Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Archive/January 2007

< Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets‎ | Archive

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

User:DeanHinnen

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

BenBurch 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Self-evident sock already blocked by admin User:JzG as a sock of User:BryanFromPalatine. I believe this was misattributed, and the account was really a sock of the putative "brother" of BryanFromPalatine, User:DeanHinnen. Dean says that he is representing to the en-unblock-l that User:Fensteren is not a sock puppet, so I feel it is necessary to get this complaint formally on the record.

Please seen the rationale used for the original block at User_talk:JzG#User:Fensteren.

However, as User:DeanHinnen is representing Fensteren before en-unblock-l I think that block was in error as it should have referenced DeanHinnen and not BryanFromPalatine, his putative "brother".

This case is contentious, and has a long history, mostly involving User:BryanFromPalatine;

Several checkuser requests all to be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

Here are his SSP investigations;

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalantine_%28new%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%283rd%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%284th%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ArlingtonTX

The revenge Checkuser his suspected sock filed against me (and which his confirmed sock RE-filed);

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BenBurch

Comments

To the admin performing this check, please be especially careful. The archives at unblock-en-l catalogue the issues related to whether or not DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalantine were sockpuppets, the result being that DeanHinnen was unblocked by consensus. It is also worth noting that DeanHinnen was exceptionally polite during that particular investigation. I believe in this case, it would be to Knowledge (XXG)'s benefit to be more diligent than usual in the checkuser investigation and to be sure of the conclusion. This should not be taken to be a criticism of standard checkuser investigations, only a call to be extra careful this time around. --Yamla 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yamla? I'd really like some insight into what is going on here. We see all these users appear and make the same class of edits, expressing the same concerns, and pushing the same agenda. Under all other circumstances they would absolutely be considered either sock puppets or meat puppets, but somehow DeanHinnen (who has been mega-disruptive and mega-abusive since you unblocked him, including filing a frivolous RfC against me which got thrown out) got himself unblocked in spite of all of the evidence that he was AT LEAST a meat puppet here dancing to the tune played by BryanFromPalatine. He even went so far as to act explicitly as agent for Bryan in that RfC where he made Bryan the co-certifying editor and included text explicitly provided by Bryan. So, what was he able to show you that proved to you that he ought not be blocked? He is using that finding you had at en-unblock-l as a shield against all manner of his bad behaviours. --BenBurch 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The unblock-en-l list is public and I strongly urge you and other editors to check out the archives at this location. I believe you have to subscribe in order to access the list. This will be more accurate than me trying to summarise here. --Yamla 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFCU has already been filed and declined. ": Declined. This battle is not going to be continued in this forum. --jpgordon 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)" (Reposted.) Dino 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - jpgordon did not sign the above or make the above comment on this page. This was an attempt to sway the issue with a confusingly-signed post by Dean. --BenBurch 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Editingoprah

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Liketoread (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Timelist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

David Fuchs 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Editingoprah disagreed with some additions I made the Oprah page, saying that they were unsourced and 'negative POV'. I responded on his talk page with a rebuttal, but added references and tried to phrase the wording better. It was reverted again, and I changed it back. Liketoread, along with User:Timelist, reverted my edits using nearly the same wording. Closer inspection reveals that Timelist has been blocked for violating 3rr rule on the same pages as Editingoprah. I will put in a request for IP check... Liketoread is another possible candidate, but there is less evidence to support this possibility (although all that user's edits save those with the revert and on my talk page are for one article...)

Comments

Huh? What exactly am I being accused of here? All I did was tried to prevent you from adding libelous information to the biography of a living person based on inadequate sourcing. Can someone please explain in plain English what rule I'm being accued of breaking? Editingoprah 21:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just find certain similarities and timing of edits on the Oprah page interesting.. as soon as I note on your talk page you'll be in violation of the 3rr rule, (which you've evidently broken several times, and tried to blank your talk page), another user reverts with the near-same wording. When I revert once more, yet another does... and they seem to all sound very very much like you. As I should note, those are not my web sites I bring up, they are sources. All can be found by searching with Google. Or in your "plain english"... I have strong reason to suspect you using one or more accounts to further your (obviously) pro-Oprah agenda... which is kinda sad. We'll see what an IP check brings up... David Fuchs 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what I think is sad. Violating wikipedia's living biography policy by citing unreliable sources to trash a philanthropist for throwing "extra money at poor people" as if giving a quarter of a billion dollars of one's hard earned money" is a crime one should be criticised for. If you're really so passionate about adding petty criticism to Oprah's article, I suggest you find a reliable source from which to directly quote it, because wikipedia has very high standards for negative information placed in the biographies of living persons. Summaries of personal attacks against Oprah from anonymous web pages is viewed as libel by wikipedia. Quite why you would want to go to war with me over the addition of petty criticism to an Oprah article is what I consider sad. As for Timelist popping up at the same time I did, there's a very good reason for that. We're classmates and we both attend the same black studies class. Our professor was the one who got us into wikipedia in the first place. Editingoprah 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes you just added "This user is a persoanl friend of user:Timelist and often posts with him in similar articles." to your profile page, good for you... I admit perhaps I should have sourced it better to begin with, but the fact remains that a) you are accused of sock-puppetry, which you have been accused of before, b) either way you are in violation of the 3rr rule, and c) the point of whether to keep the info is now moot. I'm not changing it until this is all sorted out. I try to fix things the civil way, but if you try to create edit wars, there is little I can do. I'm not going to even address your accusations (which, coincidentally, both you and the two other users said in almost exactly the same words) that I somehow benefit by promoting these sites to which I have no connection to. By the by, I've put up a request for checkuser, so if you're innocent, good for you. If you aren't...

Innocent of what. We attend the same class. We psot from the same buildings. I freely admit this, and a checkuser should confirm this. And as for alleged violation of the 3RR, you're allowed to violate it when you are removing libelous info. This is a very well established eexception to the 3 RR. Editingoprah 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets You could certainly be called guilty of that, looking through your contributions... David Fuchs 23:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Just throw as much mud as you can and hope something sticks in an attempt to divert attention from your libelous violation of wikipedia living biographies rule. Timelist 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you and Editingoprah seem to share a lot in common- too much, which is why we're here. Think about this on my end: two people with nearly identical contributions, and the excuse is that they are chums who post from the same building? At the same time? Perhaps from the same computer, I'm guessing, if the IPs match? I'm sorry, but that seems hard to believe. If it turns out you aren't Eo, then I will owe you a personal apology as well as to the other two users. However I am not trying to downplay what I've done. I admit I should have just waited and been more thorough. But then again, I'm not the one accusing others of creating anti-oprah sites and trying to advertise them... The only two web sites I run are for school and a personal one: http://linus.yhspatriot.net/cs/at/students/Fuchs_Pessotti/ and http://pixelfox.macgui.com David Fuchs 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course we post from the same IP. We are classmates and friends working on a black studies assignment together and use wikipedia as a diversion. This is EXTREMELY common. If we were the same person we would just admit it, because the same user is allowed to have multiple accounts, and violating the 3 R rule is allowed in situations of libel. And surely you can't fault us for wanting to remove libelous inforamtion from an a wikipedia article. You yourself now admit you were wrong, so why waste your own time (as well as ours), and why make enemies with this ridiculous crusade? Let's just be friends, it's so much less stressful. Timelist 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit I was wrong in part, but once again this whole set is too convenient for me. As for being friends, haunting my contributions so you can insinuate that I created anti-Oprah websites and am trying to profit from them? As you can check, I have none of those domains registered (do a whois, its simple) and I have never tried to advertise any site I could be affiliated with (which is really only two, but whos counting). By the way, you could tell me your school/class instructor so I could verify all that, if you really want to clear things up... David Fuchs 00:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No I wouldn't feel comfortable giving that kind of information to someone I hardly know, for obvious reasons. Surely you understand. I'm sorry if you still don't believe us, but I'm willing to take your word that you are not the author of the anti-Oprah web pages, and I apologize for accusing you. Hopefully, you will find it in your heart to take our word too and we can put this whole entertaining (but highly time consuming) diversion behind us, because I'm sure we all have much better ways we can be spending our time. Think about all the time we're consuming! Let's just get along. Timelist 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually this user appears to have about 7 or more sockpuppets:

and has been causing editwars on black people for months and months. The viewpoints are always the same and always extreme. The arguments are always the same. Multiple sockpuppets make it appear that there is stronger opposition to group consensus than actually exists.--Ken Stevens 14:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this is one as well:

User:Whatdoyou--Filll 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then... I suggest a checkuser. The checkuser for Editingprah and timelist came up positive, but he swears they are in the same class. Either way, they could be two differetn people circumventing the 3rr rule. I'm going to request a checkuser for these guys too... Kobrakid, I believe, was already checked and came up in the same area. David Fuchs 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatdoyou said the same thing that Editingoprah said above - that they attend the same class, and that they edit from the same IP (see diff 1 & diff 2). A checkuser is not needed. --Ezeu 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Either way, there's some serious meat-puppetry or at the very least swaying of articles going on because of these guys. Even if they are all different people, they are acting as a bloc to enforce an agenda, and that would violate WP. David Fuchs 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are acting in cohorts to gain leverage to promote a particular POV, and they are either the same person, or persons that habour the same POV and have united to promote that POV. That is inherently contrary to the rules, or at least the traditions of Knowledge (XXG). --Ezeu 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

What a big case. Took me a long time to research.

Liketoread primarily edits one article, that has not been edited by any of the other accused, and was not mentioned in Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Editingoprah, implying strongly that he is on a different IP than the other two. Exonerated.
User:Editingoprah and User:Timelist admit to editing from the same school, being friends, and have posted as much on their user pages. They are highly unlikely to be one person - they have each made over 500 contributions. These including patterns which don't completely exonerate them, but do indicate they are different such as
- 20:23, October 22, 2006 Timelist
- 20:30, October 22, 2006 Editingoprah
- 20:35, October 22, 2006 Timelist

While it is theoretically possible for that to be one person logging out and in again, it's not likely. Also note that in Knowledge (XXG):Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08_Black_people, Editingoprah has made a reasoned, intelligent argument for his point, rather than just resting on weight of numbers. None of that individually is completely conclusive, of course - someone can be well written and malicious - but all that taken together, leads me to exonerate them as well.

The addition of the others are just seriously over-egging the pudding. If the first three were more likely to be puppets, I'd be looking into the others more seriously, as it is, I am not looking into them very much at all.

The main argument for sock puppetry seems to be who is or is not "black". Well, no offense intended to the accusers, but even at this late date someone's racial identity is still a big deal to a lot of people. It is quite possible that several different people can feel quite strongly about it, one way or the other. And, frankly, when well written editors provide strong evidence on each side of an issue, that is a strong argument that the article can't pick a side, and needs to devote serious space to both sides of the question. Compromise, folks, stop warring.

No administrative action.

-- AnonEMouse 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nationalist

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppet

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

Report submission by

Jerrypp772000

Evidence

Nationalist was having an argument with me about article Jiali. We were kind of having an editing war. But then, Nationalist stopped for about 7 min. He/She was about to violate 3RR, but Taiwanlove, a new editor, suddenly came and supported Nationalist's reversion. I was blocked violating 3RR because of that.

In User talk:Taiwanlove, I asked Taiwanlove a question, and Nationalist answered it. That was suspicious.

Edits to Rende, Tainan.

In my talk page, Taiwanlove says "3RRR" User talk:Jerrypp772000#Stop making controversial edits (with 3 R's), exactly like Nationalist .

This suspected sockpuppet is used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.

Summary

I highly suspect that User:Nationalist created User:Taiwanlove to evade violating the 3RR in articles Jiali and President of Taiwan. This links to President of the Republic of China. notice how jerry eliminates all instances of Republic of China and ROC.

dont u see a connection because he refuses to write Republic of China. Obviously there is some political motivation here. -Taiwanlove 00:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Apparently this is the second time that someone has attempted to report me as being Nationalist. But this is completely false and groundless. The administrator has already declined the request the first time, but Jerry just wont stop that other people disagree with his controversial edits (Such as deleting all instances of Republic of China or ROC when it should be there to be correct.) -Taiwanlove 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just suspecting, if you aren't Nationalist's sock puppet, why are you so nervous about it? They will investigate! Mr or Ms Administrator, can you please check their IP address? Thanks.

This suspected sockpuppet is used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists, and using a second account to circumvent policy (WP:3RR). Note that Taiwanlove was created 01:07, 28 January 2007 and within minutes was editing the same articles (Jiali, Taipei Songshan Airport and Chuang Chia-jung) as Nationalist , with the same type of edits and style of edit summary, often within a short time frame that Nationalist edited the article. This is in my view, a pretty clear sockpuppet case. Yankees76 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is confirmed by the Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist that Taiwanlove is a sockpuppet of Nationalist. Vic226_(chat) 21:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest indef block on this account as it is used for disruptive purposes and to game the system. Yankees76 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Taiwanlove was blocked for the duration of indefinite time as a confirmed sockpuppet of Nationalist, who was subsequently blocked for 72 hours due to ockpuppetry and 3RR abuse, and the fact that it's his 4th block . Vic226_(chat) 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ekajati

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Chai Walla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Baba Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Pigman 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a two month ban for sockpuppetry. Currently confirmed sockpuppets of Ekajati are Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Tunnels of Set (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hanuman Das changed his account name and was previously under the user name Adityanath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While still under the Adityanath account, two accounts were found to be sockpuppets of the Adityanath account: Baba Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Chai Walla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See here for findings.

Since Hanuman Das is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, then accounts found to be sockpuppets of Hanuman Das are therefore socks of Ekajati.

As of 1/29/2007, Chai Walla is working on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath . This means Ekajati is using this sock to evade the ban.

However there is also this: . They claim the shared IP was because they were all using the same laptop on a trip together. --Pigman 03:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Ekajati is currently participating in the Starwood Arbcom case. Investigation into these allegations is also proceeding there. Some analysis can be found at these links: Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Blnguyen Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Workshop#Checkuser_results_on_Ekajati Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Workshop#Sockpuppetry_by_Ekajati. --Pigman 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Chai Walla and Baba Louis have both been blocked as sockpuppets, per this checkuser case: Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Adityanath. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Leyasu

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report made by

Wildnox (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

I noticed this possible sock when he/she made several reverts back to versions that blocked Leyasu socks had recently been reverting to. Ther account appears to have been dormant since october when a checkuser(which was inconclusive due to Leyasu's edits being to old for the Checkuser tool to use) report was made, after which other Leyasu socks resumed reverts and edits. Cronodevir edited only on Islam related pages prior to Leyasu's ban, but since the ban the only edits from Cronodevir have been reverts on pages recently edited by Leyasu socks. The majority of the reverts involving the Gothic Metal to Gothic Doom switch that Leyasu was known to commonly push. Here is a list of the reverts after Leyasu's ban:

Compare to the pages edited prior to Leyasu's ban: Tawhid, Aqidah, Al-Ahbash, and Ibn Taymiyyah.

To me the sudden change indicates one of two things:

1. Cronodevir is a sockpuppet of Leyasu, created originally to seperate his/her edits on Islam related articles from his/her edits on music related articles, which is now being used to evade the ban imposed by ArbCom.

2. Cronodevir is an inactive account of a friend or family member of Leyasu, which he/she would have access to during visits. This would explain the sudden appearance of edits during the holiday season, during which people visit friends and family.

Regardless of which I believe this is a definite violation of WP:SOCK. --Wildnox (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

This is a violation of WP:SOCK, and an admitted one. On Dec 25, Crono writes something slightly incoherent, but apparently asserting that he acting in good faith, by reverting intermediate vandalism. On January 25, Crono admits to making edits for Leyasu without examining them. From a rough survey of Crono's contributions, I could not find an article space edit other than to metal bands since July 2006. While I don't know anything about metal bands, most of these edits were immediately reverted by other users and called disruptive. (In fact, many of the edits to Islam-related articles also seemed contentious - but that's outside the scope of this SSP case.) Whether this is Leyasu, or just a naive friend allowing Leyasu to make edits through this account, it is highly inappropriate, and this account has made apparently few or no other useful edits for 6 months. Indefinite block.

Of course indefinite does not mean irrevocable; Crono may appeal to another administrator, as for all blocks, and if another administrator honestly believes that Crono understands that he is not to allow indefinitely banned users to edit through his account, the other admin may unblock. I personally do not believe Crono understands this, given that he made many Leyasu-style edits, claiming "not to really look at them", after the first complaint on Dec25. To me, that shows that he did not understand or take the problem seriously. --AnonEMouse 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Scotsboy1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Scotsboy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Desi 208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PavanMishra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MishraP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Scotsboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hkelkar 08:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Reason:

All of these accounts are new and created within a short span of time.
All of these accounts started editing William Dalrymple (historian), User:Scotsboy1's first edit was a partial revert. All of his subsequent edits are to the same article
User:Desi 208 continued with the same kinds of edits

followed by the other users User:PavanMishra and User:MishraP
All of the users are exclusively editing this one article, show an amazing familiarity with wikipedia terminology for new users (see the edit summaries in diffs above) and seem to be edit-warring in the article for the purposes of 3RR gaming, mass-removing sourced information and replacing with personal opinions and other assorted POV.
Also, notice the similarity between the logins User:PavanMishra and User:MishraP.There can be no doubt that they are 3rr gaming socks of the same user named "Pavan Mishra", as well as the others User:Scotsboy1 and User:Desi 208, who have also been editing the same article and reverting the same edits. Hkelkar 08:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Another sock created today, with the same kinds of edits. Hkelkar 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Sock cat created Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Scotsboy1 Hkelkar 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The alleged master and puppets haven't edited since late November, and the editor who filed the report, Hkelkar, has been blocked for a year. This case can probably be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Stale, due to arbcom ban and no further edits. MER-C 07:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:LuisMatosRibeiro

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

User:PanAndScan 23:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Recently, there has been a great deal of vandalism to the Holodomor article. Article was protected against IP editing, then uprotected a few days ago. Immediately, IP addresses in Portugal from the same range began re-adding a POV category to the article against consensus. The IPs seem to point to User:LuisMatosRibeiro, who is indef blocked for making the SAME edits to the SAME article. I believe he is circumventing his block by editing under dynamic IP addresses. Suggest blocking the range of IPs that keep committing the vandalism.

Comments

Conclusions

The fact that it's a range of IPs implies that it's a network used by multiple people, indefinitely blocking those would potentially block a lot of people. Semi-protecting the article is, unfortunately, better. AnonEMouse 16:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Koguryochina

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--JudahBlaze 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

This is my first time reporting alleged sockpuppetry. user:DefenderofGaogouli has made very similar edits to Goguryeo as blocked user user:Koguryochina. Although that in itself is not enough evidence, I do not know how to do an IP address search on a user to confirm that it is the same person.

Comments

The alleged sockpuppet is making edits to Goguryeo that are disruptive and considered vandalism.

Conclusions

Vandalism-only account. Blocked. --AnonEMouse 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Renniy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by: Tokachu 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

See user log for Renniy for evidence.

Comments

All these sockpuppets are sub-sockpuppets for James Ewing. He's using these to vandalize the Sveasoft and WRT54G talk pages.

Jimbo Wales may have to intervene between James Ewing and Knowledge (XXG) for a second time.

Additional sockpuppets

Conclusions

Renniy is indefinitely blocked, and none of the others have any contributions listed. I admit the similar names are suspicious, but what have they actually done? --AnonEMouse 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:David Justin

Suspected sockpuppeteer

David Justin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Malelaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Helena Albertson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
O. C. Levitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jerry Rivers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Nunquam Dormio 08:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

David Justin is the original user name for the real-life David J. Hanson. Malelaku, Helena Albertson and O. C. Levitt are all single-purpose accounts. Their only activity has been to post links to Hanson's self-published website, presumably with the intention of raising its ranking in search engine results. Nine sock puppets of David Justin/David J. Hanson were blocked in a previous case. Nunquam Dormio 08:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Blocking the first three accused puppets but Jerry Rivers and David Justin have made actual edits; similar but insufficient evidence to block. --AnonEMouse 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:J.Alonso

Suspected sockpuppeteer

J.Alonso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

AlexCovarrubias 04:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

1.- The account User:Diegou was created on "18:24, 27 November 2006" and his first edit was not an article, but an already started discussion in the Mexico talk page .

2.- User:Diegou always "supported" and "voted" in favour of User:J.Alonso's proposal of deleting a sentence in the article Mexico. Knowledge (XXG) policy states that "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists". Also states, a sockpuppet is an account created to support the puppetmaster POV in a certain matter.

3.- Take a look at User:Diegou pattern of edits. It seems he only edit articles in which J.Alonso is also involved. Specially controversial articles. Also his edit pattern is very narrow and specific.

4.- Recently and very wisely Diegou reverted the article Latin America 3 times only in order to avoid a block. The 4th time the article was conveniently reverted by J.Alonso.

5.- Both "users" left a "vandalism warning" on my user talk page with very similar words, very similar style of writing. , .

6.- Finally it was me and "user" Diegou who orignally had an edit war over the Latin America article. However, it is interesting how User:J.Alonso was the one that reported me in the Wikiquette page, instead of Diegou , who originally "warned me" about the 3RR rule.

It seems that J.Alonso is the puppetmaster of Diegou account. Their IPs should be investigated in order to prove if the evidence presented above is right. That is the only way to check this case.

Comments

Most of the articles (if not the great, great majority) in which I have participated are related to Mexico, my country of birth (I now live in the US). Mr. Covarrubias is accusing me of using the Digeou account to "vote" on controversial issues. He told Hari Seldon that I was an Argentine trying to prove that Argentina is "better". Ridiculous. I have been participating mainly on a discussion about Guadalajara and Monterrey for the last two weeks. After reviewing Diegou's contribution he was participating in Argentina's article, an article I haven't touched.

The "controversial" issue he is talking about was a single sentence that stated that it was Mexico's higher standard of living the reason that was driving Argentine immigration to this country. Diegou first found this argument wrong (it wasn't me who first started the discussion) yet I supported his argument since Mexico's HDI and GDP PPP per capita are both in fact, lower than Argentina's, and therefore, no plausible causation could be determined between standard of living and immigration . I changed the sentence (since it had been proven wrong, by ample evidence) and Mr. Covarrubias reverted it immediately. All the participants in the debate asked Mr. Covarrubias to provide evidence for this claim (standard of living causing immigration, which had been proven false) and to tone down his interventions (bordering on ad hominem attacks). He ignored our petitions and simply reverted our edits without participating in the debate except to accuse us of "vandalism" and "sockpuppeting". His accusations are false, since it wasn't only Diegou and me who voted for eliminating this false assumption from the article. In fact the following users voted for its deletion: User:J.Alonso, User:Diegou, User:Titoxd, User:Wikidrian, User:Hseldon10 and User:SqueakBox.

I kindly asked Mr. Covarrubias on several occasions to provide sources for his claim and to participate in the debate constructively. Not only did he ignore me, he even deleted my petitions from his talk page (so as to erase "evidence" that we had politely asked him to provide sources for a false statement that he kept on reinserting even though it had been proved wrong by all the data that was being presented in the talk page).

In the Latin America article I expanded the Economy section with information from the World Bank and created a table which presented statistical information on all countries (GDP, GNI, Gini index, GDP per capita and GNI per capita). I sorted the countries by GNI (Mexico at the top). A week later Diegou erased one of the paragraphs that I had written and added more text with data from UN's CEPAL. He created a new table with historical GDP growth rates. He also added another column with HDI to the table I had created, and sorted all countries alphabetically, claiming that this "sorting" was "neutral" since sorting countries by GNI was arbitrary (why not HDI?). I agreed with this reasoning. Even though I opposed Diego's deletion of my paragraph (and I wrote it back, and asked him not to delete paragraphs without first discussing it on the talk page), I found his new chart, and the new data he provided, extremely valuable.

A few days later Mr. Covarrubias deleted all changes made by Diegou (that is, he deleted his new chart with GDP growth, the new column of HDI and also re-sorted the information by GNI instead of alphabetically). I opposed this, since he was deleting information from the article without explaining why. I reverted his deletion. He erased it again, and Diegou reverted it, and on and on. I asked him in the Talk page of Latin America to please stop deleting and to provide reasons why he believed deleting HDI and GDP growth rates was important. HDI and GDP data is not a controversial issue, it is a fact!. Why delete it without providing a reasonable justification? Why delete it without providing any reason at all?? Finally me, Diegou and SqueakBox warned him to stop deleting the information. He, conveniently deleted our several warnings from his talk page too . He then, accused me of sockpuppeting, even though it wasn't only me and Diego that asked him to stop, but SqueakBox as well.

To summarize: This is not a matter of controversial issues, these are HDI and GDP figures! Some users added this figures. Mr. Covarrubias deleted them. These users re-added the deleted information and kindly asked Mr. Covarrubias to provide a reason for his deletion. Mr. Covarribuias continued to delete text from the article 5 consecutive times without ever providing a single reason whatsoever and ignoring our petitions. This is not even 3RRR. This is vandalism. If this was a controversial issue in which two opposing versions were being discussed, then he would have engaged in 3RRR. But these are simple data. Numbers. Statistics he simply desires to erase from the article for no reason at all. Why does Mr. Covarrubias finds it surprising that three users find his actions inappropriate and accuses them of sockpuppting when he deletes non-controversial information from an article?

Finally, I have nothing to hide at all. In fact, I invite administrators with privileges to verify my IP addresses from the two sites from which I have contributed: my university and my home (and I live in the US, not in Argentina as my IP address will confirm it). I also ask administrators to review Mr. Covarrubias contributions and ad hominem attacks.

--Alonso 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You were suppoused to defend yourself from the accusation of sockpuppetry, and to provide evidence of the contrary. You only explained a case of edit war. That proves nothing. Some of the things you said are wrong, but this isn't the place for me to write another huge explanation. AlexCovarrubias

07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I explained the above to show that Alex's reasons for accusing me of sockpuppetry are not his "abundant evidence" or "proves" (sic) but his lack of Wikipedian etiquette, his unwillingness to participate constructively and his low quality as a debater. My "sockpuppetry" for him is not based on evidence, but a last-minute resort to "win" an edit war in which he has been unwilling to participate constructively, or should I say, his unwillingness to even participate at all, except by the deleting the work of others. Hari Seldon has even confirmed this. Like I said, please check the IP address I have nothing to hide. I also invite all administrators to check my history of contributions. And I ask administrators to take notice of Alex vandalic contributions and his lack of Wikipedian etiquette and act accordingly. --Alonso 14:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I contested some of his evidence in my defense, but I guess he didn't read it thoroughly, so I will repeat myself, since I suppose he needs help in figuring out my defense:

Evidence 1: An anonymous user started the discussion, not me, and later on Diegou appeared continuing the anonymous thread of thoughts. I suppose it was him. So you can see his IP address from his first participation. He started the discussion not me. In other words, Diegou did not come after the discussion between Alex and me had started. Diegou started the discussion and I backed him up since I found evidence that he was right. If you check my IP address you will see I am not him.
Evidence 2: Two users voting in favor of a proposal means nothing. In fact, it was 5 users that voted in favor. And we are not all the same person. Only Alex insisted on deleting our proposal without ever participating constructively.
Evidence 3: I debunked Alex's idea that we are participating in controversial issues. Writing a list of GDP growth is not controversial, is valuable. Deleting it is vandalic. By the way, Alex, check my history of contributions, my scope of work has never been "narrow". At least take some time to review your accusations.
Evicence 4: That proves nothing, it only proves that Diegou, if he knows 3RR, is not stupid and he stopped. Hours later, I came and reverted his vandalism again. So what? But I insist, this is not 3RR, but an exception (please read WP:3RR). This was never a controversial issue (Latin America), it was vandalism. He was deleting a chart and information just for the sake of it. Alex, in spite of knowing 3RR, reverted the article 5 consecutive times.
Evidence 5: The vandalism warning that we both left in his talk page wasn't similar, it was identical because we both used the template suggested by Knowledge (XXG) to ask people to stop vandalism. It seems we both considered his deletion of "uncontroversial" information vandalic and not simply a matter of disagreeing. Who can ever disagree with real numbers from the UN or the World Bank? By the way, it wasn't only Diego and I that asked him to stop his deletions. User:SqueakBox also asked him to stop. That makes three users, not two. Alex, never answered back, never provided a reason for his repeated deletion of information. Alex deleted our petitions from his talk page to "hide" or good-will in warning him and asking him to discuss the matter.
Evidence 6:I guess it was me who reported Alex because I have been here longer, I am an administrator at the Catalan wikipedia, and I know how things work. But again, his "proof" is weak.

Alex so wants to prove in all articles (developed nations, BRIC, newly industrialized nation, Mexico, etc.) that Mexico is far superior to all Latin American nations that he has to erase compromising "evidence", like HDI. He has been engaged in similar discussions in the articles aforementioned suggesting ridiculous things against Brazil and Argentina. If any user ever suggests saying anything about Mexico's economic situation, he immediately fires back saying that we are Brazilians, Argentines or whatever, and that we have to realize that "Mexico is better than Mexico" (see: Talk:Mexico). His motives are not academical nor encyclopedical. Please review his history of contributions and you will see. In the same way his motive behind his accusation of sockpuppetry is his lack of Etiquette, he only wants to win an edit-war.

I hope I had been clearer this time. --Alonso 15:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

It seems that J.Alonso is the puppetmaster of Diegou account. Their IPs should be investigated in order to prove if the evidence presented above is right. That is the only way to check this case. AlexCovarrubias 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what kind of conclusion is this? It is only the opinion of the accuser. But I agree on performing an IP investigation so Alex can sleep well and free of a world plagued by sockpuppets. For additional comments and my defense against the undefeasible, imaginative and terrible "evidence" of Alex, please go below.--Diegou 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Further comments...

Well, my name came up, and J Alonso asked me to participate. I only "know" him recently, after an intense debate in the article Second City. Indeed, I agreed with him on this controversial comment that has provoked this case of sockpuppetry. However, I have never had any experience with user Diegou. I don't know if there was or wasn't sockpuppetry involved, but I do know that J Alonso's arguments where widely backed by independent users, and that AlexCovarrubias did not participate constructively in the article discussion, did not assume good faith, and did not source its claims.

In any case, it is true that, despite Covarrubias's behavior is not the best for wikipedia, I have no evidence in favor or against J Alonso's sockpuppetry, and I think that an investigation will clear the matter and reveal the truth. Hari Seldon 07:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Alex finally fulfilled his threat and filed a sockpuppetry case.

I agree with many things that have been said here.

First, I agree with Alex in the sense that an IP investigation will clear this matter. So please, anybody who can do it, please do so we can concentrate in more important things.

Second, I agree with Hari Seldon in the sense that Covarrubia's behavior is not the best for Knowledge (XXG). A good example is the discussion "Mexico's standard of living as compared with Argentina's" in the talk page of Mexico, where in spite of the efforts of other participants to show their arguments, Alex (first) made attacks with words like "bias", "nationalistic", "sockpuppetry" and the like, and (second) he began to modify the article in spite that no consensus had been reached about it, and exactly as he has done yesterday in the Latin America article. Finally, on December 5, Alex gave up when he realized that so many people was against of his behavior.

Third, I agree with Alonso regarding how we ended up here. In effect, first Alex engaged in an edit war in the Mexico article showing no reasons at all (only personal attacks) and where he was against everybody's opinion, and then engaged in an edit war in the Latin America repeating exactly the same pattern.

And contrary to Alex's opinion, I think it is relevant to know the story of how we ended up here to know the character of the accuser. I think Alex is resorting to this method only as another tool to challenge the work of so many people here in Knowledge (XXG), without demonostrating any effort to at least show a single argument.

So, if the only manner of finishing this thing is an IP investigation, please do it. I am in Argentina, and certainly my IP will show that. In case any administrator needs of my help to do the investigation, please let me know and I will be glad to do whatever is necessary.--Diegou 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I just reread the "evidence" shown by Alex, and what I have to say is the following:

"Evidence" 1: That is not evidence at all. Why having the first intervention on a ongoing discussion is strange? I just think the opposite: I read the discussion and seemed me interesting enough to participate.

"Evidence" 2: Being in favor of anyone does not imply that you are the same person. In fact, many people were in favor my position and against yours in the discussion in the Mexico page, and that does not imply that all of them are the same person. Secondly, Alonso has been in some ocasions against some things I have written, as you can see in the Mexico talk page and my talk page. Unless you think that we are faking discussions to conceal that we are the same person, in which case: wouldn't be little paranoid that?

"Evidence" 3: The evidence is wrong, since I participate in articles where Alonso does not participate, and viceversa. Unless you think that we are partcipating in different articles to conceal that we are the same person, in which case, and again: wouldn't be a little paranoid that?

"Evidence" 4: Well, it is true that two persons have reverted your changes in the Latin America article, but that does not imply that we are the same person. In fact, in the Mexico article, where you did exactly the same things and had the same behavior as in the Latin America article, not two but FOUR people reverted your (unjustified) edits, and that does not imply that all those four people are one.

"Evidence" 5: This one is the funniest. It is the same language because it is the template suggested by Knowledge (XXG).

"Evidence" 6: I am not surprised if many different persons have similar reactions against Alex. In fact, you can read what Hari Seldon has just written here, and trace how people react to Alex in the many talk pages where he has intervention.

I think this debunks the purported "evidence" filed by Alex, but in any case, please do the IP investigation so that everybody will convince themselves that there is no sockpuppetry here. Who knows, maybe Alex really thinks what he meant here, so please do it.--Diegou 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by SqueakBox

I think the fact that Alex ignored the 3RR rule in spite of being told at Latin America in a conflict with these 2 editors explains these entirely spurious allegations. The editor who needs investigating is AlexCovarrubias and admins would be better off blocking Alex for his premeditated repeated 3RR violations rather than investigating these trollish claims. Alex's statement above that "Recently and very wisely Diegou reverted the article Latin America 3 times only in order to avoid a block. The 4th time the article was conveniently reverted by J.Alonso." indicates Alex knew very well about 3RR and was deliberately breaking it, ie playing the system, SqueakBox 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Response by AlexCovarrubias

To you too my friend. You assume I care a lot about this particular case. I'm sorry to tell you're wrong. I simply reported, that's it. And "trollish claims"? You better take a look to see who the real "troll" is. I have a life you know. AlexCovarrubias 14:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No soy un amigo suyo, oye! I have studied this case enought to draw the simple and correct conclusion which is that you created this page after losing a revert war. If every editor made spurious claims every time more than one editor opposed them in an edit war there would be hundredsd of cases weekly, SqueakBox 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex made it again

Well, yet another embarrassment for Alex Covarrubias. Alex, you made waste the time to three ... oops, no, four people here (d'oh!). I sincerely hope that this new failure makes you rethink your behavior here at Knowledge (XXG), and encourage you to participate constructively and without personal attacks, vandalism and the like, in the many different talk pages. Thanks to Hari Seldon and SqueakBox.--Diegou 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you surely have no life my friend. You assume I care a lot about this issue, wrong. I simply reported what to me is a possible case of sockpuppetry, period. Embarrassment? What are you talking about? Again, you think Knowledge (XXG) is my life or something. And yeah, like this case I filed is a super spotlight that will bring "embarrassment" to my real life. You and J.Alonso are the ones that are truly very affected with this issue. It seems that it is to both of you like a matter of life or dead. The story is I reported, somebody else has to check this, and whatever the conclusion (and I'm sorry to tell you this), my real life won't be affected as it is not affected now. AlexCovarrubias

14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"You and J.Alonso are the ones that are truly very affected with this issue. It seems that it is to both of you like a matter of life or dead."

Well, I am glad that you finally acknowledged that there was no sockpuppetry here.

I hope to meet you again in the future at Knowledge (XXG), within any fruiful and constructive debate. Best regards. --Diegou 14:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No no, I still believe you are the same person. It has just been not verified so I technically need to refer as "both", since I'm the one that first suspected and the one that reported. AlexCovarrubias

14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, yes, of course, it was just a technical need. Interesting that you believe in things that you admit yourself that are not verified. Not very rigorous, really? Well, I wish you good luck and happy holidays.--Diegou 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we expect an admin to be involved in this issue any time soon?

Unfortunately, Mr. Covarrubias, like he had done in our discussions, prefers to ignore the evidence provided which proves him wrong. He has not countered our arguments at all, but simply insists that he is right against all evidence. I have to admit that now, finally, he "toned down" his language. Now he says it "is a possible case of sockpuppetry" and even though on Talk:Mexico he "refused to talk to us as different persons" now he acknowledges the fact that he needs to "refer to both" and not to one. I guess that is a small, but significant improvement in his Wikipedian etiquette.

Now I ask two things of admins, if they ever get to be involved in this:

Check our IP addresses, so that we can end this matter as soon as possible. Alex is not willing to accept any other evidence except that our IP addresses be confirmed. So be it. At the same time, and for the sake of judging all with the same measure, check User:AlexCovarrubias and User:Dr.Kerr IP addresses.
Please take note of Alex's history of ad hominem attacks, lack of willingness to contribute constructively, his unjustified deletion of articles (vandalism), and his violation of 3RR policy. Please act accordingly. I also acknowledge that his contributions as a designer have been valuable for our Wikipedian community, (especially his maps), but he needs to learn how to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks, how to participate constructively, and how to obey the rules and not to play with them, like he did with the 3RR policy.

--Alonso 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not "me" the one that need to accept or to dismiss the evidence that I provided. That's the evidence I can provide, period. It is an admin duty to check them. Not me, not you, not SqueakBox not anyother editor. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias

16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Covarrubias has just put his fake sockpuppet accusation back on User:Diegou 's page, I strongly recommend other editors also revert this nasty piece of vandalism. Admins are busy people and I can see nothing on this page that warrants investigation other than perhaps Mr. Covarrubias premeditated 3RR violation. Certainly I would say an IP check is absolutely not necessary on the basis that we shouldnt feed the trolls. If Alonso or others feel frustrated I suggest an attempt at mediation, and if that fails take this user to the arbcom and see what they make of his behaviour, SqueakBox 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is not your duty to judge over the acussation. It has to be checked or dismissed by an admin. AlexCovarrubias

17:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true, all the editors who have looked at this case have reached the same conclusion, that it is entirely spurious. You are only doing this because you knowingly violated 3RR. We should not feed the trolls is policy, SqueakBox 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, you filed some "evidence" here, and Alonso and I replied extensively and thoroughly to your "evidence". If we assume that you are acting in good faith, the least you can do is facing our answers.

Your attitude in your latest posts is: "I do not have the least idea if I am right, but I am going ahead anyway". After all the things that have been said here by FOUR people, please try to make the effort to show us at least any single idea from you part.

Alex, you have already made waste valuable time of four people here. If you insist, you will be wasting also the time of an administrator. Come on, accept that you were wrong, apologize with Alonso and me, and go on with more important things. Only brave people have the guts to acknowledge that they were wrong and apologize. Please, show us your bravery.--Diegou 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are very uppish. I have nothing to apologize about nor I will. I do believe this is a case of sockpuppetry and I still can't see any evidence proving me wrong. I'm not a close minded person, if I already had seen any indicator that I was wrong, I personally would have delete this page. And I don't know what you mean by "waste the time of people", since I am not the one that drag them to this case. AlexCovarrubias

17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to confirm that I could not expect any other answer from you. Oh, BTW, I thought you had dragged Alonso, me and at least one administrator here. Maybe it was another person.--Diegou 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, we are not in a court house, and admins are not appointed judges. Admins, like me on ca:wiki, are users who have the ability to block users, and just a few have the system privileges to perform an IP address verification. That is why evidence has to be provided first by all parties. If evidence is weak, the case is dismissed without further verification. We have presented a rebuttal, and provided strong arguments against all your "evidence". You have not replied; you simply say "no, because I say so", just like you have done on all the discussions in which you have participated: you present your subjective opinion as the absolute truth, you do not participate in the debate that ensues except by criticizing your opponents with ad hominem attacks and sarcasm; when consensus is reached by those who did participate and might have proved you wrong, you delete their editions claiming that "consensus was not reached" and accuse all users who change the text according to the consensus of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Who knows, maybe even if our IP address are verified and proved to be from different countries and continents, you might still be unwilling to accept the truth, like you did when HDI and GDP were brought forth as measurements of standard of living.

Like I said before, some of your contributions, like the images you have provided, have been extremely valuable to Knowledge (XXG). Do not risk yourself to the point of being blocked by your stubbornness and unwillingness to abide by wikipedia's rules (i.e. your clear violation of 3RR) and by attacking users and vandalizing the editions of users who not only happen to have different opinions, but who provide the evidence to sustain them. I am willing to continue with this process to the point of IP address verification. In fact, I have asked admins to do so; I have nothing to hide. But this whole incident will have been just a headache for all of us if you don't use it to think things over and to change your attitude towards other users. If, after this incident is over, you have learned to assume good faith, to respect others, to debate constructively, to present good sources for your claims, and to accept the evidence that is shown against your arguments, and are willing to reach a consensus without reverting the work of others, then all this headache will have a positive outcome both for you and for Knowledge (XXG). It is entirely up to you.

--Alonso 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I love how you generalize my position (not talking to you or Diegou since I always believed you were sockpuppets) about the discussion on the Mexico article in order to, what it seems to me, give a bad image of my person. Well, you continue to do that, since it really does not hurt me, not in WP nor in my real life. And I also love how you talk about me like a super rule breaker. I mean c'mon what rules have I broke? 3RR? Yet you talk about "my unwillingness to abide by WP rules". The one that thinks has the absolute truth is you, judging my "behaviour" and generalizing it. You certainly care a lot about this. =) AlexCovarrubias

17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You broke WP:AGF with this spurious page, SqueakBox 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess your comments here are another proof to our arguments. No, I don't have the absolute truth, yet four users have found your accusations spurious. That is called consensus. I honestly do not understand why you insist on saying "you guys care a lot about this, I don't". Yes, I care about Knowledge (XXG), because I believe in this project, I wouldn't be an admin if I didn't believe in it. Yes, I believe any personal attack and false accusation whether it is Knowledge (XXG) or real life has to be dealt with accordingly. (Besides, I don't see why wikipedia is not "real" life, unless your contributions here are not honest). Please, take my advise, which I guess you didn't read. Learn from this experience, change your attitude. Do not risk yourself to the point of being blocked. --Alonso 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, what you did in the Latin America page was not only 3RR, but pure and simple VANDALISM. I am a new Wikipedian, but as far as I understand the policy, you cannot delete sourced information without discussing in the correponding talk page, or at least without any single justification. I sent you not one but TWO vandalism warnings, which you conveniently and immediately deleted from your user page. So that it is clear what we are discussing here, I will transcribe here your reply to my first vandalism warning:

"Editing an article is not vandalism. The same claim can be made of your recent deletion of economic information by J.Alonso. However nobody accused you of "vandalism", right? I will not let you edit information to demerit Mexico as you have proven to do. Just take a loot (sic) at your contribution page. You are surely an anti-Mexican. Revert as many times you want, I will do the same. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"

Alex, you said "Revert as many times you want, I will do the same". You are self incriminating!!! For the record, this what I replied as my SECOND vandalism warning:

"Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Latin America, you will be blocked from editing Knowledge (XXG). Diegou 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (please stop)

You just wrote in my talk page the following: "Editing an article is not vandalism. The same claim can be made of your recent deletion of economic information by J.Alonso. However nobody accused you of "vandalism", right? I will not let you edit information to demerit Mexico as you have proven to do. Just take a loot at your contribution page. You are surely an anti-Mexican. Revert as many times you want, I will do the same. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"

First of all, I am glad that you do not think anymore that Alonso and I are the same person. I recall that you said in the talk page of the Mexico article the following: "I have strong evidence showing J.Alonso and Diegou are the same person (WP:Sockpuppet) so I'm reporting this". You never reported it, so apparently your evidence was not very strong, and never apologized with Alonso and me.

Second, you are not editing but DELETING. More specifically, you are deleting: (i) the GDP growth table and (ii) the HDI indices. You cannot delete sourced information unless you have sources that demostrate that the source I provided is wrong.

Third, I already explained Alonso that I did not intend to delete anything but only to reorganize. In any case, Alonso already put back the information he thought was missing, and I am OK with that.

Fourth, I am not trying to demerit Mexico (or any other country). Please explain in what Mexico is demerited by (i) adding a GDP growth table, (ii) adding the HDI index and (iii) rearranging a table in alphabetical order.

I kindly invite you to participate in the talk page.--Diegou 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)--Diegou 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"

As you can see, I gave you a new chance to participate in a civilized manner on the debate, and I even asked you kindly to do so. What was your reply? You again deleted the information without any justification (VANDALISM again), and filed this sockpuppetry accusation ...

Alex, as this process is advancing and evidence of your behavior in Knowledge (XXG) is coming to surface, you are embarrassing even more and more. Come on, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You've lost your discussions in the Mexico article on the standard of living issue, you've lost again when you vandalized the Latin America article, and you're losing here. Please stop and don't make a fool of yourself. Please accept that you were wrong and apologize with Alonso and me.

And one comment to SqueakBox: I appreciate very much your intervention, but I think that it would be convenient to keep record of this process and not to delete it, as a proof that the accusation was fake. As you know, Alex made first his accusation of sockpuppetry in the Mexico talk page, so I would like to have a record showing (i) that Alex finally filed the case and (ii) that it was shown that he was wrong.--Diegou 11:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow you and your uppish attitude. You say you "gave me the change to debate" (like you're entitled to do that) and then you said "I lost" (lost what? I mean this is only a sockpuppetry claim not yet solved). In the Mexico article, I decided not to "debate" with two accounts that to me were the same user, that's it. And finally, I don't have anything to apoligize for nor I will. Have a nice day. Perhaps I should recommend you to do something interesting in your real life? I don't know. AlexCovarrubias

13:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure whether "uppish" is a compliment, but thank you just in case.

Regarding what happened in the Mexico page, you are not telling the truth. I am transcribing the history page:

(cur) (last) 22:47, 5 December 2006 Titoxd (Talk | contribs) (um, no - read Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence; it stays on the talk page until a source is found, or it is gone)

(cur) (last) 22:41, 5 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m (→Standard of living - Restoring sentence, while "debate" is still going on it should not be removed)

(cur) (last) 20:00, 5 December 2006 Beagel (Talk | contribs) (Although Mexico is an OECD member, this category doesn't include member countries)

(cur) (last) 16:17, 5 December 2006 SqueakBox (Talk | contribs) (→Standard of living - rm controversy)

(cur) (last) 13:11, 5 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m (Do not delete the sentence until "consensus" is reached.)

(cur) (last) 12:12, 5 December 2006 Diegou (Talk | contribs) (Deleted sentence until consensus is reached on the talk page on this controversial issue.)

(cur) (last) 18:37, 4 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m

(cur) (last) 13:06, 4 December 2006 Diegou (Talk | contribs) (Deleted until consensus is reached on this sentece in the talk page. Currently there are three people (i.e.: the majority) in favor of deleting it and two in favor of keeping it.)

That is, you withdrew when Titoxd (an administrator) told you not to insist on your continuous reversions. Do you recognize a pattern? It is exactly the same thing you did in the Latin America article!! But in the last case the matter was even more serious because you committed VANDALISM, which you tried to conceal by means of this fake sockpuppetry case.--Diegou 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, if for you Knowledge (XXG) is not "real life" and you make fun of us for taking this seriously, then why are you here? Do you honestly believe in this project? Your attitude only confirms that your vandalism is justified because you actually don't seriously believe in this project, and you wouldn't care less about the outcome of this even if it is your account that gets blocked for 3RR and vandalism. I have asked you to change your attitude; we all win if you simply learn from your mistakes and if you start to debate in a civilized manner. I believe (and I hope it hasn't been naïvely), that you can be a good contributor. I care less if you apologize to me or not. But if you change your attitude and start thinking about what you are doing, and begin to actually believe in this project (which happens to be as real as it can be in this internet-based era of communications) then this whole headache will have at least one positive outcome. But I will insist no more. I am willing to go all the way through with this process. --Alonso 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again with your uppish attitude. You are no one to "judge" if I am a good or a bad contributor. That only shows how arrogant you are. Who do you think you are!? I'm not changing anything in my attitude, because what YOU want me to change is not my attitude in general (which is very different) but my attitude towards YOU. I have no respect for people that that use sockpuppets. As I already said, I ignored YOU (J.Alonso/Diegou) because I always suspected you were sockpuppeting. Period. Can't you read? AlexCovarrubias

15:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

People have a problem with your spurious sockpuppet allegations not your edits, SqueakBox 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, how come you are treating Alonso and me as only one person? You said above: "No no, I still believe you are the same person. It has just been not verified so I technically need to refer as "both", since I'm the one that first suspected and the one that reported." So, where did the "technical need" go now? And what about my comment to your post: "Interesting that you believe in things that you admit yourself that are not verified. Not very rigorous, really?". You never replied. It is difficult to follow your logic, Alex. Or maybe, and I think that's the case, it is too simple.--Diegou 18:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's got the uppish attitude? A user who offers mediation and encourages other users to participate? or a user that refuses to participate constructively and attacks other users, never assumes good faith, shows no respect for anyone, and ignores others? You have violated several wikipedia rules, and yet we have offered mediation and treated you with respect. I am not judging you, but do you have the "right" you to judge my uppish attitude? You are guilty of the same things you are accusing others of doing.

Besides you have not only had this attitude towards me and Diegou: you have history of ad hominem attacks and allegations with other users as well in several articles related to Mexico, Brazil, Latin America, BRIC, etc. --Alonso 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We need the attention of an administrator

Administrators: We have tried by all possible means to establish a civilized and constructive dialogue with AlexCovarrubias but he has refused to participate and has reaffirmed his destructive attitude and his unwillingness to cooperate in a respectful manner. Four users have responded to Alex's allegations and have provided evidence of his vandalism, his violation of the rules of our community and his unwillingness to cooperate and treat others respectfully.

We have tried to mediate and asked him to stop his destructive attitude so that we could get back to working as a team. He is unwilling to accept evidence that has proved him wrong which has been provided not only by us, Diegou and me, but by external users as well. This debate will never end, and he will not stop until he gets what he has been asking for.

I ask of an administrator:

Check my and Diegou's IP addresses. I do not have anything to hide. Moreover, that would be the clearest proof that his accusations were spurious.
Take note of Alex's:
- Vandalism in Latin America. I do not think this is a violation of 3RR, since there was no dispute between two different versions. This is pure vandalism. He repeatedly deleted valuable information and the work of other users (a table of GDP data and HDI). While no reasons were given for his actions, I assume based on his comments in Talk:Mexico, that he thought this "compromising data would demerit (sic) Mexico". These repeated deletions were a personal attack to all work done by either Diegou or me (presumably since we had opposed his arguments in Talk:Mexico) and not a valid reversion of a controversial issue (there was no controversy and no discussion at all). While Diegou, SqueakBox and me asked him to stop his reiterated deletions and to provide a reason behind his silent vandalism, he ignored us, deleted our petitions from his talk page and continued reverting. This accusation of sockpuppetry was his last minute resort to win an edit war.
- His history of deletions and reversions, as well as ad hominem and sarcastic verbal attacks towards all users that disagree with his vision of Mexico as a superior nation in the following articles Latin America, Newly industrialized countries (his vehement opposition to Argentina being considered as such), Developing nations, Mexico, BRICS, BRIC, Argentina, Brazil (and his vehement opposition to the claims made in it and to its candidacy as a featured article), Regional power, BRIMC as well the pattern of reversions and voting of a new user who happened to be participating in the exact the same articles and decision making votes: User:Dr.Kerr. If he knew and played with 3RR rules he might well know and play with sockpuppetry.
Given his lack of commitment to teamwork, his vision of wikipedia as "unreal" and "unimportant" (based on his comments above) and his unwillingness to cooperate even though we offered a pacific solution to this discussion, I ask that his case be treated according to all prescribed actions for violators of 3RR and vandalism to the fullest extent.

--Alonso 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

10 days have elapsed since the filing of this case, and not one admin has considered that there was evidence here to justify an IP investigation, let alone to block anybody's account.

Conclusions:

(i) The sockpuppetry accusation is false.

(ii) Alonso and Diegou win.

(iii) Alex Covarrubias loses.

--Diegou 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No this case isn't closed unless an admin explicitly gives an indication it's closed. And there's a huge backlog on SSP, so things are out the window. MER-C 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

MER-C, I believe there are plenty of administrators at the English Knowledge (XXG), and not a single one has paid attention to the recent sockpuppetry cases. This particular debate has been going on for over 11 days. We have asked administrators to check IPs and also to take not of Alex's violations of rules and vanadalism, yet he have recieved no response whatsoever from any administrator at all. Unless action is taken, this will just become a headache and a useless debate. --Alonso 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed by refusing to close it the structure is just feeding the trolls, and not for the first time on wikipedia unfortunately. Encouraging trollish users and discouraging honest editors will have a detrimental effect on wikipedia, SqueakBox 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the future policy of unified login across wiki projects and for privacy concerns, I have requested my user name to be changed to Dúnadan. This, however, does not change any of my contributions. All of the contributions done by J.Alonso have been transferred to the new user account, and the action has been registered at Special:Log/renameuser. Since the change in name has not hidden any of my conttributions (nor the IP addresses), please continue the process of evaluating this case, to the point of verifying the IP addresses that I used as J.Alonso, like I had requested. --Dúnadan Alonso 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Sorry this took so long, as MER-C mentions the backlog here is horrendous. Anyway, Dunadan/J. Alonso are clearly not the same person as Diegou. They have each made substantial contributions, often to different areas, with different styles (including their warning styles - the only thing their warnings have in common is that they use warning templates - well, that is what the templates are for), and, for just one more example, on Dec 5, 2006, Diegou edited at 10:48, 10:58, and 11:08, while Alonso edited at 11:00 twice and 11:01 once - to different articles on different subjects. Complete exoneration (como se dice en Espanol?). --AnonEMouse 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Raveonpraghga

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Regiabeauty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.229.63.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Alonso 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Since the last two months there have been several heated discussions in both Monterrey and Guadalajara articles as some users claim that one city is more important than the other. It seems they were especially concerned with the title Second city or "second most important city of Mexico". User:Raveonpraghga, who claims to be Roberto B. Maya from Guadalajara, had participated in the Talk:Second city discussion. He has a history of violating Knowledge (XXG):Etiquette both here and in the Spanish wikipedia (es:Usuario:Raveonpraghga). I have been insulted by him on several occasions , and so has User:Hseldon10. He vandalized my Spanish wiki User page once (we had a similar long argument at the es:Guadalajara Talk page.

He has insisted on providing undocumented changes and preposterous claims in the Guadalajara, Jalisco and Second city articles (like proposing a "flag" for Guadalajara, even though Mexican municipalities do not have flags but only coats of arms). After a long, long discussion, and when we had finally reached an consensus on Talk:Second city (in spite of this lack of etiquette), in which we agreed to state the (proven) facts about the importance of the two aforementioned cities, he suddenly changed his mind and said he didn't want to participate in the discussion anymore. A couple of days later, a "new" user (User:Regiabeauty)shows up making the same ridiculous arguments and reopening the debate once again.

IP address 68.229.63.236 first signed as Regiabeauty as shown here. (Regia is a nickname for the residents of Monterey; that is, this user is pretending to be from Monterrey, and pretending to be a girl). Then, he actually created the account User:Regiabeauty to continue the discussion pretending to be an "external observer" that happens to make the same preposterous and unhistorical claims Raveonpraghga was making.

By clicking on 68.229.63.236 contibutions, you can clearly see that this anonymous IP address first introduced himself as Roberto Maya (and then Robert Mayan, since he was, presumably, using an automatic translator) here. Keep in mind that Raveonpraghga's real name (according to his User Page) is Roberto B. Maya. Then 68.229.63.236 edited Raveonpraghga's User page adding personal information about himself. Finally, and more obviously, 68.229.63.236 had signed explicitly as Raveonpraghga and here.

IP 68.229.63.236 happens to sign as Raveonpraghga at the Spanish Wiki as shown here. On one occasion I had asked es:Raveonpraghga to stop his repeated ad hominem attacks and to provide reliable sources to his preposterous claims . It was IP 68.229.63.236 who responded to my petition at my talkpage in the Catalan Knowledge (XXG) (of which I am an administrator) and signed as, you guessed it right, Raveonpraghga.

It is plain to see that 68.229.63.236 (probably a static IP address) is Raveonpraghga which happens to be the same IP address used in Regiabeauty's first intervention. He has a long history of ad hominem attacks, and unwillingness to cooperate in discussions both here and in the Spanish wikipedia. Now, he pretends to be another user to restart a long discussion. --Alonso 06:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I also had the same suspicion as J Alonso, and back the accusation that Ravaeonpragha and "Regiabeauty" are sockpuppets. Hari Seldon 16:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

They don't get much clearer than this. On Dec 2, 68.229.63.236 signs a post as Raveonpragha, and on Dec 14, 68.229.63.236 signs a post as Regiabeauty. Regiabeauty blocked, Raveonpragha strongly warned. -- AnonEMouse 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaurasundara

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

SSS108 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Gaurasundara changed his name from Ekantik to Gaurasundara twice: Refs: 01 02

Asked about deleting his profile:

Gaurasundara's first edit on his userpage came from Ekantik's page , Ekantik was the very first person to greet him .

"Gaurasundara" is a well known internet critic of Sathya Sai Baba and under the name of "Ekantik", he is attempting to argue that he is not a POV editor or pusher although all of his edits pertain solely to the controversy sections.

Ekantik secretly attempted to get Freelanceresearch (a Sathya Sai Baba proponent) blocked on Knowledge (XXG): . When one considers that Freelanceresearch is a public critic of Gaurasundara (he also uses this name outside Knowledge (XXG)), then the attempt to get her blocked is understood. SSS108 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

"Ekantik" is my original account. I opened a new account ("Gaurasundara") to make separate contributions to pages connected with Hindu religion and changed my listing on connected project pages, before finding out that sockpuppetry is forbidden by Knowledge (XXG). After finding out that sockpuppetry is frowned upon, I attempted to delete my account with no success, hence my query at WP:HD.

After a thorough reading of WP:SOCK, I discovered that sockpuppetry has legitimate use that coincided with my original motivation in opening another account:

“ ”

A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Knowledge (XXG) might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.

and

“ ”

Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.

After reading how these legitimate uses of sockpuppets was consistent with my original motivations in opening the account, I no longer needed to worry about it and continue to use both accounts for separate purposes legitimately. Hence I replaced my Ekantik membership of certain Knowledge (XXG) projects with my Gaurasundara account although I have not yet removed the relevant userboxes on my userpage. See contributions of Gaurasundara account on articles connected with Hindu religion.

Freelanceresearch is a follower of Sathya Sai Baba who violated WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and behaved disruptively on Talk:Sathya Sai Baba (example). After being asked by Pjacobi to step aside and refrain from continuing off-Wiki arguments, Freelanceresearch refused to do so. JzG (Knowledge (XXG) Administrator) strongly chastised Freelanceresearch for being a single purpose account and thus a POV-pusher (in relation to Sathya Sai Baba article) and warned her with a block. This argument continued at User_talk:Freelanceresearch (example) where Freelanceresearch received a second block warning.

A cursory look at Freelanceresearch's contributions and talk page reveals WP:SPA and POV-pushing in relation to critics of Sathya Sai Baba. For her disruptiveness on Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive6 I filed an incident report at WP:AN/I as SSS108 has exampled above. There is nothing "secret" about it as my contributions and edit history can be viewed by all.

SSS108 is a well known internet proponent and advocate of Sathya Sai Baba (examples of this are too many to list here) and is a friend and colleague of Freelanceresearch in numerous off-Wiki projects related to Sathya Sai Baba. This is the reason for his bringing up of my incident report at WP:AN/I that is completely unrelated to his allegations of (legitimate) sockpuppetry, and which I regard as somewhat frivolous. My contributions show my involvement with many different pages related and unrelated to WP:INCINE, some of which are contentious. As such I will have no hesitation in filing complaints against anybody if I witness disruptive conduct, vandalism and other negative behavior from any editors.

SSS108 alleges that I am not a neutral editor on the basis of "all" my edits to Sathya Sai Baba. I made one edit (diff) that consisted of rewriting sentences to remove POV references, correcting bad grammar and removing a defunct sentence. This edit was reverted by SSS108 twice (diff1) (diff2) with unsatisfactory explanations. The edit in question revolved around a controversy where SSS108 removed a quote by Sacha Kester that was also disputed by other editors (see talk page). SSS108 continued to level allegations of POV-pushing and questioning my neutrality in violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc. on the basis of one cleanup edit.

I believe that I have adequately represented my position. Please inform me if clarifications are necessary. Ekantik 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you are Gaurasundara. This effectively quashes your claims that you are a neutral editor who does not have a POV to push on the Sathya Sai Baba article. Your effusive, prevalent and wholly critical stance against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet effectively invalidates the claims you made on the talk page about being neutral, not being biased and not being a POV pusher. In light of your deprecatory agenda against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, your intention to edit the article under a secret username is reprehensible. Your admission also shows that you engaged in a secretive and vindictive attempt to have a Sai Proponent blocked on Knowledge (XXG). This type of behavior is relevant to your dual accounts in which you list yourself on various WikiProject pages under two names and even greeted yourself as a seperate editor saying, "we're so glad you're here!" . I ask that you provide a full disclosure on both your user pages and stop feigning neutrality in relation to Sathya Sai Baba. I also hope that this inquiry will reveal any other user-names that "Ekantik", aka "Gaurasundara", has used or is using. Thank you. SSS108 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a page to discuss my alleged sockpuppetry. Please keep other issues out of it or discuss them on an appropriate venue such as my talk page. I already mentioned that I have not got around to correcting my participations under various Wikiprojects. I certainly do not intend to edit under two different names.

My intention to participate in the editing of Sathya Sai Baba says nothing about my off-Wiki critical stance as I fully intend to comply with Knowledge (XXG) policies regarding neutrality, vandalism, etc. The article has been badly written, contains poor spelling and poor grammar and is nowhere near the expected standards of an encyclopaedic article or Feature Article status. If I have an agenda with Sathya Sai Baba on Knowledge (XXG), then it is to cleanup the article and provide correct information that is suitable for inclusion in the article. I maintain my neutral stance with Sathya Sai Baba just as I do on all the other pages I edit. As a default POV-pusher himself, SSS108 is not qualified to point these things out.

Again, there is nothing "secretive" about anything I have edited as my full history can be seen on my contributions page. Freelanceresearch was reported for very good reasons (being badly behaved) for which she received two block warnings. Thankfully he has indirectly confirmed his very close connection with her and for bringing up this frivolous issue on a page discussing my alleged sockpuppetry. I trust that this will all come in handy for SSS108's off-wiki activites related to Sathya Sai Baba. Ekantik 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If SSS108 wishes to engage in more frivolous arguments such as the style of a welcome greeting, this was the same greeting template that was given to me on my talk page and which is available for viewing here → {{subst:welcome4|username}} Ekantik 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, your activity on the Sathya Sai Baba article (as well as a related issue on the Shashi Tharoor article) is contentious. The fact that you are a well-known critic who viciously, systematically and unremittingly attacks and defames Sathya Sai Baba on the internet does not argue well for your alleged NPOV position. Your presence on the Sathya Sai Baba article is not a coincidence and it is very difficult to assume good-faith considering your extra-Knowledge (XXG) agenda against Sathya Sai Baba. People who create two accounts, for whatever reason, normally do not greet themselves as if they are a different person. You did. SSS108 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits on the Shashi Tharoor article were also cleanups, removal of POV references and connected with proper formatting, (example1) (example2) (example3) (example4) (example5). The only "contention" was brought forward by SSS108 who argued for the removal of references to Sathya Sai Baba because of unreliable sources (see relevant section of talk page). The information about Sathya Sai Baba was not inserted by me, but by another editor.

My NPOV standing in relation to Sathya Sai Baba has not yet been demonstrated, so please refrain from making judgements on the basis of one edit that appears to be part-supported by current editors (diff) and which has been fully explained above. When it comes to assuming good faith, SSS108 is a default POV-pusher who has declared himself as an advocate and proponent of Sathya Sai Baba (example1) (example2) and also carries out an extra-Knowledge (XXG) agenda that viciously, systematically and unremittingly attacks and defames critics and apostates of Sathya Sai Baba. As this is not a discussion about off-Wiki projects, it should be noted that several editors have expressed dissatisfaction with SSS108's edits and find it hard to assume good faith in his editing capabilities (example1) (example2 (example3) (example4) and too many more examples to be listed here. He was also cited for "disruptive edit warring on Sathya Sai Baba" with the result of being blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Beyond this, I thus repeat my statement that SSS108 is the last person who should be pointing out edits that allegedly violate WP:AGF when his actions of assuming bad faith and related statements are themselves violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

I strongly suspect that SSS108's complaint about my alleged (legitimate) sockpuppetry has effectively collapsed due to my pointing out of legitimate uses above, and thus we are going to go around in circles repeating the same things in pointless and frivolous argumentation that have nothing to do with the original complaint. I strongly suggest to administrators to quickly resolve this issue so that we can all get on with our business. Ekantik 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

With twenty-two blogs to his name publicly attacking Sathya Sai Baba, devotees and proponents (using over 35 online user-names) and thousands of vicious, defamatory, sexually-explicit and grotesque public attacks against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, I think I am entirely justified in not assuming good-faith in Ekantik/Gaurasundara. He is also directly promoted, solicited and published by the largest Anti-Sai-Baba Site on the internet run by Andries. Ekantik also publicly boasted about being a prime participant in a newspaper article that attacked Sathya Sai Baba. All of this proves that he is not neutral and his agenda was thankfully exposed before he took it any further incognito. I have said all I needed to say and consider this discussion ended. SSS108 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully SSS108 has decided to end this discussion with his last and final statement. As I am required by the suspect notes to respond to all accusations, I would like to point out patently false information in this final statement. I own and irregularly maintain only ten blogs that are directly and indirectly connected with critically analyzing Sathya Sai Baba, and only one of these is updated with any form of regularity. As SSS108 is a devoted proponent and advocate of SSB, it is his opinion that my criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is "vicious, defamatory, sexually-explicit and grotesque". Furthermore these were created prior to my joining Knowledge (XXG). I may similarly draw attention to SSS108's owning of many adoring blogs and websites in favor of Sathya Sai Baba as well as his numerous defamatory blogs against critics and apostates of Sathya Sai Baba and discussion forum posts also (I have not counted them all). I see no need to do this because SSS108's continual use of Knowledge (XXG) as a battleground is nonproductive and leads nowhere except to hurt the project rather than help it, and he has been warned about this several times. He continues to assume bad faith on the basis of one cleanup edit that is not evidential of any alleged agenda on my part. As I have already stated my case above I see no need for further repetition in regards to my consistent tendency to perform cleanups and maintenance on several different articles, which I will continue to do with a view to helping the Knowledge (XXG) project.

Regarding my alleged "boast" about being a prime participant in a newspaper article that was critical of Sathya Sai Baba, this is blatantly false and my comments were taken grossly out of context. If any agenda has been "exposed" I would say that it is SSS108's; his continued determination to maintain a vendetta discussing many extraneous topics beyond his original complaint of alleged sockpuppetry is proof of his continued violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DISRUPT. Again I strongly suggest to administrators to quickly resolve this issue so that we can all get on with our business. ekantiK 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are so neutral and so dedicated to a NPOV, please explain why you created a public blog specifically attacking me and my edits on Knowledge (XXG)? Thank you for admitting that you are a critic and opponent of Sathya Sai Baba. SSS108 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you had already said everything you wanted to say, and your last comment was your final statement? SSS108 I am getting tired of having to repeat this to you: This is a page to discuss your complaint of alleged sockpuppetry, which I have shown above is completely legitimate. Your complaint has effectively collapsed. Any other points that you bring up that betray your malicious agenda in regards to off-wiki activities is in violation of several Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and policies including WP:DE. Do you accept my explanations of sockpuppetry and withdraw them? If not, please explain why. If yes, kindly maintain a vow of silence. ekantiK 04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is to inform reviewers that I updated my userpage a few days ago to correctly reflect my current affiliations with one or more Wikiprojects. The userpage on the Gaurasundara account remains unchanged (reflecting Wikiproject participation for that account). Ekantik 01:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

It looks like the accused has admitted the charge, has made the substance of the discussion linked from the main userpage at User:Ekantik/Sockpuppet, and the original accuser is not pursuing the claim of sock puppetry any more. The other issues being discussed here will be better looked at in the ongoing Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2.

Meanwhile, I would request that Gaurasundara and Ekantik use the {{User Alternate Acct}} and {{User Alt Acct Master}} templates on their user pages as suggested in WP:SOCK. One is an active editor of Hinduism related articles and the other is an active editor of India related articles - while there certainly is a difference, it is hard to say these subjects are not related. This does not seem to be a strict requirement, but is strongly recommended, as this issue may come up again. AnonEMouse 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Piratesofsml

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Smith Mountain Lake Pirates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.152.9.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TheDOC1958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dos lingo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SiIenced Iucidity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User Vary sucked my cock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.68.248.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Vary | Talk 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Sorry if this is a little long; I haven't done one of these before.

Piratesofsml was blocked last week for edit warring and disruption on Thomas Jefferson and the associated talk page (see AN/I posting on original incident.

The user then began using a series of IP addresses over several days - primarily 63.152.9.217 (talk · contribs), but also a number of dynamic AOL IPs, to continue disruption of Talk:Thomas Jefferson (in particular this section). New user User:TheDOC1958 also weighed in on the discussion, making one edit to express agreement with Piratesofsml. That account hasn't been back since, but I'm including it here for completeness's sake.

Around the same time, the IP also made a number of edits to Smith Mountain Lake. The IP resumed editing that article today, making the same reverts, and began leaving comments on Talk:George W. Bush, which were eventually removed as trolling. New account User:Smith Mountain Lake Pirates assisted the IP on both articles. Piratesofsml = User:63.152.9.217 = User:Smith Mountain Lake Pirates. Quid quo pro. Currently, User:Piratesofsml is blocked for two weeks, ending 21:19 GMT on December 22, 2006. User:Smith Mountain Lake Pirates is requesting unblocking, claiming not to be User:Piratesofsml. -- Vary | Talk 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:TheDOC1958 has returned, adding the text and quote to George W. Bush that sock User:Smith Mountain Lake Pirates was advocating adding to the article on the talk page before that thread was removed as trolling and the account blocked. If it wasn't obvious before, it is now, and I'm blocking the account. -- Vary | Talk 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the below claims that Dos lingo is not a sock of Piratesofsml, I refer anyone who has doubts to the history page of Doberman Pinscher, particularly edits made in mid to late December of last year, which shows cooperation between Dos lingo, Piratesofsml, and the various IP addresses that have been associated with many of the sock accounts above. There's more, but that's the most obvious and the easiest to outline here. -- Vary | Talk 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the Doberman Pinscher page I can see what you are saying.However I also see several other users including your self that have contributed to that article.I really don't think You are a sock puppet of Piratesofsml nor do I see any evidence that Dos lingo would be either,Best regards. Some one who has been watching.63.215.26.205 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rant by sockpuppetee

(remove rant)

piratesofsml =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.33 (talk) 11 January 2007

Ok we got a confirmation that he indeed use sockpupet. Something has to be done :). Esurnir 00:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

(remove more rants) 209.244.42.105 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just check the page history for a list of IPs used by user. Patstuart 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All the socks were blocked in early January. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:67.162.108.91

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Juda1800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Catchthedream 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Nearly identical edits to Hebrew Theological College; IP address also vandalized the article for(its closely related high school,) Ida Crown Jewish Academy.

(May be a school IP? The first edit recorded was legitimate.)

Comments

Conclusions

Not a sock puppet as such - IPs are usually encouraged to get accounts after editing as an IP. Also hasn't edited other than Dec. 6. No action. -- AnonEMouse 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthurluver

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Dnobsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dumbp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dudewheresmyovem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Pentasyllabic 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Users have repeatedly and consecutively vandalized Sasuke Uchiha by replacing page with various other fictional characters: .

Comments

i think user:Stusasd is also one of the sockpupets as he did the samething to the article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

They're all single-edit vandalism accounts, except user:Stusasd which is a multiple-edit vandalism account. Kind of a waste of clicks, but all blocked. --AnonEMouse 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Linux monster

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Linux monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Stanlys212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WatchedHim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yo r W rst Ni ht are (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ScienceArtz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Smurf noodle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Dall ben 08:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

On 17:51, 22 November 2006, I nominated the article Bryan Brandenburg for deletion after discussing the page with another editor (see the now closed AfD discussion page). This was my first AfD, but I tried to research the guidelines and follow procedure as closely as possible. On 22:12, 25 November 2006, Linux monster (which was a brand new user then and now is clearly an SPA) posted a response to the discussion. I replied, stating my views, participating in the discussion. Linux monster seemed to know more about the article's subject, so I asked for more information. Linux monster also posted several links, which I examined and summarized on the article's talk page (now archived).

After I posted my analysis of Linux monster's submitted links, another brand new user, WatchedHim, altered my talk entry on the subject's talk page (see history at 05:44, 1 December 2006). I reverted the edits and informed WatchedHim of Knowledge (XXG) talk page guidelines on her/his talk page. Shortly after my revert of WatchedHim's edits, yet another brand new user (Stanlys212) pasted the reverted WatchedHim edits as a new section of the talk page, now available here.

After a previous editor to the Brandenburg article added his voice to the discussion (18:27, 27 November 2006), yet another brand new user (Smurf noodle) chimed in with a "ditto" response. The number of brand new users contributing seemed a bit suspicious and I was concerned that the closing admin might only look at the number of votes instead of the value of the discussion. So, I sent a message to another AfD participant, Doc Tropics, expressing my concern (see our discussion on his talk page).

After I wrote Doc Tropics about the brand new user accounts, he posted suspected SPA notices after the contributions of the brand new accounts (16:06, 1 December 2006). Shortly thereafter (18:01, 1 December 2006), Stanlys212 posted a similar such notice, questioning my (Dallben) legitimacy (even though I was also actively participating in other pages--mostly gnoming, I admit). Doc Tropics reverted the notice, citing bad faith and a bit of an argument ensued between them (see this discussion on Doc Tropics's talk page).

The AfD discussion was relisted to incite more discussion (23:10, 1 December 2006). After relisting, Stanlys212 actively recruited other editors to participate in the AfD (see his contribs from 22:57, 3 December 2006 through 23:18, 3 December 2006). Doc Tropics noticed the behavior and posted a notice about the activity for the supervising administrator (see the AfD discussion 00:51, 4 December 2006). After the posting Stanlys212 ceased this activity, but Linux monster picked right up where Stanlys212 left off (see his contribs from 00:09, 5 December 2006 to 00:57, 5 December 2006). The recruited editors mostly voted in favor of the article and the discussion was closed and kept by an admin whom Linux monster recruited (11:20, 5 December 2006).

After the AfD discussion closed and since I'd done a lot of research on the article's subject, I created a user subpage (which I've since had speedy deleted) to attempt to rewrite the article (as directed by the discussion). Shortly thereafter, Linux monster contacted the admin that closed the AfD (see his talk page). In that discussion, Linux monster makes an odd connection between me (Dallben) and Brandenburg's former employer, Zygote Media Group, suggesting some kind of bad blood between the two--of which I can find no evidence. Curious about this reasoning, I browsed through the history of the Zygote Media Group page, looking for similar SPAs. In so doing, I encoutered ScienceArtz who claims to be Brandenburg and, in a discussion with an admin (01:41, 30 November 2006) also, curiously, claims that I was connected to Zygote after seeing the deletion nomination.

Curiously, on my user subpage (which I should have kept around--hopefully you admins are capable of still looking at it), I cited a link to a webpage that is apparently controlled by Brandenburg to promote one of his books. I was subsequently surprised to discover that the page was changed the same day I accessed it. You can compare versions by looking at the cached and current versions of this Yahoo! search. It was after this change that I discovered I was being monitored by Linux monster and so I speedy deleted my rewrite subpage.

Today at 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC), I received a suspicious note and apparent threat on my user talk page, posted by yet another brand new user account, Yo r W rst Ni ht are. Since I am new to wikipedia and since the suspected sock-puppets are the only users showing any animosity toward me, I can only conclude that this new account corresponds to the group.

Summary

The edits of the suspected accounts occur at disjoint time intervals, exhibiting bursts of activity during specific periods (Users Stanlys212 and Linux monster are the most obvious).
Each of the accounts is clearly single purpose, making no edits outside of this issue (ScienceArtz excepted, although s/he arguably may be considered SPA by promoting Brandenburg).
The editor recruitement strategy of Stanlys212 and Linux monster are surprisingly similar and occur one after the other, respectively.
Linux monster and ScienceArtz (who claims to be Brandenburg) both seem to possess similar inside information about bad-blood between Brandenburg and his former company. Both accounts connect my account with that company.
Linux monster has clearly been monitoring my user page, but a separate webpage that is administered by Brandenburg was changed in response to my edits.
Users Stanlys212, Linux monster, ScienceArtz and Yo r W rst Ni ht are all exhibit similar animosity toward my user account and my participation in the AfD.
Brandenburg is the most likely individual interested in affecting the AfD--other editors in the discussion observed that the article was composed by Brandenburg himself. Thus, he has the clearest modus operandi.
Several of the suspected sock puppets clearly had an effect on the AfD outcome, since the majority of editors contributing to the discussion were recruited by them. In addition, the AfD was closed by an admin that was recruited by one of the suspected sock puppet accounts.

Finally, sorry if this is terribly long—this is the first time I've written one of these (I hope it's the last time too). Thanks for your patience.

Dall ben 08:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional Breaking Evidence

A checkuser request that I issued confirmed that Linux monster, Stanlys212, Yo r W rst Ni ht are, and ScienceArtz are the same person. It also confirmed that Smurf noodle and WatchedHim are the same person. The check could not confirm a relation between the two groups.

Dall ben 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Conclusions

First, a disclaimer. I was asked to participate or comment on the AfD in question on my talk page in what is now User_talk:AnonEMouse/Archive_6#AFd_Request, originally by User:Linux monster (don't know why he chose me), later by User:Doc Tropics (who had interacted with me before). I didn't get to the AfD until after it closed, and didn't express a particularly strong opinion either way, so don't consider myself biased, but thought it should be mentioned.

Now the closing. Per Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Linux monster the case is proven. I will block all but one account. Smurf noodle and WatchedHim are nont-particularly-useful-single-edit accounts, so I am not deeply troubled by the check user being inconclusive linking them to the earlier ones, and will consider them part of the same family. I am choosing User:ScienceArtz to leave unblocked, as the oldest account, and the only one which is not a single purpose account.

I am, however, deeply worried by the apparent threat from User:Yo r W rst Ni ht are, in combination to the disruptive sockpuppetry, so came quite close to blocking absolutely all of them, stopping only due to noticing that they have been inactive for a month, and ScienceArtz did make some apparently useful edits elsewhere. Threats are absolutely not acceptable. If there are any other threats from this account or sockpuppets of this account, it will be blocked indefinitely, and further sockpuppets may be blocked on sight. --AnonEMouse 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Lizstjames

(for more recent diffs relating to confirmed puppets, please see Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee.

Reason

To gather more info on inconclusive results of Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee, I am requesting another check to include older users and policy abuse. I may have accidentally reported a puppet to be a master and missed the master account upon first try. Peacekpr 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

diffs

67.140.86.158 made edit that is same promotional material as posted by Lizstjames.
After promotional material was rv, 67.140.86.158 posted same again
Same material again rv by Midsyndicate who claims to be Edward Douglas (band founder) which shows that he is editing his own bio and also indicates his disfavor of former partner.
162.40.19.208 refers to "disgruntled former business partner" in summary. ...
Skinny_McGee's numerous reversions and removal of verifiable sources also are summarized with "disgruntled business partner" which indicate that Skinny McGee and 162.40.19.208 and Midsyndicate, if not same, are all working under same agenda.
Dionyseus and SkinnyMcGee kept reverting this report even as I was attempting to post it.

Comments

Once this is done, I intend to evaluate material in article and either request mediation or arbitration. Peacekpr 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

Self-promotion: Article is rife with self-promotion on the part of current band members and cross-linking between businesses they deal with. Looking back further in history there is strong suspicion that it may have begun with User:Lizstjames (band promoter who is referenced on the band's website), User:Midsyndicate who claims to be band founder Edward Douglas, which shows that he is editing his own bio and also indicates his disfavor of former partner, and by certain IPs above ALL pointing to Chardon, Ohio, home base of the subject Midnight_Syndicate article.
Altering/removal of cited materials: references cited by users have been removed or context altered in order to present a deceptive view of actual events. They claim it is defamatory, however, upon further review it appears true, just not flattering (further explanation below).
The talk page was also archived by Skinny McGee but done so in a manner (using improper "\" instead of "/" that hides diffs and makes it impossible to link back to current talks (also claiming it to be "inactive" material).
Others, if not socks, appear to at least be meatpuppets of either Midsyndicate or Skinny McGee.

Futher explanation

This band appears to be involved in a legal dispute with a former member, who has indicated that the current members are using the Press and Wiki to try to alter history. Seems to have begun here on Wiki in Nov 2005, then picked up again in Feb 2006, same times as Midnight Syndicate announced and began to promote a cd that is alleged to be similar to one that their former producer released two years prior. Other items cited indicate that current members are trying to alter the past credits of their former member/producer. Former member also alleges some issues with band founder misappropriating album royalties and claiming work he did not do. This has been referenced at an external site and throughout the article's talk page.
My belief is that Midsyndicate, Skinny_McGee or his sock/meat-puppets are using bias, sensationalsim and undue weight, in presenting current projects and reordering past events or making the past seem insignificant in order to alter current perspective (see my post on article talk page).
I also believe that GuardianZ (also sockpuppeting) may be editing to balance weight and restore credits of former member. Citations by this opposing side that include older press articles, radio interviews, and copyright documents (published prior to band disagreement) support the claim that current members are now ingaging in deceptive editing.
However, the citations presented by GuardianZ are not favorable to current members—as they do show a definite difference between what was then publicized by two of the current members as fact and what is now being publicized by the same two current members—and that degree of alteration is initself unfavorable.
Therefore, it is my belief that the current members will continually seek to revert, and that the former will continually seek to edit to present the past as it was initially recorded. Peacekpr 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate seems to be looking into this issue far more thoroughly with a team of arbitrators than one administrator could. That arbitration seems to be close to closing with active decisions. So will close this to defer to them. --AnonEMouse 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Skinny_McGee

Suspected sockpuppets

Suspected Sockpuppet IPs The IPs below used for editing this article, to avoid 3RR during which time it was also being reverted by the above names, point to Chardon, Ohio (home city of Midnight_Syndicate the subject of the disputed article Midnight_Syndicate). The city of Chardon is referenced by the Star Beacon (Ashtabula, OH), October 30, 2006, which is a reference that was posted by SkinnyMcGee and shown to be the band’s address on their official website.

3RR (3x to 6x) diffs Latest edits on November 17-18, aside from being 3RR, also show that SkinnyMcGee to be tag-teaming as Pumpkinhead5 to avoid 3RR and that Dionyseus helps SkinnyMcGee in making reverts but does not try to discuss or mediate either.

02:23, 17 November 2006 Skinny McGee
03:21, 17 November 2006 Skinny McGee
04:13, 17 November 2006 Skinny McGee
13:41, 17 November 2006 Pumpkinhead5
21:40, 17 November 2006 Dionyseus
23:20, 18 November 2006 Skinny McGee

Shows SkinnyMcGee to be 67.140.91.34 to avoid 3RR. See "Reasons for suspicions" below.

15:29, 9 November 2006 Skinny McGee
15:49, 9 November 2006 67.140.91.34
23:52, 9 November 2006 Skinny McGee

Shows SkinnyMcGee tag-teaming with various other names and Chardon, Ohio IPs to avoid 3RR. See "Reasons for suspicions" below.

02:00, 1 November 2006 Skinny McGee
02:10, 1 November 2006 67.140.91.34
04:01, 1 November 2006 67.140.91.34
15:00, 1 November 2006 Defender99
19:18, 1 November 2006 Skinny McGee
17:06, 2 November 2006 Skinny McGee

12:27, 20 October 2006 Star525
17:50, 20 October 2006 Indigo1032
23:05, 20 October 2006 67.140.92.106
23:07, 20 October 2006 67.140.92.106
12:38, 21 October 2006 Pumpkinhead5

16:09, 18 October 2006 67.140.80.142
17:42, 18 October 2006 67.140.80.142
19:30, 18 October 2006 67.140.80.142
22:10, 18 October 2006 67.140.80.142
22:11, 18 October 2006 67.140.80.142
22:15, 18 October 2006 67.140.80.142

Reasons for suspicions

9 November 2006: 67.140.91.34 makes post but forgets to sign in and replies in summary: ‘’“I was trying to add the link to Haunted Attraction in the body of the article as a reference because another editor disputes the use of the phrase 'the standard', but I guess I did it wrong. Sorry!”’’
The editors arguing over the above mentioned reference were SkinnyMcGee and GuardianZ on Talk:Midnight_Syndicate
GuardianZ makes edit.
SkinnyMcGee reverts immediately afterwards (with one minute).
67.140.91.34 also removes Rfc requested by GuardianZ to help. No wonder there were never any comments on the page by any other editors!
SkinnyMcGee and 67.140.91.34 revert twice in 10 minutes
SkinnyMcGee reverts back to link spam that was reverted by User:Heligoland but completely alters article as 67.140.91.34 with deceptive edits.

More past abuse Further instances of suspected sockpuppetry (also vandalism) for the above include:

69.177.28.38 who removed a post that referenced Nox Arcana (a band that was formed by one of the former members of Midnight Syndicate) , then immediately jumped over to the Midnight Syndicate page to post defamatory comments against Joseph Vargo of Nox Arcana.

and after it was reverted, he then placed this longer defamatory statement

Adding User:Lizstjames to the list

67.140.86.158 made edit that is same promotional material as posted by Lizstjames.
After promotional material was rv, 67.140.86.158 posted same again
Same material again rv by Midsyndicate who claims to be Edward Douglas (band founder) which shows that he is editing his own bio and also indicates his disfavor of former partner.
162.40.19.208 refers to "disgruntled former business partner" in summary. ...
Skinny_McGee's numerous reversions and removal of verifiable sources also are summarized with "disgruntled business partner" which indicate that Skinny McGee and 162.40.19.208 and Midsyndicate, if not same, are all working under same agenda.

Comments It is suspected that SkinnyMcGee is actually Edward Douglas User:Midsyndicate editing his own Wiki bio (presumably under one or more of the above names and certainly matching one or more IP). SkinnyMcGee keeps referring to a "disgruntled business partner" in his summaries, which lead me to believe that he is personally involved.

I feel there's enough here to make a good case for my suspicions. Please vist my user page for a more detailed report and comments on the edit war. Peacekpr 07:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that SkinnyMcGee has multiple sockpuppets, some sleeper socks as well. Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee. I am still waiting on results for some of the other user names and IPs. Because I began this investigation later, I may have to return another request for some of the older names that remain suspect. Peacekpr 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

False, User:Skinny_McGee does not have multiple sockpuppets, only one, User:Defender99. A look at the edit history for User:Defender99 shows only one edit. User:Skinny_McGee explains who User:Defender99 is: . Dionyseus 21:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Further history indicates another possible sock or meat puppet. This may require a new report. Peacekpr 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I was reviewing Knowledge (XXG):Suspected_sock_puppets and it clearly states that "cases of sockpuppetry older than one week are useless." Almost every one of the names you list as my suspected sock puppets falls well outside this standard (your most recent addition hasn't edited in over nine months). I've looked up the most recent edits of each -

Lizstjames - February 19, 2006
Plooa - October 22, 2006
Indigo1032 - October 22, 2006
Star525 - October 20, 2006
Pumpkinhead5 - November 17, 2006
Defender99 - November 1, 2006
Midsyndicate - February 20, 2006

So, not only are they not my sock puppets, all but one don't even qualify for investigation. - Skinny McGee 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

User:CRWXT

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

CRWXTr7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--AMK152 (Talk • Contributions Send message) 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The puppet master was recently blocked after vandalism at List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. The same type of vandalism was used by account CRWXTr7.

Comments

Conclusions

CRWXTr7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indef blocked on 28 Jan. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Liam7

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Liam7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Imogen4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Waylander.one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Chris 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hoverfish 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

There is very stong evidence that User:Liam7 has recently created 3 sockpuppets for the purpose of voting on the Talk:Meher Baba page, beginning with two under the heading "Call for a Vote on Townshend Issue" and adding a third one further down the page on a second vote initiated by Liam7 without prior discussion.

Imogen4 and Waylander.one appear to be sockpuppets created on December 2, 2006 for the purpose of voting. See . HectorTroy appears to have been added on December 3 for the vote further down the page.

The IP address of Liam7 is 203.26.122.12. See User talk:203.26.122.12. This is known because Liam7 accidentally referred to his own remarks on the Talk:Meher Baba page under the 203.26.122.12 address without signing in, and then appears to have concocted a story to cover it up. The user 203.26.122.12, or someone using that IP can be found in the history of its talk page removing warnings about vandalism and harrassment. So all of the complaints of abuse are not immediately represented on the page.

Liam7 appears to have created exotic personalities for two of the apparent sockpuppets. I quote here from Talk:Meher Baba.

Imogen is using a computer that has been used by other people. She told me she forgot to log on when she wrote the first message, then logged on, clicked Edit again, and changed the numbers that had appeared when she clicked the 'your signature with timestamp' previously when she hadnt logged on. She is very bright, but very busy. Oh she is real, tall, slim hips, green eyes, graceful but strong too. Yes Imogen exists. The reason the IP user 203.26.122.12 has a history is that as I said whoever this was used this office at some previous time. --Liam7 09:51, 3 December 2006.

As for Waylander, well he is an old soul, who trys his hand at anything and usually does very well. We meet, us three and discuss matters over a good red wine. So he's entitled to vote. I would call him a 'Baba liker'. Not a man to cross Im afraid. Big man. Im here in defence of my esoteric wayfarers to defend against these outrageous allegations. Esp since I got them involved, sort off. --Liam7 09:55, 3 December 2006.

Waylander just called me to say that he tried to fix the numbering of Imogens vote, as it wasnt reading correctly. He wisely gave up this attempt, being somewhat computer challenged. Having read the above fuss he thought this might be important. --Liam7 10:10, 3 December 2006

More evidence that User:Liam7 is the source of these suspected sockpuppets is that Liam7 removed the original suspicion of sockpuppetry warning templates on December 4, 2006 from both Imogen4 and Waylander.one user pages almost immediately after they were placed. See .

Chris 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that there may be a second, private computer involved, as the suspected puppet "Imogen4" wrote about "Liam7": You will see my computer is about 7 kms from his place. In my opinion Liam7 felt cornered and went to a public computer (Southern Systems, SA Government) and made up the rest from there. The past edits of IP 203.26.122.12 do not seem connected to Liam7, in style or in topic of interest. Also if Liam7 had experience of all these previous edits, he would have known better. Hoverfish 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

On December 5, 2006 Liam7 added a note to Talk:Meher Baba that his actual IP is 203.221.55.142. To see the history of that IP go here: Chris 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On the 17th of Dec. a new user, User:Trojan.Hector appeared for one edit only (see ). I don't know what to make of it, but this "new user" expressed support for one of Liam7's arguments. Hoverfish Talk 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. The Ip of Liam7 is not the one quoted above 203.26.122.12. It is 203.221.55.142. See discussion page re note to Chris. It is also well known, because I have made it so, that Imogen4's computer, when used without signing on, comes up with 203.26.122.12. Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. This number 203.221.55.142. is not generated from a public computer. These computers (Southern Systems, SA Government) are not public. Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. Australian slang is used commonly in ....duh...Australia. This is not evidence. Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. The little marks -- appear on these computers when the 'signature with timestamp' is clicked. It may be an anomoly where you are from but watch this, --Liam7 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I just clicked the 'signature with timestamp'. The computers at (Southern Systems, SA Government) where Waylander and Imogen work do the same.

Imogen and Waylander have been involved in Baba for sometime. they know more than many editors about this topic. They have recently signed on to Knowledge (XXG). People have to start somewhere....or do you want a litle exclusive club? where you can do what you like. Lets get the paronoia to acceptable levels.

Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. I removed the sockpuppet signs as they were slurs on these people. OK now that I know policy they will remove thme in the correct time. I will not also edit any of their stuff, even though they said OK. Watch the new history. they will edit from different computers to mine, using their mnames. Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. Someone above wrote. 'Liam7 appears to have created exotic personalities for two of the apparent sockpuppets.' Oh for pitys sake, is your life so unexotic. The web can self perpetuate rubbish by referencing other sites spouting the same rubbish. Show me real evidence, not Nah Nah na na na fluff. Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. Hector.Troy ??? never meet him! Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. Hooverfish says 'Also if Liam7 had experience of all these previous edits, he would have known better. Hoverfish' Ahhh hello theres another way to view this, Liam wasnt there. Imogen didnt log on. There was an old user with history ON THAT computer. Hooverfish why dont you cross reference Chris on this one and thereby make it a fact. Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. Whole conversations put in as fact. What for? Evidence of slang? Is that a crime too? Imogens from Norway originally, she dosnt do slang too well. Thats obvious. This proves nothing. Busted. Falsehood rebuked in above evidence. Above it is written 'There is very stong evidence that User:Liam7 has recently created 3 sockpuppets for the purpose of voting on the...' Exactly where is this evidence?? Show me the evidence Liam7 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional material.

This is from the discussion apge.

Did you notice you have -- before your name? Watch out Hooverfish knows this means you are a sockpuppet Liam7 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My user name is Hoverfish and I do not think you are in a position to know what I know or what I think. I know Nemonoman to be a long time editor and I do not know or think he is a sock puppet of himself. Hoverfish 08:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Case proven. The 3 accused sock puppet accounts are clearly single purpose accounts made to participate in the straw poll - they have made no contributions to any other subject. If by chance they are from different actual human beings recruited by Liam7, then they're the definitive case of meat puppets, and in something as unambiguous as this, arbcom has ruled we can treat them similarly. In any case, they're accounts created for the single purpose of disruption of a straw poll. Blocking all 3. --AnonEMouse 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:mlc409

Suspected sockpuppeteer

mlc409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Gordon39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Neuro2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

IrishGuy 14:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

mlc409 and Ichbinbored are the authors of the hoax article Janicism. During the AfD, they seem to have trouble remembering which of them is which ascribing behavior to one account that actually happened with the other. mlc409 claimed that he would scan a newspaper article . Soon after, the scan showed up. Later, Ichbinbored refered to the article that he claimed mlc409 scanned . In fact, it was Ichbinbored who uploaded it yet they both continued to speak of it as something mlc409 did. Gordon39 is a brand new account that immediately nominated mlc409 for adminship. IrishGuy 14:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It's quite evident the user mlc409 has created these alter-egos in a desperate attempt to support his worthless contributions and nominations. The validity of account Gordon39 is also questionable. Bungle44 15:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not a sock puppet. Look at mine and mlc409's contributions. He has written an article on speedcuffs, as he happens to know a lot about police equipment. I wrote an article on Riddlesdown High School because I go there. I don't know about Gordon39. But I can tell you, I am actually a completely different person. Ichbinbored 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mlc409 didn't create the speedycuffs article...an editor named Mawich did. In fact, his only edits to that article were to revert vandalism by the same IP that keeps showing up on the Janicism AfD...ten minutes after it happened so it's pretty clear he wasn't simply patrolling the recent changes. How oddly convenient that he just knew to pop over to that article and find some vandalism. IrishGuy 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Some other things that might help. This person has signed an edit of his as mlc409 (and another too) (though the edit was removed, mlc409 later wrote in the same thing), and created the vandalism which mlc409 reverted. He has removed hoax tags from the Janicism article as well. slippered sleep 17:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Notice that the recent edits on this very page were signed by mlc409, but were by 82.43.105.204, the same address I previously mentioned. slippered sleep 19:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am adding Neuro2112 to the mix as he suddenly showed up and his first edit was to prod an article I authored. IrishGuy 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well what can I say? You're wasting your time. MLC409 & ichbinbored are different accounts owned by different people. I do not own ichbinbored, I can guarantee you. And this will be shown purely by I.P. address checks I'm sure. Don't waste your time pursuing this! mlc409
I will tell you once again, I EXIST. Neuro2112 is not a sockpuppet either, if your userpage has been vandalised 107 times then it is completely likely that ONE of your articles will be edited by someone else. This is just paranoia induced by edits. I have explained how the newspaper article came into being, and this seems to be the only reason for you thinking that I am a sockpuppet. Thnak you. Ichbinbored 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to find out if I am a sockpuppet, run Checkuser. And why are there only 3 suspected sockpuppets here, while on the link on mlc409s userpage it shows 24? Run checkuser and settle this once and for all. I am fed up with being accused of not existing. Ichbinbored 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ichbinbored fessed up to the fake image on Irishguy's talk page, which was enough evidence (for me, at least) to ban both Ichbinbored and mlc409 for a month (only reason that I didn't ban them for longer is that they have made other contributions, and aren't single-purpose accounts). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

The two main ones are almost certainly different people, since they both edited at 08:13 - Ichinbored, 08:14 - Mlc409, 08:15 - Ichinbored on December 3, 2006. They're clearly friends, collaborators, and somewhat confused, but different people. Blocking Gordon39 as a vandalism-only account, sockpuppet or not. Neuro2112 has made a misguided PROD, but that isn't clear cut vandalism, and hasn't contributed anything to relate to one of these. AnonEMouse 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jorge Cervantes

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jorge Cervantes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

(Cannotflowerseedlingswith1212 13:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC))

Evidence

Shortly after a bad edit to the Cannabis article at (the references where badly syntaxed and with the attempted removal and critic of specific citations - the Greg Green ones) the author, Jorge Cervantes (who has an article here about him) was challanged in the discussion, his edits reverted, but strangely enough the User Chondrite begins by responding to questions original asked to Cervantes and now has edited the Greg Green article with an article for deletion tag. Is the user Chondrite a sockpuppet for Jorge Cervantes who maybe did not want to use his real name anymore? Although entitled to it, obviously the outcome of this conclusion will probably have an impact on that article's status.

Comments

This doesn't seem like a sockpuppet case, just an editor agreeing with another one. There's no evidence that really shows anything else is going on. -Amarkov _edits 15:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Chondrite

This seems to be another frivolous accusation by a suspected sockpuppet of user Simonapro (see Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Simonapro), with no evidence and no notification. Chondrite 09:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

The edit in question was in June. This report was filed in December. There must be a statute of limitations for this sort of thing. AnonEMouse 03:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Chadbryant

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

DXRAW 21:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

IP has been removing information against consensus on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling he is trying to WP:OWN which is also a trait of Chadbryant. Also has been not WP:CIVIL

Comments

Even assuming your accusations towards Chadbryant are true, which I do not think they are, having the same character traits is absolutely no evidence towards being a sockpuppet. -Amarkov _edits 15:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to tell Chadbryant that. I don't log onto Knowledge (XXG) for a couple of days, and guess what I find on my user page when I return? A sockpuppet tag with an accusation of me being another person which I clearly am not... --Inara Junkie 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is another in a very long line of tactics being employed by DXRAW in an attempt to harass me. This user has consistently refused to assume good faith, has blindly reverted my edits to several articles simply because I have made them (witness his blind reverts to Vinny Appice and Cozy Powell after I revoved redundant categories for both), and has proposed deletion for at least one article (Rollen Stewart) simply because I did some cleanup on the article. It should be noted that the IP address in question is a proxy open to any and all users of AOL. - Chadbryant 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is "harrassing" you. You have repeatedly removed references to professional wrestling events out of sports arena entries. Just because you have become disinterested and disheartened by the behavior of others on Knowledge (XXG) regarding professional wrestling does not give you the authority to remove it from Knowledge (XXG) entirely. In a sense you are no different than those who have committed, or attempted to commit, genocide, in that you are trying to remove what you do not like to see. Though I can not speak for said user, looking at the behavior you have demonstrated I would assume that he began to revert the articles because you gave no justification for your behavior, did not attempt to reason or explain your behavior on the talk pages as others would try to do, you have a history of negative behavior on Knowledge (XXG) as shown through your contributions page and thus it can be construed you are reverting in bad faith, and you do not listen to or attempt to interact with those users with whom you are causing trouble and problems, i.e. you delete comments from your talk page yet according to your contributions page when others delete yours from their talk pages you place them back in.

In summary your behavior leaves a lot to be questioned and your accusations leave nothing but a line of negative consequences and difficulties created as a result of the initial accusations. Please stop with such behavior and try to work out your problems in a mature and professional manner with as much courtesy as you can muster; if you can not do this then I suggest you take some time off of Knowledge (XXG) to evalute yourself and figure out why this is so. --Inara Junkie 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- No. You can not compare content disputes to genocide. That is a blatant personal attack. You will be reported if you make further comments like that. -Amarkov _edits 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Chadbryant has been blocked indefinitely on Dec 7, the IP has not edited since Nov 17. AnonEMouse 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RichardBennett

Suspected sockpuppeteer

User:RichardBennett

Suspected sockpuppets

User:67.169.7.187 User:66.7.225.34

Report submission by

WolfKeeper 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Viewing the contributions of users reveals a pattern of editing most particularly to the article network neutrality. Remarks, phraseology and patterns of edits are extraordinarily similar.

RichardBennett's anonymous account User:66.7.225.34 is currently blocked from editing due to 3RR violations:

Whilst blocked his other sockpuppet made the following change:

Comments

It's not sockpupetry to neglect to login every time a user edits Knowledge (XXG). This is simply another personal attack and harassment from Google's stooge. RichardBennett 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is sockpuppetry. And it is against the rules for one of your sockpuppets to edit while one of your accounts has been suspended, as here.WolfKeeper 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You also haven't labelled your accounts as being sockpuppets and related them to your primary accounts. You haven't edited using RichardBennett in more than 2 months, whereas there have been numerous anonymous edits from atleast 2 different IPs many of which violate WP:NPA. You're seriously telling us you just 'forgot' to log on each and every time?WolfKeeper 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So if an admin was to lock out editing from these two anonymous accounts that would help you remember to log in?WolfKeeper 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't be bothered with all these idiotic rules you keep making up. The essence of Sockpuppetry is an attempt to bypass a ban, which I have no need to do as I've not been banned from editing this nonsensical pile of crap called Knowledge (XXG). So stop the lies and slanders and argue your employer's case on its merits. RichardBennett 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What is this, then? That's called a block, which means you can't edit Knowledge (XXG) for that time, not just that one account. -Amarkov _edits 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions None of the three accused accounts have edited in a month, which makes me reluctant to issue any preventative blocks. However I have to say it takes a rather high level of forgetfulness to forget to log in often enough in a short enough period to get a 3RR block for an IP address. RichardBennet, if you do come back to edit here, please consider this a warning to be more careful and log in when making controversial edits. AnonEMouse 03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:A Sniper

Suspected sockpuppeteer

A Sniper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet

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

Report submission by

Deathrocker

Evidence

I highly suspect A Sniper (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet master; in this particular case of Metallicker (talk · contribs).

A Sniper had previously added false information to the Motley Crue page, claiming that Greg Leon was the original guitarist. This however is incorrect, as Mick Mars was the original guitarist (and the one who brought the name "Motley Crue" into the project). Thus I deleted the false information. Metallicker reverted the edit, in the summary he claimed "fixing vandalism".

I had gone over to the Greg Leon article (an article created by A Sniper perhaps vanity) And low an behold... in the opening sentence it claimed he had been a member of Motley Crue.... whereas lower down the article it stated the truth, that he had featured in a pre-Motley band with Tommy Lee named Suite 19. I corrected the info in the lead acordingly to match this. A Sniper reverted. And blanked the talk page claiming to be "fixing vandalism".

Around a week later, I had removed A Sniper/Metallicker's flase info on the Motley Crue article again. Leaving a message on both the article talkpage, about why the info was incorrect, and I left one on Metallicker's talkpage requesting him to stop. Metallicker blanked his talkpage claiming "vandalism". A Sniper blanked the Motley talkpage claiming vandalism.

Summary

Both A Sniper (talk · contribs) and Metallicker (talk · contribs) accounts have edited Motley Crue and Greg Leon, but only in relation to the above information (apart from Sniper who previously edited it some months ago).

Both accounts edit the Death (band) (death metal band) article.

Both accounts also edit the Eric Greif article (one A Sniper created).

Keep in mind these are the only articles Metallicker (talk · contribs) has edited. (account made first edit on 10 November 2006) And the fact that both accounts have removed information and article talkpage posts, claiming to be "fixing vandalism" in relation to Greg Leon (as shown above). Pretty much an open and shut case. - Deathrocker 06:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting Metallicker has attempted to cover his tracks several times, by openly blanking the suspected sockpuppet tag, while the case is still in progress. - Deathrocker 09:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Has this been mostly settled with the apparent agreement on User_talk:A_Sniper#Reply_2? The main point, as to whether Greg Leon was "was involved with Motley Crue before they became famous" or was "in a pre-Mötley Crüe band named Suite 19" seems like a fairly minor disagreement to me, that you two should be able to settle without bloodshed, but I'm not a fan. We can ask for CheckUser, but according to my experience, it could be turned down, with the end result being only that what could be an apparently relatively friendly peace could flare into hostility again. I'd much prefer if you wrote it has been mostly settled, and we don't have to use CheckUser. Maybe that would even cement the friendship! AnonEMouse 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Without response, I'm going to take it as settled, per above. AnonEMouse 03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ellinas2007

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ellinas2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Bi 15:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

This is regarding the edits of Ellinas2007 and MyAsmodeus on Ellinais. Ellinas2007 had been trying to replace the external link to ellinais.gr (which contains actual content) with a link to ellinais.com (which is merely domain parking). After Ellinas2007 was warned for spamming, MyAsmodeus appeared and started doing the same thing. Ellinas2007 also seems to be a WP:SPA. Bi 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Duck test. Blocked Asmodeus indef as obvious sock or meatpuppet, gave Ellinas a short block to get his attention. Let him explain what he wants - and if won't speak to a barbarian and insists on doing it in the "language of Homer", let him talk to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Bi 18:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedist

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Eu nao fiz nada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

mholland 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

New account. Signed talk page comment (of the admin who blocked Encyclopedist) "well, can I come back?" with Encyclopedist's signature (diff).

Comments

I'm not sure what he's up to nowadays - on one hand, he claims that Knowledge (XXG) is fascism, yet on the other hand, he wants to return. Given his productive past (pre-March 13, 2006), I'm willing to assume good faith and let him back in if he truly wants to renounce his past misdeeds and return (and put off his admin ambitions for at least one year). However, it seems that he's using the "wrong" method in his quest for a return: instead of posting to unblock-en-l, he simply creates socks and asks to return. I've tried to relay my point several times to him, but it seems that either he hasn't heard my point, or does not want to accept it. What the heck is up with him? Scob e ll302 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocked by Messedrocker. MER-C 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pandabrick5

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Pandabrick5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Pandabrick3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pandabrick6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pandabrick8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pandabrick9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Exarion 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Very similar usernames.
All contributions by all above users are the replacement of the Stephen Colbert page with Chuck Norris jokes.

Comments

All of them have done the exact same thing. Probably someone with too much time on their hands. -- feb 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All accounts already blocked. MER-C 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:BenBurch

Suspected meatpuppeteer

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

Suspected meatpuppet

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ClemsonTiger

Evidence

These two users have a meatpuppet relationship. Wherever one goes, the other follows. They are constantly pushing a left-wing POV on politically related articles, particularly Free Republic, Protest Warrior and Democratic Underground. They routinely violate WP:RS in the process of their campaign against WP:NPOV in these articles. Anyone who attempts to defend NPOV in these articles is targeted for ridicule and personal attacks, in violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and may end up a target of sockpuppet allegations which give rise to little yellow notices being plastered on their User and Talk pages, and on the article Talk pages. The sockpuppet investigations are used for days as an excuse to proceed with even more virulent WP:NPA and WP:CIV violations.

Comments

Revenge nomination from a confirmed sock puppet of User:BryanFromPalatine. I need say no more. --BenBurch 00:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine and Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine (4th) for recently completed proceeding against this sock puppet making this revenge request. --BenBurch 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should say more, Ben. I'm assembling the evidence against you now. There's going to be a lot of it. - ClemsonTiger 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's some evidence of their personal attacks and ridicule. Here's some more. Here's just one of many examples of their ridicule and personal attacks during a sockpuppet investigation. Notice how, whenever one of them starts a sockpuppet investigation, the other is piling on within a few minutes. Each and every time. Conclusive and damning evidence of their meatpuppet relationship. - ClemsonTiger 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence of their collaborative violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CIV and WP:NPA are far too voluminous to list here. I refer admins to their Talk pages and the archives of their Talk pages for the many warnings that they have received. I also refer admins to the articles I've previously cited, and the many warnings they've received there as well. - ClemsonTiger 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the archives from his talk page that BenBurch has tried to conceal, by not linking them on his Talk page: Archive 1 Beginning - June 2006 Archive 2 June 2006 - December 3rd 2006 - ClemsonTiger 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also the previous account used by F.A.A.F.A., entitled NBGPWS, which stands for "Neocons Be Gone, Protest Warrior Sucks," and its archives. Under that name, F.A.A.F.A. was blocked for a month. - ClemsonTiger 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, of course, there's this little gem: - ClemsonTiger 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Requesting sock puppet and the sockpuppeteer have been permanently blocked. BenBurch 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While I believe that (a) this is a revenge posting and (b) neither Ben or FAAFA is a sock puppet or that either uses sockpuppets, the rest of CT's post is pretty accurate. Jinxmchue 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had very unpleasant dealings--shouts and threats--from BenBurch in the last day or so, He rejects the notion that all statements have to be based on reliable sources and demands all sorts of nonsense re Henry Ford. (He says that a deletion of incorrect information has to be proven false to his satisfaction or it stays, even without a reliable source.) I've made hundreds of editos to that article over the last year and resent his un-Wiki behaviour. Rjensen 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem... You were five reverts into your 3RR limit, and I was nice enough not to report that. And you were deleting properly sourced information from the article to defend Henry Ford against charges that he was complicit with Hitler. You provided NO sources to back up your claim that the cite for that material was unreliable, and instead decided to make fun of my grandparents. I demanded, and the other editors in that article demanded, that you provide a Reliable Source to back up your extraordinary claim that the source we had was a liar. You claimed that The International Jew never existed, or was not authored by Ford, and was never translated into German, both untrue. All we asked was a Reliable Source for your claims and your refused to provide it. So, yes, you will continue to have "very unpleasant dealings" with me and the other editors of the Henry Ford article if you intend to bully your way through to deleting information to rehabilitate Ford. --BenBurch 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and my only "threat" was to turn you in for 3RR if you made a Sixth Revert to this article. I see that you were subsequently blocked for edit warring on yet another article, and you have MANY such blocks in your block log. --BenBurch 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See how BenBurch responds to claims that he has threatened someone. He responds with more bullying. Since joining Knowledge (XXG) I've tried to learn how the website works: the interpersonal dynamics and hierarchies. I haven't done much editing, just reading and learning about the sociology of the site. I looked at the Protest Warrior, Free Republic, and Democratic Underground articles since I suspected that they would be flashpoints for conflict and this was immediately confirmed. I quickly learned about diffs, talk pages, archives and about contribution histories. What they're doing is not right. I looked at the Free Republic talk page and the Democratic Underground talk page, and archives of both. They are like dogfights. But every fight has a history. I looked for the cause of this fight in the archives of the fighters. I found this edit war (9-10 January) and this edit war (31 December - 1 January) (both on BryanFromPalatine's talk page while he was blocked) and this foul remark (5 December). I've learned that a user has the unlimited right to edit his own Talk page. Any edit war there is the fault of the visitor. Many, many other edit wars and foul remarks in the archives. They're still harassing Bryan here and here and here. There's also this, where BenBurch is using IP address 69.81.140.136 as a sock puppet. The presence of such people is the reason why I have not continued to participate on Knowledge (XXG) to a greater degree. Careful review of the diffs and contrib histories confirms that BenBurch and FAAFA have formed a street gang. Whenever one of them gets into a disagreement, the other one shows up, probably in response to a phone call or e-mail. BenBurch and FAAFA always baited BryanFromPalatine. Administrators blamed the victim, because he always took the bait and reacted in the wrong way. BenBurch and FAAFA should share his fate. Fensteren 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Clemson Tiger is Nit Picking...it appears.

Sounds like the Republicans are just nit picking because Ben Burch and the other guy are holding down very strong arguements and they have similar opinions. This guy just wants someone who is not Pro-Bush or super conservative banned. Nit Picking - previous unsigned comment by User:69.81.140.136

Speaking of sockpuppets... Jinxmchue 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate upon that comment, Jinxie? Or to retract it? --BenBurch 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obvious that this was a single-use sockpuppet. They show up, put up some snarky comments about Republicans on this one page, and then vanish. Jinxmchue 05:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A sock puppet of whom do you think? That is a cablemodem user in TN. More than likely this user edits all the time, but being on a cablemodem has a different IP every day or so. You are in my opinion far too ready to point the finger without cause here. --BenBurch 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sure. Whatever, Ben. Maybe they should get a username and password. Then it won't matter about having different IPs every day. Jinxmchue 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not everybody wants the abuse that comes with having a user name here. --BenBurch 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Then they shouldn't be surprised when they're suspected of being sockpuppets, should they? Gosh, but you're defending this person an awful lot. One must wonder why you aren't approaching this issue with the same level of suspicion, incredulity and enthusiasm as you are with other suspected sockpuppets. Jinxmchue 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

fnord!

Methinks next time they should try filing a WP:CABAL case ! LOL ! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There may not be a WP:CABAL, but there is a meatpuppet relationship. They haven't even tried to deny it, although they immediately removed templates from their User pages in violation of Knowledge (XXG) policy. Jinxmchue, Fensteren and Rjensen agree that it is an abusive relationship in various ways. What is the remedy? Dino 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you just organically incapable of understanding the Knowledge (XXG) term of art "MeatPuppet"? A Meatpuppet is a single purpose account created to sway a particular vote or a particular article. FAAFA and I are two separate individuals who happen to agree on things when we find them here on Knowledge (XXG). Unlike your sock puppets which were focused like a laser beam on the Free Republic article. Of all the people I have met here you are probably the least intelligent. --BenBurch 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But you keep referring to Bryan as "smart kid." Ironclad evidence that I am not a sockpuppet. Dino 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I submitted a couple of paragraphs on the Free Republic website on Jan. 21, 2007, to include biographical information on founder Jim Robinson. It was very basic and noncontroversial material. Yet Ben deleted them and said that the statements did not belong on the Free Republic site. I am in the process of preparing a separate article on Mr. Robinson. I hope that Ben will not challenge this article on the grounds that it should be included in the Free Republic site.

When I started routine editing of the Free Republic site a few weeks ago, I found that it was mostly in passive voice. I switched it to active voice where I could. I found that a lot of terms were not included in the ], so I made those changes too. I found sentences that made little sense or were at best unclear. I tried to write all the sentences again so that one could read them without having to guess at what the reader was saying.

When I made routine changes, Ben was constantly monitoring the site, which I found odd.

I also noted the part about death threats. I don't know anything about that, but it sound potentially libelous to me.

Billy Hathorn 16:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Created by sockpuppet of blocked user. MER-C 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:BryanFromPalatine

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ClemsonTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
209.221.240.193 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (added by) FAAFA
JohnnyCochran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added by User:BenBurch as that user admits to being a sock in this thread.)

Report submission by: BenBurch 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User first appeared during the first sockpuppeting block of BryanFromPalatine. (He is on a second two week block now for more sockpuppeting (and note there has already been one sock banned DURING this block.) Note that user claims to be a Clemson Graduate and an Intellectual Property Lawyer. Bryan's sock puppets at varying times claimed to be from Clemson, and to be IP Lawyers. Now this user has appeared on the Free Republic article to defend BryanFromPalatine. What are the odds? --BenBurch 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

More evidence

209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of checkuser-confirmed (multiple violations) puppeteer BryanFromPalatine. Bryan admitted to this IP puppet after it was shown that this IP replied ( IP 209/Bryan's edit ) to sock puppet charges against another puppet of Bryan, banned user ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This IP signed the edit as BryanFromPalatine. This new suspected puppet, ClemsonTiger, has edited Robert Bosch, and Free Republic and claims to be a Clemson grad, an intellectual properties lawyer and a 'liberal'. Note that confirmed and banned puppet of BryanFromPalatine DP1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also claimed to be an Intellectual Properties lawyer and a liberal, and edited Free Republic, Bosch, and Clemson. New suspected puppet ClemsonTiger almost certainly a 'clone' of 'ficitious persona' DP1976, one member of a whole 'army' of BryanFromPalatine's puppets.

More

ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan, wrote (regarding other fictitious personas in his sock puppet army) "BryanFromPalatine is part of our "tribe." So is DP1976. So is 12ptHelvetica. DP1976, for example, is a flaming left-wing partisan. DP1976 edited for 1-1/2 years on yet a third different broad range of topics such as Clemson University. " sock army discussion

Checkuser conclusions on DP1976, confirmed puppet of Bryan : HERE

Submitted by: Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

MORE CONCLUSIVE PROOF

On his FIRST DAY of editing, Jan 02, 2007, ClemsonTiger (BryanFromPalatine) BLANKED the page where an admin had posted the sockpuppet confirmation of one of Bryan's sockuppets - on the user page of 209.221.240.193 an Admin checkuser-confirmed puppet account of puppeteer Bryan. Bryan/ClemsonTiger Blanks Page - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AND The talk page for that IP address now proclaims that it is indeed ClemsonTiger, and checkuser confirmed this IP is BryanFromPalatine. Can we please have a permanent sanction against this person who continually evades blocks by sockpuppeting? BenBurch 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm a member in good standing at Knowledge (XXG). I've created this sock puppet account solely for the purpose of illustrating how ridiculous these two are becoming, and insulating myself from any of their stalking and retaliation. I've been watching these two with varying degrees of amusement and disgust for a long time. This has got to be stopped.

Bryan's sock puppets at varying times claimed to be from Clemson, and to be IP Lawyers. I presume that you can prove this with a link.

Now this user has appeared on the Free Republic article to defend BryanFromPalatine. He didn't edit or otherwise "appear on" the Free Republic article. He appeared on the Free Republic talk page to post a couple of snarky but not particularly offensive remarks directed at you. Rather mild remarks, in fact. It was at a time when you were kicking BryanFromPalatine when he was down.

DP1976 ... also claimed to be an Intellectual Properties lawyer I presume that you can prove this with a link.

ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link.

ClemsonTiger BLANKED the page where an admin had posted the sockpuppet confirmation of one of Bryan's sockuppets ... So what?

The talk page for that IP address now proclaims that it is indeed ClemsonTiger It proclaims no such thing, it has a picture of a tiger. Has it occurred to you that whomever this is might just be messing with people who are inclined to be amateur Sherlock Holmes? People like you, for example?

Reposting

Now let's look at the evil ClemsonTiger.

This is not a single purpose account. He has 160 edits, and only two were on the Free Republic talk page. If he has a single purpose, it's baseball statistics. ClemsonTiger has a well-established record of constructive edits. That doesn't look like a sock puppet.

This account was not created minutes before the snarky remarks were posted. That also doesn't look like a sock puppet.

This account has reverted obvious vandalism.

Not just once, but twice.

Not just twice, but three times.

On all three occasions, this account posted a warning to the offenders.

He also reported the vandalism to administrators, resulting in an indefinite block of one of the vandals.

ClemsonTiger has been a good citizen of Knowledge (XXG). In stark contrast, BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. have a history of edit wars, 3RR violations, and personal attacks in pursuit of their POV pushing. Both of them have already been blocked for this misconduct at least once; F.A.A.F.A., in his previous guise as NBGPWS (which stands for "Neocons Be Gone, Protest Warrior Sucks") was banned for a month.

Knowledge (XXG) administrators should compare their respective edit histories and block logs, and determine who they'd rather have hanging around. The defense rests.

JohnnyCochran 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you advocate breaking Knowledge (XXG) rules to make a WP:POINT? Nice. I think we have already established that this fellow is using the same IP address as a blocked BryanFromPalatine sockpuppet as determined by checkuser. I don't think more needs to be said do you? Now, yes, I can show you where they claimed to be IP lawyers and to be from Clemson;

“ ”

'you're one of the 'brand new editors' (Dec 10) Will you ever learn? I have an unregistered and diverse history of edits of my own going back about a year, mostly relating to Clemson University, my alma mater. Look at the edit history of this page and you'll find my IP address. - DP1976 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

“ ”

I agree with RWR8189. Neither the Fahey article nor any material derived from it should be used in the lead. I also oppose the changes that F.A.A.F.A. has just made to the section on the Washington Post's lawsuit. F.A.A.F.A. has just been successful in removing User:DP1976 (who IMHO is an intellectual properties attorney) and 12ptHelvetica (who IMHO is an expert typesetter and forensic document analyst). Their experience and skills were very valuable in examining the more important events in the history of Free Republic for obvious reasons, and their input on this article will be missed. Now that he has removed the experts who have the knowledge to oppose him, F.A.A.F.A. believes that he owns the article. ArlingtonTX 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

both from Talk:Free_Republic/Archive5

Finally, I doubt you are anybody other than the sockpuppeteer in question here. Pardon my lack of AGF, but you yourself admit to breaking two rules. BenBurch 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, you say "The talk page for that IP address now proclaims that it is indeed ClemsonTiger It proclaims no such thing, it has a picture of a tiger. Has it occurred to you that whomever this is might just be messing with people who are inclined to be amateur Sherlock Holmes? People like you, for example?" Have you looked at the page history? Bryan obviously thought better of outing himself as he then removed it, but HERE is the revision where he edits the page and proclaims it is his address. BenBurch 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice: He also admits again to that IP on Jan 02 "I'm an alumnus of Clemson University, and I've already edited that page many times (using the IP address 209.221.240.193 ) before registering here." LINK HERE - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of information: As an actual alumni of Clemson University (1994), I checked the most recent alumni directory that I have (Clemson University Alumni Directory 2003. (2003). Purchase, NY: Bernard C. Harris Publishing Company, Inc. pp. 1192-4), I found six people from Illinois who worked in the legal profession, none from Palatine, Illinois and none who were 1966 graduates as shown (The closest to 1966 was a 1969 graduate from Chicago.). Five of the six were in Chicago while the other one was from Belleville.). Chris 14:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Now this is purely speculative, but how likely is it that that a 1966 college grad would be reading and editing the page Comparison_of_seventh-generation_game_consoles ? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm using a computer terminal in our law library. We have roughly 100 attorneys and staff members, including at least three Clemson alumni, with access to this computer. (It's sometimes called "networking." Clemson alumni often contact other Clemson alumni, using the Alumni Directory, when they're looking for a job. Nothing sinister about it at all.) Some live in Illinois, some in northwest Indiana. All of these, as well as various interns and visitors (such as attorneys at retained law firms, and even our opposing counsel, as an occasional professional courtesy) have had access to this computer. Perhaps one of our college interns edited the "comparison of seventh generation game consoles" article. I'll also add that the Alumni Directory is not an exhaustive resource; there are many Clemson alumni who do not appear in the directory. Some just don't want to be dunned for donations to our alma mater. I'm uncomfortable with disclosing any more information than that; but I feel it should be sufficient, in light of my contribution history since registering at Knowledge (XXG), and the non-abusive nature of all of my edits here, to put this inquiry to rest. - ClemsonTiger 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Mr Lawyer, let me give a summation; First you (in the guise of DP1978) claim all of the contributions of this IP address, and talk of your edits from Clemson. Next you are proven to be the same person as BryanFromPalatine, also at this IP address, and to have edited contributions which you signed using that other persona, also from this IP address. Next, ArlingtonTX, another persona of yours invents the fact that you are a an Intellectual Law lawyer and laments your departure from Knowledge (XXG) as DP1978. Then you register this account, and claim to be from Clemson even though there is NOBODY in the Chicago area who graduated in the year you claim and is working as a lawyer, and you cannot remember a classmate when quizzed about it on your talk page. Next you claim in the user page for this IP address that it is you HOME IP ADDRESS. Next you speedily remove that boast so that you won't get caught. Next you show up in the talk page of an article you have never edited just to defend BryanFromPalatine. Next you claim that this IP address ISN'T yours and you are using a computer in a Library (because you financially bereft lawyers cannot have your own computers?) and that the contributions (and vandalism) associated with this IP address are NOT yours. Next yet another sock puppet shows up in this page to defend YOU. --- Yep, you are right. This makes perfect logical sense. Assuming, of course, that I just fell down a rabbit hole. --BenBurch 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In the practice of law, one of the telltale signs of a losing argument is a refusal to address the strongest point of the opponent's argument. What do you have to say about this? Anything at all? - ClemsonTiger 19:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly busy work to give you a colorable legitimacy. Anybody learns from mistakes, and the best way to make a sock seem real is to put in a tiny amount of work editing other things for a week or so. You are not fooling anybody, Bryan, and what you are doing disgusts me. --BenBurch 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And he still couldn't pull it off. Editing his puppeteer's page on his very first day, claiming that "Freepers are a scourge" on his user page while claiming to be a liberal then editing from a conservative POV on the Iraq War and Far Right articles were all dead giveaways. "He coulda been a contender" - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what the admins do about your accusations, in light of the inoffensive and non-abusive nature of all of my posts, and the Knowledge (XXG) recognition that calling someone a "sock puppet" or "meat puppet" is a personal attack. What did I say to you that triggered this vendetta of yours? What was so abusive and "disgusting" about it, Ben? - ClemsonTiger 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but that is what this process here is all about; Calling somebody a sock or meat puppet. And you are a sock puppet. You were already ruled to be a sock puppet by checkuser, in fact. I had thought that there was a small chance that you might just be acting in collusion (a meat puppet) but your recent edits to the FR talk page dispelled that. You started right up where Bryan left off on the Liberal Moles gig. You have the lamest excuses for why all your socks use the same computers too; In a Library; In the company Internet; In the same cube taking turns. Disgusting. --BenBurch 19:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

MORE : Bryan/Clemson/DP1976/Arlington/Johnny/et al : Wrote "I'm using a computer terminal in our law library. We have roughly 100 attorneys and staff members, including at least three Clemson alumni, with access to this computer." The problem with that 'tall tale' is that 209.221.240.193 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) belongs to a major German-owned auto parts supplier - the one DP1976 and two other BFP socks previously claimed they worked for - where DP1976 claimed that they all edited Knowledge (XXG) as some sort of 'tag team'. Now they're all lawyers working for the law firm. What's next -- rocket scientists posting from NASA? Brain surgeons posting from Johns Hopkins? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Conjoined twins? --BenBurch 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More like conjoined quintuplets - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link.

then editing from a conservative POV on the Iraq War and Far Right articles I presume that you can prove this with a link.

First you (in the guise of DP1978) claim all of the contributions of this IP address I presume that you're referring to DP1976. He didn't claim all of them. He claimed some of them.

Next you are proven to be the same person as BryanFromPalatine, also at this IP address Apparently a false conclusion based strictly on IP address.

Next, ArlingtonTX, another persona of yours invents the fact that you are a an Intellectual Law lawyer He said "IMHO," which means "in my honest opinion." Opinion, my dear Watson, is not necessarily fact.

claim to be from Clemson even though there is NOBODY in the Chicago area who graduated in the year you claim and is working as a lawyer Maybe living in Northwest Indiana, or maybe a Clemson alum who isn't listed in the directory.

Next you claim in the user page for this IP address that it is you HOME IP ADDRESS. Next you speedily remove that boast so that you won't get caught. Maybe he just wanted to try to protect his privacy. That's not an unusual or unreasonable thing to want.

the best way to make a sock seem real is to put in a tiny amount of work That's the most ridiculous part of your entire ridiculous argument. The amount of work ClemsonTiger has done here is definitely not "tiny." You've provided links to his contributions and I took the time to read them. He's now creating entire articles from scratch. He's doing extensive rewrites, turning stubs into full-sized articles, and adding literally dozens of statistical tables to articles about baseball players, and correcting major factual errors along the way. What we are watching here is the emergence of a dedicated and prolific new writer for Knowledge (XXG). He is making Knowledge (XXG) a much better resource, at least for baseball fans.

209.221.240.193 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) belongs to a major German-owned auto parts supplier ... Now they're all lawyers working for the law firm. Did anyone claim it was a law firm? I presume that you can prove this with a link. Do you think it might be possible that a "major German-owned auto parts supplier" with 17,000 U.S. employees, might have its own legal department with 100 attorneys and staff members, and its own law library? Do you think such a corporate legal department, serving a company that filed 907 new patents in 2004, might have more than one intellectual properties lawyer hanging around? Maybe even eight or ten? ClemsonTiger's story is very consistent and credible, no matter how much you try to distort it and ridicule him. It is consistent with what the other two users have said as well, and it is consistent with the information from WHOIS. How does he have the time to do all of these rewrites? My theory is that he writes this stuff at home, and brings it in to the office on a floppy disk. He probably has some sort of bot writing those statistical tables. Then he sits down in the law library, "click, click, click," and it's done.

Now let's turn to what ClemsonTiger has done to you. What has he done that was so terrible, that has evoked such a vicious reaction from the two of you? Show me the worst thing that he ever did, before you filed this sock puppet accusation.

Hit him with your best shot. What did he do to you?

JohnnyCochran 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well 'Johnny'. I suppose someone (preferably an Admin) could call Robert Bosch USA (since you posted a link to your employer, I guess I can use the name) and ask them if they have '100 lawyers and staff' and a 'law library', where that 'library' might be located, and if, like you previously claimed, all the thousands of Bosch employees would be posting through one IP (209.221.240.193), when records show that Bosch has a NetRange from: 209.221.240.0 to 209.221.255.255. I wonder if they could even track that IP to a distinct location and maybe even a single user? If an Admin wanted to call Bosch and ask them those questions, I assume they would call the Farmington Hills corporate headquarters? Tel: (248) 876-1000? How's the bass fishing in South Carolina? Do you happen to know? Thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way 'Johnny' : You claimed "All of these, as well as various interns and visitors (such as attorneys at retained law firms, and even our opposing counsel, as an occasional professional courtesy) have had access to this computer." Who would that "opposing counsel" be... BorgWarner? LOL! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and neither did the admins who will be examining your preposterous claims. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A user's contributions do not matter to this process. What matters to this process is that the user is a verifiable sockpuppet of another user who is currently blocked for two weeks (a very long block) for sockpuppetry, 3RR violations, and general disruption. This is about obeying the house rules of this institution. If you cannot do that, you should leave. If you will not leave, this process exists to enforce an involuntary separation upon you. Unless, of course, Bryan, that you think that you are above the rules? What did you, wearing the ClemsonTiger sock do to me to warrant this response? NOTHING, other than having broken the rules by evading a proper block and by being a fictitious suck puppet. Sock puppetry isn't "clever" or "37337" ("elite") or anything other than LYING. You disgust me. --BenBurch 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not file this under WP:RFCU? Serial violators seem to get faster attention there, like WP:RFCU#Jacob_Peters. - Merzbow 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea - thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More point of research: I did further information on the Clemson alumni in the Illinois and Indiana area who graduated in 1966 from the same source mentioned earlier. In Illinois, one person was from Chicago, and she is an attorney. There are three people who are from Indiana, one in Crawfordsville, one in Huntingburg, and one in Warsaw. Additionally, regarding the user from South Bend, there were a total of nine graduates there with none working for Bosch. The earliest graudate in the list got out in 1990. Chris 15:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's odd! Bryan/Clemson/Johnny/Arlington/DP1976/Helvetica/IP209 claimed that there were"at least three" Clemson grads all working at the mysterious Bosch facility with the 'law library' in Indiana (the one with 100 lawyers and support staff -- that overnight, decreased in size to eight or nine lawyers!). Your alumni directory must certainly be incorrect, or out of date, or these three grads, being Very Important People asked not to be listed so they wouldn't be 'dunned' for donations! ROFLMAO ! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is correct. You wanted to know what was on there and you got it. These directories listed for all alumnus who live in those areas mentioned as of 2003. I do not know what the current status of these people yet at the time. I am just going on what best information that I have. I am not trying to defend this person. I am just trying to present the facts. I did not list these graduates out of respect for their privacy which you can understand why. Chris 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris: My comments were meant as tongue-in-cheek satire about his outlandish claims, but satire doen't always work on the www. I'm deeply appreciative of your help and desire to keep Clemson's name unsullied by the acts of one troll. Best regards. Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. Hopefully some admin will come along and stick a fork in this investigation soon, because it's done. --BenBurch 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link. Post the link, or admit that you lied.

then editing from a conservative POV on the Iraq War and Far Right articles I presume that you can prove this with a link. Post the link, or admit that you lied.

I suppose someone (preferably an Admin) could call Robert Bosch USA (since you posted a link You posted a link identifying the company when you posted the WHOIS. Don't blame that on me. So are you advocating trying to get him fired, when "someone" calls the company and starts asking these questions? Or would getting him fired just be a happy coincidence? A convenient fringe benefit?

A user's contributions do not matter to this process. To the contrary, they are the meat and potatoes of inquiries like this. Some sock puppets are legal. The ones that aren't are abusive. The abusive sock puppets that we see on this page are single purpose accounts that are created the same day they start serving that single purpose, sometimes just minutes earlier. They attack, disrupt and vandalize. They make no constructive contributions. Their history of contributions tells us everything we need to know. You have admitted that this alleged sock puppet did "NOTHING" of the sort, and the account existed for more than a week before you had any contact with it at all, but you're fighting like hell to get him banned for life. ClemsonTiger has never made a contribution that wasn't constructive.

JohnnyCochran 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bryan/Clemson/Johnny/Arlington/DP1976/Helvetica/IP209/Mishawaka/Hums/Devin/Andrew, and John Does 1-99, Sorry, but I don't plan on wasting any of my time responsing to your increasingly delusional posts, except to point out that Bryan using a sockpuppet to avoid a two week block is grounds for permanemt banishment, espcially as he has peviously been convicted of several sockpuppetry offenses. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am done with this too. --BenBurch 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

THE MOST DAMNING EVIDENCE YET

ClemsonTiger (2nd newest suspected sock of Bryan) admits HERE than his first edit to Knowledge (XXG) (as IP 209.221.240.193) was Dec 06, 2005 "My first Knowledge (XXG) edit was on December 6, 2005" (actually, it was Dec 02, 2005, but that's beside the point) You will find posts from 'ClemsonTiger' (posting as 209.221.240.193) on Dec 06, 2005 HERE and any rational person will agree that these are not the contributions of someone born in 1966, as ClemsonTiger claims, and wants us to believe that he was. The flimsy house of cards has officially collapsed. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Case Confirmed

Please see Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine. This case has been confirmed by checkuser. Can we please have the following sanctions applied to this case;

1. Reset of BryanFromPalatine's two week sockpuppeting/3rr/disruption block.

2. Lengthening of that block to three weeks.

3. Permablock on all of the sock puppets mentioned in this process.

4. Blocking the associated IP address for the same duration as the block on BryanFromPalatine so we won't have to come back here again in a couple days.

Thanks admins, you do a mostly thankless job here and I appreciate what you do. --BenBurch 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Dealt with by the checkusers. MER-C 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rascalpatrol

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Omar Jack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Titus Pollo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The Teacher 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rick H (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bobanny 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Rascalpatrol and suspected socks contribute almost exclusively to two articles on Knowledge (XXG). (Rascalpatrol's contributions here) Both articles, Erik Bornmann and BC Legislature Raids, concern a political scandal in British Columbia, Canada. They have been edit-warring on those articles, making personal attacks and frequently evoking charges that other editors are including libelous material in the articles. Currently, the Erik Bornmann article is up for deletion, and Rascalpatrol and the above mentioned socks have been trying to influence the discussion there.

Concerns about libel may or may not be legit in this case, and the quality of both articles is dubious (including citation issues), but it's obvious that legitimate issues are being convoluted by these "users." The debate has been fairly nasty, and has included personal attacks, deletion of comments on talk pages and user pages, and so on, and the incessant claims of libel are effectively one notch short of a legal threat, i.e., intimidation against other editors. I understand that libel is a serious issue for bios of living people on Knowledge (XXG), but if its thrown around frivolously, attention is diverted from the actual issue of properly citing reliable sources to the intentions of other editors.

Looking through the edit histories of those articles ( and ), it appears that a number of other socks have been used in this campaign in the past, all of which seem to have served as disposable, single-use/single-issue user accounts to make it appear that a significant number of editors endorse the stance taken by Rascalpatrol:

Randy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SaintNickIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RyanAirman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Iwin4u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Harrycarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BcfactCheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MildlyAnnoyed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Update: A check user request confirmed that these and others are socks, for a total of 18, not counting Rascalpatrol. It should also be noted that 2 of those socks, Skootum1 and Skooumj3, were apparently chosen so that edits made by those accounts would easily be mistaken for edits by User:Skookum1, a legitimate user. Bobanny 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

See Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Rascalpatrol. MER-C 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:DJDWIZ

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Lizettefc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.119.91.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) IP account used to make legal threat, now blocked

Report submission by: Ronbo76 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

DJDWIZ created a self-published article, DJ Disco Wiz, which was nominated for speedy deletion on January 1, 2007. Article was deleted and DJDWIZ recreated the article same day. Within the same day, the sockpuppet (Lizettefc) created a second page, Dj Disco Wiz, that is exactly the same as DJ Disco Wiz. DJDWIZ likes to edit Disc jockey to include his name and unsubstantiated accomplishments. Lizettefc will also edit the same pages and put in same info. DJDWIZ also copied the info from the article and put it on his talkpage as item 2.

These users have created two pages that identical: DJ Disco Wiz and Dj Disco Wiz. The first page was nominated for speedy deletion on January 1, 2007 and recreated by the main user who the page is about (self-publish). Within the same hour, the sockpuppet created the second page. If you look at their contributions, one edit is usually followed by a complimentary edit. Ronbo76 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Take a look at the user talkpages to see other editor comments. His IP address (see the IP's talk page for confirmation that it was the same person) was used to make legal threats on User_talk:Ronbo76 and User_talk:GhostPirate.

Conclusions

Recommend an admin type look at both accounts to determine future level of participation.

All accounts already blocked. MER-C 09:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Hahahihihoho

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

—King Ivan 08:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Hahahihihoho (contribs) is a notorious banned user of Knowledge (XXG) who has created countless sockpuppets since being banned (such as User:Horde Zla (contribs) and user:Thunderman (contribs)). Judging by the edit patterns of Alkalada, it is quite obvious that he is a sock of Hahahihihoho - the same POV editing, edit warring, writing style, and especially the uncompromising view that anyone born is Bosnia and Herzegovina is Bosnian and nothing more (compare this with this , also check the contributions of those editors as it is crystal clear that Alkalada and Hahahihihoho are the same user). It should be pretty simple to come to a conclusion here, as most, if not all, the admins who have blocked Hahahihihoho's sockpuppets have stated that it's very easy to spot a Hahahihihoho sock.

I'd also like to point out that Alkalada has been blocked before as an obvious sock of Hahahihihoho (the admin's block comment was "Obvious sock of banned User:Hahahihihoho, down to virtual admission on talkpage and characteristic spelling errors."), but was unblocked when he "asked for another chance". If was deserving of that chance, he most definitely has failed teh requirements of that chance and should be banned.

Comments

Well, for your sake, I can tell you that I am not banned anymore. And about the editing, I only edit veriable articles and sourced like when I changed names of cities because I changed names to their officiall names. And you say that people who are born in Bosnia cant be Bosnian, then can I ask you:

How can somebody born in Bosnia be Croatian? Alkalada 11:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that you've said has excused you - you are still in violation of numerous Knowledge (XXG) policies. What you should do, is stop using sockpuppets, and instead, try to have your main account unblocked, instead of creating sockpuppets to further your agenda. —King Ivan 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for your sake I can tell you that I have been allowed to write with this user, Alkalada.

And I am now reporting you for repeated vandalism without any reference to sources. Alkalada 11:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not used any sources. Furthermore, your main account is still banned, therefore you are violating your ban. —King Ivan 11:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are deleting articles without source or reference and I have reported you. If you continue like this I think the only solution is to ban you. Alkalada 11:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm... You already are banned, fool. All I can say is - LOL! —King Ivan 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada is a 100% proven sock-puppet. I point out that there is no need to conduct a Check User, because User:Alkalada is Hahahihihoho. The only matter is that the administrators who were protecting the Wikipedian Community (User:Fred Bauder and User:Duja among others) have given him a second chance, leaving this nick to him (for now). However, if Alkalada has been disruptive - he is to be banned for violating the trust (and thus spending out the one chance given to him). --PaxEquilibrium 12:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am not banned anymore Ivan!!!

And if you really look carefully, then you will see that it is not me who are violating the rules, it is Ivan who use vandalism constantly. Alkalada 14:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Alkalada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is most certainly Hahahihihoho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) editing under a new name based on several of the comments he has made. However, he was unblocked by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and allowed to continue editing. I've left a message for Fred because at this point I will defer to him whether or not he wants to reinstate the block. Isotope23 15:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Itismepart2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Itismepart2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Itismepart4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Itismepart3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Flyguy649 04:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

There are several instances of vandalism by Itismepart2 and the similarly named Itismepart4 on Crete, Illinois. Those of Itismepart4 started after Itismepart2 was blocked.

Additional puppet Itismepart3 added for vandalism at Robinson, Illinois. Itismepart4 has also vandalized there. Flyguy649 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

All accounts already blocked. MER-C 10:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Coinman62

I retract this report --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Suspected sockpuppeteer~~

~~Coinman62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~

~~Suspected sockpuppets~~

~~GoldenGloves17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~
~~Safeharbor8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~
~~BookPublisher88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~

~~Report submission by:~~

~~ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Evidence~~

Edit history

~~GoldenGloves17 (contrib) joined this IfD as the second edit.~~
~~Safeharbor8 (contrib) had a dozen of edits before leaving a comment on my talk page. By the way, the comment borderlines legal threats.~~
~~BookPublisher88 (contrib) joined the IfD as the first edit.~~

Similar language

~~Coinman62~~

~~"Controlling huh?"~~

~~"Maybe the best solution is to go through your contributions and give you some of your own medicine."~~

~~"I have already been going through your contributions and find that some of your images (direct scans of currency) might violate the laws of some jurisdictions."~~

~~GoldenGloves17~~

~~"Knowledge (XXG) should try to limit people who want to dominate every little thing."~~

~~Also removed comments by others.~~

~~Safeharbor8~~

~~"I looked at some of ChochoPK's images."~~

~~quoted a whole bunch of United States codes that don't apply to my contrib.~~

Note for Chochopk or to whom it may concern. I am a licensed attorney (a criminal prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Kentucky). Somewhat inadvertently, I came upon Chochopk's discussion page and saw that a legal question had arisen concerning some scans of foreign currency which he/she had placed on Knowledge (XXG). Only intending to be helpful, I provided some legal advice. I left a polite (I thought) message explaining the applicability of two federal laws. (In particular, 18 U.S.C.A. § 470 and § 474 -- anyone can find these on the Interent.) In my professional opinion, U.S. law appears to forbid direct scanning of both foreign and domestic currencies, and the laws of other countries usually criminalize the same. In my previous note, I should have also mentioned that there are international treaties and Executive Agreements between the various sovereign states, which provide enforcement powers to one another. I am astounded that anyone would contend that "United States codes " do not apply! (A United States Magistrate would certainly disagree!) Regardless, somehow I apparently got into the middle of a fist fight between the Chochopk and the coinman. Above under "Edit history," Chochopk says, "By the way, the comment borderlines legal threats." I apologize if I offended anyone. Giving unsolicited legal advice can sometimes offend, especially if a client does not want advice. I apologize if my message seemed meddlesome to anyone. I made no legal accusations against anyone, only a polite warning about the statutes. Regardless, I have no interest in coins, and I am not affiliated with the coinman. I would appreciate it if my username could be removed here and that the sock puppet boxes please be removed from my userpage and discussion page. Knowledge (XXG) may contact me through the E-mail address on my WP account, and I will provide appropriate credentials. Safeharbor8 03:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

~~BookPublisher88~~

~~"ChochoPK, you seem obsessed with wanting it deleted"~~

~~Comments~~

~~They boil down to three things, my contrib, accusation of my behavior, and legality. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Conclusions~~

Withdrawn. MER-C 10:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mobile 01

Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ME!
NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user has not made an edit since 17Oct2006, and only made 2 edits on Bridgestone, 1 was a link and the other a spelling correction. Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry.

→ This is hardly "a spelling correction." Athænara ✉ 08:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

LucaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Probable employee of Bridgestone in Ohio.
211.29.13.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledges probably her
211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledges probably her
211.29.3.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her
211.29.3.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (211.29.3.61 overlooked in original list, added 08:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
211.29.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her
211.29.13.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her
211.29.2.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her

No conflicting edits, no illigitimate use, no coercion, no vote rigging. Dont think this rates as sock puppetry, just not logging on properly.

203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)This user formatted a table and fixed up spelling on the bridgestone article. Made 3 edits to dicussion page on firestone article to answer some questions. No conflict, No edit reverting, no illigitimate usage apart from some misunderstanding when they first became an editor about over linking and not understanding why edits kept vanishing. Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry.

All of the above editors, anons and myself have done nothing that warrants a sock puppet enquiry. While I have made a few errors due to lack of understanding on content forking that is all. The rest of this page is just a witch hunt by a user who I am in conflict with over the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. Mobile 01 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

At the bottom of this page you will find a new user User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All possibly a sockpuppet of User:Travb has started to add unsupported accusations, sarcasm and abuse towards me and the integrity of this pages purpose. I have also been threatened by another associate of User:Travb on my talk page. Mobile 01 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I welcome you too file Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Travb. All the other baseless accusations have nothing to do with the suspected sock puppets of User:Mobile 01. Travb (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New evidence

New evidence after User:Mobile 01 acknowledged multiple anon accounts. (see above) Travb (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dont twist my words Travb, I aknowledged that I had inadvertently not logged on and thus my edit to an admin page was signed as an ANON. I did not say that I had used ANON accounts to edit the Firestone Page. You are twisting the facts to suit your own motives and it is a further example of how far you will go to attack my credibility. As all edits by me do not overlap nor do they attempt to gain support for a POV or attempt to rig a vote or violate any illigitimacy rules covered by sockpuppetry, your continued vendetta against me is starting to look very personal.Mobile 01 12:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mobile 01 I am not User:203.49.235.50

User:Mobile 01 denies being User:203.49.235.50:

"This user is from the other side of the country. They have made a few edits on the same pages, probably linked to what I was editing via the history of Smallville edits. I do the same myself when I check the history of a page and see an issue going on, I often go check out other things that user edits"

"I live in Adelaide (think of it as where Dallas is) now one of the anons you try to link me to is from Sydney (think of that as New York)."

Edit history of User:Mobile 01 and User:203.49.235.50:

00:28, 14 December 2006 User:Mobile_01 uploaded

User:203.49.235.50 00:32, 14 December 2006 Adds File:100logo.gif to the Firestone page which User:Mobile 01 Uploaded four minutes before.

User:203.49.235.50 creates a table,, ending on 00:32, 14 December 2006.

Twelve minutes later, at 00:44, 14 December 2006 User:Mobile 01 continues to edit the table

Block history of 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

05:14, 16 October 2006 User:Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) blocked "203.49.235.50 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Disruption)

Block on User talk:203.49.235.50:

Complaint on Knowledge (XXG):Administrator intervention against vandalism:

User has been linking everything on a Smallville (Season 6) episode plot summary. The policy on wikilinking was explained to the user by two other editors, but the user continues to revert back to his edits.

Later partial mea culpa by User:Mobile 01 in regards to 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry

Travb (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mobile 01 I am not User:NeilinOz1

User:Mobile 01: "As for NeilinOz1 and LucaZ you will have to ask them."

User:Mobile 01 Acknowledges that 211 numbers are hers

211.29.2.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) signs comment on Talk:Smallville (season 6) as: NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Mobile 01 again first denies this is her:

FYI, My ISP is OPTUSNET, Optus is the second biggest ISP in Australia next to Telstra. Every account holder of Optusnet has an IP address that starts with 211.29.??.??.

Then User:Mobile 01 admits:

RE: User:211.29.2.233:

"Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her"

RE: User:NeilinOz:

"Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry."

Signed, Travb (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, My ISP is OPTUSNET, Optus is the second biggest ISP in Australia next to Telstra. Every account holder of Optusnet has an IP address that starts with 211.29.??.??. Mobile 01 13:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Refers to herself in the third person

As per Bobblehead below:

The clear violation is where Mobile commented on Woohookitty's talk page as an anon, referred to himself in the third person and then signed as Mobile 01. However Mobile did go back and correct that prior to anyone telling him to, so perhaps give him some credit for that. The other anon edits do not appear to be disruptive and it is plausible that Mobile failed to log in during those edits.-- Bobblehead 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the rest of this message, I see the explanation has been deleted.Mobile 01 13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01#Third_opinion Travb (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on abuse

User:MrDarcy :

“ ”

It looks to me like his evidence is the editing pattern, which we do accept here as evidence of sockpuppetry...if Travb is right, then we have a major (not to mention newsworthy) conflict of interest here, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Signed: Travb (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also quite possibly true, but what does two anon edits by employees of Bridgestone in Nashville USA have to do with me here in Australia. It seems to me that the user Travb is indeed trying to use the Chewbacca Defence.Mobile 01 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Raymond arritt

“ ”

Very interesting. The pattern suggests not simply one-off edits by an individual employee, but a coordinated effort. Raymond Arritt 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Signed: Travb (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that point especially if I lived in Nashville USA. But unfortunately as I live on the other side of the world it would be hard to be a sockpuppet of those Bridgestone Employee Editors.Mobile 01 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mobile 01 quoted User:LucaZ for backing up her version of the edits :

“ ”

The reasons for deletion were explained to you by Lucaz

Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion member User:Athaenara :

“ ”

LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006.

Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing two days later, 20 November 2006.
They may be the same person.

“ ”

Regarding LucaZ and Mobile 01: My own third opinion is that those two, or that one in (so far) two guises, should be prevented from editing the article and good editors allowed to retrieve the encyclopedic material from the debris. I hope Robdurbar, wangi, perhaps others, continue to assist.

Signed: Travb (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Bridgestone on Firestone and Bridgestone

See: Knowledge (XXG):Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Firestone

Factual inconsistencies of User:Mobile 01 and her intentions on wikipedia

See also #Another opinion below.

States there are no Firestones in Australia

You may also note that I spell Tyre differently to the American spelling Tire. This should indicate to you that I am not from the USA. I am actually from Australia. We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand.

But later states that she was aware that Bridgestone was in Australia

Explaining how she started to edit these pages:

05:44, 11 January 2007 "One day I got shunted to the Bridgestone page and noticed that the information was way out of date and had nothing about the Australian factories. being an old time tyre fan from way back I did some research on the plants and updated the article."

Response of Mobile 01

In response, Mobile 01 wrote:

“ ”

Bridgestone Australia Ltd is an Australian Company currently listed on the Australian Stock exchange, It has a Majority share owner (51%) of Bridgestone Corporation a Japanese company. It does not manufacture Firestone tyres. Firestone tyres are not manufactured in Australia. The nearest Firestone manufacturing plant to Australia is in New Zealand. So, my original statement hopefully makes sence to you now. "There is no Firestone in Australia", I thought I would try and clear that up for you as you keep trying to harp this point as having some significance.

Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone in as per: Firestone_Tire_and_Rubber_Company#Sale_to_Bridgestone

Keep in mind: Bridgestone and Firestone are the same company now. So what Mobile 01 is writing is this:

“ ”

Bridgestone Australia Ltd is an Australian Company currently listed on the Australian Stock exchange, It has a Majority share owner (51%) of Bridgestone Corporation a Japanese company. It does not manufacture Bridgestone tyres. Bridgestone tyres are not manufactured in Australia. The nearest Bridgestone manufacturing plant to Australia is in New Zealand. So, my original statement hopefully makes sence to you now. "There is no Bridgestone in Australia", I thought I would try and clear that up for you as you keep trying to harp this point as having some significance.

In other words, what User:Mobile 01 appears to be saying is that Bridgestone tire company does not actually make Bridgestone tires.

And the repeated New Zealand claim? Type in "new zealand firestone" in google, and what comes up first? www.bridgestone.co.nz/

On the New Zealand Bridgestone page, the article says:

1988 Bridgestone/Firestone company formed to become the largest tyre company in the world.

2003 Name change to Bridgestone New Zealand Ltd

Actually there are several Bridgestones in Australia

Mobile 01: "We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand."

List of Bridgestones headquarters in Australia:

http://www.bridgestone.com.au/contact/

Head Office

GPO Box 2200,

Adelaide, SA 5001

196 Greenhill Road

Eastwood, SA 5063

Telephone: +618 8206 0200

Facsimile: +618 8206 0299

E-mail:

Mobile 01 is from Adelaide, the same city with the Bridgestone head office.

On the side of the tyre in Big letters is the word BRIDGESTONE. You can tell that this does not say firestone as it starts with a B. Now still with our glasses on we will go look at a Firestone tyre. Note the different arrangement of letters. F.I.R.E.S.T.O.N.E, this does not spell Bridgestone. So what Mobile01 is saying is exactly what she originally said and not the newly edited version. Let me reiterate that Bridgestone Australia is a company listed on the Australian stock exchange. This means that is not owned by Bridgestone but by shareholders. If Bridgestone owns Firestone then that has no relevance to BSAL (Bridgestone Australia Ltd) which brands its tyres as BRIDGESTONE under licence. This is primarily why I edit the article and the start of this edit was by Travb over my trying to include separation between Firestone USA subsidiary of Bridgestone, and Firestone International such as Europe and New Zealand. The negative comments that the edit war is about all relate to Firestone USA, I have been trying to show that these do not apply to the rest of the Firestone organisation nor to Bridgestone Corporate Japan and especially not to Australia which isnt even owned by Bridgestone Copr Japan. Mobile 01 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile 01, true or false, did Bridgestone buy out Firestone in 1988? Therefore, Firestone ceased to be Firestone, it became Bridgestone.

Lets look at the web, type "firestone" in google what is the first entry?: www.bridgestone-firestone.com/ click on the link, what do you find, a big Bridgestone emblem. Your misreprestations of simple, easily confirmed facts is troubling.

With one of your anon accounts, on the Bridgestone talk page, in response to the Ford scandal and the largest tire recall in history, you wrote:

This topic is well covered in its own article as well as in the Firestone Tire and Rubber article.

So why are you yourself refering to Firestone on the Bridgestone page? Yet in other locations you say they are different companies. Why?

Again, Mobile 01, true or false, did Bridgestone buy out Firestone in 1988? Travb (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Travb, I'm not sure if your dilliberately playing dumb or what your problem is with understanding simple english. So one again I will explain it to you. It's getting a little tedious as it's been explained in so many ways and you still seem to be having difficulty with such a simple concept.

My statement was "We dont have Firestone in Australia, the closest is in New Zealand" end of quote.

Bridgestone Australia is a publicly listed company on the Australia stock exchange, it is not owned by Bridgestone.

Bridgestone Australia does not manufacture Firestone Tyres in it's plant.

Firestone New Zealand also a publicly listed company until 2003 was bought by Bridgestone. Tyres manufactured at teh New Zealand plant are badged as FIRESTONE. As far as I can find out, they do not manufacture Bridgestone branded tyres.

While Bridgestone may well have bought Firestone, the article in question Firestone Tire and Rubber Company is predominantly about the companies origins in the USA before they were bought by Bridgestone. My reference on the Bridgestone page explain that the topics mentioned were already covered on the firestone article and do not belong on the Bridgestone page. If we were to merge the two articles so as to have one big Bridgestone article, a lot of this information would get lost. Firestone problems before Bridgestone bought them out would become irrelevant and so it is better to keep the articles separate so these topics can be fully explored from a NPOV.

While the parent company is Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone still operates it's subsidieries as seperate companies for tax reasons and to abide by international law and the laws of the countries it operates in. The American subsidiary operates under the title of "Bridgestone/Firestone North America Holdings".

Your logic appears to imply that we should not have separate articles for companies if they are owned by a parent. KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut are all owned by Yum yet we have separate articles for them.

Please dont ask me to explain this to you anymore. Mobile 01 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal

User:Travb/m#Probable_socks_of_User:Mobile_01

Believes a sock puppet exists because two editors in Australia both like watching the TV program Smallville.

Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So: Re: "Postings from IP starting 211.29.*.* are probably all mine. Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007" 211.29.13.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.3.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are all yours. In addition, we have a Bridgestone employee in Ohio deleting the same sections as you are. (See below).

User:Travb/m#Confirmed_Anons_of_User:Mobile_01

This was when I used my brothers computer to send a message to an admin. I corrected to signature next time I logged in from home. he uses the same ISP, hence the same starting numbers.

Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Travb/m#Probable_Anons_of_User:Mobile_01

Postings from IP starting 211.29.*.* are probably all mine.

Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

211.29.13.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
211.29.3.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
211.29.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

These are probably all me, my PC is supposed to log me on automatically but sometimes it doesn't. I don't always notice I am not logged in and this causes my edits to appear as ANON.
Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user is from the other side of the country. They have made a few edits on the same pages, probably linked to what I was editing via the history of Smallville edits. I do the same myself when I check the history of a page and see an issue going on, I often go check out other things that user edits.

Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As for NeilinOz1 and LucaZ you will have to ask them.

I notice in the rules for sock puppets that an account is not considered a sock puppet unless used for illigitamate purposes. While my unfortunate mistakes with ANON editing are annoying, there was nothing illigitimate about any of my edits while using the ANON signin.
Mobile 01 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did make an error in inadvertently doing something called a Content Fork, While a page was under protected mode, I made a new Page called Firestone International which I was going to make about the international company rather than purely focusing on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the USA company. I started this page by copying the content of the protected page and began editing it to remove USA Specific content and adding International content. I never got to finish it because when I went back the next day, user Travb had initiated a complaint to have it deleted.

I also found an old article Firestone which was a redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, as The word Firestone relates to more than just tires, I edited this article to show the many articles within Wiki that are about Firestone, including Firestone High School, Firestone Golf Club, plus numerous people named Firestone. I have now been informed that this is also incorrect and that a Firestone Disambiguation page is where that belongs. Unfortunately there is not a lot on that page and you cant edit it to add more. I found many instances throughout Wiki where key words for Firestone had been redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Even Bridgestone Firestone was redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company rather than to the Bridgestone article. I fixed up all the articles I could find thus leaving Firestone Tire and Rubber Company as a semi orphan that was reachable by direct entry of the name, or by link from the parent topic of Firestone rather than every firestone keyword redirecting the user to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I have now been told by an Admin that this was also not allowed. I have tried in good faith to fix these problems with the articles and am now being personally attacked at every corner by user Travb. See his personal vendetta page at User talk:Travb/m Frankly if this is how an editor of Wiki is treated then what's the point of trying to improve the articles if another user just reverts all your work and then gets Admins to protect his version of an article while he sets about a personal attack of you on all fronts.
Mobile 01 11:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

While it is apparent that all the accounts and anon's provided are run by the same person (similar editing patterns and interests), I'm only seeing two "minor" instances where there's a violation of WP:SOCK and one definite violation, so I'm not sure an indefinite block is warranted, perhaps a good hand slap and a promise not to do it again. There isn't any overlap in editing periods between Mobile, LucaZ, and NeilinOZ1 and the only questionable edit between accounts is where Mobile 01 added a comment to a comment string LucaZ also commented in. As for the anon's there are overlaps in editing periods, but the questionable edits is when Mobile reverted Firestone after Woohookitty sprot'd the page, but I'm not sure content forking was a valid reason to protect this page as it does appear Mobile was setting up a dab page and not a fork. The clear violation is where Mobile commented on Woohookitty's talk page as an anon, referred to himself in the third person and then signed as Mobile 01. However Mobile did go back and correct that prior to anyone telling him to, so perhaps give him some credit for that. The other anon edits do not appear to be disruptive and it is plausible that Mobile failed to log in during those edits.--Bobblehead 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As I tried to explain earlier, the message to User_talk:Woohookitty was written at my brothers house and I was not logged in, I deliberatley used the third person so as not to appear as an impersonator. I corrected this immediately when I got home and logged in as me. I do not believe that I have done anything wrong here and have only been acting in good faith to try and stop a Wiki Bully from ruining what could be a good article. I don't know who user LucaZ or NeilinOz1 are and they both seem to have stopped editing in Wiki anyway. I have admitted that the ANONs are all mine and have redirected those talk pages to my own. Not sure what else I can do. I have done nothing illigitimate nor disruptive in any of my edits to warrant this personal attack. Mobile 01 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also posted:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Mobile 01

Section removed, as it had nothing to do with the merits of this case. Thatcher131 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Obsessive Hounding of Mobile 01 by Travb

The pursuit here, and more troubling at User:Travb/m is becoming a bit over-the-top, and frankly, a little scary. Here's what was said at the AN/I board about the issue:

". . . You're really reaching if that's the worst you can find from him. And frankly, I think you should back off on the whole sockpuppet hunt. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)" (excerpted in part)

"Could someone else take a look at this? Travb left an NPA warning on mobile 01 (talk • contribs)'s talk page, with links to diffs that aren't attacks at all, and he seems set on proving that Mobile 01's really a sock puppet with some flimsy evidence. It seems like the wrong party is getting warned here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"

"I'm getting a bit concerned about this - I think we got into WP:STALK territory a while back - isn't this the 3rd "outing" of Mobile 01 that Travb has performed in the last 3 or 4 days. If he's a sock or there is a COI that's one thing but the frankly obsessive manner in which he's been hounded by a single editor is not helpful. --Larry laptop 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"

The full text can be found here. The amount of time this user has poured into compiling his "evidence" at User:Travb/m is deeply troubling. Perhaps a cooling-off period is warranted. Morton Devonshire 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate and inaccurate characterisation (which supports User:Mobile 01's eager descents to the argumentum ad hominem in attempting to discredit those who question violations of Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines in the spotlight here) of a hard-working Wikipedian who has been working alone to protect an article in which few editors have been interested. Athænara ✉ 17:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Two other editors, not involved with examination of this sock puppet ordeal, have adopted a position entirely in league with this characterization. The whole reason, I, an outsider got pulled into this affair was discovering the aggressive nature which TravB has pursued this business, and as I learned, poorly characterized Mobile 01's attempts to engage in a discussion on his talk page, which lead to the above. This whole article would be better served by both parties admitting to mistakes, and seeking to forgive each other, rather than waste time and energy to attack. In essence, this represents the very worse of Knowledge (XXG), not an attempt to establish the very best. As is, the whole Firestone issue probably could have been settled in a better way, through mediation, rather than one editor resorting to attempting to kick out another. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In light of Mobil01's unilateral actions such as "The liberian controvesy while interesting does not belong on this page. This is a page about Firestone, what it does, and it's history in the USA. I have created a new article Liberian Controvesy which has been placed in the correct WIKI area for such a topic." and Mobile01's attempts to scuttle valid sourced criticism of the company, Trav's conduct, while not exemplary, is not unusual either. IMHO, the article should go to mediation. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also read Mobil01's admissions above - that section staring with : "I did make an error in inadvertently doing something called a Content Fork, While a page was under protected mode, I made a new Page called Firestone International which I was going to make about the international company rather than purely focusing on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the USA company.". Firestone International is an accounting (?) firm Firestone International. There is no corporate tire entity called 'Firestone International'. This and other redirects were such flagrant violations of WP, and (IMHO) blatant attempts to hide crticism under names NO ONE would look for them under, that I actually applaud Trav for showing the good faith and restraint that he did. - Fairness And Accuracy For Charles Taylor's Diamond Mines 20:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also no corporate entity called Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, which is an old name from before this company in the USA was purchased by Bridgestone Corporation. From my research I have found that the company is now called Bridgestone Firestone North America Holdings. My article titled Firestone International was supposed to encapsulate the International divisions of this company. Firestone have plants in Europe and New Zealand plus land holdings and plantations including Liberia. If thats not interational I dont know what is.

Your point seem to be that my edits and creation of the page would take information away and hide it where no one would look for it, which in fact is the exact opposite of what I achieved. I actually changed a parent article Firestone which originally was a redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and changed it to include all firestone related articles. This included the article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and the newly created Firestone International as well as links to the founder of firestone, firestone High school, firestone golf club, firestone radio show etc etc. My point was that if anyone looked or searched for Firestone all they got directed to was Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I even added further links to the liberian controvesy and ford rollover criticisms on the Firestone page. Go check it out and then continue your diatribe. Some have called it content forking, a term which I do not believe is appropriate in this case. If anything my new articles and Firestone page was actually Un-Content Forking and provided the wiki user with a greater ability to find information than before. My comment about my edits effectively orphaning the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company are taken out of context. My implication with that comment is that instead of everything currently redirecting to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company regardless of whether it should or not, my edit prevented that article from a monopoly of "Firestone" the word, and made access to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company come directly from the parent Firestone article, this being a choice the wiki searcher had made rather than had forced upon them. I dont belive what I did was wrong but have appologised many times already for it none the less. I have tried to enter ito discussion with this Travb, I have nicely requested he cease his vendetta, I have tried to answer all points raised by him and other editors. I have tried to remain courteous at all times. While my comments may appear to Travb as NPA they are not, they have been about his editing style and POV content. I do not know what else I can do to end this, the page is still protected and as Travb refuses to enter into discussion on it, will probably remain so indefinately. Mobile 01 06:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Firestone Tire and Rubber Company no longer exists as a independent and distinct corporate entity is not germaine to the fact that the DID exist, and the Firestone 'brand name' is still used. Pan_Am_World_Airways doesn't exist AT ALL and Wiki still has an article on them. Just curious - why would you choose to create the article 'Firestone International', a non existent entity, rather than the very real Firestone Natural Rubber? I look forward to working with you and Trav after he gets back from Wikivacation, and encourage you to seek mediation. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Note - I do feel the article is quite unbalanced. Firestone was one the more important brands PERIOD, in the USA up until they had the problems with the 500, and the section from the founding up until this date, should be greatly expanded. To cover 1900 - 1975 in two short paragraphs (especially the first) is nothing less than a travesty. Lots of good info here 100 Years of Firestone - Fairness And Accuracy For Firestone Historians 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Morton, please see this comment on your archived talk page: , asking you to stop your involvment with this case, which you have never been involved with before this checkuser. You have read this message.

Unfortunatly, you have ignored this request, so I had to ask two admins, who have came to your defense and User:NuclearUmpf defense when we have argued before, to intervene.

Troublingly, both have thus far declined, one states he is too busy and gave me a list of admins who may help, the other has not intervened.

Now User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:Tbeatty have joined this debate.

Thank you. Travb (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

~~====The Bridgestone company has been anonymously editing the Firestone page====~~ Careful Travb, that statement could almost be libellous.

An unidentified editor using an ISP traced to Bridgestone has been editing wikipedia.

See: User talk:199.48.25.10 User talk:199.48.25.11 This employee has deleted the same sections as User:Mobile 01. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're connecting an employee in Ohio, who made four edits on November 16, 2006, to a person who lives in Australia, and did not start making edits until December 6, 2006. A quick comparison of edits did not seem to indicate any type of exact similarity between the two. If anything, it appears as if User 199.48.25.10 was just a Bridgestone employee who was accessing the page, just like User talk:199.48.24.11, who accessed the page the same day (and also of Bridgestone). A glance at the edit history of the page indicates that you have a different interpretation of what belongs on the Firestone page versus what Mobile 01 had in mind. The regrettable thing is that from an outsider's perspective, a good article could be created by the combination of what you both want for the page, but instead it descended into a useless edit war and drove you to find some means to remove Mobile 01 from the picture. I say drop this nonsense and cooperate on merging both of these visions of Firestone.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

from what I just read here, my assumption would be that user LucaZ was an employee of Bridgestone USA who had earlier tried to edit the firestone page and then came back 5 minutes later under his own login. So that would mean that I jumped on a plane and moved to Australia just so I could sockpuppet myself away from LucaZ and edit a Bridgestone article that LucaZ never edited at all. I put my user page up to clarify a few things to Travb about where I live and why I edit Bridgestone and Firestone. Bridgestones head office is in the same city as me, so what. My father used to work for them. so what. User Travb edits articles about America, a quick check on the net shows that user Travb lives in America. Oh No Conspiracy. Mobile 01 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence thus far simply shows that employees of Bridgestone edited this disputed page. Travb (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So why did you connect Mobile 01 to these edits, if they're Bridgestone employees?~ (The Rebel At) ~ 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question RebelAt as to why user Travb would try to connect an employee of Bridgestone in Nashville USA with me in Australia, see Chewbacca Defence.

Mobile 01 10:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated several times to you, "WP:NPA: Comment on the editor, not the edit." Please start abiding by wikirules. Travb (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion

I am just starting to look into these charges and allegations, but IMHO Mobile1's contibutions do not jibe with someone who has only a casual, non affiliated interest in Bridgestone and Firestone, because her father worked for the factory. Use the 'reasonable man' (or woman) theory. Would someone who only had a casual relationship with a company ( a 'fan' if you will) upload nine images of an obscure Bridgestone product to Knowledge (XXG), and write a PR-sounding puff piece on the product ? Bridgestone Rubber Dams M1 uploads 9 corporate images It just doesn't wash. Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE : Rubber dam is 100% copyvio pilfered from Bridgestone, and the article itself a redirect from the more usual 'rubber dam' as used to describe a dental product. Fishy..... Very Fishy. Fairness And Accuracy For Copy Writers 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you check the original version of that page it was very boring and outdated. I started editing it to make it more interesting. I went to the bridgestone site and found out about a whole new product I had never heard of so I thought it would be a good piece to put in the article. I also added about Bridgestone Golf products and bicycles which were not mentioned on the article either. I also found some pictures over on the Bridgestone Web site too and some generic ones around the web which I thought would make the article more appealing and generally pretty it up, to make sure it was OK, I emailed Bridgestone in Japan to ask permission to use their images, unfortunately I never got a reply, I changed the images to low res which I belive meets with the upload image policy, if that is not correct I can remove them.

Are you Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers contending that every editor of wikipedia must have some direct link to the topic they edit or else they wouldnt bother?. Your argument seems to be that because I edit a page I must therefore have some hidden adgenda. Following your logic of the 'reasonable man' theory, would any editor in wikipedia spend hours working on articles that was only a fan. I would ask the writers of Movie and TV show articles if being a fan of something is a valid reason to want to improve it. I am sure 95% of article editors do so because they are a fan or have an interest in the topic they wrote about. For that matter, your user name suggests you have a direct interest in the specific edit being questioned by Travb on the firestone page, one could surmise then that you must have more than a casual interest in placing your comments here.

User Fairness And Accuracy For Copy Writers If you have a problem with my edit on the Rubber damn product because it is too close to the text on the bridgestone site, then I am quite happy to rewrite it in my own new words. Its been there for a while and no one has complained about any edits I have made to that page that I am aware of. Mobile 01 12:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cause people feel the same way about tyres (tires) and corporate entities as they do.... say... about Johnny Depp or Cameron Diaz. Righto! Fairness And Accuracy For Vegimite Lovers 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that the writers of the General Motors, Ford, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Nintendo, Microsoft etc etc articles are all written by employees or by Johnny Depp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile 01 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Update : Mobile1's Rubber Dam (made by Bridgestone no less) article was deleted for violating Bridgestone copyright. M1, I apologize for accusing you of 'pilfering' the text from Bridgestone. As you are quite likely a Bridgestone employee, you are probably authorized to use their text. Posting Bridgestone PR and puffery to Wikipedian might even be part of your job description! (by the way....I need new tires, can you get me a discount? None of those crappy exploding 500's tho! - I want Potenzas!) Fairness And Accuracy For Firestone 500 Victims 12:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this article that was deleted for copywrite, I cant find any trace of the article you are referring too. My edit was to a section on the Bridgestone Article to a sub section called diversified products. As far as I know it is still there. Be careful with your accusations too, Travb would say you are close to a WP:NPA

Mobile 01 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you denying the multiple contributions, using Bridgestone written text, you made to the now-deleted Rubber dam article? That seems to be the case. Are you saying that you made no such edits, and your edits concerning Bridgestone Rubber Dams were only to the main Bridgestone article? I want to be clear on this. Thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Mobile 01 accuses us of being sock puppets above Fair :) I am rather offended, because I think I am a much better editor. ;-) You are probably offended for the same exact reason :)

Also, if you look at Firestone all of User:Mobile 01, her one confirmed sock, and her several anons, all major additions, to my knowledge, have been corporate websites she links too. Travb (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. I went over Mobile 01's edits from the start to finish and found no article entitled Rubber Dam. Are deleted articles removed from the contribution list? If not, then why is this article been thrown at their feet? A second point of interest, this new accuser has a visible interest in child labor in Liberia, hence the name Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers. At the same time, Travb, has shown a strong interest in the topic, as it has been a subject he has sought to include in the main Firestone page. While certainly not a case of sock puppetry, this opinion is certainly slighted to favor Travb in this situation.

Furthermore, any criticism towards an individual for having "odd" or "unusual" interests, such as interests in a corporation, is completely unacceptable. No one has any position to dictate what is and what isn't acceptable in terms of personal interests, especially on Knowledge (XXG) where thousands of articles would not exist if not for the specific interest of one or two individuals on certain topics. What I find most dismaying about this case is the amazing aggressiveness to prosecute it, almost an eagerness to make this the final salvo of a vendetta that began in an editing war. Then now with this recent inclusion, veritable name calling, just makes the business all the more rotten. I have no personal attachment to Mobile 01, but the nature of this attack certainly has established a sympathy for them. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

→ Deletion log for Rubber Dam article —Æ. ✉ 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the points you're missing here: User:Fairness And Accuracy For All frequently varies the text through which his user ident is piped. Just another creative Wikipedian keeping things interesting while also keeping the focus on what this procedural discussion is actually about: principles, policies, and guidelines, not personalities and conspiracies. Athænara ✉ 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss that point. Since I had to replicate the code he used for his signature, I clearly saw that he altered his signature depending on his mind set. Which, in this point, obviously shows support for Travb's position. If there was any attempt at neutral assertion, it would have been wiser not to select a topic which was one of the flame points for this whole mess between the two editors. This, by no means, neither dismisses his accusations and childish comments towards Mobile 01, concerning her entirely speculated employment at the corporation in question.

Truly, what is at fault here are two editors who approach an article with earnest intentions, and simply failed to find common ground. It turned into an edit war that dissolved into this fracas. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I alter my signature purely for entertaiment value (mostly mine), and sometime will even add a sig opposite of my true feelings - I've used 'Fairness And Accuracy For Randy 'Duke' Cunningham' a few times lately, for instance. Pay no regard to what my sig says, as it might mean what it says, or mean the opposite! - Fairness And Accuracy For Charles Taylor 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for levity, but perhaps it was not the best choice of title for this situation! :)

Addressing the deletion log, I'm still confused. I'm not debating if the article existed or not, but Mobile 01's relationship to it. I checked her contributions for any edits to it and found none. Are edits to an article on a contribution list removed when that article is deleted? ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are, I'n trying to find out how they can be retrieved though. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. For the most part, I've spent my time on WP quietly working on articles, so there are some technical details I'm still unfamiliar with. However, with all due regard, I'm not sure what the Rubber Dam article indicates other than someone extending their fascination from a topic into a poorly created article. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion afresh

I first became aware of this situation when a request for a third opinion was posted on WP:3O (diff) five days ago. Aside from checkuser details above, three aspects are particularly striking. The following three subsections excerpt key Knowledge (XXG) guidelines:

Advertising (1)

"What about advertisers?"

There are basically three forms: adding excessive external links to one's company, outright replacing of legitimate articles with advertising, and writing glowing articles on one's own company.

The first and second forms are treated as pure vandalism and the articles are reverted. Most Wikipedians loathe spam, and spammers are dealt with especially severely.

The third form is normally dealt with by editing the article for a neutral point of view or by deleting the article.

Conflict of interest (2)

A Knowledge (XXG) conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Knowledge (XXG) to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article.

This includes promotion of oneself or other individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for, and their products, as well as suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors.

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;

avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality

avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

avoid linking to the Knowledge (XXG) article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Knowledge (XXG):Spam).

Definition of disruptive editing (3)

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.

Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

In addition, such editors may:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Knowledge (XXG):Civility, Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks, Knowledge (XXG):Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Sources: (1) Knowledge (XXG):Replies to common objections#Advertising, (2) Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest, (3) Knowledge (XXG):Disruptive editing. Contributed by Athænara ✉ 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The emphasis added above is intended to help the unrepentant sockpuppeteer understand just one thing: the discussion on this page is not about the character or personality of any individual editor or administrator who opposes certain activities. It is about the mission of the encyclopedia, and the policies and guidelines which preserve and protect that mission. —Æ. ✉ 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No Firestone in Australia?

Mobile01 wrote: "We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand" here

Odd. That's not what Bridgestone AU says:

"Bridgestone Australia Ltd is a leading tyre manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer, with an advanced range of products that leads the field for safety and performance."

"We produce and distribute the Bridgestone, Firestone and Bandag brands, which provide a wide choice of tyre solutions for passenger and light commercial vehicles, and trucks and buses." Bridgestone AU

What's going on? Why the denial of the facts? Curiouser and Curiouser. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Going off Mobile 01's statement above, it'd appear she may have been referencing plants, not corporate or retail presence. According to this link from Bridgestone tires are produced in New Zealand for sale in Australia. I haven't been able to find any direct evidence of plants in Australia, yet. Just general corporate descriptive statements which pop up on every bridgestone site without regard to geography. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for explaining. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 18:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please pardon my impatience, but all this amateur-defense-counsel pettifoggery continually leads away from the actual behaviors, actual evidence, actual motivations. The old MMO formula: Means, Motive, Opportunity.

Are you, User: RebelAt, promoting the mission of writing a neutral encyclopedia? Or are you playing trivial social games and taking sides as if these administrative procedures and discussions are merely sport?

While it is argued that one must assume good faith with regard to the defendant's disingenuous attempts to rewrite edit histories and contribs records, and utterly shameless vilification of those who articulately and sincerely question the actions recorded in them, it is also vital to assume the good faith of those who are not deceived by that. — Athænara ✉ 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"and utterly shameless vilification of those who articulately and sincerely question the actions recorded in them," - — Athænara

That right there is one reason, I've been posting. Despite assurance of adopting an attitude that Mobile 01 acted more out of ignorance to Wikipedian policy, you have already decided that Mobile 01 has acted in a malicious and knowingly intentional manner. I, and three other individuals, have recognized that TravB has over reacted in his response to Mobile 01's attempts at discussion. I was personally taken back by his aggressive nature to, in your supportive words, "preserve the neutrality of Knowledge (XXG)." Neutrality is great, and it is important, but Knowledge (XXG) stands for nothing if people waste more energy on attempting to remove those who they feel are harmful, rather than counsel a mediative solution. That is, rather than attempt to build a case for Mobile 01's removal, which has quite certainly had its ups and downs in terms of success, why has there been no attempt to have an honest discussion and seek a resolution that keeps two active and energetic editors working towards a better product?

I do believe in a better encyclopedia, and I honestly believe that this rampant aggressive behavior does nothing to contribute to it. Thus, influenced by mostly by TravB's actions, I have found myself reluctantly playing a defense under the belief "presumed innocent." A lot of people are always ready to take the most forceful and permanent solutions to end a disagreement. I say shame on them for not offering to seek a less harsh resolution, because this is a wiki, based upon the principle of mutual agreement and mediation. Damn me, then as some juvenile attempting to ruin the encyclopedia under the appearances of sport, fun, and games, but I'd rather collaborate than obliterate on any day of the week. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a new hobby

Travb needs to find a new hobby that doesn't include harassing editors he disagrees with phony Sock puppetry cases. This isn't the first time and I hope it is the last. Please close this out and move on. Nothing to see here. --Tbeatty 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tbeatty you have been actively advising USer:Mobile 01 on User:Morton devonshires talk page under a section mocking me: User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Travb_and_his_Pursuit_of_HappYness.

~~As an admin~~, instead of telling User:Morton devonshire and User:Mobile 01 that their WP:NPA personal attacks are inappropriate, you are actively helping them.

But when you say "Nothing to see here" and mock me with the title "Travb needs to find a new hobby" despite the overwhelming evidence that something definetly has happened, it deeply troubles me.

~~I am also troubled that you are not pursuing this sockpuppet case as zealously as you did User:XP.~~ Travb (talk)

I don't recall advising Mobile01 on MD's talk page. I did show her that your attack page was not deleted but I did not comment on it. Nor do I recall ever commenting on user XP. Diff's would be good to help understand where you are coming from. It seems ironic that you felt like an ass for defending him but seem to continue to do so even when you are confusing editors. But as it stands, your evidence against Mobile01 appears to be Users and IPs that like the serial Smallville. There is no violation of the sockpuppet rules. Having two (or more) accounts is not a violation in and of itself. Your argument does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. Move along. --Tbeatty 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty is an Admin now???!!! Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry for the confusion. Travb (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank god we got people like Beatty around to defend multinational corporations aginst scurrilous baseless unfounded charges! Maybe he can help on the upcoming Firestone Liberian Child & Slave Labor Controversy article and talk about their dental plan or somethin' ;-) Fairness And Accuracy For Rubber Barons 06:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where have I defended a multi-national corporation? Do you guys just make stuff up? --Tbeatty 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, again, I sugges you delete the personal attack on me, "Travb needs to find a new hobby". If you were not invovled in the User:XP case, my apologies. Several of those editors who you actively work with User:Morton Devonshire were involved with User:XP

My condemnation of User:XP stands, along with my condemnation of all sockpuppets. My stance on sockpuppets is consistent.

"Do you guys just make stuff up?" Please don't link my statments to User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, he often says things which I do not support.

As I have to repeat again and again, their is enough evidence here, which no one has argued, showing that:

User:Mobile 01 has been using a sock puppet account, and

that User:Mobile 01 has refered to herself in the third person while using anon accounts.

Please see Bobble's comments above. Personal attacks on me, which have nothing to do with these facts, are irrelevant and personally offensive.Travb (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets all keep in mind

Mobile 01 has been caught in some large factually inaccuracies. #Factual_inconsistencies_of_User:Mobile_01_and_her_intentions_on_wikipedia #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz #Refers to herself in the third person
Mobile 01 has a sock, #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz
Mobile 01 refered to herself in the third person twice. #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz, #Refers to herself in the third person
Bridgestone, Belgium, Ohio, Nashville, has been editing Firestone and Bridgestone.

Travb (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets all keep in mind - Continued

Supposed factual Inaccuracies.

First link provided by Travb does not show any innaccuracy. ANd my statement has been explained to Travb on numerours occasions which he fails to include.
Second link merely tries to link an IP address with the first two number sets to another editor. I have already stated that edits with these beginning number sets are probably mine, but have also pointd out that these numnber sets are shared among all users of this ISP. I have tried to point out that user NeilinOZ has not edited in a long time and therefor would not rate as sock puppetry in this case whether that user was or was not me.
I have explained that I deliberatley spoke in the third person so as not to appear as a immitator until such time as I could log in as myself, at which time I corrected the text and signed it properly.
Not sure what Belgium, Nashville and Ohio Bridgestone edits have to do with tihs case, I also notice from user talk:Travb/m that Michelin also edited the Firestone page. It seems to me that many editors have edited this page for a variety of reasons.

As I have stated repeatedly, This whole case is being used to shift the spotlight from the actual issue at hand and that is user Travb and his pushing for inclusion of POV information in the Firestone Article and my push to edit that information to make it NPOV. As for you the reader of this page, I leave it to you to decide. As far as I understand, as the checkuser has been denied and therfor no proof of these allegations will be forthcoming, I am allowed to delete this Sockpuppet case and remove the tag from my userpage after 10 days. Please someone correct me if I am misunderstanding this. Mobile 01 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Leave this debate

It is a bit upsetting when I see this statement included here, where user Travb asks another editor to stay out of this debate because he does not support Travb's position. Travb cites that the user was not invloved in the article before so should not be involved now.

Unfortunatly, you have ignored this request, so I had to ask two admins, who have came to your defense and User:NuclearUmpf defense when we have argued before, to intervene.

Troublingly, both have thus far declined, one states he is too busy and gave me a list of admins who may help, the other has not intervened.

Now User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:Tbeatty have joined this debate.

Thank you. Travb (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What I find even more distressing is the lack of a similar request for user Athaenara to do the same. Also not invloved in the article before and yet no request is made to cease involvement as this particular user obviously takes Travb's side. I am not sure it is appropriate to attempt to quash the opinions of those that oppose your point of view and yet to imbellish those that support it especially awarding each other Barnstar awards.

The comments by User Athaenara are also disturbing especially the way in which they try to appear to be neutral in the opening few words. The sentence is a huge contradiction of itself. "We must assume good faith" - but before we do that we must first point out that there was no good faith".

I would liken this to a prosecutor opening an address to the jury with "We must assume the defendant is innocent in regards to him brutally murdering the victim and then calously robbing that same victim of her personal possesions and setting her body on fire"; I would be calling "OBJECTION"...

The only "Utterly Shameless" thing I see there, is the users own statement, which has been vendictively worded in such a way as to impune me personally and attempt to portray the user Travb as a shining light for wiki policy. Frankly as an obvious supporter and Barnstar giver to user Travb, this editor shows a reluctance to remain neutral in this case.

I think those other editors being criticised by User Athaenara are doing a far better job at remaining neutral and offer constructive advice towards a resolution of this case, rather than User Athaenara's attempts to shift the focus away from Travb and his personal vendetta by a diatribe of words from their pocket thesaurus.

As stated above, the request for checkuser has been denied, the sockpuppet allegations are about edits made long ago by users that have not edited these articles since. This sockpuppet enquiry is finished and unproven and should be closed. Continued debate here is pointless and I would much rather shift the discussion to where it should have been all along and that is on the Discussion page for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article which user Travb refuses to do even after repeated requests from myself and other editors and Admins.
Mobile 01 06:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

..."finished and unproven"? False. Unfinished & largely substantiated? True. — Æ. ✉ 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from above..

"But as it stands, your evidence against Mobile01 appears to be Users and IPs that like the serial Smallville. There is no violation of the sockpuppet rules. Having two (or more) accounts is not a violation in and of itself. Your argument does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. Move along. --Tbeatty 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)"

Why don't we talk about the article over on the article talk page? I'll post some thoughts later tonight. - Fairness And Accuracy For Rubber Barons 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If this debate has come to a conclusion, I would happily offer my abilities for work on the Firestone article. While it is not a topic of much interest to me, I would be more than happy to work towards creating an article that, in hopeful contradiction to Mr. Lincoln's words, might please all of the people all of the time. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Mobile 01

User:Mobile 01, you have been using socks, User:NeilinOz, which you have refered to in the third person. You have used anon accounts, which in one case you refered to yourself, User:Mobile 01 in the third person. You have denied using anon accounts (203 IP) then when I showed that this 203 IP is you, you only then admit it.

In addition, there are other rules which you have broken repeatedly, which is not relevant to this sockpuppet case. We have repeatedly attemtpted to work with you within the frameword of wikipedia policy and wikipedia rules, you have refused, repeatedly. It is only after the evidence is overwhelming against you, that you now want to comprimise, in what I see as an attempt to avoid the normal punishment given to all of those who user who use sockpuppets. After your weeks of disruption of wikipedia, I think your sudden change of heart comes too little, too late.

None of those who support you (User:Crockspot, User:Morton devonshire, User:Tbeatty who I have actively debated on opposite sides in other debates) have attempted to argue the evidence against you, instead they actively attack with WP:NPA violations those who bring forward this evidence. Travb (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Trav, you have yet to PROVE that NeilinOz is a sock of Mobile 01. I haven't argued against your "evidence", because you don't have any. Mobile 01's statement that "even if it was" is a hypothetical, not an admission. And you cannot claim that all edits with the same class B address are all the same person. All you have is some vague circumstantial evidence, and a lot of persistence. Give it up. - Crockspot 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to that, move along Travb you lost your battle, you proved nothing and wasted everyones time once again. Whats that now 2 or 3 unproven sockpuppet cases youve brought now. Still waiting for that apology. If you want to talk about breaking rules, we could discuss your block log. And stop twisting the facts as it doesnt help your case. You pointed out nothing about my IP, I told you that they probably were all me.

You claim I am NeilinOZ who hasnt edited for ages and never did when I did. Dont see how you make a case of sock puppetry when no offence has been commited.

Your attempt to link me to an American editor of LucaZ also proved to have no merit. You introduce assertions that Bridgestone editors are editing articles and try to link that to me, You state some argument a ANON from the other side of the country had with another user on a TV series page and try to link that to me. I am sure you would have me blamed for the war in Iraq if you could only find an IP to match.

And dont use my words as if they were yours. "We have repeatedly attemtpted to work with you within the frameword of wikipedia policy and wikipedia rules, you have refused" are the same words I have been saying to you for weeks. I think everyone who can read has seen my many attempts to get you to discussion and compromise. I have left messages on your talk page which you ignored or deleted. I have tried to discuss on the article but you refuse there too. If there was a normal punishment then I am sure at least one admin would have dealt it by now. Your comments above are your last ditch effort to escape from here without once again looking like an ass. Thats a quote of yours talking about yourself from your last sockpuppet fiasco.

Your checkuser was denied, you have no evidence accept your own assumptions based on the first few numbers in an IP address used by over 100,000 customers. You seem to have this thing about NPA and I have seen you leave this warning on many editors talk pages. I have also seen you do your fair share of personal attacking so I have no sympathy for you on that score. One only has to look up and down this page to see the multitude of NPA against me.

You have been indef blocked, reinstated and then blocked again for uncivility. Sounds like massive NPA probelms to me. Give it up and either get involved with fixing the article or move along to something more productive. I think you have exausted your legal banter and sculduggery supply for now, and certainly exausted the patience of the wiki public. Like another editor said before. Move Along - Nothing to see here.

Mobile 01 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Olive Branch Extended

The following was left for user Travb on his talk page.

Invitation

Discussion has commenced on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. As you were one of the major editors of that article, I would like to invite you to join in this discussion so as to promote not only an informative and usefull article for wiki, but also one that covers all points of view. Please give us your thoughts and comments for format and content for this article on the discussion page. Thanks.

Mobile 01 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pertinent quote

It's entirely plausible that an editor can plow blithely on, unaware of certain guidelines.

Has anyone else noticed how spammers and other conflict of interest editors think
the guidelines are for the other guy and what they are doing is "useful" and shouldn't
be questioned? And they are completely sincere about that.

Perhaps we need a corollary to Assume Good Faith called Assume No Clue, meaning that editors have no clue that they have gone astray of the guidelines until being warned (or demonstrate understanding by using guidelines against their competitors!)

Originally posted by JonHarder on WikiProject Spam talk. — Athænara ✉ 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor pretty much covers it. - Crockspot 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Assume no clue" addresses the combination of ignorance and opportunism, as in this discussion of several accounts which were used for conflict of interest edits which persistently obstructed NPOV. Hanlon's razor is more often applied to mere stupidity. — Athænara ✉ 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Montparnasse

Another well-crafted, water-tight case, I see, Mr. Prosecutor. Morton Devonshire 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing

I'm going to try hard to save myself a tremendous amount of heartache by restricting the scope of this closing to the Knowledge (XXG):Sock puppetry charge. This decision should not be read to either endorse or criticise any editor's actions on the Firestone article - that is a whole different kettle of fish, barrel of monkeys, can of worms, and container of other mixed metaphors, that you all can feel free to continue there, hopefully under some other administrator's firm but fair oversight. I'm closing this particular page, to keep the WP:SSP page down to a ... OK, completely unreasonable backlog... and to save my talk page.

Note that this is not a vote, even less so than WP:AFD, WP:RFA, or WP:DRV. So how many people support each side of this conflict is not relevant, only the evidence they present. Even whether or not they are admins is not very relevant, except to the extent that this status allows them to take related admin action. I was tempted to list the people supporting each side here, but let's just leave it that each has multiple dedicated supporters.

I'll group the decision into 4 sections.

NeilinOz1 edited noticeably before Mobile01, on 2 days in two articles, Oct 17 and Oct 21 only, to Smallville (season 6) and Bridgestone only. The contributions NeilinOz1 made to the Bridgestone page were perfectly reasonable, and not contentious. They could have been cited better but that is something hard for new editors. The contributions they made to the Smallville (season 6) page were more contentious, but the conflict was resolved calmly through reasoned discussion on the article talk page - all as it should be. Therefore there is no reason to take any negative action against NeilinOz1 whoever they may be. Though I won't be nominating them for adminship any time soon, they seem to have been a perfectly fine new editor. If they did chose to become a different identity later that would be their undisputed right - they would have nothing bad to hide. Exonerated.
LucaZ edited on Nov 16-18, solely in the article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Their edits were more contentious, basically an edit war with Travb. Mobile 01 started editing Nov 19, and though she did not edit FTRC until Dec 6, there were not many intervening edits to that article in that time. Mobile 01 does seem to edit from the same point of view as LucaZ, but that is not conclusive proof. It might seem reasonable to ask for a CheckUser here, but it was denied. LucaZ has not edited since then, so there is clearly no ongoing disruption with a sock puppet. Between insufficient evidence, and blocks being preventative, not punitive, no action will be taken.
The unsigned-in edits are apparently carelessness, rather than malice. Mobile01 admits to most of them, and they did not try to pretend to be someone else. The "referring to self in third person" edit, which could be seen as troubling, was clearly "signed" "Mobile1" at the end, and was quickly acknowledged by a signed-in edit. I understand Charles DeGaulle had the same issue with referring to himself in the third person? I would caution Mobile 01 to be more careful, and to try very hard to sign in while editing related to this contentious issue. It's not that hard, and it's important. If it becomes a repeated issue, it could become an issue for administrative action. User cautioned.
Note again this decision does not address the substance of the edit war, or the content of the Firestone article or whether there should be one or multiple articles, or the behaviour of the parties being civil or not, or otherwise truthful or not. I did not look at that issue, other than to compare edits of various users for the sock puppetry charge. That was more than enough, thanks.

-- AnonEMouse 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:SaliereTheFish

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by: --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 12:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

reverted profile image back three times.  After 3RR warning , warning was deleted from talk page  and 212.219.57.77 (talk · contribs) made the same changes.

Possible 6th revert 06:46, 15 January 2007 as 212.219.57.77 (talk · contribs)

Conclusion

IP banhammered for 1 month by Alex Bakharev. MER-C 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:69.205.63.246

~~;Suspected sock puppeteer 69.205.63.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~

~~Suspected sock puppets~~

~~Butterrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~
~~69.205.58.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~
~~24.94.124.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~

~~Submitted By~~

~~BishopTutu 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Evidence~~

Butterrum has committed recent edits that were supported by the sock puppeteer, edits that were proven to be incorrect in the discussion page of List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series. Though, perhaps, old, the user, as of last December, "Butterrum" posted messages up in said talk page in an attempt to make it appear as if people were agreeing to the sock puppeteer's viewpoint; I don't bring this up as the reason for block, but, rather, I present this as more solid evidence of sockpuppetry. Also, sock puppeteer admitted to the use of another computer and and to the access of another IP, which is stated above.

~~More Evidence~~

Not necessarily new, but if one would check Butterrum's contributions, one would discover more evidence of sockpuppetry. Perhaps minor, but he has recently attempted to "cover" himself up; for some reason, in a message where he posted his "name," later, he comes back and changes it to "Maria." Now, why would you forget your own name?

~~On User 24.94.124.58~~

He hasn't necessarily sock puppeted this user, but I'm quite confident he has used this IP address before; recent edits, or, rather, personal attacks, are quite similar to personal attacks User:24.94.124.58 used to commit; also, because I've gotten into a past altercation with User:24.94.124.58, I feel the personal attacks could be revenge-driven. BishopTutu 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Sockpuppets and puppeteer have same exact grammatical errors~~

Sock puppets and puppeteer have uncanny, and strangely similar, grammatical errors. See user contributions for Butterrum and user contributions for the puppeteer and check their diffs for more information. Klptyzm 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Question~~

~~Will this ever be looked at? Klptyzm 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)~~
Nevermind. Klptyzm 01:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn. MER-C 10:24, 27 January 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:Henchman 2000

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

–Llama man 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Bowsy's account was created four minutes after Henchman 2000.
We share a computer so we have to take turns. Bowsy 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Replied on user's talk page. –Llama man 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is virtually indentical layout to both userpages (Same welcome message, almost same userboxes, etc.).

The accounts contribute around the same time (Usually, Bowsy makes a few edits, then Henchman a little while later).

As I said, we share a computer. Bowsy 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bowsy was the sole "delete" !voter at Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, which Henchman nominated, and !voted delete for practically the same reason as the nom.
Aren't you not supposed to vote on your own mds? And what is wrong with taking the minority side? Bowsy 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Replied on user's talk page. –Llama man 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This evidence is a lie. If you check the debate, you will find that there are TWO delete !votes. Bowsy 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

They both strongly support the addition of a list of minigames in the Mario Party articles and that "WP:CRUFT is getting out of control", and have been in edit wars with me to achieve that. –Llama man 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean they were in edit wars with you? I retired when it got unreasonable and tried to come to a civil conclusion. Henchman, however continued to add it back and was uncivil when doing so. Bowsy 09:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Hmm, I would note that Bowsy's !vote at the MFD comes just 4 minutes after Henchman 2000's nomination which seems really quick. Metros232 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly they both also have had issues with fair use images on their user pages User_talk:Henchman_2000#Userpage and User_talk:Metros232#You_vandalised_MY_User_Page.21. This accusation of vandalism without cause seems to be similar to Henchman 2000's false accusations. Metros232 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Metros232 has been blocked as a sockpuppet and vandal admin. He also waltzed in and ripped out my image. This is inappropriate as Prodego kindly asked Henchman to remove his, so I had a reason to call it vandalism. Bowsy 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a sockpuppet and a vandal? And have been blocked as such? What? Here's my block log. Metros232 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you had been. It says on your talk page history. Bowsy 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I have been tagged as such by vandals. If you look at the people who have tagged me as a vandal and sockpuppet, they are all vandals and sockpuppets themselves, they're just pissed at me for finding them out and are retaliating. Metros232 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I am being nieve (which TRUST me happens alot!) but is it possible that there is two wikipedians living in the same household? I mean, personally, I am the only Wikipedian in my household but alot of times I have signed up for services right after a family member. For example, when my mom and I signed up to sell books on a website, we signed up for our accounts like five minutes in advance. I don't quite know what to make of the other evidence, I was just commenting on that one. Please don't think I'm knocking anybody ya'll all cool in my book ;-) Mystify85JEC 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's possible. As I have already explained, Henchman and myself share a computer. Bowsy 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I believe you that you are sharing a computer. It seemed likely at first that you were sockpuppets, but that likeliness has decreased in my opinion. –Llama man 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also read Llama man's comment on Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#Sockpuppetry and Knowledge (XXG):editor review/Bowsy. Bowsy 14:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I can also claim protection from the 100-edit rule presented in WP:SOCK. It states that if the accounts are in an edit conflict on the same side and have made over 100 edits, it can be safely assumed they aren't sockpuppets. Was the full policy read before this case was launched? Bowsy 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You made 102 edits before your first revert to a Mario Party article; Henchman made 75 before his comment on my talk page. The edits before your 100th were mostly to the Mario Party articles; not "general" participation as the policy states. Of course, I'm not saying your a sockpuppet, just that I did read the policy completely. –Llama man 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What is this "claiming protection" schtick? The policy says one possible rule of thumb is the so-called 100-edit rule. That appears s in the "When questions arise" section, as advice to someone trying to figure out (essentially) whether to report an account as a sock puppet. Having more than 100 edits in no way provides a safe harbor. -- John Broughton | 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read the comments by Llama man on the pages I gave links to, you will see that he is admitting to tagging to legitamate users. Bowsy 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what John is saying; rather, he is saying that simply stating that having over 100 edits is not an excuse for not being a sockpuppet. –Llama man 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

I'm closing this investigation because WP:AGF and in light of everything stated here, these are 2 separate individuals using 1 computer... however, that being the case you both need to be careful about meatpuppetry; soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community. Both of you need to keep that in mind. I don't see any evidence right now that you've worked together to circumvent WP:3RR or other policies, but in light of the fact that you share a computer I think it would be reasonable that if you did combine for 4 reverts on a content conflict that you would both be blocked for a 3RR violation. Again, I'm simply stating this as a caution to you both.--Isotope23 17:50, 25 January 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:BryanFromPalatine

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

BenBurch 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Immediately after BryanFromPalatine earned a two week block for 3RR, Disruption, and Sockpuppeting, Kynouria, a single purpose account, appeared on the Free Republic article voicing the same concerns over "Balanace" as BryanFromPalatine and using the same terms.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 8 January 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:08october

Suspected sockpuppeteer

08october (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

04december (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Note

Report submission by

Caper13 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The user, user:08october, that user:Tariqabjotu blocked for 3RR this morning, appears to be using a sockpuppet to avoid the block.
After the 08October account was blocked, another user with the name User:04december began making the exact same reverts later in the day.
Both of these accounts were created in early December 06. 08October had fairly constant activity since being created until being blocked today. 04december had some edits in early december when it was created and then none until today when 08October was blocked and its first edit was to continue the reverts that 08October had been making before being blocked. Both accounts have only edited Islamic or Iraq related pages. Caper13 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

diff revert by 08October diff revert by 08october 08october blocked by user:Tariqabjotu for 24 hours for 3RR (there were other reverts, I didnt list them all above) diff 04december makes first edit in a month, exact same as 08Octbers' above diff second revert by 04december diff third They go on, but you see the pattern

Comments

Conclusions

From 04december's block log: 00:39, 6 January 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "04december (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (obvious sockpuppet of User:08october, evading block)

From 08October's block log: 00:41, 6 January 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "08october (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (restarting block due to block evasion through User:04december)
00:41, 6 January 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) unblocked 08october (contribs) (unblock to re-establish block)
08:33, 5 January 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "08october (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violating the three-revert rule at Saddam Hussein)''

--Iced Kola 03:56, 7 January 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:Spiderman goofs

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Spiderman goofs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Shut up Bignole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

Here is the history of Spiderman goofs: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Spiderman+goofs
Here is the history of Shutup Bignole: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Shut+up+Bignole

Comments

I have removed information that "Spiderman goofs" inserted, because of its unencyclopedic nature. I have done so repeatedly, always explaining that it is unencyclopedic. The same user has created a new account, making the exact same edits and has even gone so far as to create a name that is defamatory towards myself ("SHUTUP BIGNOLE") and continues to edit while leaving personal attacks. Bignole

Conclusions

06:06, 25 November 2006 Antandrus (Talk | contribs) blocked "Shut up Bignole (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (inappropriate username) MER-C 13:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that, and that Spiderman goofs hasn't edited since then either, no further action. AnonEMouse 20:14, 26 January 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:71.111.119.60

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

71.111.117.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.111.115.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

EvilCouch 14:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

User 71.111.115.155 was blocked. The block was reviewed and upheld. User 71.111.119.60 was blocked as a sockpuppet of 71.111.155.
71.111.117.65 is most certainly the same person.
"Admin Glen S has made a totally inapprobriate block here. Please Unblock. There are Two very good reasons. 1- The users are not the same and 2-Just as Important the reason given was evading of block! But the the previous block of 31 hours had already EXPIRED!! 3- As far as I know users do not always choose their ISP address so it wouldn't be intentional (this is moot since these two people are not sock puppets)
Please see time diff: (over 31 hours had pasted even for the sake of argument it was the same IP address user which it clearly was not) ] ] Please unblock User 119.60 and notify/Warn User:Glen_S of his terrible mistake. Thanks I have reason to believe that Glen_S's block of this user therefore was a pretext and possible racially motivated for attempted contributions to the Michael Richards article, which would be a is a serious violation of WP. Thank you."
Compare to
"This is the biggest news story since the Iraq War and 9/11 yet Wiki refuses to put it in their headlines! Enough of this Pro-Kramer BIAS in the the editing note WP:Bias I guess people in White Hoods like to stick together. Power to the People! Including colored people! More people at Wiki support Richards Rant than I thought very sad. Says something about the problems of this article."
Note the similar accusations of racial bias, the very similar IP addresses and close time lines. Additionally, User 71.111.117.65 is doing unusually large amounts of campaigning to unblock the already verified sockpuppets.

Comments

The block on 71.111.119.60 has expired long ago before the ban which makes it invalid. Whats with the vendetta and not AGF. People are just attacking me for no good reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.117.65 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 24 November 2006 (PST).

Conclusions

I hesitate to block IPs that haven't edited since November. No action. AnonEMouse 20:12, 26 January 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:JINXTENGU

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Tata-achhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Squareclockwrench (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
XINJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mousecakebutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NINJAMASTERJX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HoiSHIPOP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PORRIGEOCTOPUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zenshelith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Discovered Jan 2007)
Damagerock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Discovered Jan 2007)
Persian Satan bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Discovered Jan 2007)
Fathatsack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Discovered Jan 2007)
Froshk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Discovered Jan 2007)

Report submission by

¤~Persian Poet Gal 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

In many of the personal attack/vandalism JINXTENGU has committed (with various sockpuppets, not just the ones listed above), he leaves either his name or the account is created solely for personal attacks before it is blocked. Here are some diff pages which illustrate this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
View this page in order to see all his suspected sockpuppets.

Comments

WHat a guy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vultron5000 (talk • contribs)

Conclusions

All blocked, including Vultron5000. Many were already. AnonEMouse 20:09, 26 January 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:Devalover

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

KyndFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.5.116.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Def Trojan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

edgarde 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Prior to 2006-11-29T20:59:48, User:KyndFellow and User:68.5.116.235 always used the unlinked text signature "Daniel E. Knodel, M.A." Mr. Knodel (logged in as KyndFellow) has acknowleged that both these accounts are his.
KyndFellow is edit-warring heavily to reinstate pro-sex-tourism POV edits to Sex tourism. Recently User:Devalover joined the Discussion page making sycophantic comments. KyndFellow can effectively call & response with Devalover, as demonstrated in this interaction, essentially a conversation with himself demonstrating a consensus of puppet editors that certain changes are merited.
Scroll upward from there to see User:Def Trojan's history on that page. Puppetry is evident but not so clearly apparent as in the abovelinked section.
Note the contribs for these 4 users, especially in their overlap with 68.5.116.235. In addition to editing a similarly limited set of pages, 3 of these users put "See also" links to Sex tourism in other sex-related topics (all but one too tangential to merit a "See also").
KyndFellow has recently taken to using the phrase "majority of editors" (meaning him, Devalover & Def Trojan) in disputes. As Mr. Knodel is currently warring against two other editors, Def Trojan was needed to quickly create this majority.
User:Def_Trojan started editing about 3 days ago and entered the discussion using a combination of KyndFellow's language and language from prior comments directed at KyndFellow. Def Trojan is similarly sycophantic.
Def Trojan is also supportive in KyndFellow's campaign to insert his personal website in the article's External links. Neither will accept the more notable link of World Sex Archives as a compromise. (Mr. Knodel's bottom-line insistence on particularly his site is an obvious COI; Def Trojan's enthusiasm would have no such apparent motivation.) However, Devalover is the first to add that link.
Devalover was also first to advance one of KyndFellow's hobbyhorses -- removing references to "Child sex tourism" from the Sex tourism article.
Kyndfellow is the dominant character in this team on Sex tourism. However, Devalover is the older account, KyndFellow only having begun editing on October 28, so I'm labeling Devalover as the puppetmaster.
Interestingly, Mr. Knodel has deleted 2 comments referencing sockpuppetry on Talk:Sex_tourism, the 1st restored by him, the 2nd restored by me. The 2nd was deleted shortly after his AMA advocate announced he would be reviewing Talk:Sex_tourism, which is suspicious timing, circumstantial tho it may be.
Warning: Mr. Knodel deletes other editors' Discussion page comments cagily, including warning templates — check page histories to be sure.
About a month ago, Mr. Knodel was asked about editing as User:68.5.116.235. He explained he forgot to log in (as if needing to do so before every edit). This hasn't happened in a while, and might have not been deliberate — I didn't think so at the time. — edgarde 06:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
IP of interest (possible alternate IP addresses): 205.178.145.65 — Mr. Knodel's website.

Comments

Edgarde, do I understand the frustration of dealing with sockpuppets, multiple accounts.
And, I wish you had asked me first instead of taking this action... and... here we are!
So, what happens next? Devalover 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The only response I have is to please notice the date of the first edit of this account.Devalover 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems I cast too wide a net. This would make User:KyndFellow the puppeteer. — edgarde 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Confirmed in part by Dmcdevit here. Using Checkuser, Knodel is almost certainly DefTrojan, or used the same semi-static IP at least. Devalover is probably unrelated. Posted here by Thatcher131 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Closing without block. As above, Checkuser cleared Devalover. As for DefTrojan and KyndFellow, let me cite Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Puppets: "Sock or meatpuppets which edit in the same manner and with the same themes as KyndFellow are subject to the remedies imposed on KyndFellow. Indefinite blocks may be imposed on aggressive socks. All blocks and bans to be logged at Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans." Since DefTrojan last edited Nov 20, and 68... last edited Nov 3, they can hardly be considered "aggressive socks". More details on the arbcom decision page, above. AnonEMouse 23:42, 20 January 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:LazyDaisy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

PTIuv777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pjacobi 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Obviously created to vote on the same AfDs, see contribs. --Pjacobi 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Case proven, PTIuv777 blocked. -- AnonEMouse 23:35, 19 January 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:Wiki187

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Wiki187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

125.23.47.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
220.224.46.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ronz 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

After 125.23.47.249 received multiple spam warnings, Wiki187 appeared and reintroduced the reverted edits, as well as vandalized some pages. Soon after, 220.224.46.88 appeared, reintroducing edits and vandalizing as Wiki187 had.

Comments

Conclusions

It's pretty clear these are the same person, however none of the 3 have edited beyond November 26, so I won't block the IPs; if they do come back and resume editing, you can ask me or another admin to block, referring to this case. AnonEMouse 23:18, 19 January 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:TimRaines

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

TimRaines1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kershner 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Viewing the Contributions of both users reveals a pattern of editing categories to include spam links to a free trade magazines website. Additionally, both usernames are obviously similar. All spam has currently been reverted.

Comments

Conclusions

Case proven, TR1971 blocked.

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:Islami

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Truthpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.17.231.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) See this edit. Cuñado - Talk 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably it is one of your meat puppets. The first edit and the third edit proves that. --Truthpedia 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Report submission by

Proabivouac 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Truthpedia answers for Islami on Template talk:Islam 18:44, 30 October 2006 then changes the section header to obscure his slip-up.23:06, 30 October 2006

The discussion should be open to everyone who is involved. --Truthpedia

Both have taken interest in several of the same articles, including Salafism, Template:Islam, Jizya, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ma'bad al-Juhani, and a large number of similarly obscure articles, in many or most instances advancing the very same edits (e.g. , )

That interest is limited to very few articles of the total contribution of both editros. Template:Islam is a very visible article that is included in most Islam-related articles. The dispute in it was over the Salafism article. And through the last I came to Ibn Taymiyyah's article (my only edit has nothing to do with Islami's). As for the Jizya article, I have received an email from an active Muslim member asking me to help other Muslims against references removal.--Truthpedia

Both have advanced identical highly idiosyncratic viewpoints, such as the notion that Islam may be usefully divided into Salafism and Sufism, and that Salafism dates from the time of Muhammad’s companions:, , , ,

So?? This is the same view that is shared by millions of Salafis around the world. Check any Salafi web site on that. Add to that they both believe the sun sets in the west :) Common facts cannot be called "advanced identical highly idiosyncratic viewpoints" --Truthpedia

Both use idiosyncratic four hyphens to sign into mediation regarding images of Muhammad:, .

What a great evidence!!! By the way, they are different :) --Truthpedia

Truthpedia’s very first edits were reverts, with summaries indicating a familiarity with Knowledge (XXG) and with specific ongoing disputes on Salafism .

No, my fisrt edit was a link removal. However, that (first edit on the Salafism article is a revert) clearly applies on Proabivouac, a person who is known to be a sock puppet (see his/her talk page). --Truthpedia

Truthpedia’s edit times are consistent with an account only available during working (or school) hours M-F in one prominent western country. Islami sometimes edits during this time, but also and most often until the expected bedtime of the real-world user, and during weekends.

Despite what appears to be a significant level of coordination, neither has found occasion to edit the other’s talk page.

There is no coordination between me and any other member, except the one that asked for my help in Jizya (he is not Islami), and it was one email too.--Truthpedia

If the same user, he has recently violated the three revert rule on at least Salafism:
version reverted to:01:50, 6 November 2006

first revert:20:02, 6 November 2006

second revert:22:44, 6 November 2006

third revert:05:07, 7 November 2006

fourth revert:05:26, 7 November 2006

and Jizya:
version reverted to:22:28, 25 October 2006

first revert:19:27, 27 October 2006

second revert:20:19, 27 October 2006

third revert:20:25, 27 October 2006

fourth revert:00:15, 28 October 2006

fifth revert:05:52, 28 October 2006

Comments

No attempt has been made to drag up old 3RR or other violations.Proabivouac 11:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The accusers are organized meat puppets. See this:

Striver offering a blind revert

Cunado19 offering reverting services to any page

He ran out of reverts so he ask his friends to revert for him

Here, he is asking for a blind revert as a type of friendship

A blind revert a pleasure to Striver

--Truthpedia 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note - the outcome of this may be relevant to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, where both users have signed up as indicated above and the potential exists for meatpuppetry. Neither user has commented at the mediation, only signed up. --Aguerriero (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this makes sense, i did feel some kind of surge of like minded editors, but did not think more about it.... --Striver 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just on the verge of investigating the same possibility before Proabivouac did this. I have been reverting Salafism and Template:Islam almost daily for more than 20 days. The edits and comments of the two editors are almost identical, and they conveniently allow one of the users to avoid 3RR every day. Cuñado - Talk 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They are different and not 'identical'. They only thing that both users share on Islam Template is the inclusion of Salafism. As for the Salafism article, you were trying to revert a well-written article (was written by different users over a long time) by your own biased version without even addressing that on the talk page. Many users have reverted your changes, not only me.

Conclusions

Sending to CheckUser on 3RR grounds. Interests and contributions logs are suggestive, but not sufficient proof by themselves. AnonEMouse 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing without action. Truthpedia and Islami have each made many contributions to the Knowledge (XXG), so could be considered safe under the "100 edit" rule of thumb, but that is not a firm rule. They do end to edit Islam-related subjects, but then so do many other editors. Their edit times don't overlap, but that doesn't prove or exclude anything. They don't edit each others' talk pages, but then they don't edit many user talk pages at all - total of about 2 other user talk page edits for Truthpedia, about 5 for Islami. Truthpedia clearly was not a novice at the time of their early edits, they were already familiar with Knowledge (XXG) methods - but that doesn't necessarily make them a sockpuppet. The hottest debate seems to be on Salafism, and, frankly, there the issues are too arcane for me to understand. I tried to send this to CheckUser, but it (Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Islami) was denied as too long in the past. AnonEMouse 22:28, 19 January 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:Saderocks

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Princessdiaries11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Princessdiaries111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - added 26 November

Report submission by

Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 00:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Princessdiaries11's account was first used only 6 minutes after Saderocks was blocked for 24 hours (see Saderocks' blocklog and Princessdiaries11's edit history) and used to edit the same pages Saderocks last edited.

Comments

Both users have lately edited only to create apparent hoax information on Stefan Faison (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) (AFD'ed here) 13-year-old actor, who's purportedly replaced Max Thieriot in the cast of Nancy Drew (film). The movie's completed filming, and all sources list Thieriot. None list Faison. The character is Ned Nickerson, boyfriend of Nancy Drew, played by Emma Roberts, so a 13-year-old is certinly pretty implausible anyway. Only alleged source is a couple anonymous posts in the IMDB message board on the movie. User:Saderocks has previously been identified as Sade Faison (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) (AFD'ed here), presumably Stefan's sister. Fan-1967 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to clarify, the IMDB forum posting here was after the Knowledge (XXG) postings, and cites Knowledge (XXG) as the source. Fan-1967 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Per this edit, admits it's a hoax. Fan-1967 01:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest sock, Princessdiaries111 (talk · contribs) recreating Stefan Faison and another Film article that IMDB says he's not in. Fan-1967 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Case proven. All three blocked, sockpuppets and solely vandalism ones at that. Admission link fix: . AnonEMouse 17:13, 18 January 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:JB196

Suspected sockpuppeteer

JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

BooyakaDell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
198.138.41.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
192.204.106.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I Wear Two Shoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MusicqueenEr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SirFozzie 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

User:JB196 was banned back in September, for edit warring on numerous articles, including Death Valley Driver Video Review, Wrestling Spirit, along with a running argument with administrators. He did not take this lying down, using AOL Proxies continuing to spam article tabs (such as notability, etcetera) on articles he did not like. He did so until the pages were semi-protected, would wait for them to time out, and then continue adding the tags to the article.
Now, User:BooyakaDell (first edit is on 11/19 is acting the same way, with edits only on wrestling articles, adding the notability tag to the Death Valley Driver Video Review article, as well as adding to a section on criticism of the site's administrators (after causing trouble there, he was banned), and all his edits have to do with wrestling articles (which is JB196's interest). I feel very strongly that this is User:JB196, using a WP:SOCK account to get around his indefinite ban, and to try to get around any semi-protection of pages. SirFozzie 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit: I'm not so sure about BooyakaDell, but he's continuing to edit war from IP adderesses on the Wrestling Spirit Article.

I think it is. I have just reported User:BooyakaDell for abusing the notability tags which is consistent with his previous behaviour. Was he persisently claiming the right under WP:NOTABILITY? That's what he's doing to me, and I've slapped a test4 on his user talk page which he has labelled invalid. Yeah right! Curse of Fenric 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Added User:I Wear Two Shoes - multiple AfD's on wrestling articles. Tevildo 07:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by the admins. SirFozzie 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Added User:MusicqueenEr. As above. Tevildo 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the PROD, and asked the Admin I work with for action. SirFozzie 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The latest Sock has been banned, and created a page to help educate anyone who runs into JB in the future: Knowledge (XXG):Long term abuse/JB196

Comments

Has a Checkuser been requested yet? Lethaniol 11:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's coming soon, just wanted to see if folks thought it was a possible first. SirFozzie 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Declined, the Suspected sockpuppet master (JB196) was banned in September, and they can't attempt to match the two , due to the length of time not making it possible to check IP's

Conclusions

Was proven by a CheckUser and BooyakaDell, another account, and IP addresses have all been blocked SirFozzie 00:03, 4 January 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:RaveenS

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

216.95.23.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
216.95.23.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Zleitzen 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

This anon users first edits were an immediate detailed reversion of material supported by User:RaveenS on the List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state page. Utilising all the techniques of an experienced user, and an obvious knowledge of the material on a page that RaveenS created, the anon restored much of RaveenS material that had been deleted as original research. User:216.95.23.95 also shares the same editing pattern as User:216.95.23.239 and RaveenS, editing primarily on state terrorism subjects. This anon even appeared on a template for deletion discussion which RaveenS was heavily involved in. The subject is again "state terrorism". Without wishing to sound like a wiki-stalker, this statement by RaveenS "I think we are trail blazing in Knowledge (XXG). When we started the State terrorism series, we got into number of AFD's but all of them resulted in State terrorism becoming a standard subject" speaks volumes.--Zleitzen 17:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It is me who used the above two Anon accounts when I didnot sign in but I did not vote in the TFD. Which is what the sockpuppet rules indicate as Sockpupprts should not be used to create an impression of more support to a cause when there is non. Hence the above asertion is malicious and I demand an apology. In the TFD I merely commented on others. Further I have re-directed the Anon accounts to my user page. I will continue to use anon accounts when I forget to sign in as it happens sometimes in the future. ThanksRaveenS 17:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to vote to create an illusion of support. And demanding an apology assumes that the request was made in bad faith, please read WP:AGF. -Amarkov _edits 20:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree see the following from sockpuppetry For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny." Further I did not create them, I merely did not sign on and my AOL like account assigns what ever servor is available. Hence I did not create a sockpuppet. Creating a sockpuppet shows intent to cheat unless othewise stated. All what my behaviour can prove is that I did not sign on. Period there is no policy against it. Further in the TFD without my user account I merely pointed out that one one newbie had edited for the first time and another had lobbied for a vote. None can be construed as to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny.. It is merely like book keeping. Helping the ADmin to notice irregularities. ThanksRaveenS 21:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also from the same policy page The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Knowledge (XXG) policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably. Which shows that there no consensus as to what I did was wrong. Also Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. Based on the above asertion I will in the future if I edit without signing on which will happen as I am a normal human being, I will make all reasonable attempt to link that Anon user page to my user page. ThanksRaveenS 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This report by Zleitzen doesn't assume WP:AGF to start off with and this whole report is baseless. User:RaveeS did not create and use multiple accounts. This whole dispute centers around of user:RaveenS not having signed in to ips. User:RaveenS is a person of high standing in the wikipedia community. You cannot deny he is exceptional here and deserves to be praised for his efforts to create neutral authoritative articles on wikipedia (some of which have been featured) and not be dragged through the mud as has been done here. It borders on being an unwarranted personal attack on user:RaveenS. RaveenS has done nothing wrong and the contribution history of the ip edits clear shows linkage to RaveenS. An intent to hide this was not shown so there is nothing malicious about it . The fact of the matter is there is a content dispute between the accused and accuser here and this seems to be a fall out from this. On the TFD, his anonymous ip was used to comment on what appears to be voting irregularities and not for or against any view even. I personally think this report should be withdrawn ASAP! Elalan 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there is a content dispute, between me (trying to make sure pages abide by WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) and User:RaveenS who appeared to be operating anon IP addresses on various pages and ignoring calls for WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, despite recommendations from myself and now two admins. Surely a person of "high standing in the wikipedia community", such as User:RaveenS would take a good look at the rule book and realise that this type of activity is not on. If it looks like User:RaveenS is being dragged through the mud, then the user should perhaps use only one acount to conduct major reversions of controversial articles and only one account to add comments to a tfd. And then perhaps User:RaveenS could address the other pending issues with his edits after that.--Zleitzen 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To be frank you have not shown a shred of evidence RaveenS has used multiple registered wikipedia "accounts" and hence this whole report is dead in the water. I would suggest everybody here cooldown and take a deep breath and come back after some introspection. RaveenS has multiple ip addresses, which is normal in this day and age. There is nothing malicious in this and assuming so contravenes WP:AGF. Why RaveenS has multiple ip addresses and uses them doesn't contravene anything. Asking why is fine, but I am not sure RaveenS is answerable to that question (that is entirely his business). Further RaveenS has put in redirect from the ip addresses to his only user account. Elalan 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The stuff about WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV really has no basis in this report. These are entirely content matters and should be dealt with in the content dispute forum. All of these points have to be agreed upon through consensus within the community. Elalan 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
RaveenS has put in redirects from the ip addresses, true. Only after I added the sockpuppet tags. Either he did use different accounts to make major reversions of a controversial article and add comments to a tfd. Or he didn't. I believe he did - followed the correct procedure and alerted admins as per guidlelines. It would now appear that I was correct, and the user has admitted it - mistake or not. I would expect an editor with a "high standing in the wikipedia community" to be more aware of protocol, than to make basic errors of logging in and then respond in this way to legitimate wikipedia process - claiming it is "malicious" and demanding an apology. --Zleitzen 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also redirected IP 64.201.162.1 to my User page although in the IP talk page I had acknowledge long agao that it was me. Although I dont sign through the servor anymore, I did it to eliminate any questions in the futureRaveenS 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected] to me. If I find more as these servors change all the time I will redirect them to my user pageRaveenS

This is such a petty non-issue - and appears to be a deliberate attempt to distract very good wikipedians who, from what I can see have done a great job in enriching the articles they have been working on. I find this a genuine mistake of the concerned individual (User:Raveen S), who most likely was unaware he wasn't signed in a few times - a common occurence - and he has my support. Citermon 12:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Citermon, I consider your comments unhelpful and uncivil. I have never yet encountered a "good wikipedian" on my work on the 1000s of articles I work on - including featured articles - that has consistently forgotten to sign in whilst reverting extremely controversial articles a number of times, or whilst engaging in a tfd vote. Neither can such behaviour be described as a "petty non-issue" - that kind of activity demands an explanation. Which we eventually received thanks to this investigation. --Zleitzen 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean consistently forgotten, Are you insinuating I voted on the TFD contrary to evidence? Also are you personally attacking me contrary to the WP:NPA as above ? Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community as we are all Wikipedians. Thanks RaveenS 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

No evidence to show this was intentional sockpuppetry to gain the illusion of support, reasonable that this was a habit of forgetting to log in. RaveenS is reminded to be more careful, to avoid similar accusations in the future. Closing without blocks. AnonEMouse 16:48, 18 January 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:MyChemical

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

BostonMA 14:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

The article Polaria (Medical Disease) was a hoax article created by MyChemical (talk · contribs).

The article Polaria (Medical Disease) was tagged for speedy deletion by BostonMA (talk · contribs), and was subsequently speedily deleted

The account Fikipedia (talk · contribs) was created to attack BostonMA (talk · contribs) in retribution for the speedy delete. See user contributions. This account has been indefinitely blocked.

The account Fikipedia (talk · contribs) commented:

"WELL THEN STOP LETTING BOSTONMA WRECK MY PAGE EVERYTIME I TRY TO WORK ON POLARIA! I DONT CARE IF YOU WANT TO THINK ITS NOT REAL BUT IT IS SO KNOCK IT OFF!"

thus identifying Fikipedia (talk · contribs) as the same user who editted Polaria (Medical Disease).

Comments

Just curious, what is the Polaria article she wrote about? íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 18:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It was about a supposed disease called Polaria or Expanding Communicable Gallbladder (ECG) discovered by a supposed Dr. Monroe Polariaoscpia. "If Polaria remains untreated, you have a 90% chance of dieing due to your gallbladder reputing." --BostonMA 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to write a polaria article. Its not even real for one. My friend doesn't go on Knowledge (XXG) and she asked to go on my account to look at something. Then when I come back on I had all of these messages about spam and crap. Then she logged off of my account and made her own and started spamming everything. --MyChemical 16:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

17:22, 18 November 2006 Glen S (Talk | contribs) blocked "Fikipedia (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (harrassment account)
Could someone please comment on the main account? MER-C 11:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Commenting and closing. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. The harassment and hoax article creation has not continued from the MyChemical account after Fikipedia was blocked. Presumably MyChemical's "friend" will no longer be allowed to use the account. If MyChemical creates another hoax article, they may be blocked, either as a repetetive vandal, or as an account that is used by too many people, blocker's choice. Will warn MyChemical on their talk page. AnonEMouse 16:34, 18 January 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:Jacknicholson

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

jesup 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Repeated identical edits (now with misleading summaries, including "minor edit" to hide it from some) on Katana. Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Katana&diff=88449160&oldid=88300373
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Katana&diff=88298322&oldid=88296556
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Katana&diff=88292391&oldid=87346989
and compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Katana&diff=87346728&oldid=87272508
by User:Jacknicholson and many, many other identical edits by him (and before page was semi-protected by anon-IP's identified as sockpuppets of him). jesup 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I ain't no sockpupet, run a check user if you will, i've just reveted your nonsencical removals.Marshalbannana 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A check of the other known sockpuppet IPs for Jacknicholson and the list of anon-IPs used for repeatedly (25+ times) inserting this text and youtube video link show that almost all are BellSouth dynamic DSL IP addresses, plus an edit or two from a school lab account in Georgia. jesup 04:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A note for reference, since Marshalbannana has taken the sockpuppet notice down on his page due to no CheckUser being requested. The "Notes for accuser" don't say you have to do so (or even that you should). In this case, I doubt it would help since the anon-IPs used by Jacknicholson and used to insert this edit before sprotect are all dynamic IPs from BellSouth (plus one school IP from Georgia), so CheckUser is not likely to give definitive results. I have no problem with requesting Checkuser, I didn't see any benefit and there was no suggestion that I had to. jesup 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

how typical of you first you deface my user page, accusing me of being a sock because you disagree with my edits, then when your ten days expire you lack the courage to ask for a check user. likely because you know I was innocent and you simply aren’t asking for it so you don’t have to issue a retraction or an apology. This cowardly behavior is disgusting, all you veteran users just decide to go and beat on the noob as the fast way to adminship myfirst twelve days have consisted of nothing more than abuse from you.Marshalbannana 16:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that you are or that you aren't. However, your edits began right after the previous sockpuppetteer was blocked from further editing. Similarly, your edits have focused only on the same article his were on, specifically, the same exact revision of the same exact text. This revision contains text that has been found unfit for the article by consensus on the talk page of the article, but was reverted continuously by the previous puppet/teer.So you see, the situation appears that the old sockpuppet was blocked from editing, and now someone else is fulfilling exactly the same actions as him with no appearance of other intent. That is enough to get more than one person to suspect (see: "suscpected" sock puppets) that the old puppetteer may be using a new puppet.- xiliquiern 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I should also note that Marshalbannana started re-inserting this text exactly 4 days after the previous inserter (User:Jacknicholson) was reported, and 4 days is the minimum age of a newuser before they can edit sprotected pages. Note also the deceptive summary for Marshalbannana's last re-insertion before this case was opened: "m (sourced, looks better)" - marked as a minor edit. jesup 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Creation time was about 40 minutes after Jacknicholson was blocked. jesup 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While not directly to the question of puppetry, the discussion on the issue of this text occurred in Talk:Katana#Bullets. The comment from an anon-IP previously associated with the now-banned Jacknicholson vowed to continue to re-add the text. (See Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson and the edit by one of his known IPs.) The only comment from Marshalbannana on Talk (after multiple messages on his talk page, and after this case was opened): "liar! you've shown no willingnes to compromise, or discus." jesup 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
ya havent given any evidence, just a bunch of rambling about some other actor-user that has no conection to me if ya want a check user go ahead that wil only exonorate me.Marshalbannana 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) lots of people disagre with your autocratic edits and i am just one of them. Now of course I keep reverting that same edit because you snapped at me in a very rude maner when I first stumbled upon it and then accused me of being a spupet so of course I wont back down now, not to force and threats at least. Marshalbannana 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
jake b and marshalbannana r the same person: User_talk:Thumperward#Vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.251.234 (talk)

FWIW, I don't think that's true. Chris Cunningham 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason to suspect "jake b". I know nothing about him. If there is evidence, I suggest opening a third case. A quick glance makes me think he is NOT a sockpuppet of Jacknicholson. Removing jake b. jesup 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who marshalbannana is. What is this crap about? Jake b 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It may not matter, since Marshalbannana indicated for a time that he "will" be abandoning the account, but since Katana was fully protected his editing pattern has appeared consistent with Jacknicholson's former pattern (basically trying to force this into Katana until it was protected, and editing Iraq war pages). This obviously is not conclusive proof, just some circumstantial evidence. jesup 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
On Dec 16 & 18th, Marshalbannana struck out his name on this page and then marked himself as "Aquited". — jesup 05:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
On Dec 27th, an anon-IP user (probably Marshalbannana) re-instated the "acquittal" and removed the above paragraph. — jesup 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: Since the vandalization and edit-warring over Katana seems to have stopped finally, and since Jacknicholson is already permanently banned, the issue of whether Marshalbannana is or is not a sockpuppet may no longer be important to resolve. I believe the evidence strongly shows he was a sockpuppet, but with the indefinite banning of Jacknicholson this is probably the editor's new primary account. Note that the actions taken here on this page (self-acquittal, etc) are themselves problematic, however. — jesup 16:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Agree with last comment above. Mb and Jn do have many common interests and similar editing, so there actually would be noticeable evidence that they are the same person, but that is not crucial. Jacknicholson was indefinitely blocked for username, not for vandalism (though he had performed some vandalism). Therefore there is nothing wrong with coming back with a different username. Self-acquittal is problematic, but the backlog on this page is horrendous, possibly encouraging frustration. No action taken, closing. AnonEMouse 16:22, 18 January 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:Icecold1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Icecold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ryancc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alpha12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Echo9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ryand 07:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

In the middle of a dispute on the Raffles Junior College talk page, three votes were made in a straw poll, all first edits by users whose accounts were created mere minutes before the vote in question. When this was pointed out, Icecold1 replied:

Ha Ha, I did it on purpose so as to leave you some clue.... this just show that anyone can create as many user id as he/she likes it. Therefore this stupid thing about Quick stra poll is just some useless and time wasting thing.

As an admission of guilt, this should be enough evidence of sockpuppetry.

Comments

Agree - pretty obvious. jesup 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Sockpuppets blocked, Icecold1 warned - better late than never. AnonEMouse 15:39, 18 January 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:SHARONHIRLEY

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

SHARONHIRLEY18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Veinor (ヴエノル) 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar name, same spam.

Comments

Conclusions

Both blocked indefinitely. AnonEMouse 15:15, 18 January 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:Justice2day

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Justice2day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Seidel,K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DHEA-S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DaveSeidel 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Please see Talk:Mark Geier#Recent_anonymous_edits for background. To summarize: an editor, suspected to be Mark Geier himself, has been editing his bio page using at least two IP addresses, an alias (Justice2day), and a probable sockpuppet (Seidel,K). The interesting thing about the sockpuppet is that it is the name of my wife, Kathleen Seidel, who writes a weblog that has lately featured a series of investigative article that are very critical of Mark Geier (in his professional capacity, not personally). Kathleen in fact does not even have a username on Knowledge (XXG). The Seidel,K username is not only a sockpuppet but an impersonation of a critic, and it has been used to remove material from the Geier page that is critical of Geier.

Comments

The Wiki article needs editing and verification. It claims that Geier is board certified in medical genetics and forensic medicine. The American Board of Medical Specialties does not have a member board in forensic medicine. Further, www.abms.org, does not have a listing showing that Mark Geier is board certified in anything.
ACCURACY please!

Agreed, but these comments are more appropriate for the article's discussion page (Talk:Mark Geier) as they are not relevant to the sock puppet dispute. -- DaveSeidel 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Mark Geier#Clinical_studies_on_the_role_of_mercury_and_androgens_in_autism -- Geier appears to be using yet another sock puppet: DHEA-S. -- DaveSeidel 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Seidel,K blocked as inappropriate username. Justice2day edited for November 10-12, DHEA-S edited in December 9-10, a month later. Even if these were the same person, I don't see any violation of WP:SOCK, as they didn't overlap or try to do anything by "weight of numbers". AnonEMouse 22:11, 17 January 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:Joey Andrews

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Joey Andrews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Sonic religion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pascal.Tesson 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

The first account was blocked indefinitely for posting recurrent nonsense, in particular concerning the Church of Sonic (I suppose admins can check the history for more detailed info I can't get). User Sonic Religion then recreated it twice today and left a message on my talk page asking why I was unfairly persecuting his religion. The page got speedied and ten minutes later was recreated by Jacksteinbrecher. There is, I suppose, a possibility that they are only meatmuppets. In any case, all three are vandalism only accounts. Pascal.Tesson 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh and it seems like 71.230.137.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also the same guy or one of this group of witty pranksters. Pascal.Tesson 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Vandalism only. Very likely the IP is the same, it's from West Chester PA. I blocked the second two, the first one was already blocked by Pilotguy (apparently for putting an interesting Javascript on Jimbo Wales's page). Sorry it took so long. Big backlog on this page. AnonEMouse 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. 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 for detailed instructions.

==

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Sumple

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

User:Sindolar Sindolar 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

After investigating the Talk:China page, it's highly suspected that 211.30.236.143 to be a sock puppet of Sumple, they tried to create the illusion of support in order to undermine scholar Chen Jian's published POV.
First evidence is the same view they were holding against one user to undermine Chen Jian's published POV:
Sumple wrote: lengthy paragraph adds little value to what is already in the paragraph.
Note that "lengthy paragraph" refers to Chen Jian's unique view which has been published in a verifiable/reliable source.
211.30.236.143 wrote: SlimVirgin, why are you giving so much credence to the theory of this one scholar Chen Jian
The second evidence is the fact both accounts are originated from Sydney. Sumple describes himself in his user page that he lives in Syndney, and the IP 211.30.236.143 was also originated from Syndney based on WHOIS results:

inetnum: 211.28.0.0 - 211.31.255.255

netname: OPTUSINTERNET-AU

descr: OPTUS INTERNET - RETAIL

descr: INTERNET SERVICES

descr: Chatswood, Sydney

country: AU

Comments

Conclusions

One anonymous account made one edit. WP:SOCK isn't clear if an IP even can be considered a sockpuppet; but in any case, not nearly enough evidence. Nothing to do here. AnonEMouse 22:15, 12 January 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:SteveBish

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Eusebeus 13:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

A far from malicious use of a sockpuppet account, but it has been used for vote padding back in 9/05 at DRV: More recently, the same pattern has reappeared at the same subject here. The SP account is largely dormant (7 edits in 14 months Special:Contributions/Refphilosopher).

Comments

Conclusions

Highly doubtful these are the same person. Note the same minute of the DRV edit, Steve Bish was making a completely unrelated edit. They also usually edit on different days. Odds are good these are two different people interested in the same philosopher. Rejected. AnonEMouse 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/ran

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:Premier

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

124.183.226.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.184.172.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Note

See also Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Premier

Report submission by

  ⇒ bsnowball 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

this edit seems clear case of using annon to create illusion of support for contentious material. the other 2 edits (at the moment) seem similar enough, to users previous to establish this. as noted in 1st report on this user, i am involved in this debate.

Comments

Premier here. What "contentious material" would this be?
Surely we're not talking about the work of the great anthropologist Walter Roth are we? Surely not?
Tell me it ain't so Joe.
Premier 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
from Talk:Indigenous Australians
Discussion of cannibalism has been reduced to a single line, but it's still ok. Any mention of the issue at all is a victory.
Opponents of Australian Aboriginies are quite pleased.
124.184.172.177 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem odd that *all* these new users from the same IP range could be so interested in one talk page on one article, to the exclusion of all others. Orderinchaos78 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

07:08, December 29, 2006 Hesperian (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Premier (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite: so closing this SSP. AnonEMouse 19:39, 12 January 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:Premier

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Note

See also Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Premier 2nd

Report submission by

→ bsnowball 11:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

i strongly suspect this is to create the illusion of support for controversial ideas user is pushing, & to avoid scrutiny
this based on simlarity of subjects edited, content of those edits & editing style (multiple chop & change before deciding on final version)
these 2 accounts seem to have been used for similar in the past (124.184.224.64) & (124.187.178.8) i include them simply to bolster the case, aware per guidlines, they are not in themselves 'actionabale'
note: as no doubt u will notice, i am very involved in the extremely robust 'discussion' in Talk:Indigenous_Australians (& the immediately proceeding archive) which also involves this user. i am reasonably sure this accusation stands on its own merits, though, obviously i would like this user to stop posting what seems to me to be highly objectionable content per se.
~~also i completely suffed this the first time i tried, Suspected sock puppets/User:Premier but i can't find that now, sorry~~ have had that cleaned up → bsnowball 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

adding this later: sorry forgot, (another old one) 124.183.230.177 may have been used to get around an extended ban if it's same user → bsnowball 13:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On 12 Nov 2006, changes to Talk:Australian Aboriginal mythology within the same section: IP 01:49 UTC, IP 01:51 UTC (addition), Premier 07:34 UTC (new point) IP 10:21 UTC (modification of/addition to Premier's post], IP 10:22 UTC (another modification). Orderinchaos78 14:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See also Knowledge (XXG):Suspected_sock_puppets/Premier_2nd Orderinchaos78 13:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This is Premier here. Let me explain something. If I like certain phrases and forms of words that other wikipedians have used then I have no problem using them myself. This may create the impression I am a sockpuppet. But I'm not.
I'll agree that I have been involved in a robust debate on the indigenous Australians page. I've been enjoying it.
I'm trying to advance the point of view that cannibalism in ancient aboriginal society is a documented historical fact and has been since around the 1930s.
It has upset some people that I have raised this issue but what probably upsets them more is the fact that I am more than holding my own in the debate and I have been able to marshal a very formidable YES case.
Premier 12:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Orderinchaos78

I support the case as raised - it's fairly obvious to me (having been involved in said robust debate) that the two users are the same person, and the logged-in and not-logged-in variants are used interchangably, have the same writing style, same opinions, same sources, and same editing pattern. In more than one case, the IP has brought back removed or archived comments by Premier, or vice versa. The activity on the two cited IPs from 20:03, 10 November 2006 to 01:51, 11 November 2006 is particularly interesting - gaps in one appear to represent activity by the other. They stick to one or two articles and make changes very much in the same vein. Orderinchaos78 14:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Premier

The other IP address belongs to my brother. We've both been contributing to the Indigenous Australians page from our place if that explains anything.
He's a much better writer than me and I do cut and paste his words a fair bit.
It is not sockpuppetry according to the definition of that word. But if what I am doing is not what you are allowed to do on wikipedia then you will forgive me. I'm only fairly new to it all.
For the record though I'll be damned if I'm "pushing controversial ideas" though. There are even full blooded aboriginies who believe that their ancient ancestors consumed human flesh in certain, qualified circumstances.
I'm relying on these sources among others:

There is no doubt that cannibalism existed among them until recent times, and possibly in such dangerous areas as Arnhem Land, in the far north of Northern Territory, may exist to this day. Motives for the eating of human flesh, as elsewhere, are varied, and often closely intertwined. The need for sacrifice; the demands of magic; the desire for revenge; all these are present, as elsewhere; but in the case of the Blackfellows they are perhaps less clearly evolved and crystallized.
Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, p. 179

The eating of human flesh was not practised by the Australian native to the extent that it was by the South Sea Islander. The term 'cannibalism' is usually taken to mean gorging on human flesh, and with relish; and that seems a valid description of the cannibalism of the Melanesian indigènes of New Caledonia, who appear to have regarded man-meat much as we regard the Sunday-joint. Not all cannibalism is the same in purpose.
In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley. In 1933 I was able to talk to old men who had eaten human flesh. The chief of Yam Island described to me how he had eaten finely-chopped man-meat mixed with crocodile-meat, at his initiation. He added that it had made him sick. The purpose, as he put it, was 'to make heart come strong inside.'
In the Wotjobaluk tribe, a couple who already had a child might kill their new-born and feed its muscle-flesh to the other one to make it strong. The baby was killed ritually, by striking its head against the shoulder of its elder brother or sister.
Human flesh-eating among many tribes was a sign of respect for the dead. At a Dieri burial, relatives received, in strict order of precedence, small portions of the body-fat to eat. 'We eat him,' a tribesman said, 'because we knew him and were fond of him.' But revenge cannibalism is typified in the custom of the Ngarigo tribe, who ate the flesh of the hands and feet of slain enemies, and accompanied the eating with loud expressions of contempt for the people killed.
Colin Simpson, Adam in Ochre, Angus & Robertson, 1938

The body was dried over a fire or in the sun, after the internal organs had been removed through an incision and it had been packed, bound up and, usually, painted. It was then made up into a bundle, and is carried around by the mourners until their grief had been assuaged. It is finally disposed of by internment, cremation, or by being put inside a hollow tree. In some districts, the preparation is complicated by cannibalism, so that the bundle consists only of the bones, or the bones and the dried skin.
Cannibalism forms a ceremony, not only in connexion with mummification in parts of Queensland, but also precedes the exposure of the body on the tree-stage among other tribes. Parts of the body have to be eaten by prescribed relations. Practised in Queensland, as part of burial, cannibalism was considered a most honourable rite, to be used only for persons of worth. It was, incidentally, a quick method of preparing the 'mummy,' the flesh being eaten instead of merely being dried in the sun or over a fire.
A. P. Elkin, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Sydney, The Australian Aborigines, Angus & Robertson, 1938

The first case was at Apawandinna, halfway from Cowarie. A very fat Blackfellow chased an emu and became overheated in the chase, and died. The other Blackfellows were very worried over the death. They examined the man, but could not find anything to show as a cause of his death. He was a good-natured man, very popular with the tribe, so that it was unlikely that he had been 'boned' - a form of magic widely practised among the Wonkonguru tribe.
Finally, the old men of the tribe decided to cook the body. They cut it up and distributed it right round the camps of the tribe, which at that time extended from Killalpaninna to Birdsville in Queensland. The idea of the old men was that if the dead man had been 'boned,' his flesh would poison the man who had 'boned' him, and anyone who was innocent would be protected from such a death by eating a piece of him. I talked it over with one old man who had eaten it in order that the rest would not think him guilty of 'boning' the dead man. He put it to me this way: Spose 'em me no eat 'em. 'Nother fella say, Him kill 'em. Me eat 'em, then all right.'
Horne, G. and Aiston, G., members of the Australian Mounted Police, Savage Life in Central Australia, Macmillan, 1924

It appeared that a white man by himself on such a mission as mine might easily find himself wrapped in pandanum-leaves and roasting quietly on the ashes of an Arnhem-Land fire. 'From well corroborated evidence, a form of cannibalism is still practised by three groups between the Blyth and Liverpool Rivers,' Gordon Sweeney, a Patrol Officer in the Native Affairs Branch, one of my predecessors, wrote. 'The bodies of all except the children, old people, and the diseased are cut up after death, the bones taken out and the flesh cooked and eaten. There appears to be no special ceremony at the time, or ceremonial significance attached to this practice, at least among two groups, the Manbuloi and the Gumauwurrk. A third group, the Rauwarang, do not allow the children to eat. The bones are shortly afterwards handed to the relative who is to carry them at the usual Buguburrt corroboree, which under this name is practised throughout the social area. The reason given for the cannibal practice in all three groups is that the people think that eating human flesh will make them clever at hunting, at spearing kangaroos, finding wild honey, getting yams, etc.'
I wondered about Sweeney's warnings of Cannibalism. I had known the Australian aborigine for too long to believe that he was a blood-thirsty, man-eating savage. Provoked, he was savage. But I did not mean to be provocative. As for man-eating, I discovered later that this was only partly true. The Liverpool River natives did not kill men for food. The ate human flesh largely from superstitious beliefs. If they killed a worthy man in battle, they ate his heart, believing that they would inherit his valour and power. They ate his brain because they knew it represented the seat of his knowledge. If they killed a fast runner, they ate part of his legs, hoping thereby to acquire his speed.
S. Kyle-Little, Whispering Wind, Hutchinson 1957

Among the native tribes of Australia, the bodies of those who fall in battle, honoured chiefs, and newborn infants, are frequently consumed to obtain their qualities, just as in the Torres Straits (which separate the northernmost territory of Australia from the southernmost part of New Guinea) the tongue and sweat of a slain enemy are imbibed to get his bravery.
E. O. James, Origins of Sacrifice, John Murray, 1933

Premier 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

An admin has already looked into the above material and found it wanting on the grounds raised in that edit (namely that the material, as repeatedly pasted, comes from an unreliable source with a clear POV). The attitude demonstrated in the comments "Cannibalism wasn't discussed to my satisfaction, I'll certainly bring that back. And I'll keep on bringing it back too." by the above editor demonstrates a level of hostility towards other editors on the project and a willingness to raise the same issue repeatedly when both consensus and etiquette guidelines would normally suggest otherwise. This conversation has disrupted every other conversation on the relevant talk page, including an attempt to hold a poll as to whether a name change is advisable. The debate is not about whether cannibalism occurred or didn't occur - it's a question of sources, and of acting fairly towards other posters and contributors to the article, including an admin who has reviewed the matter. At the end of the day ALL of us should be trying to work towards improving the article and eventually, maybe, getting it to Feature Article standard.

I should note that I did address one of Premier's concerns regarding the positioning of a quote of Walter Roth which may have resulted in POV the other way, by moving it about six paragraphs down to a section where it fitted in better with the narrative. Orderinchaos78 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This statement has been made:
"An admin has already looked into the above material and found it wanting on the grounds raised in that edit (namely that the material, as repeatedly pasted, comes from an unreliable source with a clear POV)."
The material doesn't come from a website maintained by a white supremacist. It comes from books. These books: Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, Adam in Ochre, The Australian Aborigines, Savage Life in Central Australia, Whispering Wind, Origins of Sacrifice. If you obtain copies of the books then you will find those extracts are in them.
You can certainly try to mount some sort of an argument that the sources are POV - that's why I have kept posting the extracts into the discussion page. To stimulate such a debate. But somebody keeps removing the discussion and I can only think it is politically motivated.
I put this to you. There are many sources that claim massacres of blacks took place in Australia's colonial past. I have seen extracts from these sources appear on websites maintained by people with extreme left wing poltical views. Some of them are even communist sympathisers.
Does this material become POV just because it has appears in these places of ill repute?
Have a good think about it somebody in charge I pray you.
Premier 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Any POV is unacceptable, regardless of what direction it is. There are some situations where Knowledge (XXG) does discuss propositions, and I think that cannibalism in the article is indeed discussed in such a way in its present incarnation. Several of the massacres (the Pinjarra one in WA for example) are documented clearly and are on the historical record - while the Government prefer to call it the "Battle of Pinjarra", it is most definitely acknowledged by the Government and appears in modern official documents described using terms like "decimated". Others are not - there's been a very interesting debate about an alleged massacre in Coolac which noone can prove even took place, although it may well have done so, and a person equally as determined as yourself keeps trying to get it listed - that one went all the way to arbitration and the claims were struck down as POV.

The fact is - all of the above is off topic - and I too am guilty of such in replying to your comment above. The discussion on *this* page is not whether your point of view is correct, but whether you are interchangably using your logged in name and several IP addresses to edit Knowledge (XXG) in such a fashion as to attempt to create consensus. As a fellow editor, I'm prepared to consider that as you are new it's a matter of whether you forgot to log in or not. However, the only way this process can be accountable (and you have been asked before to do so) is to log in, or if the edits genuinely are from a different person, to have them create an account and log in, and to sign off on all posts (which I notice of late you have been doing consistently, which is good.) Orderinchaos78 05:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If Walter Roth is a POV source then I want to know if the dream that was wikipedia is viable?
No wonder you have a serious competitor starting up. After they do I bet I can convince their team of professional editors that Dr Roth is a source worth quoting...
Premier 11:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My brother says he still wants to keep posting to wikipedia but we have agreed not to cut and paste each others work if it is upsetting people.

Now, surely we can resolve this matter then?

Premier 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

07:08, December 29, 2006 Hesperian (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Premier (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite: so closing this SSP. AnonEMouse 19:38, 12 January 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:Bob74

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bob74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Jhamez84 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

The evidence relates to the contribution history (and seemingly instantly found co-operation) of both these accounts.
I strongly suspect that this is a case of sockpuppetry. Articles Timperley and Altrincham have been subjected to repeated inclusions of a POV trivial unsourced (and frankly untrue) statement.
I've left warnings and messages of policy support at User Talk:137.205.8.2 which promptly provoked the creation of User:Bob74 (which recieved a very similar message from myself) whom in turn left both this and this incivility.
I suspect the new account User:Chiving (given their comparable edit history and agenda) was set up simply as a means to add weight to this conjecture.
A swift investigation would be helpful. Jhamez84 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Erm.... why was this never investigated? Jhamez84 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closign without prejudice. The case has been open for two months (massive backlog), during which neither of the named accounts has edited. Also note that the dispute seems to be over one uncited, but not horribly offensive, sentence. AnonEMouse 19:28, 12 January 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:Peteris Cedrins

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Peteris Cedrins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Anna Planeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-Mauco 06:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Anna Planeta is suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Peteris Cedrins. They have both agreed to be checked. User:Anna Planeta has requested a voluntary IP check, saying "Please check my IP". User:Peteris Cedrins has also requested a voluntary IP check, saying "of course I agree".
Similar edit patterns, times and dates: The contributions of "Anna Planeta" are not independent, but follow Peter Cedrins on the exact same dates, times and subject matters.
The first-ever edit of User:Anna Planeta was a revert to User:Peteris Cedrins in an edit war / conflict dispute.
Removal of warning templates: A suspected sockpuppet template was placed on the User:Anna Planeta userpage on 6 October 2006 by User:Khoikhoi. At 14:31, 15 October 2006, Anna Planeta removes the template. Five minutes later, at 14:36, 15 October 2006, we have User:Peteris Cedrins shows up and makes another edit on the same page. The template was restored on 27 October 2006. At 20:22, 29 October 2006, User:Anna Planeta again removes the template Six minutes earlier, User:Peteris Cedrins was online and also editing Knowledge (XXG).
15 October:User:Anna Planeta 14:31, 15 October 2006: and User:Peteris Cedrins 14:41, 15 October 2006: Defends Anna Planeta sock
29 October: User:Anna Planeta is online at 20:09, 29 October 2006 and User:Peteris Cedrins is online at 20:22, 29 October 2006, then, immediately afterwards, User:Anna Planeta is online at 20:22, 29 October 2006
Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution: Both joined Knowledge (XXG):Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006 within minutes of each other, despite the fact that neither of them were parties to the dispute since neither had made a single edit in main article namespace, ever.
At 19:29, 4 October 2006: User:Peteris Cedrins accepts mediation.
Ten minutes later: 19:39, 4 October 2006: User:Anna Planeta accepts mediation.
My concern mostly stems from the fact that there has been an attempted use of this sockpuppet to influence a mediation process which I myself have been invited to become part of. - Mauco 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I request Mauco delete this. Far more than ten days have gone by, why is this still here? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Peteris Cedrins does have an internet telephone, people do talk. I can personally vouch for Peteris' character and his having no need to stoop so low, but I would be branded a partisan observer. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And who may you be, that we should simply take your word for it and not follow the normal Knowledge (XXG) procedure in such cases? To determine who you are - and that you are not another sockpuppet of Peteris Cedrins - will you voluntarily agree to an IP check? If not, why not? I find it curious, and highly suspicious to say the last, that this page has a full month of inactivity and then within a mere nine (9!) minutes, we get entries from both Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:11 a.m. and Pēteris Cedriņš 05:02 a.m., with both entries aiming criticism at me for merely doing what every responsible Knowledge (XXG) editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet. - Mauco 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Nine (9!) minutes! I don't know whether you power your computer with candles in darkest Transnistria or what, but I have Yahoo (!), ICQ, AIM, GoogleTalk, etc. ...these are instant messaging programs. When a faceless person writing under a fake name accuses me of sockpuppetry, i.e., of creating fake personae, it is possible for me to inform a real person, writing under his real name, of such a calumny -- in less than nine (9!) minutes, even! Hey -- even e-mail is quick these days! Probably even in Tiraspol! Vecrumba is the owner of a respected website. I am a fleshly person with a directory listing. I am not quite sure how to close this bizarre episode -- I have decided to leave Knowledge (XXG) because of it, at least for a time... but I cannot allow you, "William Mauco," to declare me a liar in a public forum. That is called slander, Mauco. I do not have, and have never had, a sockpuppet. I can be reached through my blog, Marginalia. A fleshly person from Knowledge (XXG) is welcome to contact me, and I can then put them in touch with the fleshly persons accused of being my sockpuppets. In less than nine (9!) minutes! --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that what happened? Did the two of you (Vecrumba and Cedrins) actually contact each other immediately via ICQ? Or via AIM? Or via GoogleTalk? And collude that one should defend the other, here? Please clarify. Or are you merely explaining what may have happened, theoretically? It is not clear from your phrasing, but I and several others would like to know, in order to ensure that Knowledge (XXG) policies are being applied correctly in this case. - Mauco 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Colluding as evilly as I possibly could, I sent an e-mail to Vecrumba explaining that one Mauco was accusing me of lying. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And why would Vecrumba be involved? The accusation is against you. It raises the eyebrows of more than one person here that he instantly reads the email, replies, and then goes on the page to defend you ... all within the span of nine minutes. If he is not your sockpuppet, then this admission by you is at least evidence that he is your meatpuppet. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you have a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, or several (as the case may be), but you can not use them to tilt the outcome of an ongoing dispute resolution / mediation process where you have retired, but where both myself and Vecrumba are still involved. - Mauco 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw this accusations of Mauco against Cedrins long time ago. As I am involved with Mauco in mediation process for Transnistrian referendum, 2006, where Cedrins also wanted to participate (he withdrawed meantime) I've put the page on my watchlist but didn't care more about it. I saw suddenly this page became place for a lot of discussions. Is not my job to establish truth about sockpuppetry accusations (why nobody investigated this so long?), but I want to remind Knowledge (XXG) policies about meatpuppetry. Meatpuppets are related with sockpuppets. I quote from official policy of Knowledge (XXG) "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Knowledge (XXG) with one agenda". Is Vecrumba a brand new account or a new created account? Of course not, he, like Cedrins, has a longer history in Knowledge (XXG) than Mauco. I am kindly asking Mauco to refrain telling plain fallacies about Knowledge (XXG) policies. Discussions between editors are normal, including discussions regarding fighting with vandalism or disruptive edits. Only asking somebody who didn't edit Knowledge (XXG) before to register a "single purpose account" and join a heated discussion in Knowledge (XXG) is meatpuppetry.--MariusM 21:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vecrumba and Peteris Cedrins are colluding (within 9 minutes, no less) to defend and deny a very obvious and blatant attempt to use a sockpuppet to influence ongoing mediation. And you, MariusM, are now defending this? Of course, you would. It is not to different from the kind of antics that you and User:EvilAlex were up to, and which you then covered-up by attempting to delete the evidence right after the fact. This was looked at by several admins and at least one of them reprimanded you. The main difference, if I recall correctly, what that you didn't take 9 minutes but 5 ... - Mauco 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is nothing against Knowledge (XXG) rules to ask intervention from a 3rd person (a veteran user, not a meatpuppet), like I did (how long ago was this - 2 or 3 months?) with EvilAlex. At that time I was new at Knowledge (XXG) and you managed to intimidate me with your interpretation of Knowledge (XXG) rules about meatpuppetry. Now I see you try to use the same tactics to intimidate Cedrins or Vecrumba. I considered a reminder of Knowledge (XXG) definition of meatpuppets necesary, as you try to impose your own definition. Regarding the use of sockpuppets, we should wait the result of investigation. I suspected you once for using sockpuppets, the result of investigation was "possible" while not 100% sure --MariusM 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I must say you demonstrate a pattern of (1) using sources to your advantage when it suits you and (2) discrediting those same sources when they do not suit you; as well, (3) Wiki-stalking people like MariusM who are a thorn in your side and accusing them of all sorts of anti-Mauco machinations, not to mention (4) seeking to discredit, sock-puppetize or meat-puppetize into one amorphous anti-Mauco meatloaf anyone who would call your tactics into question, and, finally, in all cases (5) invoking Wiki rules to your purpose, enforcing the letter of the law in order to violate the spirit of the law--just as you are doing here at this very moment. Peteris and I correspond on a regular basis; he simply mentioned that your sockpuppet allegation is still sitting out here and I took it upon myself to defend his honor. I was appalled that allegations which should be erased after 10 days without verified proof were still sitting out in Wikipublic.
Frankly, when my involvement in Transnistria started in earnest, I had no idea what a "sockpuppet" was, nor a "meatpuppet." In fact, I STILL don't know what a "meatpuppet" is, nor do I care to. You are the first, and only, person I have encountered here on Knowledge (XXG) (and I have certainly had intellectual disagreements in the extreme on more than one occassion) who, when their "logic" fails, resorts to fabrication of conspiracy theories in a blatant and frankly repugnant (for someone who admonishes people for not practicing "intellectual honesty") effort to discredit people. Your behavior in this regard is utterly disgraceful and you should personally be banned from any more such future accusations under penalty of being permanently banned yourself.
Have you considered that more than one person might consider your viewpoints to be incorrect and worth disputing? Frankly, I find your whole attitude towards others (lecturing, admonishing, denigrating) quite Brahmin. You can check my IP address all you like. As long as you're at it, let's check yours and Mark Street's, too. Let's just check everybody's. Frankly, my experience is that dishonorable people spend an inordinate amount of time accusing others of tactics they employ themselves.
When we first started our discourse, I considered your research excellent though often selective in support of fundamentally flawed interpretations. But worth discourse, regardless whether those flaws were intentional or not. But now I see that when you are pressed (for example, I've been waiting two weeks for when/where the British Embassy organized that seminar you cited in order to declare it a "myth" that Transnistria lacks freedom of the press), you become the avatar of the mean-spirited vindictiveness that drives honest people of true intellectual and personal integrity away from Knowledge (XXG). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean, such as yourself? Gimme a break... As for your source, it is already online. Both in Knowledge (XXG) and elsewhere, in several other parts of the web. - Mauco 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Which source, the one that states when/where the British Embassy-organized seminar was held? I don't see that anywhere on Talk:Transnistria or Transnistria. There were unrelated references to their web site, on which I have not found said seminar. Please respond on the Talk:Transnistria page if you have a link.

   BTW, have you checked my IP yet? I'll be glad to submit, what is it, a "CHECKUSER"? myself.

   I move this allegation be archived and marked unsubstantiated. You claim being an upstanding Knowledge (XXG) editor, yet you don't simply ask if I would submit to an IP check, you attack me with "will you voluntarily agree to an IP check? If not, why not? I find it curious, and highly suspicious..."

   Your accusatory innuendo is a classic smear tactic. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)\

You know, Vecrumba, that is a trollish comment. As for your request in Talk:Transnistria, I didn't put it there because I frankly did not like your tone on that page and the way that you requested it. There is one single mention of this conference in main namespace on Knowledge (XXG), and it is appropriately sourced, so do your own homework if it matters that much to you. I only source mainspace, not Talk pages where you are involved. You will not get any help from me as long as you keep up the namecalling. - Mauco 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD: I rather looked forward to what new obscure (and ultimately flawed) reference you would come up with next. It's a shame you've descended to personal attacks--which require much less effort on your part and certainly tie up others when they could be contributing to Knowledge (XXG) more constructively (i.e., disputing you) than having to defend themselves against your "I'm upholding Knowledge (XXG) standards" claptrap. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me how your request does not employ innuendo to accuse me of activities to be suspicious of. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I will let you have the last word. That is what trolls prefer. - Mauco 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're avoiding my question. Now you're just content to dismiss me as a troll. If you want to uphold a higher standard, you do that by setting that standard yourself and inviting others to follow. You don't uphold a higher standard by using the rules to persecute people. If this behavior on your part is a reaction to some prior incident, I am truly sorry for whatever experience it was that made you this way. But only you can change how you choose to deal with conflict. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And where does one go to close out this sort of thing? It's not like there are 3,000 of these. I've already agreed to whatever technical invasions of my privacy as Knowledge (XXG) would like to do, having been accused of being part of the Cedrins/Planeta puppet cabal (discussion above). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleven days later! I don't want the last word, but this affects me more than anyone. A very apparently rotten creature raised this issue and brandished it for some time, but if you Google my name -- this page comes up towards the top, and this disturbs me. There seems to be no reaction on this page, and I have offered my physical address, a direct connection to the physical "Anna Planeta," my phone numbers, etc., to solve this issue -- nothing seems to work. Were Mauco a real person, he would have either dropped this libel or pursued it, methinks. At this point, I do believe Mauco is guilty of slander -- criminal slander in many a country. Is nobody else going to comment? If not -- why is this still here? --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement given 30 October 2006 at more than one page where Mauco had plastered his unfounded accusations --

Like Pernambuco, I don't see the process as one of taking sides. My interest in Moldovan issues is peripheral, to say the least -- my home is in a heavily Russian-speaking city in the most russified region of Latvia, and there is a connection between the Transnistrian government and some of the persons and groupings that attempted to subvert the elected government of the Latvian SSR in 1991. I have long followed developments in Moldova and Transnistria at a distance -- a Latvian friend of mine was educated in Chişinău (when it was Kishinev) and has written on Moldovan issues at length, and I have a friend in Romania with whom I often discuss politics, history, language policy, etc. (Anna Planeta; I invited her because, as a well-connected translator who has written extensively on politics, she has access to information I would otherwise not have access to -- she is no longer interested in participating, however). I followed Knowledge (XXG) articles on Moldova also, and I began to do so again after Edward Lucas gave a favorable mention to William Mauco in his blog. Whilst I was glad to see that there is a considerable increase in the material available in Transnistria-related articles, I find much of the increased quantity increasingly tendentious, I'm afraid. The only reason I agreed to mediation was because MariusM asked me to. I suspect that he invited me because I've lashed out at William Mauco.

Though I most definitely do have a bias (influenced by the fact that different states and regions on the periphery of the former Russian Empire and the Soviet Union have many features in common), I have attempted to write and edit balanced, researched, "NPOV" articles for Knowledge (XXG) since June 2005 -- when I have the time and inspiration. I've seen many a Central and Eastern European talk page spiral into the venomous inane, and many a phrase or paragraph get watered down into a parody of "neutrality." Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Wiki processes like mediation, what an admin's powers and principalities might be, how people get blackballed, etc. -- nor do I want to become more familiar with these mechanisms, frankly. All I know is that not a few people I know who might have made valuable contributors get turned off or driven off. Therefore, I didn't read reams of material on things like meatpuppetry, for which I assume Anna Planeta qualifies (though she is most certainly not a sockpuppet, and I don't take kindly to groundless accusations). Perhaps I qualify as MariusM's meatpuppet, too, in some sense. This sort of thickening atmosphere makes contributing exceedingly unpleasant.

Having worked with editors on various books and publications, I cannot imagine what the product would have been were the relations between them such as they often tend to become here at Knowledge (XXG). I doubtless violated the rules on personal attacks in my comments to Mauco, and I regret that. I respectfully withdraw from this probably doomed attempt at mediation. Puerile bickering, spin, and the fact that "the point is not whether the facts are true or not" (quoth Mauco, the phrase taken out of context for emphasis) were not what I had in mind when I was first attracted to Knowledge (XXG). I still think Knowledge (XXG) is a very valuable resource and a fascinating project, but the reasons why articles on history and politics are generally very inferior to articles on astronomy or biology ought to be abundantly clear.

Sorry to run on at such length, but I felt that explaining my POV more fully, among baseless squibs about sockpuppets and hints at dishonesty, had become necessary.

I humbly request that Mauco either apologize for his lies, or that this section be closed out; it is curiously pathetic that one (fake) person can defame another (real) person, for all to see, but that these lies (supported by nobody but Mauco and those he invoked) sit here for two months. Anyone wishing to confirm my identity can contact me, and I have said so again and again. I do believe that even Jimmy Wales is nervous about what Wiki does to real people, no? --Pēteris Cedriņš 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Peteris, each time you add a new comment with your signature, this page become more relevant for google searches about your name. If you are worried about this, just replace your name on this page with "P. Cedr." for example, and google will not find this page anymore.--MariusM 14:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Marius. But I am certain that the record will show that Mauco is a liar. In fact, I think it already shows that! It should be fairly easy to check the IP addresses, which is what Anna and I agreed to have checked in the first place. She is in Cluj-Napoca, Romania; I am in Daugavpils, Latvia. Simple, and I don't think I commute between Kolozsvár and Dvinsk in less than nine (9!) minutes. I want this closed out, enfin. --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And here we are in a new year and Mauco's accusation (one of his multitudes, among whose targets I also number) remains unclosed. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pēter -- you forgot Wikimath! The project page says: Cases on this page are debated for up to ten days, after which the decision considering the suspect has to be made. I don't think ten days have gone by yet! I mean 9 November 2006 - 7 January 2007 couldn't possibly be ten days, could it? --Pēteris Cedriņš 06:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I will repeat what I have offered time and again, on various pages -- if Mauco cannot assume the good faith he professes to brandish, I can repeat my telephone number or give him my street address. I've already done so. I can be reached through my blog, also, where there is a Skype link. I cannot give out a contact for Anna Planeta because she chose to be pseudonymous, but any neutral person contacting me can conference with her and get details of her very independent identity, far further from me than any sock could possibly be. We could even play games, if necessary -- I mean, I am willing to call Mauco. But I said this from the very beginning, and yet this page is still here. The observant user can check to see what Anna and I agreed to, further up -- to reveal our IP addresses, not to be subjected to this inane débâcle. I was completely open about all of this, always -- I use my real name, and I am not ashamed of anything I have done at Knowledge (XXG). Since then, Mauco has doubted Pēters J. Vecrumba, the owner of a respected website who vouched for me. There must come a point where this gets ridiculous -- a fake persona arguing that real people are faking, and the accusations lasting for two months... might that be the point? --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Ideally we should have a checkuser, since the accusation is still going on, and both accused parties agree to it, however this doesn't seem to fit any of the situations listed as grounds on Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser. I don't see any disruption due to the alleged sockpuppetry; one reversion is not much, and just wanting to be listed on a mediation case is hardly disruptive in itself. So I'm going to just close as is; apologies for taking so long, and ending so unsatisfactorily for everyone.
Note that I'm new at suspected sock puppet cases, and closing this one merely because it has stayed open for so long. If you can find a different admin to appeal to for a different resolution, please go ahead - just copy me, so I know what I should have done instead. AnonEMouse 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC) AnonEMouse 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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:Theradioguy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

88.108.51.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.108.51.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.108.63.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.108.59.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.110.98.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lynda Loche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SimontheRaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Addhoc 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

An individual who is occasionally logged in as Theradioguy, Lynda Loche or SimontheRaver and sometimes on IPs 88.108.*.* changes gender references on articles including phat pants inappropriately. Any references to girls will be changed to "someone", any nonspecific reference such as rave or raver will be changed to male rave or male. Articles this individual makes similar changes to include hoodies, baggy jeans and baseball cap. External links that have been added to phat pants as proof that guys and girls wear phat pants have been either deleted entirely or had just the word girls removed. This individual has also been editing questionably on articles such as rape, violence against women, brassiere, etc. The edits they make are usually full of spelling and punctuation mistakes and other typos, often quite a few in a row. The edit summaries they list are often different from the changes they have actually made.

Theradioguy

88.108.51.238

88.108.51.191

88.108.63.88

88.108.59.49

88.110.98.148

Lynda Loche

SimontheRaver

Comments

Conclusions

Not proven. Named accounts edited different pages at different times - Linda Loche only to Hoodie, SimontheRaver only to Phat_pants, while Theradioguy had a wide range of interestes, not particularly focusing on Hoodie or Phat_pants. The first two did not show any signs of explicitly supporting the third. AnonEMouse 15:49, 12 January 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:Mrpainkiller7

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mrpainkiller7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Nueroqhyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Xachna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vactor66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evicorator666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nuerephyre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jean-Philepe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dscwp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bearcatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Neurophyre 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Mrpainkiller7 is using one or more of these accounts to circumvent a one-week block and harass and impersonate me (User:Neurophyre).
Some weeks ago, User:Mrpainkiller7 gets involved in a "content dispute" (so named by User:Thatcher131) with me and another user regarding his vandalism of VampireFreaks.com. After this point, he and Xachna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created an attack page on his user page naming me and the other user on an enemies list. Yesterday when I discovered the page, I {{ifd}}ed a copyrighted image used on the attack page at about the same time that User:Jean-Philippe reported the page as an attack page.
Mrpainkiller7 was then blocked for one week.
Today I logged in and noted in my watchlist that Nueroqhyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was adding delete tags and blanking content in pages I watch while signing my name. His user page and user talk page were direct copies of mine.
As for the other two sock puppets:
Vactor66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was created out of nowhere yesterday to post a warning to "stop vandalizing work by Mrpainkiller7". The account has no prior edits and only one subsequent edit in which it deleted my warning on its userpage.
Xachna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a history of editing Mrpainkiller7's user page, edits the same articles as Mrpainkiller7, "agrees" with him, had a strikingly similar user page to Mrpainkiller7 before it was deleted including a knowledge of userboxes unlikely to be possessed by a relatively novice user, and writes with a pattern of spelling and grammatical errors quite similar to Mrpainkiller7's. As soon as the images, Image:Violent.gif and Image:Violent2.gif, used in Mrpainkiller7's attack page were deleted, Xachna deleted its talk page and user page, leaving only one userbox and "I hate this site, I'm outta here." Within minutes of this deletion, Mrpainkiller7 had posted a "sorry to see you go" message on User talk:Xachna. A simple checkuser should prove once and for all whether or not this account is a sock puppet, since it claims to be female and live in a different location than Mrpainkiller7.
User:Jean-Philippe has opened an incident regarding the impersonation/harassment aspects of this case on Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Added:Evicorator666 (talk · contribs). Created 15 minute before Mrpainkiller7 got his one week block, obvious similarities abound, if it's not a sock, it's definitely a copycat. Fun thing, he writes with the most obviously fake bad grammar that I've ever seen (see ) :-) Jean-Philippe 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In support of the above, it should be noted that the "brand new" user Evicorator666 immediately started editing some of the same articles that Mrpainkiller7 and socks frequented, such as Yawgmoth and Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Further, this suspected sock displays an interest in Magic: The Gathering userboxes (particularly Phyrexians, a particular interest of Mrpainkiller7 who used the exact same userbox). This account started using userboxes within a day of its arrival, making it highly unlikely to be a true new user. This evidence is the most circumstantial of all the socks, but a CheckUser will likely reveal the truth. It should be noted that while this sock has not yet vandalized any pages, it is being used to circumvent a 1 week block. --Neurophyre 04:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Added November 22: The harassment campaign continues, with User:Nuerephyre created to impersonate me by vandalizing pages with my signature. I'll be calling for CheckUser and an IP block as soon as I can figure out how to do so. --Neurophyre 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
See also User:Jean-Philepe -- Mrpainkiller7 is creating socks to impersonate User:Jean-Philippe for purposes of harassment in the same way he is harassing me. --Neurophyre 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Request for Checkuser is available at Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser#Mrpainkiller7. --Neurophyre 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Dscwp was created recently to recreate in exact detail the page Democratic Socialist Consortiunist Worker's Party, formerly edited by Mrpainkiller7 and Xachna, which was deleted. --Neurophyre 21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

I've gone ahead and blocked User:Vactor66 and User:Nueroqhyer, since both were pretty obvious trollsocks. The other two are less blatant, but do seem related; in particular, User:Evicorator666 seems as though it might be the same person, but they're not being too disruptive, that I can see. Oh, well -- I don't do too much work in this area, anyway, just happened to find my way here by your report at WP:PAIN. Luna Santin 04:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. The case for User:Xachna and User:Evicorator666 fitting in under WP:PAIN is, as of now, somewhat weak. They're being used at the moment to circumvent the current one week block of Mrpainkiller7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but that's a case for whoever monitors these sock puppet pages to figure out. Again, thanks. --Neurophyre 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You've proved your case - I blocked the others. (Better late than never.) AnonEMouse 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled across another case clearly connected to this user today. The account User:Bearcatz was created to impersonate me shortly after I speedied and salted Democratic Socialist Consortiunist Worker's Party on December 25, and was then used to forge several inflammatory comments to talk pages under my name. It's obviously the same user, since he did the same thing to others as well (and since the edit summary on the fake userpage was "Created page with 'The Democratic Socialist Consortiunist Worker's Party is a Socialist party based in New York City. They are referred to as the DSCWP or Consorti...'"). As the matter's already been resolved, and I've already deleted/reverted all the forged comments as well as blocking the account, there's no need to open a new case, but I felt it should be noted here for reference nonetheless. Bearcat 06:51, 16 January 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:BryanFromPalatine (new)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

12ptHelvetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) banned for sockpuppetry - 28 Dec
ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User BryanFromPalatine (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was confirmed as a sockpuppet and puppeteer of DP1976 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

“ ”

Confirmed DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine. It is Possible that 12ptHelvetica is the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Findings
Note that 12ptHelvetica (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was suspected of also being a sockpuppet of the main puppeteer BryanFromPalatine
EVIDENCE
BryanFromPalatine (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
At 17:49, on 9 December 2006 Puppeteer BryanFromPalatine was 3rr 24 HR blocked for excessive edits to Free Republic.
12ptHelvetica (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) banned for sockpuppetry 28 Dec.
At 22:10 on 9 December 2006 user 12ptHelvetica was created. His first edit was to Free Republic agreeing with 208.250.137.2 who is in fact 12ptHelvetica as documented in the sockpuppetry findings. His next post was a vote in a consensus agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of the sock crew. His next 4 edits were to Free Republic - all within the 24 hour block period of puppeteer BryanFromPalatine . Since these actions were so blatant and obvious, BenBurch warned him that he was a suspected sock puppet of BryanFromPalatine within an hour of his first post. After being accused of sockpuppetry, 12ptHelevetica did not post for the next 48 hours. 90%+ of his posts have been to Free Republic.
DP1976 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
At 22:32 on 10 December 2006 user DP1976, a confirmed sockpuppet of puppeteer BryanFromPalatine was created. His first post (other than creating his user page) was a vote in a consensus, of course agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of BryanFromPalatine's sock crew. This was barely 24 hours after BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 3RR. Over 90% of DP1976's edits have been to Free Republic.
ArlingtonTX (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
At 21:07 on 10 December 2006 user ArlingtonTX was created.This was barely 24 hours after BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 3RR. His first post was responding to sockpuppetry charges by Ben Burch against puppeteer BryanFromPalatine. His second post was a vote in a consensus, agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of BryanFromPalatine's sock crew. Every post of this user has been to Free Republic or to sock puppet cases related to his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine.
I am confident that an investigation will show that users ArlingtonTX and 12ptHelevetica are additional sockpuppets of the confirmed sockpuppeteer BryanFromPalatine who was shown to be the puppeteer of confirmed sockpuppet DP1976.
This blatant sockpuppetry mandates blocking of all the members of BryanFromPalatine's sock puppet army, all the related IP's, and especially puppeteer BryanFromPalatine himself. F.A.A.F.A. 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

All sockpuppets blocked. MER-C 12:23, 5 January 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:Earthwalker3

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Earthwalker3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Today, these two accounts have been starting each other's user pages with nonsense such as "I LOVE EARTHY" (Earthwalker3) and "I LOVE AUBERGINE" (PorkPrincess). Either way, the person responsible for these accounts has obviously not come here to edit worthily, only to just play around. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hello, I came here to edit the Gregor Samsa (band) article and save it from deletion, and add articles about the band's albums. My edit on user PorkPrincess' article was just a joke played on a friend of mine (PorkPrincess). I am not using a "sock puppet" to evade a ban or whatever (I have never had any problems with Knowledge (XXG)). If I were using a sock puppet, I wouldn't edit its page and reveal myself. --Earthwalker3 (page - messages - contribs)
Hi, I'm PorkPrincess. Though I didn't come to specifically edit any article, but I've used Knowledge (XXG) or a long time and figured I aught to have an account. The reason it said "I love Aubergine" on my page is that Aubergine is the name I use elsewhere. I'm sorry for the disturbance, and I'm positive I'm not a meat puppet. Other than that, basically what earthy said. -- PorkPrincess

Conclusions

Accounts unrelated per above evidence. Nominator will revert back to reported versions of user pages after this case is closed. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 19:56, 3 January 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:LorenzoPerosi1898

Suspected sockpuppeteer

LorenzoPerosi1898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

InManusTuas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FriendOfCatholicMusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
UneJolieMelodieViennoise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flaubert2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.31.250.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(may be a public library IP)

Report submission by

Dmz5 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

The first three above-named user accounts were created within a short time frame and immediately came to the talk page of Don Lorenzo Perosi, which was User:LorenzoPerosi1898's chosen battleground. The users are clearly setting up a fake dialogue ("Hey, he's right!" "Yeah, we should do that!" kind of stuff) in order to push LP1898's agenda of adding POV and excessive purple prose to the article, as well as insisting on the veracity of sources no one else has seen. Note that User:InManusTuas uses an Elvis reference, much like a reference made by LP1898 in a similar context.
Note also that User:InManusTuas is editing articles related to Jewish comedians, notably the Marx Brothers, which were also a locus of activity for LP1898. Also note that InManusTuas recently created (at my suggestion, God help me) Hillcrest Round Table, which while arguably a positive edit, already includes the sort of bombastic language LP1898 favored.
~~While no blatant vandalism or incivility has occurred yet~~, these are (probably) socks of a banned user, and they are disrupting (albeit civilly) the talk page of Don Lorenzo Perosi.

I added User:Flaubert2006, who was identified a week ago but wasn't the subject of any action. User's edits to Don Lorenzo Perosi are nearly identical to LP1898's.--Dmz5 08:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note InManusTuas removed the sock template and put an indef block template on his own userpage, all the socks pages, and several other editors pages--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 11:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Unfortunately, LP1898 and his other banned socks (such as User:GiovaneScuola2006 and User:Heckelphone) make many good edits, but quickly devolve into blatant POV pushing and incivility.--Dmz5 08:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Yankeesin2007 (talk · contribs) and discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive160#User evading block that never got admin attention. -- moe.RON 00:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also evidence to indicate that Yankeesin2007 (talk · contribs) is also Messenger2010 (talk · contribs). Yankeesin2007 (talk · contribs) made edit summaries that are identical to sockpuppets being used by Messenger2010 (talk · contribs). See YankeesGlen (talk · contribs), YankeesFriend (talk · contribs), Yankeesare (talk · contribs) and AndyCanada (talk · contribs). Common theme "the gig is up" is a phrase I used on the Talk:Biological Value talk page once I discovered the user was a sockpupeteer. Yankees76 04:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

20:57, 22 December 2006 Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) blocked "InManusTuas (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Trolling)

16:36, 15 December 2006 Glen S (Talk | contribs) blocked "Flaubert2006 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of banned user User:LorenzoPerosi1898)

15:50, 16 December 2006 Glen S (Talk | contribs) blocked "Yankeesin2007 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of blocked user)

MER-C 13:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition:

00:40, January 3, 2007 Glen S (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "UneJolieMelodieViennoise (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of LorenzoPerosi1898)

00:40, January 3, 2007 Glen S (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "FriendOfCatholicMusic (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of LorenzoPerosi1898)

As a side could anyone seeing any "suspected" socks of this guy report them to me if they haven't been blocked already? His MO is obvious and his socks as transparent as glass, and frankly I wont tolerate his being here on any level (he claimed I was making death threats after all - which required a checkuser to be performed to prove how fraudulent his claims were). Thanks Glen 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)