Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Archive/January 2008

< Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets‎ | Archive

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:Daniel575

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: D. Breslauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yossiea 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Same style of edits, same MO and same background. See here for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tiamut#Arabic Will add more if needed. User has admitted to being a sockpuppet: Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard#Block

Comments

Conclusions

Admitted sock of an indef blocked user. Blocked indef.02:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tube bar

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tube bar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Stonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.153.59.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rockgardenmagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

This user is the previously indefinitely blocked user Stonic. He has begun spamming links to Digital Press again:

08:37, 23 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Easter egg‎ (→External links)

Likewise, in trying to continually push for recreation of the twice deleted Digital Press page, he has identified himself via the Digital Press forums:

"the trouble with Knowledge (XXG)", where he is also trying to incite people regarding the issue.

Comments

~~Disagree~~ First of all, there doesn't seem to be a crystal-clear connection between the IP and the user Stonic. Discussion on a talk page are highly appropriate for such an item. While the desire of such a user to add material to Knowledge (XXG) is certainly valid, his use of a different account doesn't meet the criteria of a sockpuppet (Please note that all users are explicitly allowed to start over). He has not spammed links, but only one link; such a categorization is misleading. The provided web-based link does not link to a page the general populous has access to or has been deleted from the website. Combined with the lack of diffs or other clear evidence I do not see a violation of WP:SOCK at this time. Please feel free to add more information if you have it (see other nominations for examples). — BQZip01 — 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean start only applies if they do not repeat past disruption. If they come back and repeat spamming they were warned not to do before, they do not get a clean start. They can be blocked as a scrutiny-avoiding sock puppet. Jehochman 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur, but at the time this was not very clear. It has certainly become more apparent. — BQZip01 — 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A) The link he added was the exact reason he was blocked indefinitely the last time - he was spamming links to that site. What's the very first thing he does creating the new account? Adds another link to that site. That's hardly misleading. B) As far as what's on the page, I'm including a copy of the post here (the website forum is free and open to the general populace, you just have to register, there is no fee). The first is where he identifies himself as the same previously blocked person:

01-23-2008, 11:00 AM

stonic

This morning I noticed the Wiki page for DP was removed. The page was originally created back in 2005. I can't imagine why it would

have been removed, so I attempted to recreate it, and it was *immediately* removed again! Why? Read on....

Wiki comments in read; DP in blue

(proceeds to copy argument from his wiki talk page)

Clearly, Wiki has changed its policy regarding how pages are created because proving 'notability' was never required before. And I

still don't know why it was removed to begin with. If anyone wants to take up the torch here, feel free. I'd had my fill of blimeys

for one morning.

Then there's this post where he states his intent to keep the pattern of adding those links here:

Yesterday, 08:05 AM

stonic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebagram View Post

The irony of course is the amount of times wikipedia uses DP for references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/E.T._th...8Atari_2600%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/Intelligent_Qube

http://en.wikipedia.org/Tobal_2

That last one in particular is a corker of a reference.

edit: no, those aren't the only three.

Nice, huh? If links to DP on other pages are ok, then we'll just do that ;)

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And now he just did it under yet another account, Special:Contributions/Rockgardenmagic. Spamming more Digital Press easter egg links, vandalizing AtariAge related links, atariprotos.com links, and other content. It should also be noted that he (Stonic) runs that easter egg link he keeps spamming. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree Confirmed. It's him. StagParty (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree I think these latest edits prove a pattern of disruption. Any users that perpetuate this disruption (whether intentional or unintentional) should share the fate of the primary user. Indef blocks all around... — BQZip01 — 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Please contact Wikiproject Spam and ask them whether the domain that is being spammed can be blacklisted. This will end the sock puppetry by depriving the motive. Jehochman 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not convinced of the IP, but did tag him. Indef blocks on all named accounts. Notified spam project. The master is Stonic, not Tube bar. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:134.93.60.170

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Poeticbent talk 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:134.93.60.170 is reinstating the same deleted text repetitiously at times, suddenly aided by User:PetrusSilesius when he's reverted by concerned editors. User seems to be pretending to engage in a mocked edit war with oneself, talking to User:PetrusSilesius while reinstating the same controversial text from both accounts for several days now and reverting other users' revisions (including mine) in the process.

Comments

This accusation is completely silly. I rarely work for English Knowledge (XXG) but in this case I wanted to remove some apparent mistakes, because we discussed them on German Knowledge (XXG) - but my changes were reverted due to absurd reasons and after I have explained my sources and added new ones, I got accused of sockpuppetry. It's a great pity when someone tries to escape a factual discussion by permanent reverts and such accusations. But I hope we will find a reasonable solution for Pszczyna (even Polish Knowledge (XXG) contains some of my informations) Greetings PetrusSilesius (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't see a crystal-clear link. This seems to be more of disruptive editing than anything and the diffs cover such a wide range of text, it is hard to see a clear connection. — BQZip01 — 06:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I'm closing this case in full agreement with BQZip01. I do not see any evidence of sock puppetry. Editing the same article at roughly the same time is not evidence of any problem, except a little confusion regarding poor English grammar. Nothing to see here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kyleain

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Unbiaseduser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gnowitall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.254.150.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.236.192.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Novangelis (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Venting about his account deletion.

The same as Unbiasuser

A long string of edits restoring older versions as references by Gnowitall.

From 71.236.192.163

and 69.254.150.178

Talk page blanking to hide warnings...

...repeatedly.

As was done for Unbiaseduser...

...and Gnowitall.

Continued non-NPOV edits to Yahoo! Answers following the pattern established in a prior sockpuppetry case: This followed the block of Lunasblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): Prior case

Comments

Agree with submitter in general. These diffs make it clear that, even if these are not sockpuppets of the master account (appears to be Lunasblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), they are perpetuating the disruptive edits and deserve to share the same fate. Recommend indef blocks of all users and IPs listed at the top, 1 week block for Lunasblade (for multiple violations of WP:3rr, WP:SOCK, etc.). — BQZip01 — 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eternian4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

You may want to add this user. Only one edit so far, which is the same edit as Kyleain's. GSlicer (t • c) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a confusing situation. I prefer to request checkuser before making a determination. Doing that now... Jehochman 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Filed Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Kyleain. Jehochman 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Accounts have been blocked and tagged. See Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Kyleain. Jehochman 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Morgan Wright (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

There has been a long history of Viriditas and Veritas agreeing with each other too often, seemingly in order to outvote other editors, on the Hippie article, to arouse my suspicion that they were the same person. They have effectively sabotaged the article for many months, maybe years. But the proof that they are in fact the same person comes from a recent addition to my talk page from Viriditas that he was going to nominate my article about Concert Ten for deletion, and a few minutes later, Veritas nominated it for deletion. Maybe he thought he was acting as Viriditas, but when he signed 4 tildes the other name popped up. That article is extremely obscure, and it's been there since October, so why would these two people arrive there the same time, right after I accused viriditas of sabotaging the hippie article? They are obviously the same person.

Comments

You can check their behaviour yourself on the talk page of Concert Ten and the page nominating it for deletion.

I am investigating. This is a serious accusation against two established users. Jehochman 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

No way. Unless this person has superhuman multi-tasking capabilities, there is no way that these two accounts are controlled by the same person. Jehochman 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please resolve content disputes through dispute resolution. I hope Veritas and Veriditas will forgive the unfounded accusation and move forward in the spirit of cooperation. Jehochman 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jack.Hartford

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jack.Hartford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Harland1 (/_c) 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

They all have similar minimalist userpages, they have all removed blocked tags from one or other of the the confirmed socks of Jack.Hartford for example here. The only edits they have made so far are to remove blocked tags on Jack.Harford's socks except for some others edits: here, here and here.

Comments

Conclusions

They are all, or will soon be, indeffed and tagged, except I am not convinced that User:Spanpo is a sock puppet of User:Jack.Hartford

I see they are confirmed at the related checkuser case, Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Blodhol. It seems that this account was merely skipped, so I have blocked it. Case closed. Jehochman 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Oldnoah

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Bm gub (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

After their edits to LHC, Ice-nine, and strangelet were reverted, Oldnoah created an (IMO) POV fork of strangelet entitled ice-nine fusion which was nominated for deletion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Ice-nine_fusion. Oldnoah (and one anon) were the pages' only keep votes until a new user, Transcept, made their very first edit on the AfD. The suspected puppet, exactly like Oldnoah, signed their edit by typing their username in full after the four-tilde signature. (compare http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG)%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIce-nine_fusion&diff=187616637&oldid=187148937 to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG)%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIce-nine_fusion&diff=186632478&oldid=186632146 )

Transcept's logged-in edit was immediately cleaned up by Special:Contributions/4.248.1.71, from which the only other edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Large_Hadron_Collider&diff=prev&oldid=183688971) was to LHC talk, concerned strangelets, and was signed "noah".

At least one of edits to Ice-nine fusion (clearly by Oldnoah, responding to an error I pointed out on AfD) also comes from the 4.248.X.X namespace. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ice-nine_fusion&diff=186744493&oldid=186633635

The writing styles are similar. Bm gub (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

I've made a note about vote stacking at the afd. The signatures and solo edit by Trascept make this a solid case. Indef block of sock and 1 week for master. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked both based on new evidence on Oldnoah's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SadIrishEyes76

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SadIrishEyes76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cloverfield99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hmtmkmkm33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

–Dream out loud (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Unfortunately, since I am not an administrator, I cannot support any evidence, because most of the users' edits have been deleted, but their deletion logs will show that both users edited only the same three hoax articles and their images and have thus far contributed no other edits.

Comments

User SadIrishEyes76 created several U2-related hoaxes including Blindness (U2 Album), Annhilation tour, and How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Assembly Edition), ~~two~~ all of which have been speedily deleted.

Conclusions

The edits for ~~both~~ all three editors consist entirely of the above articles, and their related images, therefore ~~both~~ all three editors creating the hoaxes are most likely the same person.

Socks blocked indef. Master already a short block for hoaxes. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tiger Eye 27

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tiger Eye 27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Strawberryfields100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62.51.27.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Scarian 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

I.P. edit, take note of edit summary - That edit summary is very similiar to: This one by Strawberryfields100.

The evidence of the I.P. being Tiger Eye 27 is here: , in the following edit () - Tiger signs it as himself.

The above evidence proves that the "person" is using 2 separate accounts and an I.P. to influence consensus on the Mick Taylor article.

Comments

A check user was denied by admin User:Thatcher with the comment: "Rather obvious, and not serious or widespread enough to run a check. Try and get some action at suspected sock puppets." Scarian 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocked IP and master 72 hours, sock indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mickylynch101

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mickylynch101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Markanthony101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar usernames: Capitalized first name, lowercase last name, and 101 on the end, without any spacing.
Similar motives: see Mickylynch101 and Markanthony101's contributions- both mark articles for deletion that they say shouldn't remain on Knowledge (XXG), despite policy saying they should.
Markanthony101 created two days after a 31 hour block was placed on Mickylynch101's account.

Comments

Mickylynch101's user page says "I think around 500,000 of wikipedia's articles can be deleted, and I aim to nominate many rubbish and nonsense articles for deletion as soon as I get around to it." It's possible he's a sock of someone else. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Mickeylynch101 has a prior block only two days ago for harassment. There is clear evidence of stalking, disruptive editing, and socking here, both indef blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See Knowledge (XXG):RFCU#Markanthony101, I think someone owes me an apology. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Filmtrauma

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The suspected sockpuppeteer has fewer than 100 edits, all but two of which are to the articles Trauma in film and List of mainstream films with violent trauma and to their related AfD pages (see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Trauma in film‎ and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with violent trauma‎). He is the creator of both of those articles. The suspected sockpuppet has only seven edits, all to those two AfD pages. I suspect that the alleged sockpuppeteer is using the alleged sockpuppet to votestack in these two AfDs.

Comments

Agree with submitter. Seven contributions all to an AfD? That usually isn't where people start and the pattern of edits seems to fit a sockpuppet's general description to a T. Given that this is not a deciding vote (deletion for these articles seem pretty one-sided) I would not suggest submittal to WP:RFCU to back it up. Indef block & label the sockpuppet + block puppetmaster for 24 hours (1st offense). Recommend giving 1-2 days for user to respond. I'm willing to listen to a reasonable explanation (can't think of one, but I'll give someone the chance). — BQZip01 — 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree and Disagree I agree that the vote will not change the results of the AFD, which isn't a vote, but a discussion. Blocking the accused sockpuppeteer based on inexact evidence is potentially bitey. What the new editor with only 2 AFD's may learn is that the addition of a vote in an AFD discussion is insufficient to change the AFD results. I'll talk with the accused sock. Archtransit (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: - Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself. FT2 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

The sock's edit pattern is not the standard one of a new account and the master's 6th edit was to an AFD. These are not the standard new user profile. Sock blocked indef and master 24 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sm565

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sm565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Area69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

OrangeMarlin 17:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Sm565 was a single purpose account that was banned on 16 October, 2007
Sm565 only edited Homeopathy or user talk pages of those editors who were involved in the article.
Sm565 exhibited tendentious editing of both the article and talk page of the article, especially with metanalyses.
User:Area69 is a single purpose account, just editing Homeopathy. Please see his contributions
Area69 also exhibits an interesting passion about metanalyses here. The diff also exposes a similar spelling style that Sm565 utilized throughout his contributions.
Area69's first edit was on Homeopathy, discussing metanalyses.
Area69 has a predilection for adding new sections on Talk:Homeopathy similar to Sm565. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Sm565 has, to my knowledge, returned at least twice since his indef block to disrupt Homeopathy.
Both
Orion4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
and
74.73.146.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

have been established by checkuser and behavioral evidence as sockpuppets of sm565. The Area69 account bears strong similarities to sm565's modus operandi, as discussed above. Skinwalker (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

RFCU confirmed unrelated. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sports Nuggets

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sports Nuggets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

American Indians & real Indians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bill steinmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alan blumkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
English sentry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mosmof (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Report updated by

Art Smart (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Account involved in vandalism/edit war on Jim Abbott with the same edit, (One of the best biographical accounts of Jim Abbott is "Current Biography" (1995 edition).), and is now doing blind reverts to preserve that edit, resulting in loss of maintenance tags and copyedits. Not really sure exactly why the user is using sockpuppets, but guessing it's to circumvent bans based on 3RR and vandalism?

and
, , ,

Adding User:Alan blumkin to the suspected sockpuppets based on similar edits in 2000 and Michael Jordan, appears to be a case of 3RR block evasion:

Adding User:English sentry to the suspected sockpuppets based on similar edits in 2000:

Comments

Agree I took quite a bit of time reviewing this since its inclusion. I was hesitant to add English sentry to the list, but his edit to 2000 and use of the "minor edit" button to hide major edits leads me to believe this person is one in the same. This user has demonstrated use of sockpuppets to avoid 3RR, violate NPOV, make misleading reversions (like using the "minor edit" button to attempt to hide major reversions), etc. This lengthy and demonstrated abuse of editing privileges should be enforced accordingly. Given the flagrant abuse of such privileges and two previous blocks, I recommend and indef block on all socks and a one week block on the puppetmaster (this can certainly go up if the user has had other blocks of which we are not currently aware). As usual, these socks and the master account should be labeled accordingly. — BQZip01 — 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Master previously blocked and used 4 socks to avoid suspicicion. All blocked indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Now ID'd as Ron liebman socks, retagged these. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chimpywiki

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Spongebobq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.145.155.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

haz (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Identical edits to Wymondham College
Edit by Chimpywiki to Spongebobq's user talk page, commenting on warning and edit reversion
Edit by Spongebobq to Chimpywiki's user talk page, similar comment.

Looks like simple additional account creation to avoid a block through sequential vandalism warnings.

Edits by 86.145.155.97 identical to edits by Chimpywiki

Comments

Spongebobq is merely someone who I know and who was concerned at the speed with which changes were being disregarded. The reason for the similarity in the changes is because our changes are in fact correct and accurate, and we were becoming frustrated by certain admin's decisions to constantly revert them.
Plus if this really was a case of 'sock puppets', do you really think we would be stupid enough to leave comments like that, knowing they would be picked up on? I appreciate your concern but there really is no funny business going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpywiki (talk • contribs) 22:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious, but could in deed be two friends from the college. Poeloq (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoid what block, neither has ever been blocked? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Haz meant a possible block due to the amount of vandalism from these accounts. Poeloq (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Correct – Chimpywiki was on his third warning when Spongebobq started editing. (Level 3 warning by Snowolf; first contribution by Spongebobq) haz (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible IP sock also added. This user's edits match those of the other two. Chimpywiki has now been blocked indefinitely . The IP is still free to edit (and, indeed, create more accounts). Supposing that it does indeed belong to the same user, we might expect more vandalism accounts to follow. In any case, a third user with identical contributions makes it far more likely that these accounts all belong to the same person. haz (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are right, this makes it very suspicious. Is an admin taking care of this? Poeloq (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocked named accounts indef, IP two weeks. tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nku pyrodragon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nku pyrodragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Umm killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rws killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rws killer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Styrofoam1994_talk☭☺☻ 21:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

His tone of talking is extremely similar to Umm killer and his previous incarnations, like in this example and this example where you can compare with the blocked users. I am pretty sure he uses the same IP or originates from the same place too. Furthermore, they all had a history of harassing me. He is incredibly avid in middle school subjects, such as Grover middle school or about his not being able to enter honors for the teachers' recommendations.

Comments

I would like it if you reach this case quickly and efficiently.

Conclusions

Pretty clear to me. Indef'd Nku pyrodragon, the others are already blocked. Tagged all to show Rws killer as the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dethzone

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Tucker1012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TUCKER1012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ebyabe (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Edits made by this account to the two suspected sockpuppet accounts

Comments

Dethzone has been more or less using his talk page like a MySpace account. The other two accounts appear to have been created after he was asked to stop. Additionally, he has created sockpuppets on Wikimedia.

Death Walking Terror

Deth Demon

Please also see his comments to me there

Disagree These accounts do not appear to be sockpuppets (they have a whopping total of 1 edit combined), though they do appear to be used as a MySpace kind of page. I recommend the previous block be reinstated (for Dethzone) and the other two accounts be nominated for deletion. In short, this is simply the wrong page to put this problem on. WP:MFD should be a shoe-in for these two. Contact me on my user page if you need assistance. — BQZip01 — 04:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Doesn't seem to be taking suggestions made to him, or "Stop it" for an answer. I'd indef block the lot, b/c evidence suggests he's unwilling to ever learn how things work here. But that's me. Whatever y'all decide should work. I'd just hope he doesn't need to reported again, to some different division here. He does seem to be running the gamut. Thanks.

Dethzone got blocked earlier today, indef. I don't think Tucker x2 are his socks, besides only one edit isn't much to go on. Though the two Tucker accts are probably the same person. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zuul5

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Zuul5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Acktradingpost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mtmua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bnm1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-Icewedge (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The accounts have all been involved in vandalism of the DuPage County, Illinois article.

Comments

NOTE All of these accounts already indef blocked. Add tags as appropriate (pretty obvious uncivil/vandalistic sockpuppetry). Recommend labeling these as socks and close this case. — BQZip01 — 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closed, tagged all but with Bnm1212 as the master as he's the only one that started editing prior to the 25th. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that Zuul5 (talk · contribs) has been determined to be a sock of Qwertgb (talk · contribs). Please see Category:Suspected Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets of Qwertgb for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PeaceThruSuperiorFirepower

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Pairadox (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

This stems from an edit war at G&D's Ice Cream Cafe. Both editors have focused on that article and nothing else. Both editors have repeatedly tried to insert the same, unsourced and highly personal material that PeaceThruSuperiorFirepower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted is based on personal experience ("I know because I was there back in 1992.") I think a quick look at contributor histories will make this one pretty clear, but if you want diffs I'll provide them. Pairadox (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

~~Diffs would be appreciated for clarity.~~ — BQZip01 — 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that (though it applies for all users in general. Diffs make it easier to determine exactly what you are talking about). This is pretty obviously a sockpuppet. Recommend indef block for sockpuppet and 24 hr block for puppetmaster (1st offense). — BQZip01 — 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting it slide this time :D Also note that since this was filed the editor has violated 3RR and has a report on file there as well. Pairadox (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything, but I'm putting my two cents in to help the process...maybe someday I'll be an admin...hmmm...maybe I'll apply. Who knows. I'd still go for an additional 24 hours on top of the 3rr block. Increasing it for a different violation would be a little too harsh. — BQZip01 — 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Sock indef. Master 48 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Yaktail

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Yaktail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Pmatarese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Jawirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ashwinsodhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 67.180.60.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC); Kylenstone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Report submission by

Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Yaktail recently created the page Beerluck, which I nominated for deletion in this AfD. As of this report, consensus has been to delete, with the exception of the 3 comments by the suspected socks.

All three suspected socks have made few or no edits outside the article and its AfD discussion. (See their contributions for evidence of this.) Also, all three made the same comments in the AfD (Do Not Delete), with very similar reasoning in each case. (diffs: 1 2 3) Note that all three expressed the same misunderstanding of verifiability. It seems clear from this evidence that they are sockpuppets being used to "vote" multiple times in an AfD discussion.

Additional suspected sock, added 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC):
The IP listed above has now also commented at the same AfD, giving the same "Do Not Delete" reason, worded in a very similar way. It is likely this IP is the same one the other suspected socks were editing from. Note that excluding a single unrelated edit almost 3 years ago, this IP has made no edits outside of the AfD.

Additional suspected sock, added 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC):
Kylenstone commented in the AfD with the same comment, writing style, etc. Has made no edits other than that and a single unrelated edit months ago. Follows the same pattern as the rest.

Comments

Conclusions

All users blocked --Chris 01:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

User:Lomerezco(3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Hall e valance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Whohaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Inderezdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mimilovesyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NoHenry (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Recent vandalism on Rosa Blasi page under name Mimilovesyou identical to vandalism under other usernames already banned

Comments

Support This is clearly the same user using WP:SPA to make subtle changes to vandalize an article. While the user name should be blocked indefinitely, I am concerned about the lack of sources in the article in the first place (a violation of WP:V). Please add them. — BQZip01 — 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

The puppetmaster is blocked indef, the submitter had "(3rd)" after the username. BLocked new sock indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Amazonfire

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Blue011011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
220.212.98.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
219.66.47.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
211.3.114.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

миражinred (speak, my child...) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

They are SPAs with a history of reverting and engaging in edit wars by calling other editors "Korean vandals" or accusing other users of censorship. миражinred (speak, my child...) 18:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

All of them have edited Japan or Korea-related articles. They have edited So Far from the Bamboo Grove with...

Same edit and very similar edit summary

The same edits by different IPs and accounts

Exactly the same edit summary

Comments

There is already a request for CheckUser for Amazonfire. миражinred (speak, my child...) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oy. Another monster RFCU: Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Amazonfire. Jehochman 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Recommend waiting until RFCU clears this one up (wow). On a side note, reversion of a previous edit does not necessarily mean the edits are "similar", it means they are identical. Summaries are similar, but so are many other peoples. Noting a trend here, it is not wrong for people to edit from an IP address or even have multiple accounts, as long as they are not doing so for malicious purposes or to get around rules. — BQZip01 — 06:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

RFCU results were inconclusive. I agree here. This is possible but not enough to block. Resubmit if more proof becomes available. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ctx6

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Ctx6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Ctx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ctx2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ctx3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ctx4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ctx5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ctx8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ctx9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ctx10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ctx11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Scarian 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Evidence is simply in the the closeness of the usernames. All accounts have been activated around January time and all acounts have been used for vandalism only. A quick check of recent contributions of all accounts will show strong similarities of vandalism

Comments

I'd like to add Ctx11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) purely because of the similarity of the username, and the fact it hasn't made any constructive edits. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. Scarian 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Clear use of sockpuppetry. His actions are disruptive and I recommend blocking indef all the socks (he can later justify their continued use if necessary). Given that this appears to be an evasion of a block, I recommend blocking the main account for 96 hours. If that doesn't work, block for a month...but I'm getting ahead of the problem. I am concerned that Ctx1 was already blocked as a sock of Ctx6 (also blocked), but a block doesn't show for Ctx6? — BQZip01 — 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Definately not sock puppets. Just ignore this one lads. This is Alex muller signing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctx11 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"? — BQZip01 — 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Ctx1 is the master, not Ctx6. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wimt has blocked all socks (who weren't already blocked). Except Ctx6 which could've been just an error, I'll find an admin to do that. Scarian 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Blocked. Scarian 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Scubadiver99

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Scubadiver99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Scubadiver5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Scubadiver1966 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71charger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.160.148.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.113.220.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.118.49.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All edits were related to the same articles Keratoconus, LASIK, and Brian Boxer Wachler (and a couple of edits to Santa Baby, but that's not related). External links to commercial sites related to Brian Boxer Wachler and his clinic were repeatedly added by these accounts.

The user was warned about WP:SPAM in September 2007 , but continued to add the links. Note that User:71charger blanked the page, even though the notice was on User:71.160.148.228. Note also that User:67.113.220.102 signed a comment as User:Scubadiver5 .

User:Scubadiver5 has admitted that the accounts all belong to the same user but that passwords were forgotten and new accounts created. To me, it seems like a pretty clear pattern of using sockpuppet to hide the pattern of external link adds (plus fairly clear COI), but I don't know how to proceed with this.

Comments

Just to add - there's an active discussion about adding Boxer Wachler references to the Keratoconus article, which is being clouded a bit by the apparent sockpuppetry and the possible COI. Boxer Wachler is definitely involved in keratoconus treatment, but the line seems to be a bit fuzzy on how prominent that credit should be. Advice welcomed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Given the admission that he controls all these, all users but the master account should be indef blocked. The IPs should also be blocked, but given an expiration date (1 week?). This appears to be a first offense, I recommend some leniency (24 hours for the main acount). If the disruptive pattern continues, it can quickly be escaleated. — BQZip01 — 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

The IPs haven't edited within the last 30 days, and the alternate accounts do not seem to have been used at the same time, nor for any particularly nefarious purposes. Blocking is unnecessary. The extra accounts have been admitted, which is not something a bad faith user would do. We should assume good faith. The user has little experience and has not been counseled about conflict of interest editing. I have left a {{uw-coi}} warning on their talk page.

The correct strategy here is socialization. If the user continues causing problems, report them at WP:COIN. The article Brian Boxer Wachler has no references for verification. This could be reported as a COI issue, though it has survived one poorly attended articles for deletion discussion. Jehochman 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:71.156.47.81

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 71.156.47.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 66.197.131.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 75.3.192.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

DJBullfish (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

After getting my user page vandalized by not one but *two* of this person's other socks, I'm now getting hit from *this* IP - despite the fact I haven't said word one to them.

And as the only time I've touched other folks talk and user pages is when dealing with vandalism, or discussing editing matters - this certainly doesn't appear legitimate.

I have also exerpience vandalism to my talk page from user:75.3.192.102 same rhetoric, same agenda/axe to grind. Wisdom89 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Provide diffs showing they're the same person. If they're vandalizing, can report to WP:AIV — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This certainly could be a case of sockpuppetry, but without a checkuser, this one seems really hard to prove (edits seem hostile, but it could simply be one IP backing up another IP on a similar page). As Rlevse recommended, you should probably withdraw this and take each individual user to WP:AIV. IMHO, this will speed the process dramatically and probably get the desired effects with little fanfare. Furthermore, please realize that by custom only do user talk pages belong to anyone. Officially (see WP:USER), they belong to Knowledge (XXG) and are subject to editing by anyone. While the comments made by the latter two IPs are something you don't want on your user page and the comments in the edit summaries are out of line, the edits to your user talk page do not appear to be vandalism. — BQZip01 — 07: 07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is probably irrelevant here - there are only ip addresses, no users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Repeated userpage vandalism from multiple IPs can be resolved with semi-protection. If the trouble continues, go to requests for page protection and make a request. Providing diffs will be helpful showing vandalism by different IPs will help. I will check now to see if immediate help is needed. Jehochman 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SergeiXXX

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppet

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

Report submission by --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 21: 12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

<- Both accounts have contributed to the Second Chechen War article in a similar fashion.

<- Coincidence? I think not.

<- Not only does this user uses that IP address to manipulate, but he also boasts it.

<-Proof that the user is using both the account and the IP

Comments

This user tends to keep his account fairly clean of vandalism, while the IP address is used for unconstructive edits. Also, from what I have found and understand, the IP address seems to be of a Richmond secondary school. Convenient, but quite disturbing. I recommend that this user should be forced, at least, to claim all responsibility for these contributions within one account, and stop using the IP address as a sockpuppet to cause, or repeat the bidding. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence in the first line proves nothing. One person added a reference to a group of references. Nothing conclusive there. Evidence in the second line is a revert of the non-IP's edit. While suspicious, in and of itself, it is not sockpuppetry and the IP may simply have been watching the page BUT given the evidence in the third and fourth lines, it is obvious that the editors are one in the same (or at least SergeiXXX has used the given IP from which to edit).

Editing from an IP is not a wikicrime even if you have a user name (I have intentionally done so myself). With the exception of one block 6 months ago, the IP account has been clear of blocks. With this evidence, though, I don't see this as a violation of WP:SOCK, though Sergei undoubtedly uses this IP address to edit from. How sure are we that this isn't an IP used at a school? I say to err on the side of caution here and let any future violation determine outcome, not this one. He doesn't appear to be stacking votes or making edits to avoid WP:3RR. — BQZip01 — 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the confirmation, I suggest blocking the user and the IP for 24 hours, tag the user and the IP talk pages as sockpuppets, and then see if actions improve. — BQZip01 — 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed that the editor has been using IP accounts for vandalism and to avoid detection. I will think about the just result. Jehochman 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My case

My account has indeed been hacked recently, as I told user Jw. The hackers may have used the account to make unconstructive edits. This is why I am still unable to use my signature properly.

Also, I do, in fact, have two articles that I have created here:

I also have made many CONSTRUCTIVE edits to Knowledge (XXG). My edits to the Chechen war article were not vandalism, but merely stating my honest opinion, and it was deleted, as soon as proved wrong by another user, in a good, civilised, open-minded discussion.

As far as the R.C. Palmer Secondary School IP, yes, sometimes you'll find that I edit from that IP. That is because I am student at that school, what's wrong with that? And yes, I may have fooled around a bit with the school article, but it was all in good fun, and I assure you, a lot of people were entertained by it. :)

That is my case. Decide what you want.

Your loyal user, and editor, SergeiXXX.

Most of us are not telepathic. If you have fun with an article, it can look like vandalism. Can you assure me that you will edit seriously in article space from now on, and that you will protect your account and use a strong password? If you want to joke around, your own userspace is a better place. If you can provide these assurances, then I see no need for further action. Jehochman 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a place for "good fun" in article spaces. Other than that, I concur with Jehochman. — BQZip01 — 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ok, I won't touch the Palmer article anymore. And I won't edit articles without thinking either. And i have already changed my password. SergeiXXX

User:Spookee

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

KelleyCook (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

and and

Comments

Fairly obvious sockpuppet. Only two articles are edited by Sevenneed both of which Spookee has been warned about over 3RR over. They are the same wording. THES - QS World University Rankings‎ and Wi-Fi.

Support Concur with KelleyCook. This is about as cut & dried as it gets. This is obviously an account created by the same user after being notified of WP:3RR to maliciously act against Knowledge (XXG) policy. User should be notified about Knowledge (XXG) policy, blocked for a short time, and labeled accordingly as a sock. — BQZip01 — 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both Spookee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Sevenneed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours for violating the WP:3RR rule at Wi-Fi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm pretty sure that one of them needs an indefinite block, but I'll wait to see if the vandalism returns before indefinitely blocking one of them. --Elkman 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent call Elkman. I concur with the assessment (WP:BITE) — BQZip01 — 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spookee is the obvious master. Sevenneed should be indefed an obvious sock in vio of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely possessing a separate account is not a violation of WP:SOCK. As a relatively new user, I'd cut him a little slack on this one (I oppose the indef block). Giving fair notice and waiting for a further violation seems prudent here. Notification to all that there exists a sockpuppet and a master account can be immediate. I'm not saying this person should be given the keys to the kingdom, but they should be given a chance to reform and a zero to indef block on the first offense seems unduly harsh. — BQZip01 — 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. (usually I agree with you). He's using the second account to game the system. The master account isn't all that new, only the sock is. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize the account is "old", but with less than 100 edits, I think the 24-hour block would be adequate given that this is his first blockable offense. Just because I recommend it be done that way doesn't mean it needs to be done that way. If this were a clear repeat violation of policy, the penalties could certainly be much higher. (IMHO, a warning should probably be issued first, but a 24-hour block isn't that bad and still sends a message). — BQZip01 — 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

The second account, used for gaming 3RR, was blocked indefinitely. The user is free to continue using the main account. Jehochman 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HelplessMan45454

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Cookie1456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: HelplessMan45454 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 71.126.110.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Equazcion •✗/C • 04:42, 22 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Possible sock of blocked vandalism-only account User:Cookie1456, based on this

Comments

This proves it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since Cookie1456 is indef-blocked as a vandal-only account, I think this sockpuppet should also be indef-blocked until the user commits not to repeat the problematic behavior. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This too. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:50, 22 Jan 2008 (UTC)

71.126.110.245 just blanked HelplessMan45454's user page, so that's probably his IP which should maybe also be blocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:51, 22 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

blocked named sock indef, IP 2 weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ColourWolf

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

These users only edits Singaporean Chinese-language drama pages, an area which was subjected to massive vandalism attacks in recent months. In addition, one of the accounts, QuestQueen, edited the Calumon article, an article edited by other ColourWolf vandals in the past (User:HonourablePig). ColourWolf's MO has always been the sole editing of cartoon/manga articles and Singaporean Chinese-language dramas, and insert cartoon-inspired fake contents into these drama pages. These users must be banned NOW, before they completely trash Knowledge (XXG)'s reputation!

Not to mention, ColourWolf's name, when translated into Chinese, means "Sexual Predator". He should have been banned in the first place!

Detailed Evidence

HatingPeanutButter wrote this as a synopsis for The Homecoming (TV Series)‎, when the real synopsis is this, as taken from MediaCorp Channel 8 (the show producer's) website

Although ChadleyCreater has not made any vandalizing edits, he has focused his efforts solely on Singaporean TV shows, a pattern shown by earlier ColourWolf vandals before they began to edit. This is to establish legitimacy, so that their chances of making vandalized edits unnoticed becomes greater. In addition, he has edited shows right after other ColourWolf vandals made their fake edits (case in point, Mind Games. WolfRedux made a fake edit on the 20th, and ChadleyCreator made some minor edits soon after. He also began to edit after another vandal, using IP addresses, began to add nonexistent casts in Return of the Condor Heroes (The IP added these, compared to the IMDB cast entry). Soon after the IP finished editing, ChadleyCreator began to edit that page. ChadleyCreator's edit tags along perfectly with two ColourWolf vandals.

QuestQueen made this edit, and he used a cartoon character as comparison, another hallmark in ColourWolf's edit. He also edited Calumon, which was also edited by other ColourWolf vandals before.

Juggernaut999 added these, which featured the radical, cartoonish storylines that ColourWolf is infamous for.

WolfRedux (the name itself sounds obvious) these edits, also featuring the radical, terrorist-inspired storylines ColourWolf is infamous for.

ForsakenOne99 inserted these, again, a hallmark of ColourWolf's edits.

Comments

May I also make a note about User:WolfRedux? The username is similar, and edits some of the same articles as the other suspected sockpuppets. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The name is close, which violates the rule on posing as a banned user already. He needs to be banned as well. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The pattern of disruption (in this case vandalism) fits WP:SOCK criteria to a T for HatingPeanutButter

QuestQueen, ChadleyCreator, and Juggernaut999 do not seem to fit the profile and the edits do not seem to fit the described violation of WP:SOCK.

202.128.188.103 seems to be involved in reducing vandalism, not creating it. That said, the edit summaries of this IP are suspect (awfully detailed for someone who isn't a registered user). This however is not conclusive, just suspicious.

WolfRedux's edits seem to correspond to the same timeframe as ColourWolf's banishment, but do not seem to be disruptive. While ColourWolf is not welcome here anymore, this editor seems ok, IMHO.

Keep in mind that people interested in one portion of a specific genre may be interested in other parts too. When a show airs, users can be competing to see who updates the latest plot twist sooner. This is not unreasonable to assume. I recommend these later users be allowed to continue editing. Should future actions change, they can certainly be brought up on WP:SOCK violations and this case referenced. This should also not be taken as support that this is not WP:SOCK. I may have simply missed it. The connection between socks should be crystal clear before banning. — BQZip01 — 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BQZip, Juggernaut999 inserted blatantly fake synopsis into a Singaporean movie article. The synopsis were very fake and very obvious, because a non-Singaporean like me who have never saw the movie noticed the obvious hints. These users were put here for a purpose: they fit most, if not all, of the signs of being a ColourWolf sock. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, can you show me the diff? — BQZip01 — 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is obvious. I have seen the description of the Liang Po Po: The Movie synopsis from its movie studios website, and it is nothing like the synopsis Jugganaut999 posted. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Another example that proves WolfRedux's role. Even if these synopsis are "real" (and I will need to be committed to a mental institution to believe that), I highly doubt that 5+ non-cartoon movies and drama series (stretching across different genres and topics) will feature such ridiculous, unbelievable, and cartoonish synopsis that sounds similar, and revolves around the same topic of cartoon/manga storylines. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying they are not real, but some of these edits appear useful (such as adding wikilinks and additional plot information). That said, I do not know enough about these movies/TV shows to make a conclusion one way or another. In the interests of impartiality, I invite these users to submit feedback here. If they do not defend themselves here, then I think we have our answer. Furthermore, Arbiter's edits seem unsourced as well. Please read WP:V and cite sources for your claims on these pages.

Again, I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot see these and I cannot verify anything of what you are claiming. All of your information seems based on WP:OR ("I have seen the description of the Liang Po Po: The Movie synopsis from its movie studios website, and it is nothing like the synopsis Jugganaut999 posted." Great. I haven't seen it. Where can I possibly find it? You are presenting this case; please try to make it crystal clear as to sockpuppetry.

After that, let's see what his/her next move is. — BQZip01 — 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to look at EVERYTHING ColourWolf's vandals have edited. Can you seriously tell me, in a sound mental state, that 5-10 non-cartoon movies and television series, covering different genres and topics, can have the same asinine and cartoonish synopsis, which features, with regularity, superhuman powers, terrorists plots by monsters, and Power Rangers battle sequences?

Can you seriously tell me that is believable and plausible? Can you??? Use your common sense please! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to question my sanity.
There is no need to be hostile.
I have seen many TV shows from Asian sources that have such similar plots. I'm not saying you are wrong, but merely that you haven't proven it to me. Please provide a link to the synopsis you claimed earlier.

Something else that would help would be specific diffs in conjunction with the synopsis:

For example:

He put in this when the plot is this.

Make it obvious and the WP:SSP process will be easier and quicker. — BQZip01 — 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I gave you the wrong impression that I am being hostile, or questioning your mental state, I apologize. However, I must implore you to use your common sense in this case, and think: "Is it possible for 5+ dramas and shows, dealing with topics ranging from oil drilling, gambling, the military, a soap opera, and a game show, to all commonly deal with cartoon/manga terrorists with superhuman powers after cybernetic experiments?"

As for evidence, I will present them later today. For now, I am taking a break to cool off, just so I won't piss anyone off. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

BLocked HatingPeanutButter indef. Pls make statements concise and focused, it's easier to handle that way. waiting for more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All blocked and tagged, most verified by the CU case. Another admin helped. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Youngblake123

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Youngblake123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Youngjames123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar usernames began editing at the same time, and have removed CSD templates from each others articles. Article Blake Todd suggests that this may be a meatpuppet, or tag-team.

Comments

Conclusions

Both users have been blocked. --Chris 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Young597

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Young597 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Phillies48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Realcashmoney5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Juanhernandez59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Caknuck (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

These accounts have been seen votestacking AfD discussions (including accounts signing comments for others) and have been creating hoax articles. The accounts have been editing the same group of articles, including Juan Jose Hernandez, Cash Money Millionaires and Kaiser Elementary School, as well as the two articles of theirs I deleted via AfD.

I have indef blocked the sockpuppets, will wait on the results here to take any action against the (suspected) puppetmaster.

Comments

My advice is to give a long block of definite duration, say 2 weeks to a month. That will convey the seriousness of the offense to this user, while acknowledging that it is a first offense, and he/she appears to be a young person (age 10-14, I would guess). An indefinite block can also be justified. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Other admin already blocked them, all but the master were tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Duergarthedwarf

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

AUTiger » talk 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

New account (D'hin'ni) removing multiple header tags from 7 articles (w/o summaries and marked as minor) replicating actions of blocked accounts User:Señor Gray Dwarf and User:Duergarthedwarf. See , ,

I added many more, each with deafening quacking noises...I'm pretty sure all are blocked, but sleeper accounts might be useful to fish out & perhaps the "real" sockpuppeteer. These accounts are systematically removing notability tags from every in-universe D&D article there is, usually in exactly the same manner. — Scientizzle 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man seems to be covering this... — Scientizzle 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Unconfirmed: His Royal See, His Majesticness, Grand Duke of Awesomeness, His Awesomenessness All others blocked as Grwap socks from the CU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:UkraineToday

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

193.243.156.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.249.229.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Melbcity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
193.243.156.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ukraine2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.12.205.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Timberframe (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The strogest evidence concerns 193.243.156.214. This IP was used to manually revise his auto-inserted username from 193.243.156.214 to UkraineToday in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:UkraineToday&diff=prev&oldid=155390393 the day before UkraineToday was indefinitely blocked on 4th September 2007- that's the clincher, since he's writing in defence of UkraineToday in the first person and 193.243.156.214 has continued to be used following the block. Likewise, 193.243.156.214 responded to a question addressed to UkraineToday in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Craats&diff=155213656&oldid=155098962. (And this on the user page for Craats - the name of the author of the blogsite cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/Richard_Wynne which I have twice removed as contrary to WP:BLP - coincidence?)

Supporting evidence

Same topics - Current Ukrainian and Australian politics, in particular continuing the lines taken by UkraineToday in http://en.wikipedia.org/Constitutional_Court_of_Ukraine and http://en.wikipedia.org/2007_Ukrainian_political_crisis

Comments

This user is also responsible for deleting a bot message from Melbcity's talk page concerning an image of Kiev (see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Melbcity&diff=prev&oldid=184448364). Melbcity's writing shows exactly the same characteristic spelling errors and aggressive style towards other editors as UkraineToday, and again the twin tie-ins to Melbourne, Australia and Ukraine; could this be another of his sock puppets? More - compare the edits in Andrew Landeryou (of Melbourne) by MelbCity on 11/02/2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andrew_Landeryou&diff=39201304&oldid=35862896 and by 193.243.156.191 the next day http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andrew_Landeryou&diff=39319008&oldid=39318840 - they are identical. I'm not saying for certain that 193.243.156.191 and 193.243.156.214 are one and the same, but they have the same narrow contribs interest - Ukrainian politics and Melbourne, and 193.243.156.191 also cites the dubious http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com (looks to me very much like a plug by a vested interest).

The same names - UkraineToday and Ukraine 200x crop up in two Ukrainian news sites, currently in forum.pravda.com.ua/ and in the past in en.for-ua.com/forum/. He has been banned from the latter several times and has used many different user names to evade the bans (exactly the same behaviour as I'm seeing here). Both publications have histories of allegations that he is Anthony van Der Craats, author of melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com, which makes his citations of this blog self-publicity.

It seems that 193.243.156.214 is just the latest of several manifestations of blocked user UkraineToday. The behaviour is remarkably similar, as is the dual theme - Ukraine and Melbourne. You could say the same of non-current users 81.17.128.174, Ukraine2006, 193.243.156.191, and 217.12.205.67 and Melbcity. All the IP addresses relate to ISPs in Kharkov, Ukraine. If these aren't all the same person then that town must be breeding people with very specific interests in Melbourne.

Of these alter egos, Ukraine2006 and Melbcity appear to have been used in good faith before UkraineToday was blocked, and while they highlight multiple identities I see no evidence of malicious intent. I mention them here only because they form part of the bigger picture encompassing the external evidence below. Similarly 193.109.100.247 appears to have been used only in good faith before UkraineToday was blocked but should be considered as a potential future sockpuppet IP. The same could be said of 193.243.156.191 had it not been used to add a self-publicising link. 217.12.205.67 was used to self-publicise another of his blogs, Ukrainetoday.blogspot.com; the user account was subsequently blocked for this and other and for extreme bias(see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:217.12.205.67). 81.17.128.174 was blocked as a sockpuppet of UkraineToday in September 2007.

Some of this is speculation on my part but the admins could quickly confirm whether Melbcity's IP comes from Melbourne or Kharkov, and whether Ukraine2006 and UkraineToday share IP with any of those I listed here as being behaviourally similar.

External evidence

In the above I have limited myself to facts which are verifiable from within the wikipedia environment. Outside of this environment I moderate a forum from which UkraineToday alias Ukraine2006 was banned for gross POV pushing and flaming attacks on fellow users. Since this ban he has emailed me from time to time using various usernames and IP addresses. These confirm that UkraineToday, Ukraine2006 and Anthony van Der Craats are all one and the same entity and have used IP addresses including 80.249.229.122 and 193.243.156.214, both of which have been used to edit Knowledge (XXG) since UkraineToday was indefintely blocked on 4th September 2007. I am prepared to make my email account accessible to a reputable Knowledge (XXG) editor in order to present the email headers containing these user names and IP addresses in their as-received state. Like all the other IP addresses I've mentioned, 80.249.229.122 is based in Kharkov.

This evidence confirms my sockpuppet suspicions and also supports other editors' concerns (as well as my own) that this user is using Knowledge (XXG) to publicise his personal blogsite and in turm cite his own work as external references for his contributions to Knowledge (XXG) articles, including the biography of a living person.Timberframe (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

193.243.156.214 is an obvious sock. Melbcity, 193.243.156.191, and Ukraine2006 have not edited since 2006, so I'm not convinced since he stopped before UT was blocked. 80.249.229.122 (inconclusive) and 217.12.205.67 (already blocked indef as open proxy) have not edited recently. Blocking 193.243.156.214 for one month-block evading sock, looking into others more. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:61.68.133.66

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 61.68.133.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 59.101.159.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 59.101.202.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Thedjatclubrock :) 11:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All have replaced Spyware Doctor with the same text, see Diff 1 and Diff 2 and Diff 3

Comments

Comments by uninvolved BQZip01 (talk · contribs)

This pattern of edits by multiple IPs in the same hostile manner (see edit summaries) using similar verbiage on the same day seems to be single purpose accounts with a disruptive intent. They have been given ample warning and seem to have no regard for the rules. Given the newness of the IPs, I recommend an extended block, but not an indef block, of these users with a tag that they are indeed sockpuppets and that future edits/summaries/etc. will result in indefinite blocks for all. — BQZip01 — 08:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

They were already blocked blocked on 20 Jan. Can't block them twice for the same thing. If they restart, report again. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:AirFrance358

Suspected sockpuppeteer: AirFrance358 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Aircanada002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DJBullfish (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Aircanada002&oldid=186062938

Comments

Either it's a sock, or they're closely affiliated.

Conclusions

Both accounts are blocked already. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Racepacket

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Runreston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.91.86.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(already identified as a sockpuppet of Racepacket via an earlier checkuser - see Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket) Xcstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(already blocked as a sockpuppet of Racepacket via an earlier checkuser)

Report submission by

Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Washington Birthday Marathon - Article was created by Runreston, but the only known previous Knowledge (XXG) reference to race was added by Racepacket in Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (this diff). Only other edit to this article is by User:207.91.86.2, a confirmed sockpuppet of Racepacket.

14:41, 13 January 2008 Runreston began article. This edit, which created a complete, properly-formatted article, is all the more bizarre as the first edit from someone who has claimed below that he is only first learning how Knowledge (XXG) works.
14:45, 13 January 2008 Runreston corrected link
17:43, 18 January 2008 207.91.86.2 - Added external link to Racepacket.com web site

DC Road Runners Club - Article created by Racepacket

14:16, 7 March 2007 Racepacket (started article)
17:26, 12 March 2007 Racepacket (expanded description of races)
14:42, 13 January 2008 Runreston ‎(add link to Washington Birthday Marathon)
14:46, 13 January 2008 Runreston (removed orphan tag)

Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

14:43, 13 January 2008 Runreston - wikified link to Washington Birthday Marathon
18:13, 24 October 2007 Racepacket (Washington Birthday Marathon)

Marathon‎ - Article previously edited eight times by User:Xcstar (three of which are shown below), previously verified as a sockpuppet of Racepacket per Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket

14:47, 13 January 2008 Runreston ‎ (→Finish times for non-professional runners - changed section heading)
14:55, 13 January 2008 Runreston ‎ (→Marathon races - used proper name for Marine Corps Marathon)
04:32, 15 December 2007 Xcstar (→Multiple marathons) (undo)
15:41, 14 December 2007 Xcstar (→Multiple marathons - 100 Marathon club) (undo)
15:30, 14 December 2007 Xcstar (→Multiple marathons - repeats in same marathon)

Dean Karnazes

14:51, 13 January 2008 Runreston ‎ ‎ (clean up) (top)
04:33, 15 December 2007 Xcstar (→North Face Endurance 50 - main)
09:04, 19 November 2007 Xcstar (more encyclopedic tone)
08:53, 19 November 2007 Xcstar (moved details out of lead paragraph)
08:49, 19 November 2007 Xcstar (→Overview - copy editing)

User Pages - brief stub

14:57, 13 January 2008 User:Runreston by Runreston - created page with "My interests are running and marathons."
13:43, 1 November 2007 User:Xcstar by Xcstar "I am a runner"

Dane Rauschenberg - this article is near and dear to the Racepacket / Xcstar / Runreston sockpuppets, with Racepacket nominating the article for deletion, Xcstar then taking the baton and abusively editing the article including 96 of his 200+ edits to this one article alone (plus another 40 to the article's talk page) before being caught as a sockpuppet. After one brief day of non-Rauschenberg edits, User:Runreston has dived in with some half of his edit history dedicated to this one article and its talk page.

14:31, 19 January 2008 Runreston
14:30, 19 January 2008 Runreston
14:29, 19 January 2008 Runreston
14:25, 19 January 2008 Runreston
14:19, 19 January 2008 Runreston - remove description as runner and characterize Rauschenberg as "motivational speaker", change fundraising total to $34,000 (removing sourced count of $43,000)
13:52, 18 January 2008 Runreston - remove description as runner and characterize Rauschenberg as "motivational speaker", change fundraising total to $34,000 (removing sourced count of $43,000)
12:43, 7 January 2008 Xcstar - remove description as runner and characterize Rauschenberg as "motivational speaker", change fundraising total to $34,000 (removing sourced count of $43,000)

Edits to Chicago area articles. The two have edited articles related to the Chicago area, for locations three miles from each other (see map).

14:19, 20 January 2008 D'Angelo by Runreston - added link to D'Angelo Natural Spring Water, an article created by Runreston and speedy deleted shortly thereafter. D'Angelo Natural Spring Water is located in East Dundee, Illinois
11:50, 4 January 2008 Sleepy Hollow, Illinois by Racepacket

Comments

The fact that User:Runreston's edit history overlaps almost completely with Racepacket / Xcstar, and the fact that Runreston's edit history consists almost entirely of edits to the Dane Rauschenberg article raises significant concerns that we are seeing the same abuse we saw earlier. None of the actions here are indicative of a user new to Knowledge (XXG).

The syllogism of Racepacket = Xcstar = 207.91.86.2 has already been conclusively proven at Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket. The fact that our brand new editor User:Runreston has an edit history that syncs up exactly with all three of these users -- there is no article other than his user page that the three known sockpuppets have not also edited -- provides rather conclusive evidence that we are dealing with sockpuppetry, and that all of the users involved should be promptly blocked/banned to prevent any further abuse of Knowledge (XXG) policy, as has been a chronic problem with these users and the Dane Rauschenberg article.

A permanent block is clearly justified for User:Runreston, and it should be abundantly clear that a ban on User:Racepacket is long overdue, particularly in light of the fact that a block was imposed just days ago has been so blatantly flouted.

This is all very confusing, but it appears that the author is concerned that it took me seven edits to accomplish what a more experienced person could do in one edit. I am still learning how to do this and will try to become more efficient as I gain more experience. Runreston (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say that someone whose first edit was the creation of a properly-formatted new article and who seems to have ample understanding of the syntax of the reference templates is someone who has demonstrated a clear track record of prior Knowledge (XXG) edits. Sockpuppetry should be a word that is a well-established part of your vocabulary. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd assume good faith here, it could well be a friend of the editor, as people do introduce one another to websites they're interested in... I just hope it's not meatpuppetry. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The editing pattern speaks for itself, but there is indeed the infinitesimal possibility that these are two different people who happen to share the exact same editing interests. Meatpuppet or sockpuppet, the use of another false identity in a continuing pattern of abuse that needs to be ended, both puppet and puppetmaster. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I speak from experience. An admin on here accused me of being a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor, who had "good hand, bad hand account" sockpuppets about a year ago - and it's forced me to declare my user history on my userpage. Either way, I suspect it's probably a friend who's meatpuppeting for him (is that even a proper term?) As it were, I was introduced to Knowledge (XXG) by friends, so I speak from experience. I agree with your points though, Alan. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Very convincing case. Blocked IP 24 hours and Runreston indef. Blocked Racepacket one week and final warning. What shows this is socking vice meatpuppeting is the appearance of Runreton right after the Xcstar was blocked. Tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk •

UPDATE, Checkuser just confirmed Runreston is NOT Racepacket, but keep an eye out for new editors on that topic. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE, Checkuser now says "likely"] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ElboMisery1993

Suspected sockpuppeteer: ElboMisery1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: BRClover2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); KyleE2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Rsdg2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Counrymusic2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Editing patterns suggest that User:BRClover2008 is a sock of ~~banned~~ indef-blocked user User:ElboMisery1993; constant unnecessary edits to Billy Ray Cyrus discography, Lady Antebellum and other similar pages. Note that the three other listed socks have already been indef blocked, as their edit histories indicate a similar pattern to the puppeteer.

One example is the constant and unnecessary addition of dashes to discography tables; see this diff for example. Also, the insistence on having his or her way, and demanding that the tables not be changed back; see here. And finally, the addition of unsourced info regarding upcoming singles; see here.

More evidence: User:ElboMisery1993 and the other socks showed a similar pattern of making unnecessary changes to discography tables as well; see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.

None of these edits by BRClover2008 truly constitutes vandalism (at least not yet), but given the puppeteer's penchant for starting out with similar semi-legit edits and then spiraling into vandalism, and given the obsession with Billy Ray Cyrus, I believe that BRClover2008 is indeed a sock of ElboMisery1993.

Comments

Asked for more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: User is now uploading incorrect info; see this diff. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

More incorrect info in this diff; "Stay With Me (Brass Bed)" was not a #1 on the Radio & Records charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

The diffs and the fact that the socks were all created in sequence after the prior one was blocked convince me. He's now blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr who1975

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Dr who1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: France a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Loads more too!

Report submission by

Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

One of the many blatant sockpuppets of France a - see this edit to another of their userpages. This is characteristic of all the socks, to edit each others' userpages and make insults!

Defense

I made an unsportsmanlike edit but I am not France A. I have never made the type of vandalising edits France A has made to Doctor Who pages. The edit of mine above was a response to France A vandlising my home page through one of his sockpuppets. I apologize if this behavior has inadvertantly mislead anybody.

It should be obvious I'm not France A.

France A started activity on "13:09, 24 January 2007"... my first edit was on "01:30, 17 June 2006". France a wasn't even on the scene when I started my account.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Has France A or any of his sockpuppets ever shown an interest in The Untied States Congress?

Has France A or any of his sockpuppets ever put up a lot of user boxes saying things like they have degrees from FSU and GSU.

Has France A or any of his sockpuppet's ever shown an inetrest in local American political figures such as Sandy D'Alemberte, Pam Resor, or Jamie Eldridge?

I can put up more examples if you like. If you look at the history of my edits, the behavior in no way matches any of France A's behavior. The only thing I have in common with him is an interest in Dr. Who.

Porcupine is being overzealous. France A has upset a lot of us. I made a mistake.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one, I just created Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 yesterday... I doubt France A, who probably lives in Engalnd, would ever take an interest in Louisiana politics.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Oppose: I've been asked by User:Dr who1975 to comment.

User:Porcupine's complaint is insufficient on its face. The complaint rightly shows a single instance of vandalism. However:

that vandalism was not planted anonymously- it clearly belonged to User:Dr who1975, who has had a WP account much longer than the suspected sockpuppet;
vandalism is not enough to make a case for sockpuppetry;
the complaint does not make a case that User:France a is in anyway related to User:Dr who1975
it's hard to defend against a sockpuppetry complaint because it requires proving a negative. How can someone prove they didn't do something. Nevertheless, User:Dr who1975's defense, while not great, is still more than sufficient to dismiss this complaint.

Therefore, I believe this complaint should be dropped.

On the other hand, I doubt User:Dr who1975's medical school background and I don't think he/she is even a doctor at all :-). —Markles 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the last comment about my "medical school backround" was a joke (i.e. the "Dr" in my name). I have never claimed to be a doctor. I'd be laughing if it was on my discussion page instead of here.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was. —Markles 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Question What evidence is there that User:Dr who1975 is the same individual that operated France a? --Kife 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer All the other accounts of France a left silly messages just like that on the pages of the previous ones that had already been blocked. Therefore, when a DrWho fanatic leaves a silly message just like that on the pages of a previous one that has already been blocked, I see a certain correlation.--08:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply stating something does not make it true. You have to provide evidence. Which ID's of France A's left such a message... you have to cite instances where a confirmed sockpuppet left such a message..... my ip address, 67.62.103.180, has never been accused of being asockpuppet of France A. I did use it 6 months ago to leave messages on 2 of France A's discussion pages where I called him a wanker. I told you it wasn't vandalism at the time and there wasn't repeated instances of this behavior. My IP (which was not mine before June 11) has never been used for vandalism of wikipedia pages.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Request I need somebody to submit a Checkuser between me and ~~User:MrClaxson~~ User:Brinstar... ~~MrClaxson~~ Brinstar is a confirmed sockpuppet of France A (confirmed with chekuser) and he has engaged in edits this very day. Time is of the essence as the edits become satle and therefore ussless for checkuser... plus, I am not allowed to request one for myself. A checkuser request is the only sure way to provemy guilt or innocnce.

He has not edited since July 2007, actually, which is probably something to do with the fact that he's blocked.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I meant User:Brinstar. It was an easy enough mistake to make since I'm not him. All of the following confirmed France A sockpuppets from Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/SaxonUnit have activity within the last two weeks.

Brinstar appears to be active even today. I desperatly need a checkuser against any or all of them to prove my innocence.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification:
Brinstar was unblocked by me; some email conversation led me to think perhaps I'd misidentified him as a sock. Normally we automatically refuse Dr who1975's request, since checkuser is not any good at proving innocence; it can only provide evidence of guilt. But since I'd unearthed these annoyances, I checked Dr who1975, and found no IP or geographic relationship between the Dr and the SaxonUnit gang. Different hemispheres, actually. In checkuser language, Unrelated. --jpgordon 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Different hemispheres..as I suspected... the Saxon gang is in Europe (or maybe Austrailia/New Zealand), I'm in the U.S.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside: I've reconsidered Brinstar and blocked him again. --jpgordon 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as everybody knows I'm still not him.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per all of the above, it is pretty obvious this should be dropped ASAP. — BQZip01 — 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I am not the least bit convinced by these accusations. Archiving and untagging the suspect Dr who1975 (talk · contribs). Jehochman 04:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bauer-3

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bauer-3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Liambres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Liam is egg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lbreslin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Clongowes1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

MKolt now 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Creation of articles R.Osborne, Rob Osborne, Liam Breslin, L. Breslin (et al.) and insertion of links to them into Clongowes Wood College and List of Arsenal F.C. players‎. Articles appear to be hoaxes, and the additions of the links come from all of these accounts.

I can supply specific diffs if need be, but the evidence seems more compelling when seen directly in the histories of the affected articles, particularly Clongowes Wood College.

Comments

I don't believe that this user is specifically using accounts to avert/evade a block, but there is clear use of multiple accounts by the same person for vandalism.

Added User:Clongowes1. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Bauer-3 had a final warning, and neither he nor the socks made disruptive edits after that. Had the sock edits been known, the account would have received a short block. I will place a 48 hours block on the main account to deter further violations of policy and guidelines, and indefinitely block the alternate accounts that were used abusively. Jehochman 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

User:Diegogrez

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Musicfan48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
190.82.192.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
190.82.193.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
190.82.200.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
190.82.200.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jespinos (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The accounts are used for doing edits related to a likely false autobiography of the user Diego Grez and spam for a personal website of the same person (Enciclopedia DG). In the case of MisterWiki (former Bodoque57), it is more obvious seeing his contributions on Wikimedia Commons , particularly this.

Comments

Hi! I'm Mister Wiki, and i'm are friend of Diego Grez, but i'm not Diego Grez, he use my account and the signature in commons and upload many pictures about he, i'm not Diego Grez.--MisterWiki (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I say to Jespinos, I'm NOT Diego Grez, also i can collaborate for deduce what DIEGO GREZ is an vandale. He is making vandalism right now in http://demo.opensourcecms.com/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page. Please, dont block me, I'm not guilty. --MisterWiki (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

I do not think there is sufficient evidence to block MisterWiki at this time. I have protected Diego Grez so it cannot be recreated, again, for the nth time. Perhaps that will also discourage further sock puppetry. MusicFan48 (talk · contribs) is already blocked. There's nothing more to do here, so archiving. Jehochman 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Blodhol

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Contributions to related articles. Insertion of identical pseudohistorical claims in high-ranked articles racism and racism by country

Comments

See my post ] for background.

I strongly recommend a checkuser (code G). There's evidence to suggest these two editors are the sock or meat puppets. More importantly, they do not appear to be truly new editors, and may be part of a larger group. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Blodhol identified a drawer, no a dresser, full of socks. They have been blocked. Good work. Jehochman 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rothchild

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Timbermile99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bingehighmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flymanmcgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ChildofRoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pimpmacro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Happydudewater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mistersupter258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Skylights76 (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The suspected sockpuppeteer, Rothchild, was blocked for 48 hours and then indefinitely after I reported his/her trolling and bad faith edits on the administrators' notice board.

Timbermile99's account was created soon after. Timbermile99 reverted three of my recent edits in a row: , , and , within minutes of each other. The articles were unrelated to each other, so I'm certain the user was simply working off my user contributions page. Also, the edit summaries did not reflect the actual edits.

After the Timbermile99 editor was blocked for being a vandalism-only account, another editor, Bingehighmen appeared. He made two edits continuing his previous vandalism, and was also blocked. After Bingehighmen was blocked, Flymanmcgee appeared and began harassing another user, and was then blocked. Creation of further sockpuppets by this user is ongoing (see their contribs for evidence).

The sockpuppets have basically admitted their sockpuppetry in edits to others' user pages and talk pages.

Comments

The suspected sockpuppeteer has likely been using Knowledge (XXG) for a long time (probably using other sockpuppets as well), as he/she seems to know a lot about Knowledge (XXG) and esoteric areas like WP:LAME as discussed on Rothchild's talk page and in the conversation about Rothchild on the administrators' board.

Timbermile99 added numerous userboxes to his/her talkpage and made some small edits to a couple random articles before reverting my edits. I believe this was done in an attempt not to look like a sockpuppet. Also, the user posted an inappropriate question about adding color to text in the administrators' notice board, again no doubt to appear legitimate.

After I filed this report, Timbermile99 posted this fraudulent sockpuppetry notice on my talk page, and engaged in further personal attacks.

I commented about this before on AN/I and the user's talk page, this user is displaying a ammount of knoledge rather detailed for a newcomer, including LAME, SOCK, AGF and ABF, I would say that Rothchild himself is a sockpuppet of someone else, and its probable that someone o=is either banned or blocked, perhaps a check user is in order. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

I believe Rothchild created the sockpuppet Timbermile99 and several others after being blocked, then proceeded to revert my edits and harass others to "get revenge." The individual continues to create new accounts, harass editors, and vandalize articles. I believe that all of these accounts should be blocked indefinitely, and action should be taken, if possible, to prevent this individual from further account creation and harassment.

It's been eight days. Presumably the person has give up, or the autoblocks have nailed their IP addresses.All of the above accounts are already blocked. There is nothing else to do here. I am closing this report. Jehochman 02:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:LDEJRuff

Suspected sockpuppeteer: LDEJRuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 139.55.53.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 67.140.145.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

treelo _talk 02:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

This user is using these IP addresses as means to prevent image orphaning which is one of his main motives regarding the Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends satellite articles. A WHOIS check on the IP addresses indicate they possibly originate in Little Rock, AZ but the sockpuppeteer made it evident they were connected after edits to my talkpage.

Comments

Hello, it's me, LDEJRuff, and I just wanted to appologize for my actions to Treelo, and I will never do anything like that again. I've been this way ever since I got banned from Never Forgotten by Cynthia "Sparky" Read, and I'm still angry at her, and Tina "CGAussie" Fazzalari for hating my videos at YouTube, and kaytea who betrayed me (and I'm pretty sure she has a Knowledge (XXG) account here). But nonetheless, I'm sorry, and I'll never abuse anyone ever again. And BTW, Treelo, I'm not from Little Rock, AZ, I'm from Campbellsville, KY.
~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2008 (EDT)

Your issues are your own and an irrelevancy to this case, don't bring them here. I still believe that the IP addresses and your account are linked given the same motives even with the discrepancy between locations. --treelo _talk 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I said that I am sorry. I do not want to get kicked out of Knowledge (XXG), like how I got kicked out of Never Forgotten.
Also, I only posed as those IP Addresses so that I can get your attention, to reply in my talk page. As I said before, I do not want to get kicked out of Knowledge (XXG), and, as the slogan says, it is an encyclopedia in which anyone, or should I say "everyone", can edit, including me!
~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (EDT)

Being blocked can be temporary, not permanent. Even if you are blocked, you can certainly come back and edit after your block.

Conclusions

User has confirmed they used both IP addresses as sockpuppets. --treelo _talk 20:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by uninterested BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Specific evidence of sockpuppetry seems to be lacking here. The only way to find it is to wade through the edits of a user and 2 IPs. Given the backlog in this section, this is a major problem with this nomination. Without specific evidence, this is going to be too time-consuming to research. IMHO, your case should be made before submitting it here, not after.
Just because a registered user uses an IP address, it does not mean they are in violation of WP:SOCK. I myself have used an IP address to mention a few things and make posts (I cannot log in at work, though I can edit via an IP address). As long as you are not using it in a malicious manner, I see no reason to block someone for such a violation.

Accordingly, I recommend this case be withdrawn/removed until such a time as specific and convincing evidence can be presented (assuming WP:SOCK violations currently exist or come into existence in the future). This discussion can always be referenced later if needed. — BQZip01 — 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear that any administrator action is required, so I am archiving this report. Jehochman 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RobJ1981

Suspected sockpuppeteer

RobJ1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Eyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dannycali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jasdhf1981 (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

I'm a regular editor and need to avoid on-wikipedia harassment from possible socks or proxy editors. I hope that it is useful so taking this route so admins can see if this merits investigating/action. I've found this editor to be borderline attacking others, making accusations against users. I wish to remain anonymous and feel someone should pay attention to the case.

User:JB196 primary editing/deletions related to wrestling articles. RobJ1981 has parallel assumptions of bad faith and anti-"in popular culture" edits shared by suspected meat puppets and engages in numerous wrestling deletionism that seem to match JB196, in fact he has hundreds if not 1000s of wrestling related removals, deletions, AfD nominations and a interest in editor TJ Spike, whom JB196 also disagrees with (the first post is from JB196):

It may be worth checking to see to what extent the known JB196 socks argued with TJ Spike; numerous RobJ1981 anti-TJ Spike edits., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

RobJ1981 has continued doing so recently (notice also the rivalry with TJ Spike): , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Similar behavior against Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Happy_Meal_toys_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=172872089&oldid=172770090 .

Notice that part of that dispute involves an editor named 3bulletproof26. Now, notice JB196 problems with the same editor: , .

Additional evidence of a JB196/RobJ1981 versus 3bulletproof16 over wrestling articles:

JB196 versus 3bulletproof16: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RobJ1981 versus 3bulletproof16: , , , , ,

Notice as well the harassing accusations andANI similar to Dannycali (recently blocked as a JB196 sock puppet after checkuser), Eyrian (who admitted using the alternate account named JohnEMcClure to "test limits"), and RobJ1981 (who has strikingly similar edits and accusations as JB196, Eyrian, Dannycali, and JohnEMcClure). The above are sample of their (JB196 and RobJ1981's) edits on 3bulletproof16's talk page. There's, again, even more to this dispute in the similar dispute of JB196 and RobJ1981 with TJ Spike in reverting and ANI threads elsewhere. It may be worth seeing if any of the other determined or suspected socks or meats or proxies have also engaged in conflict with 3bulletproof16 and TJ Spike that strengthen the likelihood of a connection, or disruptive relationship.

So, JB196, an editor mostly interested in wrestling articles, has his main dispute toward the end of his editing life is with 2bulletproof16 (someone suspected as being a TJ Spike sock). RobJ1981â€™s main dispute in his edit history is also with TJ Spike/3bulletproof16. Moreover, JB196 finished editing in 2006 around the same summer that RobJ181 started.

Part of what led to JB196 troubles (as well as those confirmed alternate accounts) involved incivility, personal attacks, etc. again, consider the following warnings to RobJ1981 and disputes: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (notice that JB196 and RobJ1981 had problems with TJ Spike and the one to protect TJ Spike talk page is Alkivar),

, , , , , , , , ,

RobJ1981 is also edit warring/conflict with other users: , , , , , , , , , , .

So:
1) RobJ1981 has had issues with 3bulletproof16, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and TJ Spike, just as JB196 did;
2) Dannycali, who has accused users of stalking, was recently blocked as a JB196 sock or meat after a check user and RobJ1981 has offered similar accusations against the same editors that Dannycali did;
3) RobJ1981 has a history of persistent and determined claims of harassment against editors, even if told to let it drop. And RobJ1981 even disagreed to an offer at mediation in one of the disputes. Notice JzGâ comment to RobJ1981 compelling: "Having proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are separate accounts, creating a second sockpuppetry case against them looks a lot like harassment. I have deleted it. Do not pursue that line again." His aggressiveness towards others even after well-established admins told him otherwise.

Also, RobJ1981 has AFD articles that Eyrian originally nominated: Eyrian:, RobJ1981:

Comments

Similar opinions doesn't always mean it's the same person. I think you are just trying to cause trouble, which is bad faith and unnecessary. You claim you are a regular editor, yet your account only has edits on today's date. So to make this clear: you make a new name, just to accuse others of being sockpuppets? That's a bit hypocritical. Have them do a check user on me, it will prove I'm innocent and you are just assuming bad faith/causing trouble. Also I want to point out, all those links aren't even relevant. I didn't have time to go through them all, but here's some examples to explain my edits. 28: I removed the wrong year category, as it's the original release year that is the only category listed for video games (the video game project has mentioned this many times on their talk page when the issue has been brought up). I also added a relevant category for the game console it's for. 29: I removed cruft from the article. The heights and so on aren't useful for the encyclopedia. Check any other wrestling game article, all that information is never listed. 67: I removed a dead link from the article. 74: this was a matter of category cleanup, and removing a wrong template. Many of those articles listed I wasn't even reverting TJ, so the heading of "notice also the rivalry with TJ Spyke" doesn't exist in every edit. It's wrong to just group all those together, when many don't even involve him. In my view, this user is just trying to find anything I removed from wrestling articles. It's called cleaning up the article. I don't have a grudge against wrestling articles. You might as well throw in all my other edits into this, and claim I have something against all subjects I edited, because I've removed things from those as well. Give me a break, this claim is just stupid and full of nonsense. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented at AN/I. Some of the diffs do seem to be the wrong edit , and I dont think the departed Eyrian has anything to do with this. The general pattern does seem to raise some concern./ I unfortunately am not able now to properly look through all the evidence, DGG (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I don't need all these diff to solve this. Note the submitter's name pattern on a keyboard. This SSP case is also his one and only edit. Note the last four accounts are indef blocked already, and JB196 hasn't edited since 2006. RobJ1981 seems a constructive editor. The submitter is obviously a sock of someone trying to get at RobJ1981. I've blocked the submitter indef. What I don't know of whom the submitter is a sock but a CU would tell us. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Editorhwaller

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Editorhwaller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I believe the User contributions and his repeated comments on my and the McGill University Talk page clearly show that User:68.45.132.38 is an anon IP sock of indefinitely banned editor User:Editorhwaller. But for some reason, this anon IP seemed to escape the indefinite ban. He has been blocked for 31 hours but I would like to suggest the block be indefinite, as per User:Editorhwaller. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

SOCKPUPPET1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SOCKPUPPET2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

Socks show no contribs, asked for more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

With no comments, evidence, or additional users and a couple of days passing, I suggest this SSP case be dropped. It can easily be copied and reinstated if more information is provided. As it is now it smears a user's reputation with no rationale. — BQZip01 — 09:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closing, nowhere near enough evidence provided. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Malcomjrjr

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Malcomjrjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 75.30.151.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Thedjatclubrock :) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both Users have added similar text to Aurora (astronomy). See Diffs and . Both diffs are within 5 minutes of each other and they have a similar edit summary.

Comments

Appears to be almost certainly the same WP:SPA operating both accounting (vandalizing same section in same manner, with same edit summary). A checkuser could probably confirm this, but since both are vandalism only accounts, an indef block might be more appropriate. MBisanz 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Umm...pardon being the wet blanket here, but each of these accounts have specifically one edit with a single warning on each talk page (You have gone from a basic warning to indefinitely block). To indef block here would be extremely harsh and unwarranted. A simple warning could have sufficed in this case. Give this person a chance to change their ways. After all, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Two edits that violate policy to be followed by (effectively) banishment seems to be overkill. — BQZip01 — 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Good points from both reviewers. These are assuredly the same person. One edit each doesn't justify indef, but this was vandalism in each case. Also, you can't indef an IP unless it's a TOR server, etc. It's probably a throw away account too. If I'd come across this as soon as it happened, I'd block 24-48 hours, but as it was 3 days ago, I'm only warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:EiWit

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Eir Witt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: EiWit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 86.141.8.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jonathan § 22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User has been adding links to the user page, obvious sock.

Comments

User:EiWit is linked to User:Eir Witt via tags on user pages. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They haven't editted the same page, but it seems a strong possibility that they are the same person. Suggest a checkuser to confirm EiWit is the same IP. MBisanz 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Low grade sock abuse. IMHO, a warning should be given first on his/her talk page. If continued, a block would follow. I've used an IP address to edit my page before. Though these accounts should share the fate of User:Eir Witt accordingly. — BQZip01 — 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Action was already taken--named accounts indef, IP one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tooj217

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Tooj117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Tooj217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and everything at Category:Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets of Tooj117

Report submission by

Marlith /C 02:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

This is one of a chain of socks used to vandalized the Geek article.

Comments

This diff seems to indicate that 217 considers himself to be 117. Probable sock. Indef block on 217 as vandalism only, 117 is more complex, probably AIV issue. MBisanz 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Given this self-proclamation that he is a blocked user, I see no reason not to treat his as such. I edited a few things here for clarity. — BQZip01 — 02:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jjmalone

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Mcblogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) already confirmed
Rickcoffer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Amplifiedlight (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Please see prior submission and confirmation of sockpuppetry. This user user:Rickcoffer (which is a mis-spelling of a local activist who supports the candidacy the article's subject) has inserted vandalism 1 2 of similar nature to the prior sockpuppet accounts (Jjmalone and Mcblogger, which was also an impersonation of a local supporter), examples 1 2. Again, this new user account has no history of edits other than this article.

~~Recommend banning of the account.~~

(blocked indef now) Amplifiedlight (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Submitted article for semi-protection through at least primary election ending March 4th, 2008.

Comments

Conclusions

I have blocked all of the accounts indefinitely because they are being used abusively for vandalism, with no significant number of useful edits. Jehochman 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:N EVERYTHIN!

Suspected sockpuppeteer: N EVERYTHIN! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: RIGHT UP THE WALL! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Xdenizen (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

This edit to Ruth Kelly

Comments

EVERYTHIN did that edit, how does it show socking? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at both contributors histories, it appears they both vandalized Ruth Kelly, but in different ways at different times. Not necessarily sock puppetry. MBisanz 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it appears they both have the same POV's to push and both have similarly recognisable usernames. Edits are near enough at the same time, on both days. Rudget . 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry for the late response here. I've had internet access issues. If memory (and a review of the edit history) serves me rightly, this article has been the subject of consistent homophobic vandalism. On the day I filed the sockpuppet report, the article was being vandalised from a number of similarly named accounts, which were being blocked one after another. It may be that I have the order of the contributions wrong. Nevertheless, I maintain that these accounts are sockpuppets. Xdenizen (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough evidence linking the two for sockpuppetry. I admit that the two edits are both vandalism (the older one simply needs to be blocked), but the new one is the one that concerns me. It only has two edits. It could be someone who simply logged in to vandalize the article. That said, the easy solution here is a request for a checkuser to verify that these are or are not the same person. This edit history is sufficient for such a request. Once the checkuser goes through, it should quickly ascertain guilt or innocence. — BQZip01 — 08:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Moot. Both accounts have already been blocked indefinitely as vandalism only accounts. Hopefully the user(s) behind them will give up soon. Otherwise, the article may be semi-protected. Jehochman 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hermossa13

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hermossa13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

g026r (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chuckie berry (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All accounts used solely for the editing of items related to articles The Realm of No!/The realm of no! (Deletion log for the former: ).
When article was deleted, newly created user Hermossa13 recreated the page under The realm of no!, and proceeded to defend the article as having been deleted due to a vendetta against it.
Item is an unpublished/rejected home-brew adventure for a roleplaying game, of which fewer than a dozen copies may exist and which all three users appear to have a rather strong opinion on the notability of; as such, it is unlikely that this many people would know of it and would appear here all at once (all accounts created within the past couple of days) to create articles related to it.

Chuckie berry (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious same user making multiple edits under at least 2 seperate IPs, one of which is located in the state of Virginia of US and the other the other located Amsterdam of the Netherlands.

Comments

Added two user IPs and reason for the addition. Chuckie berry (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Added another IP which is editing article to remove AfD tags with the same style comments as others. -- g026r (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Added another sock account Chuckie berry (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Added two more accounts. -- g026r (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only seeing edits from User:130.149.160.175 and User:190.50.192.32 and they don't appear to overlap. Were others deleted? MBisanz 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the various articles and images the other accounts had created or edited have since been deleted. -- g026r (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

It is beyond reasonable doubt that these are the same user. I will tag and block all of them as there is evidence of serious disruption. Jehochman 21:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

130.149.160.175 (talk · contribs) was previously blocked as a Tor node. Edits from that account may represent more than one user. Jehochman 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CompScientist

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

New IP addresses/users as of 10 March 2008:
75.7.148.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

A discussion initiated by one of the IP addresses at Talk:Nissan GT-R challenged the validity of the discussion and the consensus achieved in a prior discussion relating to the term, supercar. The comments therein, by the starting IP address and the three others, revolved around the same line of comments and assumed bad faith on part of other editors. The discussions at Talk:Nissan GT-R mirror that of CompScientist.
The IP addresses have reinstated original research and vast amounts of unsourced materials to supercar, beginning with this IP edit:

1st: 08:42, 8 January 2008 by 71.156.48.66
2nd: 18:58, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121
3rd: 19:33, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121
4th: 20:13, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121
6th: 21:52, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85

These IPs were also used to make false AIV reports on some of the other users involved.

22:28, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
22:06, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
21:54, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
20:17, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121 (cumulation of two)
by 75.7.233.121
01:24, 9 January 2008 by 75.3.251.3

- Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Various IP addresses were adding in blank section headings as a potential POV-fork.

00:44, 16 January 2008: Latest, but they are all pretty much the same. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A new batch of very similar edits to CompScientist has appeared by Wikipeadian (talk · contribs):

Nissan GT-R:

15:08, 2 February 2008
20:21, 2 February 2008
23:50, 2 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs)

Vietnam War:

I'll request a CU tonight. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And... with Mcknight11 (talk · contribs):

Vietnam War:

01:42, 17 February 2008
03:36, 18 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BusterD (talk • contribs)

Comments

IP addresses evading block of CompScientist for edit warring, 3RR.
Currently, Nissan GT-R is locked due to edit warring between CompScientist and various individuals, and supercar is locked due to edit warring between the IP addresses and various individuals.
I am sending this for IP Checkuser, and if this proves to be CompScientist, a lengthy block for disruption, abuse and repeated sock puppetry will follow. Jehochman 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

The IPs were confirmed by checkuser and I have lengthened the existing block to one month for block evasion and disruptive sock puppetry. Jehochman 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:MathStatWoman

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:MathStatWoman sockpuppeteer (confirmed by Checkuser admins Kelly Martin & Fred Bauder), see summary of behaviour here), has been blocked three times for repeated copyvio contributions, repeated vandalism and repeated disruption. She has a history of abusive sockpuppetry and disruptive edits related to the now deleted Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Roberta Wenocur subject in particular. Articles on Wenocur have been deleted four times already, the fifth is now at AfD. MathStatWoman has not edited since Aug 06 (none have any of her previously identified sockpuppets have edited past Sept 06, except for one, which made edits to userpage removing the sock template Feb 07).

The most recent R. S. Wenocur article was created by User:Alfred Legrand. Other pages created by MathStatWoman and since edited by User:Alfred Legrand include Marion Cohen (twice survived AfD by non-consensus), and Mark Pinsky.

A confirmed MathStatWoman (by Fred Bauder here) sock is User:Philly Student, and MathStatWoman has edited Philadelphia related articles such as the Philly suburb article Ardmore, Pennsylvania, example (problematic) edits: , . Alfred Legrand's also displays an interest in Philadelphia topics, making some problematic edits: (e.g. & ).

MathStatsWoman complained that Utz chips ought to be deleted , Alfred Legrand's put a prod tag on it (). Alfred Legrand has also created some very odd food-related articles, such as Sweet Muenster Cheese, the (now deleted) Harvest Moon Cocktail and Whole stuffed camel. He's also made edits attributing the invention of recipies to R.S. Wenocur, e.g. the pomegranate martini , the harvest moon beer coctail . In a similar edit User:Samuel Kotz attributes a recipie for Sweet Muenster cheese (note difference in capitaliation from the Alfred Legrand article) to R.S. Winocur .

Comments

Many of these have been confirmed at Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alfred_Legrand. CM (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed a number of sock puppets, and they were blocked. It appears that no further administrative actions are required here. Jehochman 15:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fila3466757

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fila3466757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Farlack907 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Farlack913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Greenock125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ScotRail DBSO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ScotRail421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FA53764968566fgtu7757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rydo12345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Stewart 22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Fila3466757

Incorrect information added
Possible threats to other users on talk page
Inappropriate reversal of route information
Addition of incorrect information very doubtful
Inappropriate reversal of route information
Inappropriate language on talk page
Admission that Farlack931 and ScotRail421 are sockpuppets following query by Admin User:John.
threats to other users on talk page
Message onto a sockpuppet user page
response to old comment of a sockpuppet talk page which ignores and does not respond to the comments being made.

Addition added 10 January 2008

Inappropriate language on talk page regarding the activities on other pages.

--Stewart 06:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition added 13 January 2008

Abuse to a user who has suggested a means of identifying the issues he has concern with.

--Stewart 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition added 15 January 2008

More inappropriate language and abuse on User:Pencefn's talk page (for something Pencefn didn't do no less).

--Dreamer84 (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Farlack907 (Active May to August 2007)

Farlack913

Inappropriate message subsequently blanked by admin User:John.
Inappropropriate message subsequently blanked by User:Signalhead
change data in an infobox even though the text explains the reason for the status quo
Edit to location of station, resulting in invalid wikilink
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=North_Kent_Line&diff=prev&oldid=172528410
Birkhill location
another incorrect edit to Lockerbie
Lockerbie manager
Comment which should have been on talk page in article. Message posted on talk page by User:Pencefn
Lockerbie reverted by User:Signalhead
Message on own talk page regarding edits on other pages without have understood what was done and why.
another on talk page comment
shouting on talk page
response to Admin comment
response to vandalism warning
Response to an offer of help from an Admin
Response to case set out by an Admin who was not involved with the edit mentioned.
As the initial creator, and a major contributor to the article, this was unexpected and inappropriate
Reversal of route information
Deletion of route information
Incorrect editting of route information
Number of platforms at Edinburgh Waverley
Lockerbie Manager again
Incorrect number of platforms at Motherwell]
Inappropriate message on user page

Greenock125 (active since 18 December 2007)

Used mainly to trawl the internet for pictures which are loaded into Knowledge (XXG).
Images deleted in early January now being re upload, examples include:
Although has deleted warnings on talk page does not appear to has taken on board the issues raised.
Meanwhile Fila3466757 posts inappropriate language when the images that do not contain copyright information are deleted.

ScotRail421

ScotRail DBSO (only two edits in November 2007)

Another Lockerbie edit

FA53764968566fgtu7757

Misleading edits reverted by Admin User:John
Incorrect, potentially disruptive, edit

Comments

Suspect that this user, although has made some good edits, is making disruptive edits and place messages on Talk and User pages that contain inappropriate and threatening language. As User:Farlack931 this user changed the number of platforms on a large number of railway station articles which required to be reverted to the correct number.

The creation of multiple accounts appears to be used to make a clean start or possibly to avoid scrutiny. --Stewart 22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent posting on the talk page suggest that this user if using the main account to post messages, whilst other accounts, specifically Greenock125 appears to be acting as a feedstock to the puppetmaster. --Stewart 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

At least some of these accounts appear to be sock puppets, while the connection to others is less strong. There may also be other, undiscovered socks. There appears to be an ongoing pattern of disruption, incivility and perhaps sneaky vandalism. I will file a request for checkuser to see if that can clarify the situation. See Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Fila3466757. Jehochman 22:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser came back with a list of socks. These have been blocked indefinitely. The main account has been blocked for one week. Jehochman 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Marcus2

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Marcus2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 70.101.182.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 70.101.160.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

treelo _talk 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

In an ongoing discussion over the reliability of some references within The Powerpuff Girls article, this user has been using these IP addresses as sockpuppets to bolster their opinion on the factuality of these sources and their inclusion in the article. The puppetmaster has been vocal in the past towards his dislike of the subject

One of the puppets has also asked a question at WP:RSN using the same reasoning that the puppeteer has used in the past against the sources.

Comments

So this is your "proof". It doesn't seem valid to me. I am not a sockpuppet. But from what I've noticed through thorough research, he apparently used other IPs on other language Wikipedias, I'm guessing by forgetting to log in. I have read Marcus's work and I agree with him. It seems that I have absorbed all of this and I think alike with him. Have you ever heard the expression "Great minds think alike?" 70.101.182.149 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be aware, I've opened a case at Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Marcus2 for both the IPs listed here. Yng varr 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Result of the checkuser has confirmed that the IP addressses and Marcus2 are linked. --treelo _talk 14:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

The RFCU case filed against Marcus2 and the IPs confirmed them to be linked, so this case can be closed now. Spebi 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Standshown

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Laveol 21:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Standshown has been edit-warring on a number of articles and especially on 2: Neo-Nazism in Serbia and Ante Pavelić and has done it till the 31 December. On December 30 a new account was created (User:Stagalj) that immediately started warring on the same articles - here are all the reverts from both users on Neo-Nazism in Serbia Stagaji, then Standshown and then again Stagaji , . The other article is Ante Pavelić where Standshown made reverts as follows - that was untill the protection of the article. Immediately after protection expired there was (this is on December 31) and three days later Stagaji continued . Standshown had been previously blocked for similar edits and that might be the reason for the new user creation. It might be just coincidence, but an extremely suspicious coincidence. --Laveol 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The "evidence" above is just a frivolous attempt to eliminate me as an opponent in this discussion and in contributing to Knowledge (XXG). I only share an honest interest with other editor (Standshown) in improving the quality of Knowledge (XXG)'s articles. The Knowledge (XXG)'s checkuser is free to confirm that I am not the one who uses the same Internet account as the other editor (Standshown).--Stagalj (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add up: Immediately after his first revert Standshown provided references for his edits taken directly from Google books (where he most probably just made a simple search) and guess what Stagalj did after his first revert (or maybe a little bit later: - obviously again google booked. --Laveol 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Stagalj. We learned that we live in two different cities, use two different IP accounts owned by two different ISPs.

As to the accusations above, the accuser is obliged to provide a sound proof that both of us used the Google Book Search engine and not, for example, Live Book Search, or Questia search, or a library commercial or proprietary book catalog search tool. One of the accepted proofs might be the format of generated search engine report like or and the clear connection between the reports and our edits seen on the talk page. Also, the accuser is obliged to provide evidence that the edits are comming from the same IP account or that both accounts belong to (and/or are used by) the same person.

--Standshown (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the accuser is not obliged to provide non of this above. I have no privileges to see your actual IPs as the accuser is not an Admin. And the accuser meant that both of you have an almost identical way of providing references - I have not linked Google book cause it was meant as a principle not as the exact way you attained your sources. And as you might notice the accuser has not put the Google book stuff in the evidence section of the report.--Laveol 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Note The following ISP's seem to also be socks of this user: 72.75.47.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 66.2.146.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Both of these are in the greater Washington, DC area and have made similar edits. --Strothra (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. This user seems to have an interest in WWII Serb related articles. Until New Year User:Standshown have been in edit war on 2 other articles Serbia (1941-1944) and Puppet state. He hasn't broken WP:3RR as far as I can see, but WP:Edit war is now policy. A single user using multiple accounts to hide the true state of the article (Neo-Nazism in Serbia and Ante Pavelić) is problematic .--Rjecina (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I think there is evidence of sock puppetry, but I am not completely convinced at this time. Therefore, I will file Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Standshown to see if that provides any further information. Jehochman 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser result is that the two named accounts are

Unrelated, however both have been logging out and using their IPs to evade 3RR or avoid scrutiny. That is not allowed. I will warn both not to do that further. There have been no fresh reverts, so blocking is not necessary. Should edit warring resume, contact me and I will consider whether to apply blocks. Jehochman 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have issued warnings to both users. Hopefully this will be the end of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Skateremorocker

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both users edit almost exclusively pages pertaining to Christian rock bands, with most editings concerning genres.

Both display the same poor grammar and writing style.

Most damning, both mark every single edit they make as a minor edit.

More evidence, both do not sign their comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

OK, they're the same person, where's the vio of WP:SOCK...disruption, vote stacking, etc? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing he blatantly lied to me about not being a sock.

Also he's previously been blocked for using a previous sock puppet to stack consensus, which suggests this could go down the same road.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Having two accounts is not per se blockable. Refile when he violates WP:SOCK, and ref this case, put new evidence in the new case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Teddy.Coughlin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Teddy.Coughlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Momusufan (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Possible sockpuppeteer, adding unsourced info into articles using his own account, the unsourced info is reverted, then he uses an IP address to readd what was reverted. Unsourced info reverted here , and here . Both edit histories provide similar editing patterns:

Special:Contributions/Teddy.Coughlin
Special:Contributions/24.63.6.149

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked both one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ray andrew

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ray andrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Proctor spock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ray andrew — checkuser request resulted in a "likely" that Ray andrew and Proctor spock are one and the same.
Proctor spock was created while Ray andrew was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Proctor spock immediately began edit warring over an article Ray andrew had edit warred over in the past. I immediately requested a RFCU as I suspected this new editor was merely Ray evading his 3RR block.
The account continues to edit and "contribute" by reverting edits similar to Ray, as well as sharing opinions similar to Ray (this is, obviously, not evidence enough by itself, but is contributory I believe).
For an account recently created, Proctor spock seems to be very familiar with Knowledge (XXG) and it's policies/procedures.

Evidence (with responses)

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ray andrew — checkuser request resulted in a "likely" that Ray andrew and Proctor spock are one and the same.

The only evidence that that conclusion was based on was that one of us (not me) was using an open proxy. Thats pretty thin if you ask me. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison's result was (surprisingly) faulty and I am still in the process of asking her about this. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proctor spock was created while Ray andrew was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Proctor spock immediately began edit warring over an article Ray andrew had edit warred over in the past. I immediately requested a RFCU as I suspected this new editor was merely Ray evading his 3RR block.

From the time stamp I see he was created near the end of my ban, why would I create a sock puppet just before I was to be unbanned? --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

From the time stamp, you can see I created this account after Locke Cole inappropriately removed content about 51 GB (triple layer) HD DVD discs from the HD DVD article. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The account continues to edit and "contribute" by reverting edits similar to Ray, as well as sharing opinions similar to Ray (this is, obviously, not evidence enough by itself, but is contributory I believe).

Is it hard to beleave that other editors would have similar views in that dispute? --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

While we share some views, we differ on others. In general, though, we both respect WP:NPOV above our own desires to promote a particular platform. At least, that is what I have observed. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For an account recently created, Proctor spock seems to be very familiar with Knowledge (XXG) and it's policies/procedures.

Finally, a compliment. Though I do not think it was meant as one. I do know this -- I am not familiar enough with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and procedures as an editor who has been through arbitration. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments

I can provide diffs if needed, but I think the RFCU coupled with just looking through their contributions should be enough. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure it was appropriate for Ray to respond directly to the evidence, but I'll leave it alone for now. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- A fuzzy investigation gives a fuzzy result. Where is the evidence? Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  - The RFCU should be enough on it's own, but the editing patterns visible just by opening up each of your contribs stands out like a sore thumb. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't follow. You are saying that look over there in that general direction is enough? Sounds fuzzy, not of the warm feel good inside variety, but of the inconclusive variety. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Initial comment by Proctor spock: This is disappointing. Rather than address the merits of my arguments over at Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats, Locke Cole has resorted to personally attacking me and Ray andrew as being "sock puppets". It is aggravating and it muddies the waters when you are trying to address a difficult content issue on an article to be falsely accused like this. While assuming good faith, I find it hard to believe Locke Cole can honesty hold the belief we are still one and the same at this time. I hope that this case can finally put an end to being falsely accused by Locke Cole of being someone I am not. It would be nice to get back to discussing the article and not one another. Proctor spock (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- As you've been told, pointing out that you are a sock puppet of Ray andrew is in fact not a personal attack. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Since you do not know I am a sock puppet of another editor, it is a personal attack. Please, as I have asked you repeatedly, stop it. If you must attack, focus on the arguments, not the person. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    - But I do know. And you've already been told it's not a personal attack. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      - You do not get to decide what is and is not a personal attack. You have been personally attacking me repeatedly on the Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats page and asked nicely to stop on multiple occasions. Again, I ask, please stop with the personal attacks. They do nothing to add to the discussion, and instead serve to distract and delay, unnecessarily prolonging the formation of consensus. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This accusation has mainly been used to discredit me and my positions and to avoid the real debate. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- No Ray, it's not some insidious plot to win a debate on an article. I just like knowing that I'm not being abused (as I believe I am) by someone who is manipulating the discussion by using a sockpuppet. Someone who used the same sock puppet to evade a 3RR ban and revert war on another, related, page. I think those are the real reasons I brought these accusations. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually, trying to get another editor blocked who shares views similar to an editor you already oppose is a way to win a debate on an article by silencing the opposing side. You have only filed this sock puppet case when it became clear your desired version of the chart had fallen out of favor. Funny that. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    - You would do well to take this seriously rather than continuing to try and bring up an article dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      - You brought this suspected sock puppet case because of an article dispute. As interesting a movie as Secret Window is, the world becomes absurd when you ask me to imagine that I am Ray andrew, whom I have never met and do not know outside these bits. I take my duties as an editor seriously, which is why I have stuck around through your abuse. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Locke thinks warnings about his personal attacks are silly --Ray andrew (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- They're irrelevant. An RFCU has resulted in a "likely" that you and Proctor spock are one and the same. Besides, you've already been told that those aren't personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  - YOU can tell me that they are not personal attacks all day but, it sure feels like it to me. Practly every other comment you made recently on Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats accused me or Proc. of being sockpuppets. The "Likely" conclusion of the RFCU does not give you the right to go around and publicly smear me because you disagree with my views, that is a personal attack. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    - I agree with Ray andrew here. Locke Cole, your belief that because someone wrote something you are now free to personally attack me and Ray andrew is erroneous. You are responsible for what you say. You can't put this on another editor. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How shall I count your errors...

RFCU=Request For CheckUser
if RFCU's come back "likely", anything that even seems like two accounts supporting one another is used against you.
Besides, the admins have tools even I can not access. This includes IP location tracking.
that wraps it up.

Oh, yeah, and always remember to cover your tracks in the woods, even bears can be smart, if they try. M1N (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The request for checkuser has been revised and the outcome is " Inconclusive". Proctor spock (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet it still remains that the original outcome was "likely" and that the timing of your account creation (while Ray was blocked for 3RR) and your edit history since then reinforce the idea that you and he are one and the same. You support nearly the same points of view, you have the same habit of revert warring (something a Knowledge (XXG) newbie shouldn't be too familiar with, yet your first three edits consist of reverting a single page to your preferred version), and so forth. I still say you're a sockpuppet of Ray and this wikibreak he's on is a sham. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note: both accounts have denied responding to this claim:

I believe Ray andrew may be evading a 3RR block, the Proctor spock (talk · contribs) account was created today and within minutes began reverting changes in an article similar to the one Ray andrew was blocked for edit warring on. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically:

...within minutes began reverting changes in an article similar to the one Ray andrew was blocked for edit warring on. ...

Therefore: You like pie. But seriously, this SSP war has been all about blocks, name-calling, and hatefulness. How about we actually use actual proof. M1N (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond :) Note that the reverts Proc. made when he signed up were not on the same page and not on the same topic. He was reverting the removal by Locke of well sourced information, strange thing to get banned for, but I guess Locke has some friends. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

CU was inconclusive and this SSP is nothing but a fingerpointing match, and uncivil at that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Avraham

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Mongoosed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Adjuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Matilda 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Two new wikipedians whose first edits, competently made with signatures, were to vote for keeping an article supported by User:Avraham and strongly supporting his views. first edit by Mongoosed First edit by Adjuro--Matilda 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Checkuser is not appropriate until the AfD has been completed and will only be done if the outcome is affected by the votes of these two potential sockpuppets.--Matilda 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - I feel really bad about accusing User:Avraham of this and no longer think he is the puppetmaster. I ahve nominated him because of the strong support shown by the two new users. However, in reviewing talk page comments and editing history, I suspect it is probably User:Adon Emett. I find the whole AfD rather bizarre - particularly when reviewed against the previous AfD for the same topic.--Matilda 05:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in and say my thoughts re my dealings with avi, he has tried to block me numerous times, i do not think he is a bad editor at all, he is a good and trustworthy valued editor, - where it not for the concern that he scares of new users we should give him all the medals and money of the world to continue doing his tireless wiki work. I must be open, i personally would like him to be desysoped, because his actions are very though and strict with new users, but until the community is tolerant of his antiques my voice will not be heard, it is clear to me from my interactions with him, ly that he is working like a puppet, although i think he is too shrewd to use it like a sock-puppet, i definitely see a pattern in metapoetry, i will try to enumerate my evidence although it may be unconvincing for the community, i urge extra caution since avi is a sysop he should be more responsible and held to some higher standard especially since he evokes his higher status here daily to win edit wars.

when i answer an other user he jumps suddenly in on me to talk instead of that other user.
also when i argue with him suddenly other names come in and attack me that i hares him they try to change the discussion.
he always diverts a discussion that others hurt him personally when the others talk only about the subject.
he usually never answers on his talk page when simple discussions are started but jumps to to decentralize the issue to other talk pages, so it should be hard to follow his discussions around so not be able to detect what comment belongs where and who are the users commenting on it.
he has reverted in the past to delete the history of other pupets see his reasoning that we must follow his actions because he knows better.User_talk:IZAK/Archive_30#Yeshivish_et_al

thanks for everybody who will take the time and effort to comment and investigate further on this cloud of puppetry behavior, because i feel Avi has crossed all lines definitely with me he has succeeded in wasting my time through these above enumerated issues and i hope his name can be cleared so all the pain would be for the good of the projects consensus building, by all means a check-user should be done just to be sure it would be great and encouraging that no socks are involved. i would strongly urge a check-user tool on his name to see what names, if any, are linked to puppeteer from his ip address. Thanks for bringing this up --יודל (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Adon Emett which covers some of the same users (but not Avraham). It also lists additional users. Perhaps these lists should be combined. --A. B. 12:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

I believe Matilda has exhibited extremely poor judgement and allowed her personal point of view to interfere with her ability to act as an impartial sysop. We are involved in a discussion about the deletion of the Ed O'Loughlin article, which may be found at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt.

Involved in this discussion are a number of new accounts; which she has decided are my sockpuppets.

If she had taken more than 30 seconds to check my editing history as well as the editing history of User:Adon Emett and User:124.191.88.235, not only would she see that the new accounts are most likely tied to the Australian IP, she would see that I had blocked the Australian IP for vandalism related to the Ed O'Loughlin case.

Not to skip the fact that all of the other editors, including herself, are from Australia, and I am from the United States.

I feel as if her point-of-view regarding this Mr. O'Loughlin has prevented her from approaching this case properly, and resulted in at best, a gross violation of the assumption of good faith and at worst, a deliberate ad hominem attack meant to impugn the credibility of a firmly established editor and administrator on ideological grounds. I hope it is the former.

As for Yudel/Yid, he has been blocked for disruption before, has been castigated for improper allegations before, has exhibited a total disregard for wikipedia policies and guidelines before, has apologized and returned to the same actions before, and a perusal of his editing history will clearly demonstrate the problems with this editor. He has been long trying to claim I deserve desysopping, because I have the "gall" to uphold wikipedia policy and guidelines where he finds it annoying. Oh well, every established editor eventually gets his or her "fan club" .

-- Avi (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Avi i was very open that u have tried to block me weekly by stating that i break policies, i am i clean? u bet i have my flowes. Please refrain from making this page about u or other editors, if u r a good decent editor like i say u should let this page be about the puppetry accusations others have on u, i strongly urge the community to be tolerant of Avi and not block him if the checkuser finds he has acted like a puppet, all we want in this page is clarify some heavy feelings we may have that hinders our community collaboration with avi. thanks--יודל (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time of nomination, the most vociferous editor on the AfD was Avraham, the apparent puppets supported him, hence my nominatin of him as puppet master. It may well be someone else but since checkuser is not allowed, we can't find out and I can't make an altrnate accusation other than the one I have already suggested above - Adon Emmet.--Matilda 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is check-user not allowed, if Avi agrees to this why shouldn't we make this check, after all not only u has raised this issue, why not finelize it once and for all?--יודל (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing how every time you edit, you just prove my long-standing point that you completely disregard wikipedia policies and guidelines, Yid/Yudel. Read WP:RFCU before making inappropriate suggestions. --- Avi (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Avi this isn't my page initially but if u do not agree to make a checkuser i will at one time take the day off my job and collect all the evidence, right now i agree with u that we should not make a check user since u r evidently against it. love and peace.--יודל (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(<-)I've been involved with the AFD discussion page. While I don't know who the puppetmaster is -- or if this really is a csae of sockpuppetry -- I doubt it's Avi. It's just not his style. I can understand why Matilda may have thought Avi was behind it, but I'd wager that a closer look will exonerate him. I hope both Avi and Matilda can put this episode behind them. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I note Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Adon Emett (which was raised on the basis of code G - Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway) has found it unlikely that the various users nominated there were the same editor, specifically:
- Adon Emett (talk · contribs)
- C1818 (talk · contribs)
- Mongoosed (talk · contribs)
- Georgeaz (talk · contribs)
- Adjuro (talk · contribs)

As two of those users are the same as nominated here and a third was my suspected alternate puppet master I withdraw this nomination. I fully accept Avraham's denial of being a puppet master.--Matilda 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Withdrawn by nominator - see comment re Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Adon Emett and acceptance of Avraham's denial--Matilda 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Marina T.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Marina T. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sofie Van Loo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ZisoZiso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Silvan S. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
possibly also - Shmila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
an older case, hasn't edited recently - Mirnamirna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Most probably related to the User:Nnimrodd, who was banned on Hebrew and English Wikipedias. Marina T. made many edits about Israeli culture, and created many articles on non-notable topics, to the point of being disruptive. This account was blocked for massive uploading of unsourced and/or confusingly licensed images.

Lately mostly edits articles about Bracha L. Ettinger and Michal Heiman. The text of the articles is probably OK, but the images related to them are sourced in a very suspicious way.

The latest image in question is Image:Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger - 2007 - berlin.jpg. It is essentially the same as Image:Bracha2007 black white.jpg, but has different licensing. The circumstances make it very unlikely that the real rights holder suddenly popped up and uploaded the image under the GFDL.

Comments

Reporter's comment - See the User:Sofie Van Loo's response at my talk page: User talk:Amire80#Bracha Ettinger's photo. I really want to assume good faith, but this looks too suspicious. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

To respect me since I have put my real name simply to upload a photo I have made, please take me off this list. Sofie Van Loo (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Amir, You can ask david shai (or emanuel) from israeli wikipedia. i'm there for many years.I don't know this Lichtenberg Ettinger issue. why should fake puppets to put images? Shmila (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please take a note of this. May be the same user. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I'd like to withdraw this allegation and apologize if anyone has been hurt. The copyright for the problematic images has been cleared. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Matthew Winter

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Matthew Winter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Gts 7829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Gts 7829's editing pattern seems to be identical to the indef blocked user in question. See this edit by the puppetmaster, and the page Matthew Winter (Professional Wrestler), which was created by the likely sock. Note that both the diff and the page in question have the same content; about a non-notable backyard wrestler. See further discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Matthew Winter (Professional Wrestler).

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:75.143.208.13

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 75.143.208.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Mindraker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Additional edits are all focused on Elonka, appears to be a static IP of blocked user Mindraker

Comments

Conclusions

Diff proves sock of Mindraker. IP blocked a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Evilsboitoy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Wumpilicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Degradedfaces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RJC 08:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Wumpilicious and Degradedfaces have made not contributions to Knowledge (XXG) other than to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/CatharticLament (the first indication of sockpuppetry given on WP:Sockpuppet). Their contributions are 1 2 3. Their tone and position mimics that of Evilsboitoy, down to the similarity in how they sign their names (first typing their username, then typing four tildas). Their edits are within minutes of each other. Evilsboitoy's contributions to the discussion are 1 and 2. Evilsboitoy is the page's creator, and itself seems to be a single-purpose account (the only other edits ever made having been to Sith).

Please also see this edit made to the AfD after its closure.

Comments

Conclusions

I have blocked Degradedfaces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wumpilicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as blatant sockpuppets, and warned the main account Evilsboitoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since already blocked, I tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Thuringowacityrep

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Mattinbgn\ 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Thuringowacityrep (talk · contribs) is an editor with a keen interest in the municipality, City of Thuringowa in north Queensland, Australia. His editing history could almost see this editor considered a single purpose account. Thuringowacityrep created an article, Les Tyrell about the mayor of the municipality, that was nominated for deletion by Twenty Years (talk · contribs) on 8 January 2008.

On 10 January 2008, the account "RockandRolldownunder" was created. Its first edit was to create a user page with the content "Hi all, just found this site and see that it is full of great music infomation so i thought i would join up and add my bit to this site. A little about me..I'm a Guitarist of a heavy metal band....like i said a little about me." This is very similar in writing style and content to Thuringowacityrep's user page. An example includes "I was a professional drag racer for about 14 years and played lead guitar in my own band until I had to give up the racing and music due to my health, I then built race motors for the next 4 years but again my health let me down and had to stop, so I moved into computer building and band promoting and that's where I am today."

Following this edit, Rockandrolldownunder then made an edit typical of Thuringowacityrep's style, changing a mention of Townsville to City of Thuringowa. The next edit was in the AfD mentioned above where he supported keeping the article, using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument similar to Thuringowacityrep's earlier comment.

Finally, the account makes an edit to List of shopping centres in Australia, once again pushing the point of view strongly held by Thuringowacityrep that Thuringowa is separate from Townsville.

This sockpuppet case is not an attempt to argue one way in the ongoing Townsville/Thuringowa discussions. Other editors who attempted to mediate in those discussions know far more about this than I. However, the evidence above seems to me to point clearly at an improper use of a alternate account in an attempt to push a point of view and to influence the result of an AfD.

Comments

It's been confirmed - the user has the same writing style, same interests, and the edits for R are located in T edit periods. I have blocked the sock indefinitely, but have not blocked Thuringowacityrep as a one-off good faith measure. I sincerely hope this does not happen again. Orderinchaos 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a fair resolution to me. -- Mattinbgn\ 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting low now, for a start the user that you say is a sockpuppet IS NOT, the User is a Good Friend of mine from Cairns and did infact play im my band with me untill i had to give up, we were talking the other day and i just said about how there are some cock heads on here that are very one sided (just saying what i told him) and he said that he would have a look at the site as he had never heard of it and i told him that it has a lot of info on bands, and yes he may have done a few edits that i had NO input in (i might add) and as some of them were in my watch list i did see what he had done and really all he did was correct a few pages that were wrong (and you all know that they were) i just hope that when he gets home from work and finds out what you have done he doesn't get pissed off becasue this is not the write way to treat a new editor...IS IT?. So much for your it's proven, now i am the one who is genuinely disappointed that you resorted to this. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed per checkuser. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closing, already resolved. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Darkimmortal

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Darkimmortal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 172.203.53.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexfusco 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

This IP requested unblocking of the user

Comments

I'm not really sure this rises to the level of true sockpuppetry. He couldn't use his account (or didn't realize yet that he could edit his talk page when blocked) and made an unblock request. I don't see how that's editing abusively. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Prob same guy, but yes, not abusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiman419

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Wikiman419 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: QwertyHead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Thedjatclubrock :) 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar vandalism edits on Josiah Strong. See and

Comments

Conclusions: QwertyHead blocked by Sandahl. Wikiman419 blocked by myself. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC); Thank you, Thedjatclubrock :) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Closing, already resolved. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Khayoon

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Khayoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Khayoona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Johnny Au (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Same vandalism pattern on University of Toronto, as well as similar username, as well as the sockpuppet created after the sockpuppeteer had been indefinitely blocked for vandalism.

Comments

Note: Both users seem to have edited University of Toronto in an nonconstructive manner. They also have similar usernames, Probably socks. Thedjatclubrock :) 12:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Block evading sock=indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Michaeljohnsfans

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mjf08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Torc2 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both are SPAs. The puppeteer, created January 9th, has only made edits on three articles related to Michael Johns. The alleged sock, created January 10th, has only ever made one edit, a "keep" vote on Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Michael Johns (singer), which includes detailed references to WP:BAND and was made 13 minutes after account creation.

Comments

It's taken a few hours to get up to speed with the Knowledge (XXG) lingo so as to understand what's been accused and prepare a response but please excuse any misunderstandings. Mjf08 is an SPA, created to enhance and flesh out Michael Johns related articles (created back in 2006 but still sparse even now) leading up to Tuesday's premiere of American Idol (season 7). Unfortunately these half a dozen minor edits attracted the attention of Brianyoumans who promptly proposed the articles for deletion, only to immediately invoke an AfD debate when objected to. Granted the initial proposal was in order, and perhaps the AfD debate too given no reason for objection was given, but that's where it should have ended. Some hours were then spent researching, ultimately identifying no less than 8 of the 12 WP:BAND points were satisfied (where any 1 would suffice) which should have ended the discussion here.

Kmkroeger, seeing the 8 points already raised and apparently consulting WP:BAND added one that had been missed: Also potentially #7 with his regular performances in Buckhead, Atlanta over a number of years. It is this action that is at the heart of the accusation, despite the earlier comment: If you don't like it, don't count the vote (but do consider the information that spent some time to collate).

Torc2 then joined in, likened these innocuous edits to being spammed with "street teams" of people doing nothing but plugging the artist, unjustifiably claimed that at minimum it's a conflict of interest, and possibly it's just advertising, stated that it was disturbing that the only other keep vote is from a new account and finally accused both of us of being involved in sock puppetry, presenting at best tenuous 'evidence' starting by simply stating that Both are SPAs.

It is no surprise that these articles (still plastered with obnoxious AfD messages despite convincing counter-arguments having been presented on NINE separate fronts) are getting increasing attention - the AI7 video has had 10k+ views in the first few days and fans are encouraged to 'Check out the Knowledge (XXG) article(s) and contribute if you have anything to add.'. What is surprising however is how much time and effort is going into biting the newcomers; while this experience has forced learning the ropes it's also proven a strong disincentive to contributing. The intention was to build an authorative, high quality resource of information, relying on Knowledge (XXG)'s 'filtering' et al rather than hosting the content elsewhere and 'collaborating manually' or hosting an instance of MediaWiki soley for an about page. Mjf08 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only accused one person of sockpuppetry. I make no apologies for noting the coincidence and am simply following Wiki's rules at Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser for proper procedure during an ongoing AfD vote. Torc2 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Kmkroeger is almost invariably a sock and vote stacked=indef block and only 24 hours for the master since he's a new user. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Piepie

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Arctic Monkies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both reappeared at Knowledge (XXG) when due to WP:BLP I deleted a lot of information at Lyor Cohen .
Both voted the same Keep at Knowledge (XXG):Images and media for deletion/2008 January 9 which concerend the image of Lyor Cohen. .
Both have a link to 4chan on their user page.
User:Piepie made edits at Arctic Monkeys, which "coincidentally" is the suspected sock's user name.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked Artic Monkies on username (matches music group and edits same) and on socking. Warning Piepie to use one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fattown1c

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fattown1c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

FatChris1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Fattown1c was blocked November 30; User:FatChris1 began editing December 16.
Bot users concern themselves primarily with adding Category:Entertainers with Bloods affiliations and Category:Entertainers with Crip affiliations to a variety of articles without providing citations when requested (in accordance with WP:BLP. Diffs for User:Fattown1c: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4. Diffs for User:FatChris1: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5,diff 6. This is only a representative sample of diffs; there are many, many more for each user.

Comments

I have warned both users reaching the level 4 of the vandalism template. Check the talk page of both accounts. Both users also had been reported in the BLP Noticeboard. Tasc0 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Obvious socks. Blocked both indef (resetting the second one as under current 1 week block) for disruption and BLP violations as well as socking. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagegoddess

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Vintagegoddess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Dorotheascloset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Good Damon 18:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Dorotheascloset made this edit shortly after User:Vintagegoddess made this nearly identical one.

Comments

Conclusions

One edit could well be coincidence, not much to base socking on. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nongmenz

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Nongmenz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Nongmatthewza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VivioFateFan 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both accounts are vandalizing the Anti-communism article in an almost identical pattern.

Comments

Conclusions

I agree, Nongmatthewza who is the suspected sockpuppet, is certainly the sockpuppet of Nongmenz as suggested. This edit would seem to indicate the "remarkable closeness" of their editing pattern. Sock blocked indefinitely, per policy and Nongmenz blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Rudget . 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The Cat with 2 Heads

Suspected sockpuppeteer: The Cat with 2 Heads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Callmeanxious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

freshacconcispeaktome 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Identical edits to The Streets, which has been the site of POV-pushing activities, discussed in detail on the talk page. The article was recently semi-protected because of anon. IP vandalism (same edit activity). These two users are new engaging in the same edits, and I'm sure more will come.

Comments

What? --The Cat with 2 Heads (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that we made the same edit (one which many, many other people have made), what other evidence is there of sockpuppetry? --Callmeanxious (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Although, as his alleged sockpuppet, I'm pretty obliged to. --The Cat with 2 Heads (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, wait a sec. It says I'm the sockpuppeteer, and Callmeanxious is the sockpuppet. Surely that's a mistake, considering he's been registered for well over a year? --The Cat with 2 Heads (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Having reviewed the edit history of both users, I've indef blocked User:The Cat with 2 Heads as a sock of User:Callmeanxious. Tyrenius (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Howdydoody1

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Howdydoody1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Howdydoody2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VivioFateFan 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both accounts creating same pages, only differs by one digit.

Comments

Conclusions

Both blocked. Will keep an eye out for more of the same. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:EASEUS

Suspected sockpuppeteer: EASEUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Chris16514 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VivioFateFan 08:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both users are creating pages with almost exactly identical contents.

Comments

It's fairly likely that the accounts have been operated by the same person; however, the former one is currently blocked due to an inappropriate username (name of a company/product). Will warn the other one. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It turned out that the other account has also been blocked for a week for spamming. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Looks like there's nothing more to do here. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ColourWolf

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

PowerClown123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

A check of PowerClown's contrib reveals that he has been reverting edits made by me and others that came from sockpuppet ColourWolf (banned late last year), under the pretext of reverting "Vandalism".

Comments

I don't see where he claims it's "vandalism" plus he stopped editing almost 2 months ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf has claimed that he has over 10 accounts on Knowledge (XXG). Over Christmas, one of those "well-meaning" accounts that everyone believes is making good edits on Knowledge (XXG) turned bad, and started to massively vandalize my page and other pages. This one is too obvious to ignore. PowerClown has always reverted my correct edits, in favor of ColourWolf's lies and deceptions. It does not take rocket science to figure that out. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, not one of PowerClown123's edit is a revert of your edits. But ColorWolf is a known puppetmaster. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

PowerClown123 hasn't edited since November 2007, so there's no real point in doing anything on this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Cheeser1 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

After engaging in tendentious editing with User:Fireproeng on Fire protection and Talk:Fire protection, Ahering made alot of claims based on personal expertise, and in doing so, questioned that of Fireproeng. After the dispute turned to incivility, an IP just happened to vandalize Fireproeng's userpage by questioning his credentials. When asked not to vandalize Fireproeng's userpage, Ahering defended himself by (among other things) asserting that Fireproeng should reveal his identity and back up the information on his userpage (as the vandal IP also suggested).

Ahering is clearly from Canada, and the IP traces to Canada, although he asserts that the IP is "not in town." This doesn't seem to be something he could determine, and does actually seem likely, since the traceroute goes back to Ontario, specifically personainternet.com, an Ontario ISP. Ahering's username indicates that he is (or was) subscribed to Cogeco internet service, which ~~is a part of Persona Inc. (in fact, it is the part of Persona that~~ provides service to the Ontario/Quebec region, where the user claims to be from). Note that I'm filing this report in response to a complaint at the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we look outside the incident at hand, the IP's contributions are all edits that uniquely fit Ahering's editing pattern, and are substantially related to Ahering's contributions-proper:

Adds an external link, one that just happens to be about fire protection, to Gerald W. Brown, which Ahering has also edited regarding fire-safety issues.
Links to Commons pages regarding fireproofing at Cambrian College. And adding commons links (esp. those relating to fireproofing) is something Ahering does frequently.
Rants about anonymity, something Ahering has frequently done (as evidenced even by his conduct in this matter and related dispute resolution procedures). What he says is very similar to the things Ahering has been saying (in tone, style, and content).

Addendum: In response to my good-faith mix-up (struck, above), Cogeco and Persona are not the same company, however they do provide service to the same region as the one in which Ahering lives. Furthermore, he noted in an unrelated comment that his username is from "long ago" (changing providers is conceivable, and perhaps he's using a computer at somewhere other than his home). The geographic/IP information is only given to refute his assertion that the IP resolves to a different location than his. It does not - it resolves to Ontario, which is where he lives. It (still) supports the evidence that already makes it evident - based on the behavior of the IP editor - that this is sockpuppetry. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Ahering's demands: I will not reveal my identity, and he has made a very strange habit of demanding that those who disagree with him reveal their identity and even confront him in person. I will, however, explain my motivation for posting this complaint. A user who has been participating in good faith in the dispute resolution process has found it difficult, due to Ahering's hostile rejection of any dispute resolution that doesn't agree with him. This user posted an alert on the WQA about Ahering's incivility, which includes these incidents that appear to be pretty blatant sockpuppetry. I filed this case on the basis that it is clear, and Ahering's only (relevant) response has been that he is from Ontario and the traceroute doesn't go to Ontario (this is false, it does go to Ontario). I had recommended that the complaining user at the WQA file this report, but it seemed as though he is unfamiliar with such procedures, and I thought I'd lend a hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Persona_Inc. This page states The company is the fifth largest cable television provider in Canada, following Rogers, Shaw, Vidéotron and Cogeco. Cogeco and Persona are separate firms. The page goes on to state: Persona is owned by Bragg Communications, owners of EastLink and Amtelecom. Persona's head office is located in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. The company also has divisional offices in Greater Sudbury (for Ontario and Quebec) and Edmonton (for Western Canada). Also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Cogeco. There is no mention of fiduciary ties between Cogeco and Persona. They operate in different areas.

Canada is different from Luxembourg. Please take a look at the area for the country. Even the Province of Ontario has 1,076,395 km². Being from Canada or Ontario or any other Province does not mean that one is the same person as another.

Cheeser1 is clearly wrong on the geography as well as the corporate angle. --Achim (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Cheeser's Addendum He wrote:however they do provide service to the same region as the one in which Ahering lives.. That is false. Cogeco and Persona don't overlap anywhere that I am aware of. You don't normally have a choice of two cable companies. Cheeser does not have my address. He has no idea where I live but he makes statements about that my hometown is serviced by Persona, which is wrong. I am several hours by car away from any area serviced by Persona and have no reason to travel there. Knowledge (XXG) outlines where Persona does business. I live nowhere near that area and have not been there in some time. I note that he makes these statements as if they were fact and when proven wrong, calls it good faith. For the most part, I really don't get why he's trying to pick a fight with me and leaving infantile messages on my talk page, whilst refusing to answer straight questions. Say it to my face tough guy. You're pretending to know where I am, so come by and tell me. I'll even have some coffee for you. --Achim (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This case seems stale. The edit in question happened in October and the IP has made no further edits. Darkspots (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

The IP has very few edits, all of which are from October 2007. I don't see a current issue here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:68.9.184.169

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Torc2 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

An anonymous user has been continually trying to add unsourced, challenged information to List of Clone High minor characters and several associated Clone High episode articles. (diff, diff, dozens - possibly hundreds - more examples of the same edit available). 68.9.184.169 was warned multiple times, never communicated back, and was eventually blocked for these unsourced edits. Immediately after that block, 72.209.0.165 made his first and only edit by adding the same information (diff). The WHOIS for each address traces to the exact same ISP: 68.9.184.169, 72.209.0.165).

Tracing back the history of List of Clone High minor characters, these same edits were attempted by several different IP addresses that all trace back to the same ISP (with the exception of the IPs that begin with 72.65, which currently trace to one other ISP, but might have been recently reassigned since these edits are older). Also, the IP usage doesn't overlap, and clearly indicate a single user with a dynamic IP:

72.65.167.197 - February 18, 2007 - February 25
72.65.180.47 - February 25 - March 12
John fogerty man - March 12 - April 10
72.65.160.60 - April 11 - April 15
72.65.164.50 - April 22 - April 29
72.195.131.207 - May 3 - May 5
72.65.162.132 - May 7 - May 10
72.65.170.23 - May 11 - May 25
70.181.51.125 - May 27
72.65.170.23 (again) - June 1
72.195.129.50 - June 13
70.181.51.125 (again) - June 14
68.1.175.61 - June 17 - August 18
70.181.50.52 - August 19
68.110.197.253 - August 20 - August 21
68.9.184.169 - August 22 - January 5, 2008 (interspersed with several 1-day anon editors listed below - this address was eventually blocked for 12 hours due to unsorced edits)

These were all briefly used IPs whose edits are interspersed with 68.9.184.169 (however, the edits never overlap - it's still clearly one user jumping between 68.9.184.169 and other IPs).
68.9.187.123 - September 8
68.110.198.197 - September 8-9
68.147.51.72 - September 16
72.65.177.181 - September 23
72.65.172.228 - October 4-8
72.65.184.17 - October 21
72.65.190.47 - October 25
72.65.172.156 - October 31
72.65.166.192 - November 5
68.14.9.223 - November 16
68.14.9.223 (again) - December 16
72.209.0.165 - January 5

For periods not listed, there were no similar edits. Most IPs listed only had a short run of edits - often only one or two edits - and otherwise are unused.

Comments

I would also like to request permanent semi-protection on List of Clone High minor characters and all associated Clone High articles.

raise a request at WP:RFPP for article protection, there no benefit in any long term blocking of the IP addresses —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection's actually already done.Torc2 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

No point in blocking these IPs, this problem is best addressed through semi-protection. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kingofmann

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Kingofmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Theisles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Lazydown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); DukeofAntwerp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Drewdaily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); ~~Freddulany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~; ~~Martylunsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~
Report submission by

CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Continuous vociferous POV commenting at David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) and its afd
Talk:Lord_of_Mann#Notes:_Heir_and_Claimant

The King of Mann was User:DukeofAntwerp in a previous life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbonLifeForm (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
He admits it under Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Principality of Vikesland .... I am David Howe and a member of Vikesland's Royal Council. I fail to see why that is an issue, unless perhaps a person who has more knowledge than yourself about the true nature of Vikeland and what is actually written by the authors of "Micronations," a book that you apparently have never touched, has to say. Pardon me for the defending the predatory actions of a few. You're negative agenda here is obvious.--DukeofAntwerp 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC) CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

User:Duke_of_Antwerp does not seem to exist. VivioFateFan 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Try User:DukeofAntwerp CarbonLifeForm (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not breaching privacy here, you can blank this if I am, but it seems fairly obvious that User:Martylunsford is the ultralight pilot Marty Lunsford, judging from his contributions and a quick google search.

Freddulany is probably a real person called Fred Dulany.

As I said at the Request for Arbitration, DukeofAntwerp and Drewdaily are almost certainly the same person as Kingofmann. DukeofAntwerp and Kingofmann both claim to be the same person, and only that person could know the information inserted by Drewdaily. However, to be fair, neither of the older accounts is now in use. DrKiernan (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

On 'Theisles' and 'Lazydown'. User 'Theisles' first appeared on 23 October 2006, inserting statements about David Howe on two Knowledge (XXG) pages (see contribs). On that same date, 23 October 2006, David Howe made a signed post to Usenet claiming the title 'Prince of Mann and the Isles'. See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/875ab24c46fd8816. 'Theisles' (as in 'Prince of Mann and ... ') has exclusively made POV edits to articles about David Howe's claim down to 21 December 2007. User 'Theisles' disappeared on that date and User 'Lazydown' appeared; 'Lazydown' has had same pattern of POV contribs on same subject. For what it's worth, User 'Theisles' denied being Howe on 8 November 2007: "...I do not know Howe or how many homes he owns..." http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Lord_of_Mann&diff=prev&oldid=170196169 68.166.235.203 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the checkuser result below, what is the ordinary consequence of repeated denials by User Kingofmann? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:David_Howe_%28claimant_to_King_of_Mann%29&diff=prev&oldid=184237649 68.166.235.203 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

*User:Kingofmann is presently blocked. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Howe claimed/claims/is related to Daniel Dulany (Talk Page Archive 1 of his biography) and the Freddulany account has added “Duke Howe of Antwerp” to the list of Frederick, Maryland notable residents I think the accounts contributions point to this being another Howe sockpuppet and not someone named Fred Dulany. Am I able to add another suspected sockpuppet User:Wikiroyals Kigf (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Patterns of contribs for User Wikiroyals doesn't match single-issue focus and argumentativeness of Howe's known socks. Looks like Wikiroyals just likes to add links to articles on royalty, without much descrimination. But I agree on pattern of contribs for Freddulany, a probable sock (inserted Howe into Knowledge (XXG), defended 'Vikesland' from proposed deletion, and attacked its detractors during the AfD discussion). 140.247.42.73 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that Lazydown, Kingofmann, Theisles are the same. --jpgordon 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- My inclination, unless someone has a really good reason to do otherwise, is to indefblock the socks and leave the main account for the arbitration committee. Lazydown is an active participant in the AFD and so that's clearly a case of using a sock to create the appearance of support. --B (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would be the apropriate course of action. Support--Hu12 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What Knowledge (XXG) says

WP:Article_subjects'_FAQ#The_information_in_your_article_about_me_is_wrong._How_can_I_get_it_fixed.3F

It is generally considered okay for you to edit your own article in certain circumstances:

If the article is clearly derogatory in tone and was written based on questionable sources or no sources.
If it contains private information you strongly don't want shared, particularly if you are not famous. (This might include, for example, your e-mail address, date of birth, religious affiliation or sexual orientation.)
If you believe it is libelous.

These are the circumstances under which I participated in the editing of the biography page about me.--Kingofmann (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

- Yes, this is understood under WP:AGF. The problem is that you appear to have hidden your identity, said things that were not true and have ignored WP:COI and WP:NPOV. My suggestion would be that you leave things alone and let other folks sort it out. The chances are it will come out OK for you in a while. WikiRules may be bizarre but there are folks around who will look after your interests. Whatever occurs it doesn't have to get a reaction from you within hours or even days. You have also compared yourself with Prince Charles who did not bring his notability upon himself as you have tried to do (using WP:OR). You see yourself as a minor celebrity which status you surely volunteered for; you have drummed up a little press interest and you don’t like the downside. You have been referred to as unassuming (that must have been sarcasm) and your coat of arms is undoubtedly pretentious. Your embarrassment is understood; it may now be best if you back off for a while. --CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

- Very little of the information here is wrong you have been exposed as a liar through your serial use of sockpuppets past and present you don‘t seem to have learnt your lesson from your Vikesland wikipedia days.Kigf (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

User:Theisles -- indefinite blocked as confirmed sockpuppet
User:Lazydown -- indefinite blocked as confirmed sockpuppet Gnan garra 10:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Abandoned accounts User:DukeofAntwerp and User:Drewdaily indefinitely blocked as suspected sockpuppets DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Late update for completeness:

User:VacuousPoet

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Happy Couple2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Loving day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

OrangeMarlin 09:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Happy Couple2's first edit was here in an attack on User:Filll. Rarely does a brand new editor make a first edit at an RfA.
User:VacuousPoet's edit attacking same User:Filll
User:VacuousPoet writing style is similar to kdbuffalo, and these two socks.
Early edit is the type of article edited by the original sockpuppeteer of VacuousPoet, User:Kdbuffalo.
Another Buffalo, NY edit
User:Loving day's second edit was to remove sockpuppet template from Happy Couple2's user page here, an odd thing to do for a brand-new editor, who's first edit had nothing to do with Happy Couple2.
Loving day's first edit was suspiciously on an article that I was discussing with another editor today.

Comments

Conclusions

I think it's highly likely that this is a sock, based on the contribs. I did send this to checkuser: Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Kdbuffalo, both to see about confirmatory technical evidence and to see if any more socks have been registered. MastCell 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Loving day indef, the others were already indef blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeffrywith1e

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jeffrywith1e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

CMartin007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hodagacz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

On the "tssi" yahoo mailing list, a user signed in as "Jeffry with one e" posted a call for help with an ongoing AFD. The two users above appeared shortly after, as well as Dpmcalister who has posted to that yahoo! thread. I would expect the above users to have at least posted in the yahoo thread if they were real people. It is possible that they are sock puppets of User:Dpmcalister, or even that they are real people who lurk on that forum. However, even if they are, they are here at the request of User:Jeffrywith1e. The two listed user accounts should be investigated to see if they are sock puppets of either User:Jeffrywith1e or User:Dpmcalister. I had planned to list this at requests for checkuser after the AFD closed, but now I have evidence that they are at least meat puppets I thought this was the appropriate avenue. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I take great offence at being accused of recruiting either sock puppets or meat puppets. I feel that this accusation has been filed purely because the accuser doesn't like the conversation in the AFD. Regardless, this entire situation has sullied my opinion of Knowledge (XXG). It appears that might makes right here and the person with the most contributions over the years is, obviously, allowed to besmirch the character and integrity of any other user they wish. dpmcalister (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, what brought you to the AfD, Dpm? It sounds like you were influenced to weigh in after the Yahoo groups message call for help, which is would seem to be the very definition of both WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. Can you provide evidence to counter Percy's? - Arcayne () 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was already aware of it (albeit I hadn't acted upon it). Of course, there is only my word for this and, since my character and integrity have already been besmirched there is, no doubt, little I can do to prove otherwise. dpmcalister (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the SSP should square things away in short order. It looks to me that, while you may have known about it, you weren't actively canvassing or meating, whereas Jeffry is pretty much canvassing (and should kindly knock that crap off, IMHO) for support. Maybe you might want to stay away from the guy for a while, as guilt could be confused with association. A good editor acquaintance of mine was recently suspected of being a sock-puppet because one had talked to him. He pulled through, and so will you. Chin up, little buckaroo! :) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I have looked at WP:CANVASS and see that I was, in fact, canvassing. I apologize for requesting support to the articles from the yahoo group and do not intend to do that anymore. I sincerely didn't realize the policy when I committed the crime. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident that however you investigate, you will find that Jeffrywith1e is my only user account. I apologize to the users who gave support to the articles and have been effected by my asking for help on the yahoo group. It is my opinion that since the consensus was not going in the accuser's favor, they revert to character attacks. It saddens me to see Knowledge (XXG) effected by people who seem to be hell bent on adding to their contribution list. It wasn't my intention to create a conflict, it was simply to add information about a fictional universe that I enjoy on to the world wide web, because I haven't seen it anywhere else. Seemed like Knowledge (XXG) used to be the place to do just that. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall ignore the goading, but regarding your latter point, we at WP:RPG have recently been pointed to The Annex, which is a wiki for information about fictional universes in exactly the way that wikipedia isn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I am a webmaster for Top Secret the Role Playing game. My site is http://www.cm4.com/topsecret/ I have been to the Top Secret sites before, but have not contributed to them. CMartin007 (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Clearly meat puppetry here. However the AFD has ended so the purpose of blocking being preventative is rather moot here. The question is will these users violate WP:SOCK again? We don't know. Therefore I'm issuing warnings to all three and entering notional 1 second blocks in there block logs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Србија до Токија

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Србија до Токија (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Dchall1 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

IP is making same edits to same articles as user banned for gross nationalistic insults on Balkan issues. Edits are characterized by use of POV terms, page redirects against consensus, and broken English.

Србија до Токија edits

IP Edits

Comments

Deleting articles on Serbia-related topics by creating redirects is very unusual, and both accounts did that. It's the same guy. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Master hard blocked for username vio in Dec because an admin found out what it meant in English. IP just blocked one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Boating is great

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Boating is great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Thames talk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Riverjoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Additional accounts started editing to try and add identical spam regarding Thames river boat trips immediately the master was warned at level 4 for spamming

Comments

Diffs, please? --EoL talk 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:MaindrianPace

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ArnoldZippo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HoldenV8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

PBP (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

As can be seen with Arnold's contributions here, as well as Holden's contributions here, both editors make dozens of edits to the Gone in 60 Seconds (1974 film) and H. B. Halicki articles, as well as upload many images that are inevitably deleted (see both of their talk pages). MaindrianPace was blocked indefinitely in June for excessive copyright violations.

Comments

Contrary to the claims, neither have uploaded any questionable images (none at all for Holden) and I don't see any blatant copyvios. Seeing how H. B. Halicki directed Gone in 60 Seconds (1974 film). It is not unreasonable to see how someone interested in the topic could edit both articles. Furthermore, the number of edits for both users seem to simply be an inability to use the preview changes feature or attempts to boost their edit counts (a common problem). Either way, I see no reason to believe anyone listed here should be blocked for WP:SOCK.

Holden's edits seem to be an attempt to get rid of some wikilinks (why is really immaterial) and shows none of the evidence stated (no copyvios or uploaded images at all). AZ's edits also seem to be simple edits. I see none of the evidence stated above (no copyvios but a few uploaded screenshots and other images with fair use rationales that seem legit). Evidence to the contrary should be provided in diff format. If either of these individuals are Maindrian, he has clearly learned his lesson and is not repeating it...and I see that as a good thing for Knowledge (XXG). — BQZip01 — 07:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an aggregate diff for each of these editors to Gone in 60 Seconds (1974 film):

HoldenV8
ArnoldZippo
- Note that ArnoldZippo also used an IP address.
MaindrianPace

The content of each aggregate diff is substantially different in each case. I agree with BQZip01: if this happens to be the same person, he's covered his tracks pretty effectively. I wouldn't worry about it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Inconclusive per Shalom. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Universal Studios Number 1 Fan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

71.251.114.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
5VH9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
B5JH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Since at least 12 Dec, , USN1F has been pushing for a format against citation and consensus. He was reverted quickly , and shortly undoes reversion . Although a brief content problem arises about whether or not Hulk and Incredible Hulk should be a franchise or separate single films, no other editor contends that the two Punisher films are a series, nor that spiderman 4 belongs on the template. Discussion on relevant talk pages sorts the Hulk content out further.

On Jan 1, , , , , Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (USN1F) makes a series of edits against citation. Two minutes later, the IP appears , supporting USN1F.

The page history for the last two days shows the rest. USN1F reverts again, and then the IP shows up.

Proof of the relatedness of the two is seen in the talk page of User:Tijuana Brass. On that Page's , you can see USN1F coming in to clean up his earlier IP edits, seen here .

As USN1F has been warned about his edits to the template , and knows that his edits aren't welcome, it's clear he's trying to circumvent the problem by logging out, supporting himself, and logging back in. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor has come to my User page to confess and apologize, see this diff. ~~I personally am satisfied with this confession.~~ In light of Tijuana Brass' comments, I'll reverse my acceptance for after the findings of fact. If penalties of block are needed, I would support a short one for reinforcement. ~~After that, I may be willing to adopt the editor for a 90 day period, to help him learn how best to edit here, conditional to the findings of fact.~~ ThuranX (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has since decided to make a conflict instead of solve one. First some sort of acceptance of wikipedia's standards, and indication he might have read part of the articles in question. Then the IP comes at me with harrassment accusations, only for USN1F to immediately return to correct formatting on the comment. As such, I am no longer willing to mentor this person, and have slashed that out above. I request a ban on both the account and a one year block on the IP, allowing time for the editor to mature and prevent his continued vandalism of pages, his refusal to listen, and his attitude to attack others from continuing. ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Following his accusations, he decided to really ramp up the trouble, with this sort of nonsense, which I immediately reverted. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a level 4 warning to this user's talk page. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I posted a case confession on User: ThuranX's Talk Page. Please take notice of it.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This user also has very similar edit patterns to User:5VH9, who caused some problems at Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You! (a Universal Studios-related article) and elsewhere. Also see User:B5JH, same deal. The first one was blocked due to growing disruption, the second hasn't made any new edits for a while. I can post diffs if requested, don't care to spend the time doing so right now. If he can settle on one account and stop causing problems, great. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Admitted socking, also disruption. Can't block IPs a year. Two named socks blocked indef. IP and master for 2 weeks, hope master account reforms. Tagged all. Informed master of the results. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Creepy Crawler

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

FightTheDarkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Clasby Thomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gifford924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Trump1026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Batman Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added by Rlevse

Report submission by

Doczilla (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Yes, the heading should say something like (4th), (5th), (6th), but between the various sock puppet reports listing Creepy Crawler as the puppetmaster and reports listing some of the puppets (some of which engage in vandalism like creating hoax articles or inserting bogus birthdates) such as EJBanks as puppetmaster because IP address records don't go back far enough to confirm CC as the current puppetmaster, I have no idea what Xth report this is. Just look at the sheer number of confirmed puppets and suspected puppets.

Anyway, User:FightTheDarkness is a clear sockpuppet of User:Creepy Crawler who has been repeatedly banned and repeatedly uses new socks to edit anyway. All incarnations create and quickly populate categories and/or lists, editing articles about superheroes (especially Batman and Spider-Man), soap operas (especially Days of our Lives), reality shows, and miscellaneous celebrities. See editing pattern information which was compiled for a previous sock report.

FightTheDarkness's similarities to that past pattern include but are not limited to the following:

• Incorrect capitalization of article/category titles

• Batman edits

• Comic book movie actors/filmmakers Actor Filmmaker

• Days of our Lives edits

• Lists

• Harry Potter edits

• Reality TV shows

• Shrek edits

• Spider-Man, especially movie and video games. Movie Video game

Evidence by ThuranX against Clasby Thomas

Although his contrib list is small, it's the same sort of efforts we've seen from EJB/CC, and a common area, Spiderman. The vandal's been known to bounce between identities before, and jumping into a few page histories, that stood out to me. I may be wrong, but both Doczilla and I have reported this guy before, and that one feels right. Consider that both avoid edit summaries and edit the entire page, preventing even section Identifiers from being present in summaries. CT follows FTD by a day on the page, the next immediate edits. That's also something we've seen before, him editing, then editing with another account right after, or days after.

Evidence by ThuranX against Gifford924

Based on this dreamcast of Spider-Man films, and his contribs to soap opera characters and comic book film actor articles, this clearly fits the EJBanks/Creepy Crawler pattern. Main user page has MORE dreamcasts. A look at the age of the account suggeststhis might be one of the earliest of his socks, and shows that there are potentially dozens of hidden socks still out there. Similar dreamcasts at Trump1026 reveal him as yet another sock of EJB/CC. Trump1026 isn't even a real user, apparently, but just a faked out page. Still, it's him, and I'm requesting the name be blocked from becoming an account as well.

Comments

Conclusions

Pretty convincing. All blocked and tagged but note Trump1026 couldn't be blocked because it was never registered. Added Batman Fan (who was already indef'd) because it created Trump1026's user page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SaxonUnit

Suspected sockpuppeteer: SaxonUnit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: ClaxsonUnit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Will 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Usernames and MO near-identical

Comments: Also see ShadowpuppetKing (talk · contribs), related by autoblock. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the admin who issued the block that triggered this. Three users caught in one autoblock who are all editing the same article. Very interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's a veeeeerrry interesting coincidence. My thinking on the ShadowpuppetKing block was that this account entirely and completely failed the 'sniff test'.

The account appeared on 31 December and immediately dove into edit warring on an article with a history of conflict.
Today it was slapping spurious sockpuppet tags on userpages ()...
...and leaving borderline harrassing messages on user talk pages: .

Plus, of course, there's the 'puppet' in the name. Innocent by itself, but rather conspicuous in a 'how stupid do you think we are' sort of way in combination with the other factors. The fact that the autoblock snagged all three is the icing on the cake. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To expand on Luna Santin's comment, the diff where Saxon identifies himself as being snared in ShadowpuppetKing's autoblock is here. I don't know who the master of all the socks is, though there have been a number of ill-behaved users at List of Doctor Who serials who are likely candidates. A checkuser might be the best way to identify the master. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The following are checkuser-verified as the same user:

--jpgordon 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

All blocked indef and tagged. Except onthe last three on JP's list they showed up as "username doesn't exist" when I tried to block them. This is apparently because they were renamed. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jesus Christ died for your sins; You can die for mine.

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Jesus Christ died for your sins; You can die for mine. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: User:Thou Shalt Die (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Calvin 1998 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Sockpuppeter indef blocked, this account to get around that.

Comments

Conclusions

No action needed, this is a {{uw-ublock}}, I took the liberty to remove all traces of this case on both user's pages. -- lucasbfr 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cocoliras

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--the Dúnadan 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

201.218.79.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been POV-pushing engaged in WP:OR and violated WP:3RR in Argentina and North America by reverting the latter seven times.. After being reverted by three different users (the last of which identified his edits as vandalism), and being warned several times to stop his nonconstructive edits in three different articles, he was blocked by administrator Nishkid64 as "anon only, account creation blocked".. Arguably, he logged in to a previously created account: User:Cocoliras, to circumvent the blockage, and revert the article yet again..

At Talk:Argentina he claimed to have "originally thought" the same ideas the anon had.. Ever since the account of Cocoliras was created, both the anon and the account have edited the exact same articles (mainly, but not limited to: Panama City, Copa Airlines, Argentina and North America. Their history of contributions is strikingly identical: compare the anon and Cocoliras, both reverting the exact same things in the aforementioned articles.

Comments

I'm convinced these are the same person, and Cocoliras should be blocked for a long, long time for revert warring. For context: the IP and Cocoliras were arguing that Argentina is a "developed" country, while Dunadan, who reported the case here, was the other side of that revert war, claiming that Argentina is a "developing" country. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no, and I find the "context" summary too simplistic and misleading. No, I wasn't "claiming" that Argentina is a "developing" country, I cited three reputable sources (amongst them the IMF,the World Bank and the CIA) who claimed that Argentina is a developing nation, while Cocoliras engaged in WP:OR by trying to compare South Africa with Argentina. Secondly, I wasn't on the other side of the revert war; since Cocoliras engaged in OR, and refused to debate properly, his edits were classified as vandalism by User:Yamanbaiia and were reverted by him, by User:Carl.bunderson, and by myself. I simply filed the 3RR report as well as the sock puppet report. That was three users who, complying with WP:CITE reverted Cocoliras, none of which violated WP:3RR. Please review the history of contributions at Argentina properly, as well as the three warnings he received from several users editing at Argentina and North America. I find it very misleading to imply that there was simply an edit war between his POV and my POV, since that wasn't the case.

--the Dúnadan 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators: please review these reports. We present them while they are current. By the time a conclusion is reached they could be weeks old, and the user continues to violate Knowledge (XXG)'s rules. --the Dúnadan 00:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Unlikely. Whilst both have similar interest areas, and are both editing disruptively, there is no compelling evidence to suggest sock puppetry. Admittedly, both are having a net negative effect on whichever article they choose to edit, but there are no cross-over editing habits, points of view and indeed log-in times (as suggested in the evidence presented), as far as I can see. Burden of proof lies in your court, and I'm afraid it's not been fulfilled at the present. Anthøny 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathann sc

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nathann sc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hudson Hawk21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PRINCETON007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The Austrian Oak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.188.99.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Dachannien_Contrib 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

A multitude of edits to similar articles, and I've put a sampling below. Mostly, these consist of an obviously bad edit by User:Nathann sc which is reverted by other users, only to be reinstated numerous times by the other accounts. More info follows the evidence list.

Hydrochloride: Six edits by Nathann sc One edit by Hudson Hawk21

Roland TR-808: One edit by Nathann sc One edit by 67.188.99.192 One edit by Hudson Hawk21 One edit by PRINCETON007 Another edit by PRINCETON007 violating 3RR if these are sockpuppets Another edit by PRINCETON007 violating 3RR with that account alone Yet another edit by PRINCETON007

Variable: One edit by Nathann sc One edit by Hudson Hawk21 Three edits by Hudson Hawk21 One edit by Hudson Hawk21 Two edits by The Austrian Oak

See also the contribution logs by these accounts.

The user pages for some of these accounts except Nathann sc are also unusual, consisting of a reference to an Ivy League school inside a math wikitag. However, it is Nathann sc's userpage I believe to be at the core of this problem.

The trouble started with this MfD on Nathann sc's userpage due to having an immense amount of social networking content while making few or no contributions to mainspace on Knowledge (XXG). While the MfD was withdrawn in an effort not to bite the newbie, comments made to the MfD (which was also edited/vandalized by Nathann sc while it was open) suggested that a user who makes good faith contributory edits to Knowledge (XXG) will be afforded greater leeway with their userpage. After that, Nathann sc began making numerous edits consisting solely of things like adding commas where they aren't necessary, boldfacing words where emphasis isn't necessary, wikilinking obvious words that aren't important in the article context, and replacing words with thesaurus synonyms that are inappropriate for the article's context.

Just around the end of that account's edits, the account Hudson Hawk21 was created and began making numerous edits to the same articles, in many cases reinstating reverted changes. That account also launched personal attacks against other editors in the edit logs for articles. Later, the accounts PRINCETON007 and The Austrian Oak were created. These other accounts are now being used to do the vast majority of bad edits, presumably in an effort to deflect attention away from the original account's userpage. --Dachannien_Contrib 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments: This egregious user has also been vandalising my user talk page when I reverted some of his mischief.--feline1 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC); Same here: Hudson Hawk21 (talk · contribs) erased a large chunk of my userpage and vandalised it again here. Thankfully, Denniss (talk · contribs) restored it. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: The "5 edits" by Nathann had quite a few revisions not shown. --EoL talk 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think that if these users aren't sockpuppets, they are very close meatpuppets. Maybe we should file an RFCU just to be sure. --EoL talk 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

See RFCU, all blocked and confirmed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:NORDKAPP

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Ray of truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Arbucies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maitedebarcelona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Continuation of Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/NORDKAPP, Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/NORDKAPP (2nd) and Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/NORDKAPP (3rd). NORDKAPP is blocked, but (s)he continues creating sockpuppets. The page is ~~temporaly protected but just for one month~~ now semi-protected (third time). I think it should be considered to block the ip ranges 80.102.220.xxx and 80.102.248.xxx.

Notes

Page Barcelona semi-protected indefinitely by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) on 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC). Please unprotect (or request unprotection) when the problem has died down. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

All blocked indef and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Overeditor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Homeboy99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sockpuppet99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Backtalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Victoriagirl (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All three are devoted towards the introduction of near identical unreferenced material in David Suzuki.
Since 6 January 2008, Overeditor's edits have been focussed exclusively on David Suzuki. Sockpuppet99 and Homeboy99 are single purpose accounts with histories stretching back to 10 January and 12 January respectively.
Overeditor and Homeboy99 have used the word 'sensor' in place of 'censor' in edit summaries ] and on the talk page.
All three have accused other users of using or being sockpuppets .
Note: Since filing this report a new user, Backtalk, has replicated the edits of Overeditor, Homeboy99 and Sockpuppet99 as a first edit. The word 'sensor' is used in the edit summary. I've added the user as a suspected sockpuppet. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Do you think they are Category:Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis? I noticed they keep re-inserting the same thing that User:Vividfan did, and appeared as User:Vividfan was indef blocked. maclean 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Pretty convincing. All blocked indef and tagged as Arthur Ellis socks. Sockpuppet99 already had an indef name block. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that they are sockpuppets, see relevant RFCU case. Spebi 08:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PONDHEEPANKAR

Suspected sockpuppeteer: PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Nadarsagham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Pandiyann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

15:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Same edit pattern, same articles, appears Nadar Sagham began editing Nadar-related articles around the same time that Pandiyann was blocked for being a sock of indef-banned PONDHEEPANKAR.

Comments

Note that PONDHEEPANKAR is indefinitely blocked, and user Pandiyann has been blocked indefinitely because of a confirmed RFCU. 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am here because of Orkut. There are numerous complaints about this site and you can always find some complaint about this in Orkut. I ve been looking at this article for quite sometime. I am a Nadar and thats also the same reason why I am here. I am also a prominent member of the Nadar sagham(an association for our community) and I am actually working according to its will. These evidences are completely irrelevant and very weird. I really don't understand the intensions behind Avruch or why he is so keen in disturbing our caste. I ll finish this by saying that I AM NOT AT ALL bothered by this and I ll continue editing this article. There are just too many Nadars.This podeepankar or pandiyann cant be me just because they were banned at the same time I registered into wiki. Nadarsagham (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Artisol2345

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Artisol2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AL2TB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Edit Centric (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Traceable, disruptive editing patterns are present between the "puppetmaster" account, and the current suspected sockpuppet. The master account User:Artisol2345 has already received action due to confirmed sockpuppetry in the past.; Other similarities exist between these accounts, such as common grammar and word usage, and a focus on the same topic area(s) within Knowledge (XXG), mostly WP:USRD articles. Examples of these similarities are as follows:; 1) Text excerpt from master account: "Anyways, I joined Knowledge (XXG) sometime... I don't remember."; 2) Similarity in word usage, from suspected puppet account: "Anyways, I would like to talk about my history."; 3) Reference to usable nickname / netname from master account: "But call me Stones... I like it better."; 4) Reference to the same netname on AL2TB external website, via this link, found on AL2TB user page: "This site was created by Stones (my netname, not my real name)" (Direct quote from website text.); 5) Both User:Artisol2345 and User:AL2TB pages refer to a "wiki-addiction" in varying degree.; 6) Both accounts have been used to edit articles pertaining to schools in the same geographical area, (Same school district in southern California) but mainly roads articles within the WP:USRD Wikiproject.; This last item prompted further scruitiny by not only myself, but other editors and admins within the WP:USRD project as well. Upon confrontation with this information, user AL2TB states that the Artisol2345 account was his cousin, whom he has an unspecified conflict with over placing his "personal information" on the Artisol2345 user page. Most recently, AL2TB has reinforced this assertion by placing a deletion tag at the top of the Artisol2345 userpage, requesting its deletion for these reasons.

7) (Added 2008010422:26PST/2008010506:26UTC) - Both accounts are originating from the same IP subnet, assigned by Cox Cable. User:AL2TB is attributable to IP 68.4.104.141 (ip68-4-104-141.oc.oc.cox.net), User:Artisol2345 confirmed sockpuppet at IP 68.5.47.155 (ip68-5-47-155.oc.oc.cox.net). The assigned IP range for this subnet covers 68.4.0.0 - 68.5.255.255. Submitted for your scruitiny. Edit Centric (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

8) Results of associated Check user cross-posted as follows:

Result: There is a fairly high probability based on technical analysis of Checkuser results that these two userids are controlled by the same person, or by persons working closely together, so the result is adjudged as Likely. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (Cross-posted by Edit Centric (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Similar patterns of disruptive editing are beginning to take shape with the AL2TB account. Further, Knowledge (XXG) policy covers this surreptitious use of accounts at WP:SOCKS, specifically the section dealing with Inappropriate use of alternate accounts. This same policy also dictates that there does not need to be a time overlap between accounts for a finding of sockpuppetry to be made.

I suspect that this user was attempting to proceed as described by the "Clean start" section of the policy, however the same recklessness is beginning to be displayed as before, the most recent example of which, User:AL2TB willfully jumped into the middle of a revert war at CA SR 49. In addition, the statements that AL2TB has made in regards to the cousin only reinforce the position that the AL2TB account is an intentional misdirection.

The User:AL2TB account similarities would seem to warrant scruitiny at this point. If a finding is made that these indeed are two physically separate entities, I would be the first to issue my apologies, not only to the user, but to the investigating administrators as well. I do not, however, feel that this is the case, and therefore the reason that I bring this item to your attention. Thank you for your time and efforts in clarifying the situation.

FOLLOW-ON - Recommend that the User:Artisol2345 page NOT be deleted, salted nor rendered unretrievable, until this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Contrary to what is being suggested in the subject user talkspace, this would be "putting the cart before the horse", so to speak, in that it would effectively NEGATE this sockpuppetry inquiry, by removing all evidential material. I am duly concerned that the party involved would press for this course of action, as they no doubt know that this would be the outcome of the suggested deletion. Therefore again, I am requesting and recommending a STAY OF DELETION on the master account for now. Thank you again for your time. Edit Centric (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FOLLOW-ON 2 - Earlier this date, AL2TB replaced the deletion tag on the Artisol2345 account page, and managed to back-date it. DELETION TAG REMOVED, DELETION TAG REPLACED, AND BACKDATED. These are VERY questionable actions at this juncture... Edit Centric (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I object with the 7th evidence that you provided. Here is why...

It appears that EditCentric manage to pin point out all the evidence between the connections of the accounts. The only way to prove that AL2TB is innocent is to provide Artisol2345's e-mail address. E-mail aristol2345, and get a reply with a different e-mail address. AL2TB however must show Artisol2345's e-mail address since it is not enabled on wiki. In a case where 2 email address are operated, this comment can be nullified (but is unlikely). PrestonH 07:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry that you feel that way, however there's no way that you can object to that evidence; the WHOIS doesn't lie. It's empirical insomuch as the IPs' whois isn't coming from me, it's coming from Cox Broadband's own DNS server, and the results are reproduceable for anyone who checks. In addition, I have in my possession, e-mail from AL2TB, which, when examining the e-mail header data, is reporting the following source-IP: "X-Originating-Ip: 68.4.176.68", which is again within the same subnet range assigned by Cox Broadband. So in essence, it has been established (at least) that both accounts are (were, in the case of Artisol2345,) operating from within the same IP subnet, through the same ISP. From my own personal experience installing and maintaining DSL and broadband networks, it is entirely possible that both external IP addresses have been assigned to the same interface device (cable modem) at different times; all one needs to do to change the IP is turn OFF the cable modem, and wait a length of time. The IP will be released back to the pool, and when the modem is turned back on, a different IP may be assigned to the device.) Edit Centric (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

*sighs* I give up on the case between Aristol2345 and AL2TB. The evidence shown and along with the WHOIS database, is nearly irrefutable at this point. I'm now increasingly convinced that AL2TB = Aristol2345. But AL2TB said this on my talk page.

I see that you support the checkuser case pertaining to Artisol2345. I'm not mad about it or anything, and I don't really care if you do believe I am a sockpuppet of Artisol2345 (which I deny the fact, despite the evidence from checkuser). But I'm still going to contribute when I have time.

Also, I wish to ask you this. Say hypothetically I was Artisol2345 (I'm saying this because multiple editors accuse me of it). If this account happened to be the sockpuppet, there would be nothing wrong when one would contribute with a new account and never use the old account again (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyways, I don't care that you support checkuser. What I would like you to do is to NOT inform me of anything related to my account and my cousin's on my talk page.

He dosen't really care if he is a sockpuppet now. I'm terribly fustrated and disappointed by the fact that I had to become a teacher only to realize one is using sockpuppets in an inappropriate way. With that said, I hope things turn out for the better. :{ PrestonH 08:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I don't care if people think I'm a sockpuppet, not is a sockpuppet. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The only minor counter-evidence left is that Aristol2345's very revent IPs are in the 70s (poss. internet connection change), which contradict the fact that AL2TB is using Cox Communications. PrestonH 08:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(Margin reset) This does nothing to contradict AL2TB's ISP, that much is proven. What this does indicate is that the Artisol account's latest edits were generated using a different ISP. If the IP you're referring to looks anything like 72.130.41.48, that is also listed as a confirmed (THIS one is debateable, as it is a completely different ISP!) sockpuppet, whose name resolves as "cpe-72-130-41-48.socal.res.rr.com". This belongs to Roadrunner, which is a service of Time Warner Cable (I know this, I had Roadrunner when I lived in ElPaso, TX.) Edit Centric (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

There you have it. The checkuser came out positive. Either they are sockpuppets, or they are meatpuppets (depending on how you look at it). Pending administrator action... --EoL talk 00:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

These guys are being disruptive. The CU and this edit pretty much nail it. As for the Cox/nonCox IPs, both trace and WHOIS to Orange County, CA. These could be home/work, home/school, etc IPs for the same person. Based on everything, I think it more likely these guys are meats, but they could be socks. Blocking each 2 weeks. Also note Artisol2345 has been blocked for socking before. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cowboycaleb1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

D.M.N. (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Please see the previous three sockpuppet cases. As determined by the sockpuppet cases, IP's 63.3.10.130‎, 64.79.177.254‎, 64.79.179.254‎, 63.3.10.2 and 63.3.10.1 are socks of Caleb. IP address 209.247.5.60 has edited all the above IP pages, removing the template and simply putting "This is a shared ip address", see . I'm almost certain this is a sock of Caleb. As a result, can an admin block this IP for at least two months. D.M.N. (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

IPs show as direct allocated, not shared, so I concur. One month block. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Artisol2345

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Artisol2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AL2TB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Edit Centric (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Traceable, disruptive editing patterns are present between the "puppetmaster" account, and the current suspected sockpuppet. The master account User:Artisol2345 has already received action due to confirmed sockpuppetry in the past.; Other similarities exist between these accounts, such as common grammar and word usage, and a focus on the same topic area(s) within Knowledge (XXG), mostly WP:USRD articles. Examples of these similarities are as follows:; 1) Text excerpt from master account: "Anyways, I joined Knowledge (XXG) sometime... I don't remember."; 2) Similarity in word usage, from suspected puppet account: "Anyways, I would like to talk about my history."; 3) Reference to usable nickname / netname from master account: "But call me Stones... I like it better."; 4) Reference to the same netname on AL2TB external website, via this link, found on AL2TB user page: "This site was created by Stones (my netname, not my real name)" (Direct quote from website text.); 5) Both User:Artisol2345 and User:AL2TB pages refer to a "wiki-addiction" in varying degree.; 6) Both accounts have been used to edit articles pertaining to schools in the same geographical area, (Same school district in southern California) but mainly roads articles within the WP:USRD Wikiproject.; This last item prompted further scruitiny by not only myself, but other editors and admins within the WP:USRD project as well. Upon confrontation with this information, user AL2TB states that the Artisol2345 account was his cousin, whom he has an unspecified conflict with over placing his "personal information" on the Artisol2345 user page. Most recently, AL2TB has reinforced this assertion by placing a deletion tag at the top of the Artisol2345 userpage, requesting its deletion for these reasons.

8) Results of associated Check user cross-posted as follows:

Result: There is a fairly high probability based on technical analysis of Checkuser results that these two userids are controlled by the same person, or by persons working closely together, so the result is adjudged as Likely. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (Cross-posted by Edit Centric (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I object with the 7th evidence that you provided. Here is why...

It appears that EditCentric manage to pin point out all the evidence between the connections of the accounts. The only way to prove that AL2TB is innocent is to provide Artisol2345's e-mail address. E-mail aristol2345, and get a reply with a different e-mail address. AL2TB however must show Artisol2345's e-mail address since it is not enabled on wiki. In a case where 2 email address are operated, this comment can be nullified (but is unlikely). PrestonH 07:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you support the checkuser case pertaining to Artisol2345. I'm not mad about it or anything, and I don't really care if you do believe I am a sockpuppet of Artisol2345 (which I deny the fact, despite the evidence from checkuser). But I'm still going to contribute when I have time.

Also, I wish to ask you this. Say hypothetically I was Artisol2345 (I'm saying this because multiple editors accuse me of it). If this account happened to be the sockpuppet, there would be nothing wrong when one would contribute with a new account and never use the old account again (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyways, I don't care that you support checkuser. What I would like you to do is to NOT inform me of anything related to my account and my cousin's on my talk page.

Correction: I don't care if people think I'm a sockpuppet, not is a sockpuppet. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

User:VanBrigglePottery

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Ducha mps_comb MFA 04:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

04:57, 7 May 2007 -3RR violation on user:VanBrigglePotter

17:21, 7 May 2007 -Start of use by 72.11.124.226

Break in use for VanBrigglePottery

02:05, 7 May 2007-- 00:59, 21 December 2007

Comments

Also 3RR violation of Lakota people, Russell Means reverts to same version in wording, with “Nazi collaborators.”

You will also notice they edit on the same pages McCarthyism, Russell Means, Lakota people and Van Briggle Pottery.

Lakota people

Revision as of 21:29, 31 December 2007

Revision as of 15:26, 31 December 2007

Revision as of 22:15, 30 December 2007

Revision as of 00:17, 30 December 2007

Russell Means

Revision as of 23:10, 30 December 2007

Revision as of 00:05, 30 December 2007

Revision as of 03:54, 29 December 2007

Conclusions

Blocked username as it matches a company name. Note that a CU IP check is pending here: Knowledge (XXG):RFCU#Requests_for_IP_check. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

IP CU check shows these are unrelated, . — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:L.L.King

Suspected sockpuppeteer

L.L.King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Sockpuppets confirmed by checkuser: Case information. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All accounts were created within a small period of time, have similar editing patterns, have nearly identical user pages and all support each other in trying to form consensus. Each have made edits to Paris Hilton removing a trivia tag with identical explanation: ExtraordinaryActor, L.L. King, ZeeToAaa, SomeSlasher. All have made edits specifically to the section of the article dealing with a music video parody of Paris Hilton called "Paris in Jail," for instance:

SomeSlasher, L.L. King, ZeeToAaa, ZeeToAaa 2.

*Editors concerned with the same issue (IE: preventing Wiki vandalism by User: Cumulus Clouds, and interest in Paris Hilton) would very well have similar editing patterns. Identical user pages? There are thousands of user pages that say or say less or say similar things. Just as in his editing, User: Cumulus Clouds is voicing opinion. Opinion is not fact. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

*Was it a surprise that two related articles might recieve attention at the same time? Apparently not... just as you yourself are tieing three or four articles together in this great conspiracy.. articles that are all already inter-related. And no big surprise that none of this began until you decided to remove cohesive informations as "trivia", and the tag the disconnected remaining elements as trivia... having just turned the article into just that. As a newcomer to Wiki, even I have looked to previous edits to see what explanation or reason to give. That they all tried to repair your vandalism, and used the same terms to do so... not at all surprising. Sensible actually. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

L.L. King addressed AnotherSearcher as a "friend" on his talk page, and all accounts have made almost identical remarks on my talk page.

*Anyone who stands up to a tyrant such as yourself, is my friend. Feel free to take that sentence out of context as well, should doing so serve your own purposes. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

*Anyone visiting your talk page, newbie or not, who agreed with the remarks made there, might certainly make similar comments... and even more likely to quote other's comments as Wiki newcomers. It is interesting to note that NO ONE has contradicted the claims of your editing with bias. You remove attention from yourself by indicting others with a fabricated conspiracy. Your actions are even more strongly contentious. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Last, each user has made edits to Omovies, the company that produced "Paris in Jail", as can be seen in the edit history. Activity at Omovies increased for all accounts after Tony Sidaway placed a prod notice on that article for being only promotional in content, with each account trying to expand the article to try to save it from deletion.

*Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Improve an article to make it worthy of Wiki? You're making that a crime now? L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

*And someone placing a tag on an article calls for the article to be improved. You're now using that improvement as an evidence of a deeper conspiracy? Seems like you are supporting yet another action that discredits or removes informations in support of your own opinion. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Each of these accounts has also made extensive edits to Paris in Jail: The Music Video to promote this product. In addition all accounts have either started or made extensive edits to Allan Murray (actor) and Sean Haines (actor), the two men who control Omovies.

*Your use of the word extensive is opinion. Your own edit history has show MAJOR extensive edits to articles all over Wiki. You have removed entire sections of various articles because you "felt" they did not belong. You have pushed your opinion all over Wiki. That you have been caught and acted upon at the Paris and Paris-related articles just shows that you can not continue your actions forever. There is a check and balance. Wiki is not about you. It is about making things better. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

*A pattern of continued Wiki abuse: Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

*... it seems that Murray and Haines aren't allowed to be writen about on Wiki? And why is it impossible that their articles get improved at the same time as related articles? Is that not what we are here to do? To improve Wiki one must improve ALL aspects of an article and related articles. Yes? Or is your example of repeated deletion and vandalism under the guise of misintrepeted guideline the example we must follow? L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of User:ManicAttack, that user registered as a new account on Monday the 31st and immediately began making edits about issues they would not otherwise have known about as a new user. This account's only edits are to almost entirely to my talk page protesting the addition of a trivia tag to Paris Hilton. This is probably an attack account controlled by the puppeteer.

*Edits about issues they would not have otherwise have known? Well... I checked ManicAttack... ManicAttack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). His/her only action was to speak up. Nothing was edited. Nothing was deleted. So, you must be absolutely right here... someone came forward with the specific intent to protest your actions and point out your mistakes. What a major crime!!! Hunt them down! String them up! Burn them at the stake! Ban them from Wiki for life! (Please read a sarcastic tone in those last 5 sentences). Pointing out someone's mistakes is not an attack. Encouraging someone to rethink an opinion is not a crime. Your own use of the word "attack" seems to underscore a certain paranoia on your part. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

*Probably an attack account? God bless one more individual who came forward to protect Wiki from the likes of you. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

L.L.King registered on 20 August, 2007, 2 days after an article creation request for Paris Hilton: The Music Video by an anonymous IP was declined on 18 August 2007. I now suspect L.L.King is this user and he registered subsequent puppet accounts to mask his identity in order to promote this video and Omovies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Cumulus Clouds, has me listed as a sockpuppet of L.L.King, stating that I was one of several persons come on to do King's bidding... but I was registered a week before King. So I suppose that statement is another example of one person's opinion trying to masquerade as fact. I'll grant that my time on Wiki has been a learning experience, and I've made mistakes as I've learned, but I do no one's dirtywork. I am agreed with King though that pushing one's opinion without regard for consensus or for fact is not the way to perform under Wiki guidelines. Cinemapress (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*You can "suspect" anything you wish. The items you keep calling "evidence" only shows a pattern of continued Wiki improvement by concened individuals who came forward when your mis-use of the system was presented Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Their edits have been laudable. Yours have not. Now THAT is evidence. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Where L.L.King has previously claimed these accounts were "friends and associates" scattered throughout the city, he now claims they are all local ips originating from within his apartment complex and thus would fail checkuser. I believe that this confirms these are all sock puppets being used abusively by the puppetmaster. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

*Again.... one can twist things to espouse one's own opinion can't one....? I have never denied speaking to friends and associates about the heavy-handed and biased edits of a person on Wiki who calls himself "Cumulus Clouds". Over a few day period, these conversations have taken place in a grocery stores, local diners, in the laundry room, outside a union hall, at a gas station... lots of places. It rankles that someone so abuses Wiki for his own ends. ANd I voiced my concerns to many people outside of Wiki. And here on Wiki I wrote to friend user SchuminWeb to thank him more recently thanked for advice and apolgize for involving him in my disagreement with this Cloud person. I also wrote similarly to friend user Wanderer57. I voiced a my recent suspicion that some of my own neighbors might well be among those trying to undo Clouds vandalisms. HOWEVER.... that some of these new editors may know me... that they may have come on board Wiki within a short period of time due to my discussions outseide in the world... that they apparently agree that user Cumulus Clouds is abusing the Wiki process... that they have come forward to patch the holes he has made... that they are likely sitting back and watching this discussion... that some of them could even be my neighbors, does not in any way mean that they are puppets. It does mean they are constructive and not destructive. It does mean that they came forward to take action against an abuser. Every edit they have made has been an improvement. Cloud continues to use Wiki voice opinion. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I believe that all these accounts are employees of, or otherwise associated with promoting Omovies, or are the same person using several accounts abusively to the same ends. If a user has access to Checkuser, this may yield further evidence but I don't believe it's necessary in this case. Thank you.

Update: Leon L. King runs a movie review blog called "Cinemapress." The url is here: http://www.cinemapress.biz/id38.htm

Any references or links to this site inserted by this user or others should be removed and the users treated with scrutiny as possible sockpuppets for L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

*A wonderful supposition. And if I did not know how wrong you were, I might even agree with you myself. You have dredged up a wonderful circumstantial case to prove your delusions... but your evidencea are conjecture and opinion. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

*I have associates around my home and city with whom I have discussed the Paris page and related pages... associates with whom I have discussed you and your actions that so negatively affect Wiki. YOU are the reason that Wiki so often gets bad press. It is not at all surprising that others came on board to keep an eye on you. So yes, I can imagine that a number of accounts were opened withing a short period of time, and yes I can see that these individuals have done their best as Wiki amateurs to hold back the machinations of a Wiki abuser such as yourself. They are individuals, with the constructive purpose of truth. I may have encouraged individuals to come on board and take a stand for truth, but YOU are the one abusing Wiki using your greater knowledge and expertise of the Wiki systems. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

*I have told no one what to do. I gave no course of conduct nor action beyond suggesting that if they do join the ranks of Wiki users, that they keep an eye on you. Someone had to. But no one is my puppet. No one moved at my bidding. That these people read on your talk page of the wrongs you have done and then voiced similar concerns to your machinations is not at all surprising. I can not put a name to any of the users you listed, but God bless them. Nor do I know any of the hundreds or thousands who have made adjustments to the Paris page. What I can say with clear conscience is that I am proud that these others have come forward to keep an eye on Wiki. And it is quite obvious that your own actions kept them centered on the Paris and related pages. What I see is that they have each, as narrow as their field of improvement have been, been as forthright and factual and constructive in their contributions as I wish you could have been. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds has been subtly editing (without consensus} the "Sock puppetry" page to make it say what he wishes it to say in just the manner he wants it to in order to support whatever additional allegations he wishes to make. If that is not a clear case of Knowledge (XXG):COI, I don't know what it is. L.L.King (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm no sockpuppet. I did some corrections to the Paris in Jail page, the Michael Schmidt page, and the James EVans page. Don't drag me in to this argument. I don't have the free time to spend thousands and thousands of hours on the computr to fix stuff all over wikipdia. I added some stuff in 3 places. That does not make me anybodys puppet. I think Cumulus Clouds has got way too much free time. Get a real job fellow and support afamily like the rest of us. No this is not an attack. I think you are selfish and greedy and tryingto mess with anybody who does not think like you. Ever think of going to Iraq and becoming a dictater? I hear theres an opening in Bagdad. - Anypose

Cumulus Clouds has been caught out using opinion to replace or remove fact. The members who came forward are now under attack by the person who was doing the vandalism. Their acts have been constructive. His acts have been destructive. The only "crime" he can accuse them of is being "puppets" because they came onboard and worked in similar fashion at similar times to a similar end. If they were indeed newcomers to WIki, it does not surprise that they acted alike, commented alike, and took the same interest in the vandalism being done by Cumulus Clouds. If I knew exactly who these specific individiuals were, I'd shake all their hands. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Confirmed that the socks on this checkuser are L.L. King. --EoL talk 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dan689

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dan689 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Dan689 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dan689 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dan689 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Change78443 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gladys J Cortez 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Most of these guys are blocked, but Dan689 4 is still kicking; I just wanted to get this on record as a probable sock-drawer.

Comments

Conclusions

They are all blocked. This is kind of unnecessary if they're already blocked... --EoL talk 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Shamulou

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Pri2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Theokrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vhettinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jehochman 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All four accounts were made their first edits within 24 hours of each other at four different pages, and then about five days later they all appeared at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition in rapid succession, expressing the same POV and supporting each other. This may be a case of newly recruited editors who are unaware of our social norms that prohibit canvassing in order to establish a false consensus, or it could be outright sock puppetry. Other editors may be involved, but I will not name them since it is unclear who may be doing the canvassing.

See also the recent case, Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek which focused on the same locus of dispute. Jehochman 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

None of these users are sockpuppets. They are four seperate individuals who are participating in Knowledge (XXG) as part of a course project. The first assignment was to create a username and edit a Knowledge (XXG) entry, which is why they all did so at the same time. (Right before the assignment was due). I explained my own participation in this class clearly on my own userpage.

The second assignment was to participate in a dispute. The only required coordination was that we agreed to choose a single dispute to weigh in on. At each step of the way, each person has been contributing according to their own personal opinions, evinced by the fact that we do not all agree. The fact that we happen to agree is incidental. No one person, including myself, had an opinion on the subject until after we had chosen this AfC and began reading and participating in it. Indeed, I was originally of the opinion that the lead section should stand. My mind was changed when I read the BBC and Wall Street Journal references.

Our professor, Jonathan Zittrain is actively involved in Knowledge (XXG) and was a presenter at Wikimania. The parameters of the assignment in no way implicate the Canvassing and Sockpuppet policies you mentioned; I doubt if he would have given us a task that violated Knowledge (XXG) social norms. As a longstanding Wikipedian myself, I also participated in a manner carefull to obey general Knowledge (XXG) standards, such as ensuring that each person came to their position independently and felt free to voice their opinions on Knowledge (XXG) without defering to the positions of any other group member.

I understand that is is very distressing for you that so many people are taking a position contrary to your own. However, since no Knowledge (XXG) norms have been violated, the fact that several law students happen to disagree with you is just something you'll have to live with, and handle through the normal channels of debate and discussion. -Lciaccio (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds dubious. Where on that wiki does it mention this Waterboarding article as part of it's coursework or project? Lawrence Cohen 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is an unintentional tendency for newcomers who know each other in real life to support each other on-wiki. This is due to sympathy, not conspiracy. Jonathan Zittrain and I attended Yale together. Please ask him to contact me via email so we can debug this. By the way, conducting experiments on high profile Knowledge (XXG) articles is not acceptable in any way. Jehochman 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This Harvard project

I think this needs wider admin review on AN or ANI: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ipc/Group_4_Dispute_Results

These people are debating and affecting encyclopedia content as part of a class project. How long has this been going on, with this string of new SPAs flooding the Waterboarding article that we've seen? It's been highly disruptive, especially as this "project" was not disclosed. Lawrence Cohen 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Commentary like this on this Harvard page:

"# Should we weigh in on whether Knowledge (XXG) should keep the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture"? If so, what is our position? Khoffman 19:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)"

Make me EXTREMELY uncomfortable, especially given the comments on that page that the class "orally" decided to pursue the Waterboarding article. If a class decides to take a matching position orally, that is meatpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy to Jonathan Zittrain, my old friend, I ask that his students not be blocked. This matter should be discussed, and a consensus achieved as to how we will handle this. At minimum we need full disclosure of any coordinated editing that has occurred so we can correct the discussion. A considerable amount of time and effort may have been wasted here. I am not amused. Jehochman 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sent to ANI. Lawrence Cohen 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

This is under discussion at WP:ANI, and further comments should be made at that location. The actions described here probably do violate Knowledge (XXG)'s policy against sock/meat puppetry, but the class members do not appear to be intentionally violating policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RiainMcA

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

E Wing (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both users have the same Twinkle userbox (on their talk page) even though their monobook.js is empty (Note: Both user talk page has been edited by certain editors to remove the userboxes). Also, User:RiainMcA "granted" the unblock request on User:90.206.81.207 with an unappropriate reason.

Comments

RiainMcA continued editing after the IP address (which had been static) was hardblocked, suggesting that RiainMcA was on a different IP address. It's clear the two know each other, but I suspect they are probably different people (I could even guess their names). Note that both have been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. Move to close with no further action. -- zzuuzz 17:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

As above. -- zzuuzz 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Laertes d

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Laertes d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Niko Silver 13:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Special:Contributions/88.242.196.76 edits exactly the same articles that got the original puppetmaster banned.
After I reverted him as a "possible sock of Laertes d", he admitted being him twice in my talkpage. See also edit summaries.
Has exactly the same editing pattern, and is exactly as uncivil. Should be blocked even if it were not him.

Comments

Just a little remark for my niko, have i acted like im a different user than who i am? Then whats the need for all this wikipedia ritual? I just had the mood of making some contributions to wikipedia today and some free time, and i noticed that you were being a typical pov pushing nikosilver as usual, so i made some few changes thats all..i wont stay here for long in any case..--88.242.196.76 (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

This is probably Laertes d, but there's not much point in blocking a dynamic IP that hasn't edited in several days. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nrswanson

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Ringnpassagio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Voicequeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

edg ☺ ☭ 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Both socks are new accounts who edit war in favor of fork articles (and a template) recently created by Nrswanson in voice/opera related topics, including Discussion page conversation and deletion discussions for these pages. Voicequeen in particular has very few edits, and no interest outside Nrswanson's disputes. Nrswanson's method appears to be creating parallel versions of existing articles, then attempting to delete the existing versions. Why this is done is unclear, but it evades WP:CONSENSUS in the existing articles, and violates WP:OWN.

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Nrswanson considers this Possible sockpuppetry, but cannot rule out multiple users of the same public wireless node, and propose "It's most likely that they are known to each other, rather than being the same person".

1) Voice type hijack attempt

Nrswanson establishes a consensus with the two new accounts to delete Voice type ("and do not merge") in favor of the Nrswanson-written Voice classification. Ringnpassagio (in this editor's 5th & 6th ever edits) promptly deletes comments from Talk:Voice type, copy/pasting to Talk:Voice classification (a discussion page that prior had only comments from Nrswanson and puppets.)

Voicequeen twice reverts information merged to Voice type from Nrswanson's fork article, with edit summaries accusing bad faith , helping Nrswanson evade WP:3RR. Nrswanson's reversions on same article: . Nrswanson's initial deletion: .

2) New account edit history

Day-old account Ringnpassagio also creates a template on 2007-12-30T19:15:18, 2 hours after claiming to have never used Knowledge (XXG) before 2007-12-30T17:09:12.

3) Talk:Falsetto edit warring

Ringnpassagio and Voicequeen help Nrswanson edit war in Falsetto register. Nrswanson rewrote Falsetto register (previously a redirect to Falsetto) and created a bad-faith Afd for the Falsetto article: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Falsetto

Upon being rebuked in this AFD (Speedy keep), Nrswanson begins Talk page campaign to instead redirect Falsetto to his article. New accounts Ringnpassagio and Voicequeen agree most enthusiasticly. All three casually ignore the decision made in the Afd.

Nrswanson begins edit-warring on the Falsetto register redirect, continuing to revive his version. Day-old account Ringnpassagio contributes to the revived page, making sophisticated edits (such as adding a template ) and when redirect is restored, reverts with edit summaries accusing the redirector of bad faith, and canvasses a WikiProject for support on Nrswanson's issue. (Ringnpassagio templates an article relevant to one of Nrswanson's issues for this WikiProject prior to joining this WikiProject .)

The Potemkin village on-wiki consensus-building demonstrated on Talk:Falsetto register seems especially improbable considering Nrswanson's later claim that these people are friends of his who correspond via email .

4) Sock similarities

Similar biographies. Biographies identify geographically distant residences, despite Checkuser finding use of same WAP (Nrswanson: Oklahoma; Ringnpassagio: NYC; Voicequeen: unspecified, but implies elsewhere).
Both contribute to Voice type, an article heavily edited (and arguably WP:OWNed) by Nrswanson. (Note edit by Ringnpassagio deleting almost all article content.)

5) Votestacking in {{Vocal classification}} Tfd

All three accounts vote Keep in a Tfd for Nrswanson's 2 day old fork of {{Vocal range}}, created to replace an existing template. Nrswanson ; socks . Interestingly, Ringnpassagio makes a show of independence later in the discussion, changing Keep vote, but continuing to argue for Nrswanson's other pages.

6) Style similarities (added by Ddxc (talk) at 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

On Talk:Falsetto#18.1 and User talk:Ddxc#8 - 10 you can see that all three users use similar (slightly cumbersome) sentence structures. Also, they have a similar density of punctuation and spelling mistakes, and they sign the same way. (Nrswanson wrote that the two other users are meat-puppets, but because of the aforementioned stylistic evidence I don't believe him, and I'd consider them sock-puppets for all practical purposes.)

Comments

Comment from Voceditenore Preliminary Note: I have never edited the articles in question, although I am a member of the Knowledge (XXG) Opera Project which has an interest in articles on voice and singing. This issue was brought to our attention on the project talk page. Note that in the deletion discussion, I voted to keep Falsetto. I don't believe User:Ringnpassagio and User:Voicequeen are sockpuppets, but that should be easy for admins to check via looking at their ISPs. Their edits are sophisticated because they are all voice teachers and have all studied voice and vocal performance - two of them are also teachers. The fact that their biographies are similar is also not surprising if they are all in the same line of work and probably at one point studied in the same institution. They do seem to be friends whom User:Nrswanson, specifically recruited into the 'fray', something which he has admitted himself. That is highly frowned on by Knowledge (XXG) and was ill-advised. Their expertise is welcome, but at the very least, they should have made the circumstances of their participation clear on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Had they done so much of this unpleasantness could have been avoided. I also have views on what should be done about the conflict between the two articles, but I shall put that on Talk:Falsetto. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- One of Ringnpassagio's edits was to create a Template. I don't think using Wikitext is routinely covered in voice and vocal performance education. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  - No it's not routinely covered ;-) But he could be technically savvy anyway and it's quite possible to create a template by modifying an existing one on a related article e.g. Template:Vocal range. I figured out how do that quite quickly when I first started editing on Knowledge (XXG), and I am not technically savvy at all. In any case, User:Nrswanson has never created templates before and often asks for help on technical questions far simpler than creating templates. Like I said, I don't think the three editors above were acting in bad faith, but their approach was most ill advised and could have been avoided had they read this before they embarked. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    - For the record, Nrswanson created the {{Vocal classification}} template. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As the checkuser who ran this case, can I just state that I strongly suspect collusion here due to the addresses used and the timings involved. I am 100% certain that these people know each other - Alison 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I really doubt much harm is done here. Nrswanson writes very nicely and his friends sound like equally knowledgeable people. Welcome one and welcome all, says I. Moreschi 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nrswanson is being disruptive and ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, and his lovely friends are at best meatpuppets who edit war on his behalf with disregard to policy and consensus. As I commented on Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Opera, the sneaky and complicated efforts Nrswanson is making to WP:OWN these articles are not justifiable, and would not be needed if Nrswanson would contribute to the existing articles (presuming there is non-puppet consensus for his edits). / edg ☺ ☭ 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(I've added another point 6 above.) -- Ddxc (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

If these users aren't socks, they're meatpuppets. I also find the fact that Nrswanson and Voceditenore (who appeared defending them here) both have large gaps in their edit histories that are very close in time very interesting; along with the fact that Ringnpassagio and Voicequeen. The only reason I'm issuing warnings vice blocks is that they all seem to have gone quiet again. Strong warnings issued on all talk pages. If such activity reappears, this case should be referred to. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting followup, see . — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chris funk bass

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Chris funk bass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Pe34-sick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
777metalaussie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hellowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Quinfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
116.240.180.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jsq fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mattinbgn\ 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Per contributions history especially the articles Chris Frangou, John Smith Quartet and Global Frontier. All but Chris funk bass are newly created accounts, all have only edited related articles, all have the same opinion and make similar spelling errors. -- Mattinbgn\ 08:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

That last one is definite. No comment on the rest of them. An administrator's assistance may be required for checking the deleted contributions. --EoL talk 23:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Jsq fan and Chris funk bass are already indef blocked. The rest are pretty convincing; I've blocked them indef and the IP one week. Tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisRay6000

Suspected sockpuppeteer

ChrisRay6000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Evidence

Both have similar user names (the "ray" in both names) and their behavior on the talk page of Unidentified flying object is also very similar. They back each other up and say that they will rewrite the article from a even more skeptical point of view. here and here.

Comments

Why is this report here, after just one edit by Jlray on the article talk page, and an edit that did not state or imply that he is a different person from ChrisRay6000? Anubis Godfather, why didn't you do what common sense and common decency would demand, and simply ask that user politely whether it's him or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

JlRay is my brother. He just left a similar comment elsewhere. So if you are asking if our accounts are "related," then the answer is yes: our genes are, in fact, remarkably similar. In fact, our IP addresses ought to be identical because we are both home from school for the winter holiday break and are both currently using the family computer. ChrisRay6000 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a bad excuse IMHO. To be honest, I don't believe you. You are admitting, that your IPs are identical (so we don't need to do the checkuser). If what you are saying is true, then why don't you both use one account? Sorry, that doesn't add up. 84.177.253.41 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From what the accused puppet master says, I think it's very likely IMHO. The puppet master's excuse is not really a new one...in fact lots of puppet masters use such an excuse. 84.177.253.41 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't forget assume good faith. --EoL talk 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I must say the explanation raises a few eyebrows - coming out with "we are two people using the same computer" after somebody else has noticed you have similar editing profiles is just such a very easy excuse many sockpuppeters have employed. But since we currently have no evidence to the contrary, we'll have to take your word for it. Please just make sure your editing doesn't overlap too much in contentious situations, because that will very likely renew the same suspicions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

We're going to assume good faith that these two accounts are two brothers editing from the same computer/IP/place. Future Perfect at Sunrise summed it up pretty well (see above). --EoL talk 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tarakonas

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Vulpes vulpes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.7.98.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

M.K. (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Accounts registration time. Accounts registration time almost synchronized, both accounts' first edit was on the same article Kursenieki

Language skills. All three subjects is in command of Lithuanian language:

Similar interest area:

Same motives for POV -

Similar abusive language skills -

Revert warring - and countless other, contributor/s in question was/were informed about reverts , finally IP was blocked for warring . M.K. (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

In regards of these developments, should I place request on WP:RCU? M.K. (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Please file WP:RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PPG2008

Suspected sockpuppeteer

PPG2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

PPG2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yng varr 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:PPG2007 was blocked for sock-puppetry, please see prior (closed) case at Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/PPG2007. This user has recently reappeared as User:PPG2008. The behaviour patterns are the same, even if we overlook the curious name similarities. Right now, the issue is adding disputed content to List of characters in Camp Lazlo. Please compare the old sock at Special:Contributions/PPG2007 to the new sock's contribs at Special:Contributions/PPG2008.

Comments

Conclusions

Yup. Blocked. MastCell 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wayne.Rashid

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Wayne.Rashid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Mofeed.sawan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

LeSnail (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

No edits, except to an AfD discussion on an article of Mofeed.sawan's creation and to Mofeed.sawan's user page.

Comments

Sorry, I reported this the wrong way round. Mofeed.sawan is the original account, and wayne.rashid appears later. LeSnail (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne.Rashid is my user ID, we (my son User:Mofeed.Sawan and I) created it temporarily since I forgot the password for my main ID User:Wayne.Sawan which was created on Knowledge (XXG) more than two years ago. Fortunately, I was able to recover my original ID and we will delete the temporary ID (Wayne.Rashid). The AfD discussion on the Riverside article by User:Mofeed.Sawan is mine and there is no need for a sock puppet alert.Wayne.sawan (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Doesn't look like there's a problem here. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lil' kim187 is back

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lil' kim187 is back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

That'sAGreatIdea.I'llStartSHOUTINGAtPeople!‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.68.51.173‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lil' kim187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
add for comparison by Rlevse

Report submission by

IslaamMaged126 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Lil' kim187‎ had been blocked and had created new account Lil' kim is back.When she changed accounts, 61.68.51.173‎ had went over and blanked the page, writing that she was blocked. Later, on That'sAGreatIdea.I'llStartSHOUTINGAtPeople!‎‎'s talk page, 61.68.51.173‎ ent over and "defended" That'sAGreatIdea.I'llStartSHOUTINGAtPeople!‎'s lengthy username (see here).Earlier 61.68.51.173‎ had fixed a signature and comment of That'sAGreatIdea.I'llStartSHOUTINGAtPeople!. considering 61.68.51.173‎ edits, they have only edited That'sAGreatIdea.I'llStartSHOUTINGAtPeople!'s talk page, Lil' kim is back's userpage, and my talk page slightly.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked named accounts indef, IP for a week. Put username change tag and comment on Lil' kim187's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Burnsfessler

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Burnsfessler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 68.33.189.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexfusco 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Only edits are on AFD for article created by Burnsfessler, both use similar arguments in the AFD

Comments

Considering that Burnsfessler is being autoblocked by an IP address in West Virginia and 68.33.189.220 is from Baltimore, Maryland, I'd say it's unlikely they are the same person. --B (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I am wrongly accused. This crap isn't that important to watch to you geeks go on and on. Heck, until I edited a couple of articles, I thought a sockpuppet was nice thing. Do what you want. I won't lose sleep. Burnsfessler (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:5dsddddd

5dsddddd

5dsddddd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wenonah Article (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Report submission by

5dsddddd (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence: I the owner of the sockpuppet prupose guilty. I am the one who reported myself

Comments: I have used a sockpuppet to edit a an article which is now put up for afd.

Conclusions: Just pronouce me guilty. I Wenonah Article prnounce guilty. Wenonah Article (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious hoax account, blocked puppet indef, master one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Aiza00

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Aiza00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Nass Gonzales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

TheBilly (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Vandalizing the same page in the same way. Replacing the page Marian Rivera with the same nonsense text about "penis" and "condom" . First account wasn't actually blocked but should have been; 4 warnings, but the vandalism was obviously deliberate. About 7 warnings between the 2 accounts now

Comments

Sorry if my report is backwards, I just clicked the "sockpuppet" option with Twinkle, while on the page of the newer account (Aiza00). This is the first time I've reported a sockpuppet. It seems pretty obvious, though; should I have just taken it to AIV instead? or somewhere else? TheBilly (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Others already dealt with this. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cowboycaleb1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

63.3.10.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.3.10.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.3.10.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
209.247.5.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
209.247.5.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

D.M.N. (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Please see this and this for more information. As found out in the first SSP case (located at the first link) Caleb comes from Memphis, TN. Since the first SSP, the 3 IPs in the 63.3 range, along with IPs in the 209.247.5.57 to 209.247.5.59 range have blanked the tags I left and simply left the message "This is a shared ip address.", see . I have reverted the IP edits a number of times, as my concern still stands. The IP's trace back to Memphis, Tennesse, where Caleb is from, as proved in the previous SSP cases. It says on the 204.247.... IP page that the IP goes back to Memphis, therefore I think the IPs are being used by Caleb. D.M.N. (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked all IPs of this persistent sock abuser 1 week. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Save Us 229

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Save Us 229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

MegX (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Indopug signed up for Knowledge (XXG) on the 24th of December at 06:19. Within 28 hours User:Indopug signed up for Wikiproject Led Zeppelin on the 25th. Before signing up to the project he removed an edit on the project page. User:Indopug has not added any new articles to Led Zeppelin. For someone who has just signed up for Knowledge (XXG) and a WikiProject, given the comments he has left on my Talk page, he certainly knows more about the processes than a newbie editor would. However it became apparent to me this more than a new user. User:Indopug disagreed with my template image and that I should change the image on it back to the old one. The one he uploaded here. I told him the reason why I couldn't was because of copyright, so I used what I thought was a free image. User:Save Us 229 then deleted the image I had placed on the templates. The image was replaced by User:Indopug then calling my template "grotesque". I then examined the edit history of User:Save Us 229 and noticed that since User:Indopug joined the Wikiproject, User:Save Us 229 has been targetting Led Zeppelin images. This is strange considering many of these images have been pretty much left untouched for years. I then compared edit histories between both users and noticed a high correlation of editing blocks. A form of "tag-team" editing. More often than not one logs off, one logs on. Below is an example of a seven day period.

With sole exceptions of stray edits that fall out of these blocks:

25th of December User:Indopug starts at 05:21, edits until 19:47 User:Save Us 229 who normally edits everyday is strangely absent during this mammoth block of 14 hours by User:Indopug

26th of December User:Indopug starts at 04:37, edits until 15:20 User:Save Us 229 starts 15:50 edits until 17:26 User:Indopug starts at 18:20 edits until 18:39

27th of December User:Save Us 229 starts at 00:16, edits until 02:38 User:Indopug starts at 05:35, edits in spurts until 23:07 User:Save Us 229 is absent in Indopug's 19 hour stint.

28th of December User:Save Us 229 starts at midnight, edits until 03:53. User:Indopug starts at 07:09, edits until 09:34 User:Save Us 229 starts at 17:40, edits until 23:00

29th of December User:Indopug does not edit for the whole day User:Save Us 229 edits in three blocks (05:11-05:21, 17:07-17:09, then 19:11-23:33)

30th of December User:Indopug one block 10:14-10:30 User:Save Us 229 starts 00:33, edits until 03:45, then again 17:56-23:58

Comments

Please, run a checkuser, I don't care, because that's not me, I've never heard of this user Indopug outside this case. I would like to see what violations of policy you think either me or Indopug broke because I seriously doubt that you could. Furthurmore I'm not even interested in Led Zeppelin, I could care less, I care about removing violations of non-free content and I did so. — Save_Us_229 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- You admit you're not a fan of Led Zeppelin. I believe you. I also believe User:Indopug is not a fan either.MegX (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  - He's not? How many non-fans of Led Zeppelin join the WikiProject? His userpage and his edits seem to signify that he is remotely interested in editing their articles. I'm not. I'm interested in violations of fair use being removed and editing pro wrestling articles and other policy-related work. Do you actually have any proof whatsoever other than me not editing Knowledge (XXG) at certain times? — Save_Us_229 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    - (To MegX) The differences in the times these editors edit, may be caused because they live in different parts of the world? Also, just because Indopug knows a little something about wiki-process, doesn't mean he's someone's sock. Have you considered that he might have edited as an anon? Seraphim 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Seriously, some of it doesn't make since. According to UTC time:
        User:Indopug starts at 04:37, edits until 15:20
        
        User:Save Us 229 starts 15:50 edits until 17:26
        
        User:Indopug starts at 18:20 edits until 18:39
      - For those of you who don't know my location, I'll tell you what time it is locally for me according to the UTC:
        User:Indopug starts at 11:37 p.m. and edits until 10:20 a.m.
        
        User:Save Us 229 starts at 10:50 a.m. until 12:26 p.m.
        
        User:Indopug starts at 1:20 p.m until 1:39
      - Ok, you want a conclusion? Locally for me, he started editing at 11:37 p.m. and edited until 10:20 a.m.. So I edit from 11:30 at night and don't end until 10:30 in the morning? Now in which part of that timeframe do I sleep if I am him? He could potentially be on the otherside of the world editing at those times. — Save_Us_229 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello everybody! Firstly, although this new username is new to wikipedia; I'm not. I used to have another username, but I changed it for non wiki reasons. I had no problem with the previous image on the template - the "Led Zeppelin" logo. If i remember correctly, that image was incorrectly tagged as free-use. However, I did have a problem with the old template because, well, it is grotesque. Anyway, as for not adding any new articles to the wikiprject, since when is that an important or necessary part of wiki-editing. I have never been rude and uncivil toward MegX and I believe she has a problem with me is because I didn't like the bureaucratic way she runs the wikiproject. indopug (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And to make these allegations anymore ludacris, I'm in Florida, in the United States and he is from India. Explain that one MegX. — Save_Us_229 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Want definitive proof? This is my IP, I am Save Us 229. 74.235.136.188 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is me. — Save_Us_229 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is indopug. 122.167.4.43 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is me indopug (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Me thinks this case is solved no less. — Save_Us_229 06:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. indopug (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

There is almost no evidence here of sockpuppetry, let alone disruptive sockpuppetry. They both edited some WikiProject Led Zeppelin pages. One user not editing during a day is not evidence of anything. As far as I can tell, they have no articles edited in common and Save Us only seems to edit music related articles for WP:NFCC reasons. Mr.Z-man 07:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:MetaphorEnt

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

HollywoodFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

A checkuser at Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LMA2007 confirmed that MetaphorEnt and HollywoodFan1 were the same editor. An incident report was filed at the administrators noticeboard (now archived at Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive348#Requested block of socks (not resolved)), detailing the abusive use of sockpuppetry in this situation. HollywoodFan1 twice responded to report by simply denying that they were MetaphorEnt.

Comments: As I have prior involvement in this case, I recuse myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Already confirmed by checkuser. HollywoodFan1 blocked indefinitely as a sock; I blocked MetaphorEnt for 1 week, though I'd have a low threshold for extending this block toward indefinite given the disruption, WP:COI issues, and bad faith evident in some of this user's responses. MastCell 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Leventorous

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Leventorous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: LaruaWA11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Equazcion •✗/C • 07:10, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC) 07:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Same vandalism type on User talk:Equazcion: . Also see User talk:Leventorous, same behavior as User:LaruaWA11 and her 7 or so known sock puppets.

Comments

Conclusions

Resolved

User has been blocked as a sock puppet of User:LaruaWA11. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:31, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

User:70.81.96.171

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Gladys J Cortez 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Highly similar WHOIS. Very similar "edits" and patterns, including some of the same vandalism targets (Clifford the Big Red Dog, Little Wooden Head(song)), same charming manner of speech and sense of humor.

Comments

Thanks...

Conclusions

This is probably more of a dynamic/related IP rather than a sockpuppet. Block on behavior if necessary, however, this doesn't constitute as sockpuppetry. --EoL talk 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hitlabmusic

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Hitlabmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Couscous1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

sock pops up to recreate speedied article previously created by banned master

Comments

Conclusions

Not an abusive case. The blocked user was blocked because of a username violation, not for disruption. --EoL talk 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TiconderogaCCB 2nd

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.26.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.125.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Comments Removed link to Knowledge (XXG) article that was asked to be placed on by the talk page of St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 . Deletion of sourced material . Using the same IP range as he did before. Most likely in avoidance of WP:3rr. UnclePaco (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Report submission by

UnclePaco (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

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

Comments

Conclusions

Neither of these IP's have violated WP:3RR, and as TiconderogaCCB is not currently blocked, he is free to edit anonymously so long as he does not abuse this to violate 3RR or otherwise disrupt. Here's what I would suggest: if the IP's edit-war significantly and refuse to discuss their proposed changes over the next day or two, then contact me and I'll temporarily semi-protect the page. That's probably a better approach than playing whack-a-mole with dynamic IP's in any case. MastCell 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fishkrap2

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Fishkrap2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Fishkrap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Canthusus (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

well, the similarity of names ;) - both active vandals this minute; Fishkrap has just been blocked; vandalising similar music-oriented pages.

Comments

Conclusions

As above. Both indef-blocked. -- zzuuzz 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TiconderogaCCB 2nd

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

User:TiconderogaCCB

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by Suchagoodguy 04: 19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Utilizing multiple IP address to circumvent edit wars and 3rr blocks. Has been blocked previous to this for 3rr violations. Has engaged in personal attacks against various users and has same editing patterns.

Comments

Is it just a bit weird that the person making the report is a new account whose 10th edit was to insert a series of fact tags and whose 14th edit was to create a SSP case? There's fast learning, but that's a bit odd... Dibo 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the editors that deal with this case might also have an interest in examining the relationship between User:Suchagoodguy and User:64.131.205.111 User:Bombaplena112 User:199.219.144.52 User:BoriquaStar and the rest of the users listed in Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111, cause i'm a 100% sure that there is a relation between them judging from their contributions especially those concerning latinos and the caribbean. I'm just saying isn't the fact that the first thread in User talk:64.131.205.111 is about St. John's University, odd enought? wich is the exact same page that TiconderogaCCB has been edit warring about, i mean it would not be unussual considering the ip adress has already been confirmed as a sockpuppeter.-24.138.194.220 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Goes to show it's probably a bad idea to come to the sockpuppet board if you're a sock yourself, SuchAGoodGuy is indeed YoSoyGuapo, and is blocked indef as such. However, regardless of the merits of the reporter, it's pretty clear that TiconderogaCCB was behind the use of the IPs to aggressively revert war at St. John's University, and has been blocked for a week. Seraphimblade 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TiconderogaCCB 2nd

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

User:TiconderogaCCB

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by Suchagoodguy 04: 19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Comments

Conclusions

User:HarveyCarter

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Ashdog137 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User is continuing the pattern of vandalism to pages like James Stewart and John Wayne evidenced by User:HarveyCarter and his multiple socks -- making same libelous edits, etc.

Comments

Conclusions

Another of Harvey's many socks. IP blocked a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:opp2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Orchis29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
211.3.113.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

evidence for orchis29 sockpuppet abuse:

please compare ] and ], along with ]. note how linguistic style, contributions, and motives have striking parallels. furthermore, please see ]

evidence for 211 :

] this is so similar to orchid...and this: ]

Comments

I have made the following observations:

-Though I do not know if this is a common practice, but all these users employ the repetitive use of "--" as a prefix for their signatures. -I have also noticed the striking similarities of the edits and grammar of the user and his/her alleged sockpuppets. These sockpuppets have been used primarily as meatpuppets to support the arguments of opp2. -coincidentally, Orchid29 happens to add a single comment (supporting opp2) while not editing the article and focusing on other controversial ones, and 211 happens to do the same.

I admit that the evidence is weak, but I strongly believe that 211 and orchis29 are sockpuppets of opp2. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Probably, this report is on the line of hot contents disputes. If a reporter admit that "the evidence is weak", he/she should not file it. SSP is not a tool for setting a trap to an opponent. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (Oops, I and he also use of "--" as a prefix for signature...)

Comment -Interesting, because I'm preparing a RFC file for possible relations between Orchis29 and others especially KoreanShoriSenyou. There will be way more users and ip anons on my list than this report. Will see. SSP is the very tool for this occasion to sort out disruptive and abusive users for wikipedia. As far as I've known Nightshadow28 has used the SSP tool whether his suspicion is right or not. Odst left a comment about his suspicion over Opp2's sockpuppetry at the Liancourt rocks talk page. However, Nightshadow28 has never involved in editing or discussing problems arisen at Liancourt rocks at all after his account creation unlike Odst, Opp2, me, Orchis29 or others. Moreover, Nightshadow28 hadn't edited any article past 2 weeks. How does he find out this file case and come over here? Very odd and suspicious. Maybe, looking into Nightshadow28's contribution and ip address might be required as well.

In addition, the anon is on my list because its similar ip address of 211.3.120.150 who engaged in So Far from the Bamboo Grove, Category:Korean culture of Japanese origin, Category:Korean fruits (deleted after Japanese editors disputing its validity with User:Badagnani and nominating it for WP:CFD, See this ). The anon also involved in any related articles of Korean cuisine, Japanese cuisine, Japan-Korea relations, History of Korea, History of Japan, and so forth. The listed ip addresses below have a similarity on numbers to each other and shows same behavioral pattern in writing style and indicate the same network host and location: odn.ne.jp and Osaka.

211.3.113.58 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.113.201 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.113.222 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.115.5 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.115.79 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.115.175 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.117.83 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.120.28 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.120.150 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.122.122 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.123.111 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.124.26 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
211.3.126.231 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This case is needed to examine closely to see if the listed users have more accounts to prevent from abusing wikipedia with socketpuppetry. And I alway feel strange that Opp2 wants to look himself as if his English was not good. But tracing back to his early contribution, his English was much better than his current writing. If Opp2 is a sock, I think he deliberately writes contents with poor grammars to prevent himself suspicious. --Appletrees (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... According to point by Appletrees, the target of accusation seems to move to me. I am not a sockpuppet of others. Although Appletrees knows, recently I used WP:SSP for blocking an anon, who had done a tit for tat to administrators. Although Appletrees does not know, since a little relation to an arbitration, I watch Liancourt rocks. My comment could be found in the "Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New Rules of conduct" section in the talk page.
About anons - It seems not "OCN" but "ODN". And because it is completely unrelated to ISP for which the IP address which Appletrees showed uses by me, I relax very much. In addition, the "writing style" which is described by Appletrees is not concrete at all. Moreover its "interest" is not demonstrated. The width of the activity of me is not so narrow. At least, anon does not show interest to essays. :)
Pointing out that my activity is inactive by Appletrees, I will feel it as encouragement. But Appletrees, please remember it. The human who ate the fruit of knowledge, must drudge to buy a bread.
Finally, a happy new year. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I still feel odd about your sudden appearance here which gave me another thought and I said there is a possibility on your involvement and it is not warranted. The ip address I added are relevant to the anon at the top on Odst's list. If you were innocent, you don't need to worry about yourself. This case is all about Opp2, not you. And my report would focus on KoreanShoriSenyou rather than on Opp2. It is interesting for me to compare my interest (the above anons list) with Odst's. I consider whether adding you on my list has a merit or not. Your name is inscribed in my memory because of a banned user's desperate and vain tryings to prove guilty of you and your alley. All happenings related to him are little comical and intriguing to observers. I've been tracing back on his contribution history but it is very strange that any report related Opp2 (maybe 3 or 4 times) didn't always go through due to something bigger coming. The administrator (you know what I mean per your long observation) blocked an editor for his several unilateral edits on the article, but Opp2 has received just one sanction unlike the mentioned user's infinite block. Opp2 has caused highly disruptive and controversies and never obtained any consensus from editors but is always out of judgment. Don't try to defend him, the below list didn't go through but I think it is worth to look at them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bason0

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nightshadow28

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Opp2

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Opp2_%282nd%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Opp2

Will see what happens--Appletrees (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S Nightshadow, your wording is impressive, But Appletrees, please remember it. The human who ate the fruit of knowledge, must drudge to buy a bread. We all know that you and I are not using each other's native language, so please just use simple English instead of the creative maxim(?). A bread-> bread or a loaf of bread. Why don't you ask your friend with advanced English ability for proofreading? Happy New Year!?--Appletrees (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

The IP has only made two edits and Orchis29 about 19 edits, to several different articles. While these users are all interested in the same topics, there is little to prove they are the same user and violating WP:SOCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DrDelos

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--neonwhite user page talk 21:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Revision history of this article . SignOfTheTimes begins exactly where DrDelos left off adding the same source and edits the same way, especially the similar misunderstanding of reliable sources Has also made the same personal attacks.

Another identical edit made back in may and , there's also instances of user SignOfTheTimes claiming to be a 'representative' of the subject of the artical . also makes a similar claim to know the same subject and two instances here and of both asking users to email the same subject, not something i have seen any other editor request as it isn't policy to verify facts this way. --neonwhite user page talk 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Asking for input from SignOfTheTimes and DrDelos, neither was notified of this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

hi, this is signof the times, i am not a "sockpuppet" of drdelos nor is he of mine. we both have interest in the same pages being taken care of properly, as opposed to NeonWhite who is bullying all of the pages for some bizarre reason as opposed to a million of the other pages he could be overseeing, he chooses to pick on 3 of them. DrDelos and I happen to care for the same pages, we are both moderators on the same board, and the bands that we are watching the pages for, have asked us to try and keep the vandals that keep changing them (ie NeonWhite) away. So we are both working for the same people, the people that that the pages are about, if that makes any sense, and are not sock puppets of each other, hence why we are the same team. Hope that explains it.

sincerely, signofthetimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignOfTheTimes (talk • contribs)

Please cease the personal attacks, the pages were marked as needing work which i performed. What pages i decide to improve is no business of anyone but myself. There is no policy on what pages an editor may or may not improve. Please remember that editors do not own pages. All users are free to improve them. The only thing you are 'working for' on wikipeda is the improvement of the encyclopedia based on it's policies. You have admitted a WP:COI and neither account has acted appropriately in regard to this. Patterns of disruptive editing doesnt improve much. If your claims are true then this is simply meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry --neonwhite user page talk 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what the conflict of interest is. There is no "COI" in wanting the said pages information to be up kept, and , you are the ONLY person who is messing with it, and asking for a every single sentence to be verified to YOUR standards and your standards alone, when they are all FACTS about said performers and bands, and we gave you sources that YOU did not deem good enough, just because they didn't speak to Rolling Stone about it, does not make it untrue. As for "personal attacks", calling myself or DrDelos a meatpuppet is a personal attack as from your own definition : "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care." Just because another user and I care about the same pages does not make us sockpuppets or meatpuppets, please make this user stop harrassing us, and the pages we choose to care about and edit. He really has made this a personal vendetta for some reason. Sincerely, SignofTheTimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by SignOfTheTimes (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

While it is possible these two are socks, I am more inclined to think this is a case of two people interested in the same article. So I cannot block based on WP:SOCK at this time. This seems to me more of a case of content dispute and I urge the parties to use the Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution system. Also of concern are the claims by DrDelos and Signofthetimes that they know the subject (by itself not an issue) but are also acting on her behalf and at her request. Subjects of articles are not allowed to dictate article content. See WP:BLP. Also, user accounts are limited to one per person; they should not be used by more than one person and can not be used by an organization. Please heed. I'm posting this to DrDelos and Signofthetimes's user talk pages too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

— Coren 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Beyond the obvious relation between the names, both are SPA editing the same walled garden fringe theory, and support each other on talk, AfD and edit warring. I would have blocked myself were I not already involved with one of them. — Coren 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Confirmed by checkuser. Named socks blocked indefinitely, master account blocked for 1 week. Given the disruption and bad faith in evidence here, there should probably be a low threshold for extending the block to indefinite if problematic behavior resumes. MastCell 00:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:LimeTheSlime

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

~Ambrosia- 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

History of Lunia: Record of Lunia War.
All edits are exact same reverts of each other (adding non-free images back to page, changing language names) and neither leave comments.
Also, the suspected sockpuppet had only recently started editing again and has only edited the same page as said user.

Comments

Conclusions

LimeTheSlime is already indef-blocked as a vandal. If the IP returns to vandalizing, you can just report it to WP:AIV or let me know. MastCell 00:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:

Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets of France a