpelvis (talk · contribs) is the same person as Rugby666/Ehinger222. I am very sure they are the same person. They both push the same narrow POV, ignore talk pages, and when blocked he/she simply creates a new account and keeps going. Within the first few edits the new accounts will accuse others of "wikistalking" "trolling" etc, showing the user is notsuch a new wikiperson afterall. There is also an interesting list of single use accounts such as

  1. Moretimefor (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Serendipitouscontributor (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Grooveyyoutuber (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Tosserandmasterdebater (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Russellthelovemussell (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Senibleconext (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

At the moment Elvisandhismagicpelvis (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is blocked and I believe the new account is Tomasthetankengine (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tancred (talk • contribs) 14:45, August 8, 2007

and this comment on my talk page:

Hey, there, you may remember we discussed this, the other night. Sorry I wasn't more helpful, at the time, and also that AN/I proved less fruitful than it usually does, for these situations. In any case, I've had a look over things, and I've blocked all accounts mentioned at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Elvisandhismagicpelvis, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine, and User talk:Jpgordon#Elvisandhismagicpelvis. I believe that covers everything, for now, yes? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dibo T | C 00:34, 16 August 2007 (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:Msukach

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

M321s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ms012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ms198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ms789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Msxone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ivansanchez 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_18#Deletion_question_-_thank_you
Suspiciously similar user names. Contribs from the sockpuppets were spam for the "xplusone" website, the same as Msukach's contribs.

Comments

Msukach may have been using sockpuppets to avoid being blocked, as he was given a last warning for spamming.

Conclusions

These are obvious spam accounts, but since there's no recent activity, there's not much point in handing out blocks right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2007 (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:172.130.221.247

Suspected sockpuppeteer
172.130.221.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Several America On Line IP's starting with 172.xxx and possibly User:aolworker
Report submission by

JForget 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same person targeting Canadian Liberal politicans with vandalism. The same person (possibly during work shifts) has kept on vandalism several articles on Canadian politicians (some would-be polticians also) such as Stephane Dion, Justin Trudeau, Bob Rae, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau and several others including Olivia Chow, Jack Layton and Peter Kormos as well as the Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party. He also made attacks against Liberal members on other articles, one of them included Tiny. In addition, when editors included me, warn the user, he often made personnal attacks or vandalism to the user pages or talk pages. The person used about hundreds of the computers from the AOL headquarters in Virginia for several months. The IP range looking at the WHOIS is ranging from 172.128.0.0 to 172.191.255.255 and has used hundreds of account whiten this range (an example is 172.165.129.102 and 172.130.95.37 used immediately after 172.130.221.247). The vast majority of the IP's were clean prior to the rampage by the small person. A user also mentionned a few months back at the AIV talk page that a User:aolworker existed and that some the 172.xxx have used this for vandalism which may suspect that the user name was used by him as well. However, after an IP was block or made several edits (vandalistic in nature), he changed IP and this happened several times, but it's difficult to pinpoint the initial AOL IP account that started the strings of socks.

Comments

We need something more specific to go on than IPs in the 172.0.0.0/8 range and "Canadian Liberal politicians." Please give more detailed info including specific examples of IPs and articles. Raymond Arritt 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This report is too vague. In any case, the problem described is not sockpuppetry, but vandalism from the AOL range, which is best addressed through reversion, and judicious semi-protection, if necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2007 (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:Muhammed Sonny Mercan

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Muhammed Sonny Mercan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Muhammed sonny mercan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Miighankurt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Brianga 08:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See userpages for those in question.

Comments


Conclusions

Doesn't matter: both accounts are stale for many months. Shalom Hello 16:30, 15 August 2007 (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:Patrickrl777

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Patrickrl777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Pl2010XC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This seems very suspicious to me.

Comments
He doesn't have any contributions. What exactly are you looking for? The Evil Spartan 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, when I first created an account with Wikipedia, I didn't know that my user name would be so public, once I learned that it was I thought I should create a new name that does not give off as much information about me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pl2010XC (talk • contribs) 19:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Conclusions

No violation. I've seen a case like this before. Creating a second user account is not a violation; there can only be a problem if there are coordinated edits between two accounts. Shalom Hello 13:33, 15 August 2007 (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:Creepy Crawler

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

RealityTelevisionFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EndlessDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

ThuranX 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

RealityTelevisionFan has recreated categories formerly generated by Creepy Crawler, creating categories of the nature "Actors by superhero movie franchise",[554], [555], [556], [557]. EndlessDesign follows behind removing other, similar categories, then alphabetizing the list [558], or instead, simply continuing the process of adding the categories [559].

Further, Creepy Crawler [560] and RTF [561] both maintain user pages full of movie charts. Both have also used their user pages for dreamcasting Spiderman:CC [562], and RTV [563].

Doczilla linked me to his lengthy Previous analysis of EJBanks/CreepyCrawler Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/EJBanks. He compiled extensive evidence there.ThuranX 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Further, I am not the only user to notice this. User:Doczilla also commented User_talk:RealityTelevisionFan#Civil_socks here on the similarities.

  • They have some interspersed edits on July 21 around 19:17 UTC. Unless he logged out of RTF, logged into Endless Design, made an edit, logged back out, and logged into RTF again, all within a minute, it seems unlikely that both are sockpuppets. -Amarkov moo! 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  •  Likely – having reviewed the contributions of all three accounts, in particular the collective tendency to add superhero-related categories; the additional collective similarity for all accounts to utilise their userpages for extremely similar purposes; and the generally otherwise similar editing habits of all the accounts, it is clear to me that all three accounts are one in the same, and as such both secondary accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Anthøny 19:53, 13 August 2007 (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:59.144.165.88

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Nalini_sharma1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Dibo T | C 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

59.144.165.88 was blocked for the 4th time (this time for 6 mths) on August 3 for persistent linkspamming. Nalini_sharma1984 started making same edits, i.e. [564] and [565]. All other edits are linkspam.

Comments

I agree with the finding. The edits are all linkspam to mapsofworld.com and similar sites. Block the new account indefinitely. Shalom Hello 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked. See WT:WPSPAM#http://spam.mapsofworld.com. MER-C 12:00, 10 August 2007 (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:Hail and Snow

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

hail and Snow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

DAVID CAT 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:Hail and Snow's first edit was to admit on user talk:Metros that he is User:Ockenbock, who has created many ban evading socks


Comments


Conclusions

Blocked by User:Metros. Shalom Hello 20:13, 10 August 2007 (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:Djmckee1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Djmckee1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Plm209(talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  1. User names are eerily similar.
  2. User pages are almost identical.
  3. Users seem to be in confilct then turn into good friends helping each other. This can be seen by reading comments on User Talk:Djminisite.
  4. Djminisite perhaps indicative of what the account was created for.
Comments

It seems as though this might be a clear case of good hand (User:Djmckee1), bad hand (User:Djminisite). The one makes poor edits then the other goes and fixes them. Then, after the good hand criticizes the way that the bad hand edits, they turn around and invite them into a Wikiproject or offer to make them a userpage. Seems too similar to me.

Conclusions

No match. The recent talk page conversations are ordinary, with two users writing in two different styles, like normal people would do. They seem to be friends on-wiki, and that's great! Both accounts are well-established (March 2007 and December 2006, respectively) and they both welcome users, but they never use the same welcome template. Furthermore, in the extremely unlikely event that they are the same person, no argument has been put forward to suggest any violation of the relevant policy. Shalom Hello 20:10, 10 August 2007 (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:Watchdogb

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Sinhala freedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 18
21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Evidence
IP - 99.245.165.28[566]
ISP - Rogers Cable Communications Inc.
Location - Canada [City: Richmond Hill, Ontario](Greater Toronto Area)[567]
IP - 74.102.154.231[568]
ISP - Rogers Cable Communications Inc.
Location - Canada [City: Toronto, Ontario][569][570]
  • User:Sinhala freedom has been editing with an apperant anti-LTTE bias, [571][572][573][574][575][576] and even accusing to the Norwegian Minister of International Development.[577] However he accidentally made an edit without logging in, therby revealing his actual IP address.[578] Once he realized that he was not logged in he directly went and blanked the IP talk page.[579] As a matter of fact, this IP was previously used (as little as 6 days before) to make blatently pro-LTTE edits.[580], pretty much proving the meatpuppet suspicions.
  • In order to evade WP:3RR on the LTTE article, he made sure he didn't revert the same content more than 3 times.[581][582][583] After he reached to the reversion limit of 3, he started to leave a{{totally-disputed}} tag on top of the article.[584][585][586] When he reached to the maximum reversion limit of 3 on the tag, User:Watchdogb came to the support of User:Sinhala freedom and added the tag himself.[587] When a dispute existed User:Sinhala Freedom directly added a Wikipedia:Request for page protection[588] while other newbies were leaving their talk page messages without even signing in. Not only he was evading, this user was also commenting 17 times when User:Snowolfd4 was reported by User:Watchdogb[589] and reporting to the behavior of editors to the WP:ANI.[590]
  • User:Sinhala Freedom has been commenting in Wikipedia:Peer review/Parâkramabâhu I,[591] where User:Snowolfd4 and I were working on a peer review, User:Sinhala Freedom kept a negative comment which I categorize as stalking. After we revert his edits as trolling he repeatedly adding the same comment which was gone into an editwar. On July 24, 2007 User:Snowolfd4 removed the comment made by User:Sinhala Freedom saying Trolling.[592] One minute later User:Taprobanus reverted that[593] and after one hour it was reverted by me.[594] After that User:Sinhala Freedom joined to the revert war and he/she made 4 reversions by violating WP:3RR.[595][596][597][598] 15 minutes after he made the 4th revert he reverted his own last revert to get away from the WP:3RR violation.[599]
  • On July 25, 2007 User:Ulflarsen kept a message on Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam saying [..]Regarding user Sinhala Freedom; I have received an email that states that the said user is writing under a fake position to undermine the arguments of sinhala editiors active on this article, that is admin Blinguyen, snowolfd4, lahiru_k and Iwazaki. I have warned the user that we have rules against such, telling the user to stop using the account and I have also reported it to admin Circeus.[..][601]
  • On July 26, 2007 User:Ulflarsen posted the e mail which sent by the User:Sinhala freedom to him.
It contains [..]Sorry for the recent criticizing of Norway effort on the LTTE page. I am not who I claim to be and this is intended to break and demoralize sinhala nationalists who have ransacked many SL and tamil related pages. I want you to keep this a complete secret and not reflect this in any of your comments to me or any other page. I hope your intervene in helping to force that neutrality disputed tag. This whole account is a cover to try to get the neutrality disputed tag on that page and the master plan obviously is to launch RFCs on snowolfd4 and lahiru_k. We have evidence to believe these guys are sharing accounts and using sockpuppets.[..][602]


Comments
  • LOL very pathetic. Richmondhill is atleast a 30 minutes drive from where I live (Toronto (North York)). I do not know how I can be at two places at the same time. Watchdogb 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence I am NOT Sinhala freedom

MY Contrib : 22:45, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/3RR (New report on 3rr violation)

MY Contibs: 22:46, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:watchdogb (result))

Sinhala Freedom's contrib: 22:46, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (→Regarding the proposed section about external support)

Seems like I can be at 2 different places at same time. Or mabe I can travel closer to the speed of sound and get from one spot to another (more than 10-15 km away) and contribute less than a minut later. Watchdogb 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Watchdog's evidence does indeeed check out, in addition to the fact that Sinhala made another edit the same minute. I don't think there's any way he could switch accounts that fast. -Amarkov moo! 22:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, most of this report is irrelevant to Watchdog; the only connection actuall made is that he supported Sinhala once on one article. I'm really not even seeing plausible sockpuppetry here. -Amarkov moo! 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether he is lives in Richmondhill or Toronto, North York or what so ever since todays technology have been developed and anyone can do multiple edits within one minute using multiple accounts. confused? Those are called anonymous proxy servers and remote accessing. And this is what happens when bad hands learn to use them, as I suspects.
Connections between those two users doesn't make any sense since case about trolling, stalking and disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate their pathetic points. By reading Ulflarsen's message on his talkpage can get a full understanding about this incident. I know that in here Wikipedia we don't take any emails as evidence, but I know Ulf have no any reason for lying or protect someone else. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I use anonymous proxy and still be detected by DSN ? Also how can anaonymous proxy let me have connections to a whole different city's IP ? Further, there is no way that anonymous proxy can be used from the same place and have another IP. This is impossible. Your type of accusation is very laughable because this way we can accuse every single wikipedia user of using sockpuppet. Watchdogb 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Lahiru_k doesn't mention is that UlfLarsen confirms that he doesn't know who sent the email message "User Sinhala Freedom is right in that I do not know who sent it, however I think its approriate to mention it" [603]. It also evident there is no motive for me to ask for support from UlfLarsen (who is evidently not an administrator) which he posted after, when the page was already protected and already had a content dispute tag by 05:20 25 July 2007. As I had mentioned earlier on the LTTE talk page, I believe the email was a hoax, since someone posted that UlfLarsen and admin FayssalIf had already wanted the content dispute tag on the page (this was posted on July 24th). Sinhala freedom 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As for 3RR violations, I had got a warning from Nick on my talk page [604] during the dispute on the LTTE page not to revert more than 3 times within a 24h time period (this was after my 3rd revert of [605]), which is what I followed. Sinhala freedom 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
My comments regarding the Parâkramabâhu I article were well intentioned. That king after all is Sri Lanka's greatest and I felt the article could be much improved to reflect the greatness of this individual and therefore I made suggestions as to how to improve the article. Another user, Taprobanus also supported my comment on that page Wikipedia:Peer review/Parâkramabâhu I. I am deeply saddened that the accuser wrongly interprets the comments as stalking [606]. Sinhala freedom 01:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My vote for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karnataka I thought was well deserved. The article was superbly written and inspiration for everyone else on wikipedia. I don't how I could be stalking anyone there. I didn't argue with anyone. The accuser and myself both supported Feature Article status for the article ? How is that stalking ?? Sinhala freedom 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be possible that they are sockpuppets, although it would take enough work to do what's necessary that I highly doubt it. (You are right that locations mean nothing, of course.) But you've only shown one connection between the two. That's not enough to base a sockpuppetry accusation off of, sorry. -Amarkov moo! 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Almost no connection has been demonstrated between the two accounts. The complaints of trolling, harassment, etc. by Sinhala freedom may be valid, but there's not enough evidence to conclude that he is abusing sockpuppets. -Amarkov moo! 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TiconderogaCCB 2nd

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.26.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.125.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Comments Removed link to Wikipedia article that was asked to be placed on by the talk page [607] of St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 . Deletion of sourced material [608]. Using the same IP range as he did before. Most likely in avoidance of WP:3rr. UnclePaco (talk) 05:58, 3 January 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:TiconderogaCCB

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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


Suspected sockpuppets

TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.40.192.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.15.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.107.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.98.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.253.39.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.25.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.25.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.125.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.253.55.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.115.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.151.137.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by Suchagoodguy 04
19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Evidence

Utilizing multiple IP address to circumvent edit wars and 3rr blocks. Has been blocked previous to this for 3rr violations. [609] Has engaged in personal attacks against various users and has same editing patterns.

Comments

Is it just a bit weird that the person making the report is a new account whose 10th edit was to insert a series of fact tags and whose 14th edit was to create a SSP case? There's fast learning, but that's a bit odd... Dibo T | C 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the editors that deal with this case might also have an interest in examining the relationship between User:Suchagoodguy and User:64.131.205.111 User:Bombaplena112User:199.219.144.52 User:BoriquaStar and the rest of the users listed in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111, cause i'm a 100% sure that there is a relation between them judging from their contributions especially those concerning latinos and the caribbean. I'm just saying isn't the fact that the first thread in User talk:64.131.205.111 is about St. John's University, odd enought? wich is the exact same page that TiconderogaCCB has been edit warring about, i mean it would not be unussual considering the ip adress has already been confirmed as a sockpuppeter.-24.138.194.220 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Goes to show it's probably a bad idea to come to the sockpuppet board if you're a sock yourself, SuchAGoodGuy is indeed YoSoyGuapo, and is blocked indef as such. However, regardless of the merits of the reporter, it's pretty clear that TiconderogaCCB was behind the use of the IPs to aggressively revert war at St. John's University, and has been blocked for a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:53, 8 August 2007 (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:999

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Kephera975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Kephera975 (talk · contribs) posted a comment on my talk page signed as banned user 999. He immediately realized his mistake and replaced it with another message.

Comments

The date of signing of the first post is curious. Its 9 June 2006 (UTC). This looks like a cut and paste job from a comment on Kephera975 talk page. [610] --Salix alba (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- the 2 posts have completely unrelated subject matter so it looks more like Kephera accidentally blanked the pre-existing comment by 999. If the comments said the same thing, that would more imply it's the same person under different names. But they don't. I don't necessarily disbelieve this allegation though:) But his accidently blanking/replacing an unrelated comment by another user, doesn't necessarily provide evidence.Merkinsmum 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the diffs. That comment wasn't posted on my page by 999. It was posted by Kephera975. Then he blanked/replaced it. IPSOS (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it looks like an accidental cut and paste from a comment on Kephera975's own user talk page to me. It's spurious evidence at best. User:IPSOS, I came across the issue while browsing ANI and it does concern me that you raise this allegation during a content dispute with User:Kephera975; having been on the receiving end in the past myself, I have to doubt your ability to assume good faith. ColdmachineTalk 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from judging me. In all cases where I have made sockpuppet accusations, there have been either previous use of sockpuppetry or evidence that made me believe the was a use of sockpuppets. The fact that you got yourself unblocked does not mean that there was not extremely good evidence that you were a sock at the time I reported you as such. IPSOS (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Actually the evidence was so spurious the case was overturned. I am also not 'judging' you here; I've no interest in engaging in politics on here, or in warring with you, and my comments on the AfDs in question (recommending weak keeps or merges) should indicate that. I have also noted that I do partly agree with you on the nature of the AfD proposals - I feel that WP:POINT and bad faith may be at the root of them. However this sort of information (i.e. past history of accusations, and the context of them) may be useful for judgement by administrators on this particular case. ColdmachineTalk 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The evidence was strong to me. Several sockpuppets had been blocked, and you and one of those blocked socks used exactly the same wording. You are not bothering to look at it from my point of view. To me, it looked like yet anothe r sock in a series of socks. You continue to ignore that given the history of sockpuppetry in the case, I had no reason to continue to assume good faith given the clear evidence. The fact is that multiple admins thought the the evidence was strong at the time and so did I. So please stop accusing me of bad faith, because my actions were justified and never called into question by any of the admins responding. IPSOS (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I appreciate your position on the matter, but it's not relevant to this case. Let's move on. I apologise if you feel attacked, but that was not the intent as I say. The intent was merely to raise some context which might be of use to admins when examining this case. We are human, and we are fallible, and this has been proven. ColdmachineTalk 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging my position. I agree, let's move on, no hard feelings. Feel free to remove this whole conversation, as I agree it it not applicable here. IPSOS (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Kephera's edit using the dated signature of 999 was bizarre, but it does not prove sock puppetry. He copied the source code verbatim from the first nontrivial comment that someone else left on his talk page, namely, this pair of comments by 999. I have no idea why he did that, but it doesn't mean he has secret access to 999's offline identity. It just means he was copying something from his talk page archives. I'll assume good faith until further evidence comes to light. Shalom Hello 02:05, 6 August 2007 (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:Aqua Teen 53

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Aqua Teen 53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Aqua Teen 52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Bongwarrior 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Aqua Teen 53 has claimed to be blocked user Aqua Teen 52 here and here and has vandalized several articles.


Comments

Extremely obvious. I'll take it to WP:AIV. Shalom Hello 08:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked by "Can't sleep...". Shalom Hello 19:38, 8 August 2007 (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:AgentA

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) According to him "asswipe"[reply]

Evidence

I recently tagged the agent's user sub-pages, then this damn IP comes out of nowhere and vandalizes my userpages putting "Wikipedia is communism" which was AgentA's slogan. Then he's all vandalizing my page calling me "asswipe" and such, in the same kind of "punk-ass language" AgentA used. Pretty obvious sock.

Comments


Conclusions

Tenofalltrades has indef-blocked AgentA. Newyorkbrad has blocked the IP for 72 hours. Shalom Hello 07:59, 8 August 2007 (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:Grimkn1ght

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Grimkn1ght (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
203.109.162.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

DearPrudence 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

203.109.162.87 vandalised Pewter (see edit here. Grimkn1ght was created soon after, and one minute after creation, vandalised Pewter using almost the exact same text (see edit here).

Comments

I've just realised that it's supposed to be the other way around - 203.109.162.87 is the sockpuppeteer, and Grimkn1ght is the sockpuppet. As I'm not sure I know how to change that completely, could someone else fix it if they know how? --DearPrudence 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Named account indefinitely blocked. IP warned. MastCell Talk 19:38, 7 August 2007 (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:58.172.8.87

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

DearPrudence 06:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both users have vandalised Killara High School a number of times today; after 58.172.8.87 had been given a final warning, 211.30.215.222 started. In addition, 58.172.8.87 vandalised Ben Stiller (by adding an image of Spongebob Squarepants, seen here); 211.30.215.222 soon after vandalised the Zoolander article (Zoolander is a Stiller film).

Comments


Conclusions

One IP already blocked for vandalism, the other I've warned. I've semi-protected the high school page temporarily to slow things down. In the future, just warn the vandals (see WP:VANDAL for instructions), and if they vandalize after that, just report them at WP:AIV for a faster response. MastCell Talk 19:35, 7 August 2007 (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:Ferrariman6

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Ferrariman6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Ferrariman5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Jeremyb 07:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

example of Ferrariman5's vandalism: diff
example of Ferrariman6's vandalism: diff
diff between the 2 revisions just mentioned: diff
Also similarity of names and timing of activity in relation to blocks.

Comments

Sockpuppetry is obvious. Don't see a need to file a SSP report, if all socks are already blocked. --DarkFalls talk 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't blocked when I started compiling the evidence and I'm still learning the ropes. Sorry I filed unnecessarily. Also it seems I got the relationship between the 2 backwards. (first time using that feature of twinkle)
In an obvious case like that would it be better to go to WP:AIV? Or should I leave a level 4im warning (only warning) and wait for a second edit? --Jeremyb 07:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a obvious sock, just report it at AIV. No need to wait for any more edits... Cheers. --DarkFalls talk 07:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Closing; both accounts already blocked. MastCell Talk 19:31, 7 August 2007 (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:Surfspeczz

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

Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence


Comments


Conclusions

Pretty clear-cut case of sockpuppetry. No need for a case here. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts are blocked indefinitely. Shalom Hello 22:49, 6 August 2007 (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:67.55.159.44

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Stephen C. Sillett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DrVarkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

David Eppstein 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The two users DrVarkey and Stephen C. Sillett, taking the names of two faculty at Humboldt State Univ., appeared here simultaneously and immediately started editing the same articles and attacking each other, particularly in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Jacob_Varkey, where their comments also have a very similar textual style as each other. The public and personal nature of their attacking comments against each other seem unlikely for the senior academics they claim to be. 67.55.159.44 has been commenting in the same AfD claiming to be a student at the same university who has taken their classes, and again has no edit history longer than the last couple of days. It all looks to me very much what one would expect to see from a single sockpuppeteer trying to stir up controversy, and it also raises WP:BLP issues if they are impersonating and attacking real people.

Comments

I have not attempted to do so, but it should be possible to contact the real Drs. Sillett and Varkey by the contact information they list on their faculty web pages: Sillett, Varkey.

User:DrVarkey removed his (going to say "his", since the name is that of a man) sock puppet notice. I restored it and gave a uw-vand4 warning, as he's already gotten himself a uw-vand3 yesterday. I just checked the other two pages, which have not been bothered. Nyttend 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be better to file a checkuser request since they have both 'voted' in a deletion request, thats an abusive use of multiple accounts if it the same master Bleh999 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only created an account a few days ago when it became apparent that the Wiki page about me was being vandalized. I suspect Dr. Jacob Varkey of doing this. User:Caliwiki123 is my grad student who created the page and I trust his edits. User:DrVarkey whether or not he is the real Jacob Varkey (and I believe he is) does not seem to have my best interests in mind, and I believe his edits to my page have been petty vandalism. Dr. Varkey has held a grudge against me since he lost his elegans grant at the same time I received an honorarium from the Save-the-Redwoods League and I do not appreciate this provocation, however, I realize this is not the appropriate forum for personal attacks, and will henceforth refrain from such activity. Stephen C. Sillett 17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a basic check on the IP address, and found two interesting things:
    • DNS Stuff lists the IP address as being, not from California, but from somewhere in Iowa. If these users are sockpuppets, that could explain the very early editing, as both users did their first edits before 5:30AM California tiem.
    • If I understand this URL correctly, the IP has been blocked for spam on many websites. Nyttend 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i am 67.55.159.44, i am in iowa for the summer, and this is hilarious. is this what i get for chiming in on a disupte b/w two profs? i only posted in the varkey deletion page because i know dr. varkey. anyway they both suck so block them or whatever, i will be sure to post all of this on my own website when i go back to school. p.s. nyttent - neither one of them is a "senior" academic and my ip is not used for spam as Bleh999 points out, call me a sock puppet if you have to but it looks like you are on some kind of wiki witch hunt. cheers all 67.55.159.44 19:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dept. Chair Casey Lu has reported back:
I have contacted both Jacob Varkey and
Steve Sillett regarding the Wikipedia discussion
and personal attacks. Both faculty deny any
involvement in that discussion. After reading
the "discussion" a little more carefully, it
looks to me very much like a current or former
student trying to cause problems. If there is a
way to stop this activity, please do so!
I think that, with the possible exception of a checkuser request (and my guess is they'll decline any such request based on it already passing the duck test) we've gathered as much evidence as we're going to. Can it be time to close the case and block the socks? —David Eppstein 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Thank you for doing so much legwork. I've indefinitely blocked both named accounts. The IP is wireless and likely dynamic, and hasn't edited since August 2nd, so blocking it would probably not accomplish much at this point. MastCell Talk 18:32, 6 August 2007 (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:Fourdee

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Muntuwandi 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • From 30th June 2007 to 2nd July 2007 User:Fourdee made a number of contributions to the talk page of the article Race and intelligence. During this period a few controversial statements were made for example:

What policies would you suggest a government adopt? Ship them back to africa? Exterminate them? diff However after the 2nd of July his edits to the talk page abruptly end. A day later on the 3rd of July 2007 a new user is created called User:MoritzB. This is large a single purpose account editing mostly the race and intelligence article. In the first few weeks almost entirely. The tone is similar to Fourdee in that it is promoting xenophobic topics. For example diff

While a single purpose account in itself is not a violation, using one for sockpuppetry is. I therefore suspect the Fourdee is using a sockpuppet to circumvent the 3RR rule. These edits were made within a 24 hr period from 21:33, 1 August 2007 to 16:43, 2 August 2007.

That is at least 5 reversions in 24 hours. Then what happens next is that Fourdee reports Muntuwandi for violating the 3RR rule Muntuwandi 3RR report. Consequently Muntuwandi is blocked for 24 hours by administrator User:Seraphimblade. If it turns out that MoritzB is a sockpuppet of Fourdee, then this is an important issue. This would mean the user is fully conscious that he is breaking the rules. Causing edit wars by using sockpuppets and then convincing administrators to get other users blocked.


Comments

There's some circumstantial evidence here. I'd like to send this to checkuser for their input: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fourdee. MastCell Talk 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser finds them unrelated. The accounts do bear further watching for tag-teaming, but without clearer circumstantial evidence, and with a negative checkuser, no action is indicated at this point. MastCell Talk 17:15, 5 August 2007 (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:201.83.87.130

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Just James T/C 07:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User talk:201.83.87.130 - [611] - 201.6.51.161 blanked the vandalism warning I left on this IP's user talk page a few days ago.

User talk:Just James - [612] - 201.6.51.161 warned me not to interfere with their own talk page. I had no recollection of editing their user page so I checked 201.6.51.161's contributions. The only two contributions made were to the two pages I have listed here as evidence. I then suspected 201.83.87.130 was using 201.6.51.161.

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:HarveyCarter (4th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

London18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BillRodgers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Xiahou 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[[613]] edit by JohnRobertsly a confirmed sockpupper of HarveyCarter was removed and later the exact same edit was made by London18 [[614]] it was removed then put right back by another later confirmed sockpuppet of his Rogersleigh.

as far as I can see starting here [[615]] is when London18 which is actually looking like one of his first sock accounts started in on calling Jimmy Stewart a racist. Which just a couple edits later after it was reverted was put back in the same by another later confirmed sockpuppet Rogersleigh [[616]]

[[617]] this entire section in the Jimmy Stewart talk page is is populated by negative comments all by Gibsonism, Granville1 (both confirmed socks of HarveyCarter) taking up the conversation for one. Now BillRodgers joins the act saying the same things.

on the Steve McQueen talk page BillRodgers takes over and is the only one to comment on susupected sockpuppet London18 comment [[618]] and Here [[619]]

Also BillRodgers doesn't break the HarveyCarter character and hits his usual targets like Elvis [[620]] making that comment as BillRodgers and plenty of similar comments by confirmed sockpuppets like [[621]] [[622]]


Comments

This is the 4th such case I have brought against HarveyCarter. I am reporting the London18 account as it slipped through the cracks when reporting all the other sock accounts of his earlier back. He hasn't used it since April but its unblocked. As his contributions show [[623]] they are all similar downright the same of other confirmed HarveyCarter sockpuppets of that time and now.

BillRodgers is just another account in the same mold as ALL the others before it. [[624]] As you can see from the diffs I showed plus plenty of others in his contributions compared to known HarveyCarter socks its obvious this is just another attempt at avoiding blocking. Can something be done to stop this?


Conclusions

The new accounts follow the same editing pattern as the old accounts. I've blocked them both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 2 August 2007 (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:Ciotech

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Womensconsortium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Onerher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Misit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Medicaltowers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nosexist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wilshiremedical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.215.27.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bavariancream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
STAPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Onorem♠Dil 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Rockero 10:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I first noticed problems with the Esai Morales article in mid-January. After getting a 3rd opinion about the amount of unsourced information regarding Sylvia Morales in the article in February, it appeared that Ciotech (talk · contribs) was taking a break from editing.

Misit (talk · contribs) appeared a few days ago and added a a comment similar to one Ciotech had previously added, before eventually making an edit which included quite a few more comments similar to, or exactly the same as, those Ciotech previously tried to add. Exact excerpts include:

  • "and his acting ability was comically described by a Critic on MSN as 'the expression on his face said it all... Am I an Actor? How did I get here? Who hired me? Give me the Money! I will work for Food!.'"
  • "Esai has never married and answers questions on the reasons why with versions on the expression 'So many women, so little time.' He has been widely criticized by others who consider his answers Sexist and Offensive."
  • "others have described him as an 'actorvist' to promote his own financial gain or as a "balloonist" to inflate his wallet."
  • "With the help of his sister, Sylvia Morales Director and Producer in Film and Television, he began..."

Misit also made an edit to Mason (surname) which fixed a formatting problem Ciotech had left on the edit just prior to it.

The next edit to the Mason (surname) article was by Womensconsortium (talk · contribs), whose only other edits were to Lourdes Portillo.

The Lourdes Portillo article has also been recently edited by Onerher (talk · contribs). (I'm guessing that's supposed to be a play on my name as Ciotech had previously made comments about my name being similar to Honorhim or Onerhem.)
Onerher's other edits have been to Esai Morales and Gloria Allred. Their edits to the Gloria Allred page reverted changes I had made to a version created by Nosexist (talk · contribs).

Nosexist has contributed to two articles. Gloria Allred and, bringing us full circle, Esai Morales.

Medicaltowers (talk · contribs) changing the List of Mexican Americans to reflect the relationship between Esai and Sylvia, where Ciotech had just finished adding Esai Morales, Sylvia Morales, and Lourdes Portillo. Similar edit made on List of notable Chicanos where Ciotech was the last contributer. Medicaltowers also added both Esai and Sylvia to List of notable Hispanics from the United States.

Figured I'd add another in case no checking had been done yet. 63.215.27.125 (talk · contribs) appeared at the Esai Morales article today and reverted to yesterday's version left by Onerher...when the only changes that had been made were my rearranging the information so the reference covered the new material, and the bot fixing tags.

Wilshiremedical (talk · contribs) reverts the Gloria Allred article without comment to the previous version by Onerher.

Summarize common articles

Comments


Conclusions

Named accounts are pretty clearly socks, and have been blocked indefinitely, puppetmaster blocked for a week. The IP I'm not sure on, and regardless it hasn't edited in a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:02, 5 August 2007 (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:Asher Heimermann

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AsherUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Asher, Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NumLee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Resources of Sheboygan Club (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tony16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Asher2032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tom70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Royalbroil 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs) has been a problematic user for many reasons, and was blocked for 1 month by Yandman (talk · contribs). He has a history of sockpuppetry, and after his block, he tried to evade it with Asher2032 (talk · contribs), resulting in an indef block of that account and his main account. Three minutes later, Tom70 (talk · contribs) appeared and started editing various Wisconsin- and Sheboygan-related articles. A request for checkuser was performed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Asher Heimermann, and Now AsherUSA (talk · contribs) has appeared several months later, and the editing pattern suggests it's again Asher avoiding a block. Asher has contacted me off-line asking that I don't call him out. I can provide the email to someone, but only if it is necessary and discrete. I decided to not call him out to see if the young teen has become less disruptive, but he is again using this new account to be disruptive. He added an external link to his page on common-nation diff. It was reverted as spam by User:Justanother diff, and Asher reverted it back diff. Editing pattern to Sheboygan, Wisconsin articles has returned (Asher USA's contributions). I call for indefinitely block for User:AsherUSA. Royalbroil 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Conclusions

User:Metros blocked User:AsherUSA, and had already blocked all but one of the other socks. I have asked him to block User:NumLee to finish the job. Shalom Hello 12:41, 3 August 2007 (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:Partyhatunicorn

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

SLSB talk ER 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Username is like User:partyhatunicorn who is blocked.

Comments


Conclusions

Both accounts indef blocked SLSB talk ER 02:04, 2 August 2007 (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:Kyle 2011

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Kyle 2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
75.33.124.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kyleellis2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user and IP are both repeatedly adding erroneous info to Billy Ray Cyrus regarding singles. See this edit, this edit, and this edit. After I reverted the middle edit, Kyle 2011 left this comment on the talk page, which has me suspicious.

Further evidence: This uer's name is virtually identical to the indefinitely blocked user User:Kyleellis2011, whose edits were pretty much the same crap.

Even further evidence: User and IP both keep blanking their user and talk pages.

Comments
Conclusions

Named accounts indef-blocked; IP blocked for 48 hours. I'll extend it if he keeps vandalizing and the IP appears static. MastCell Talk 20:19, 1 August 2007 (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:Partyhatunicorn

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Partyhatunicorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Read8910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

SLSB talk ER 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
Comments
  • Possible, but I don't think it matters. Both users edited on 7 and 8 April 2007, which is better than random given the infrequent editing by these accounts. With less than 20 edits to each account, and no evidence of coordinated vote-stacking, and with one account inactive since April, I don't think any action is necessary. Shalom Hello 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already blocked. SLSB talk ER 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Both accounts already indef-blocked. MastCell Talk 20:17, 1 August 2007 (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:George Elokobi

Suspected sockpuppeteer
George Elokobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Whitewater 00989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
George Elokobi 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
George Elokobi 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

AppleMacReporter 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

see Colchester United F.C.'s history, possibly more socks

Comments


Conclusions

All accounts already indef-blocked as vandalism-only. MastCell Talk 20:10, 1 August 2007 (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:Haha03

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Haha00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Haha01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Haha02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Haha03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Brianga 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence


Comments


Conclusions

All accounts already indef-blocked; checkuser has been filed to identify and block the underlying IP. MastCell Talk 20:12, 1 August 2007 (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:63.3.1.1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

63.3.1.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.3.69.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.3.69.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.3.69.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.3.1.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--Candy156sweet 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

This person has repeatedly vandalized and blanked many articles on Wikipedia including...

Chris Perry (football), Counter-Strike: Source , Utrecht (city), Pantera, Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rift valley, Scary Movie 6, Middle name, Talk:Bow Wow, Solange Knowles, Richard Marx from IP # 63.3.1.1

Menominee, Duncan Sheik from IP # 63.3.69.6

Morrice, Michigan, Lupus erythematosus, Mitchel Musso, Girl, Freedom of religion, Spaceship, Richard Marx from IP # 63.3.1.129

Richard Marx, Candy156sweet from IP # 63.3.69.133


You can look at the talk pages from the talk pages to see the numerous complaints describing the problems that I am reporting here. I used WhoIs to check the IP addresses.




Comments

This is the first case of sockpuppetry that I have ever presented here. You can see repeated patterns from each of the IP #'s and you can also notice that there are repeated cases of blanking and blatant vandalism from each IP address. I have checked the IP #'s and I have indeed found that they are all from one source. I don't know if I am wrong for reporting this, but I really think that this is something that should be considered as a problem. Thank you very much for your time and have a great rest of your week.

Conclusions

Vandal with a dynamic IP. The most recently used IP's have been blocked. In the future, you may get a slightly faster response by warning (e.g. with {{bv}}) and then reporting to WP:AIV. MastCell Talk 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/August_2007