Knowledge (XXG)

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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

Report submission by

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The user name is a pretty obvious sock, evading a 24 hour block, after the user evaded the block by editing as an IP, pretending to now be a "new" editor to continue being contentious.

Comments

Conclusions

Couldn't be more obvious. Sock account indefblocked, IP blocked 24 hours. The Callipygian's block reset ... I was thisclose to indef'ing him, but given the limited number of contributions, indef would have been overwrought. Blueboy96 12:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Diamond Joe Quimby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Thomasalazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BradlyRM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EVHS (NNYDL) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evhs00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Martinez07‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AlbuCrazy‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Joe Diamond Thomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TexasPolitician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EVHSalazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.88.237.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.113.50.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.155.113.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.88.233.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.91.175.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

1. ... discospinster _talk 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
2. ... WikiDon (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

(From Discospinster)

Thomasalazar is a prolific contributor to articles about New Mexico subjects. While many of the contributions are useful, he has a habit of removing article maintenance tags, removing legitimate warnings from his talk page soon after they are placed, ignoring attempts to communicate, and leaving uncivil comments on others' talk pages. This habit appears to be afflicting other editors of New-Mexico-related articles.

Before any suspicion of sockpuppetry had occurred to me, I had logged a Wikiquette alert against Thomasalazar user in April: Knowledge (XXG):Wikiquette alerts/archive44#User:Thomasalazar. I later mention another user that I suspect of being a sock puppet (EVHS (NNYDL), who stopped editing after I brought it up).

The entry underneath it is from Diamond Joe Quimby making complaints against me. It is interesting to note that I had never come in contact with him/her prior to the Wikiquette alert being logged, leading me to believe that Thomassalazar is a sockpuppet of Diamond Joe Quimby (or vice versa).

Also, another user raised a Wikiquette concern about Diamond Joe Quimby just the day before mine here that indicates similar behaviour.

(From WikiDon)

I also accuse thomasalazar (talk · contribs) or resorting to sockpuppetry to remove tags:

• 75.88.237.163 here here here
• 76.113.50.208 See: History of talk page, BLOCKED: on 16:46, 23 May 2008 by Kinu (talk · contribs) (Block: 48 hours). He gets warned by multiple users and just removes, ignores, and goes on. ~
• 207.155.113.123 Used sockpuppet IP to vote on article for deletion herehere and here. (along with IP 76.113.50.208)

If you look at the edit histories of both BradlyRM and Thomasalazar (as well as Diamond Joe Quimby, EVHS (NNYDL), Evhs00, and the IPs; at least 20 IPs that I know of) you will see 95% similarities in both pages edited and content of the edits. Both like to upload images of same high school sports and association logos. The both receive the same warnings about 1) images, 2) removing tags from articles, 3) warnings about reverting articles, and 4) etiquette.

Both handles start their pages in very similar fashion:

1. 21:52, 10 February 2007 — Diamond Joe Quimby — (←Created page with ' Welcome To Diamond Joe Quimby's User Page Hello and welcome to my user page I am Diamond Joe Qui...')
2. 03:01, 10 March 2008 — Martinez07 — (←Created page with 'Hi Eric Martinez is my name. questions...comments..? Help us by improving our community school EVHS')
3. 16:16, 22 March 2008 — User:BradlyRM‎ — (←Created page with 'Hello My Name is Bradly')
4. 04:08, 2 April 2008 — User:Thomasalazar — (←Created page with 'Hello I'am Thomas Salazar Nice to be on here at Knowledge (XXG) :])

Additionally, if you look at some of the edit time+date stamps you'll see a nice pattern:

25 & 26 April 2008

BradlyRM starts at 03:55 on the 25th and edits through until he gets warned by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) several times around 01:01 to 01:24, deletes warnings and retires at 01:45 of 26th

Thomasalazar starts at 18:13 on the 26th and stop at 19:26; and retires when he is warned by Discospinster‎ (talk · contribs)

28 April 2008

Thomasalazar starts at 00:33; removed a Wikiquette alert from discospinster (talk · contribs) and stops

BradlyRM starts at 02:03 and ends at 02:06

Thomasalazar starts at 02:16 and ends at 02:19

Neither accounts edits until - May 2

2 May 2008

BradlyRM starts at 00:30 and ends at 03:25

Thomasalazar starts at 03:36; Makes this interesting remark against discospinster (talk · contribs) and stops at 05:30

ETC, ETc, Etc, etc,.....

BradlyRM never edits again after this point on May 2.

Since accusing Thomasalazar of being a sockpuppet, he has stopped editing (last edit 15:46, 2 June 2008). ~ WikiDon (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing today under: 76.113.50.208 (talk · contribs). All edits revereted. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Today, 12 June:

• Diamond Joe Quimby -> 03:31, 12 June 2008 to 04:06, 12 June 2008
• 76.113.50.208 -> 04:28, 12 June 2008 - to - 21:49, 12 June 2008
• Thomasalazar -> 21:55, 12 June 2008 (Removed warnings from user page.)

Today's user compare. IP4240207xx (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Violations

1. Using sockpuppets to evade being banned for removal of tags and notices
2. Violating the Knowledge (XXG) three revert rule (3RR) by using sockpuppets
3. Violating the Knowledge (XXG) Civility rule
4. Knowledge (XXG) Sockpuppetry to evade a block
5. Changing his user name (PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) to avoid this case and being banned

IP4240207xx (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC) ~ WikiDon (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Looking at the results of Usercompare, it seems very evident that Thomasalazar is a sock puppet of the primary account, I see 75 edits by it to Ben R. Lujan, 4 by User:Diamond Joe Quimby. The same with this article, User:76.113.50.208 has been also used quite a bit as well, as has User:75.88.237.163, User:207.155.113.123, and User:75.88.237.163 has also been used. I see a lot of combined edits by all the accounts, I'd add a link to the UserCompare results, but the tool seems to not be saving the results correctly. I can send the results to any administrator if they ask for them. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't stop with Thomasalazar, please block:
Diamond Joe Quimby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BradlyRM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EVHS (NNYDL) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evhs00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Martinez07‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
::Thank you. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lots of things going on here. Let me first say that I appreciate the several months of discretion and restraint by User:Discospinster who has been a model Admin in many ways. I also want to say that Thomasalazar is generally a benign but naive editor. He recently added a table itemizing every single state championship ever won by Los Alamos High School which was clearly lots of work. Mr. Salazar's big flaw is his stubborn insistence on his own way even in defiance of wikipedia convention and consensus. For instance, he keeps posting that copyrighted images of Sparky the Sundevil as if it were part of his school's logo. This type of activity is annoying for the people that have to deal with it. This needs to stop. But I believe that we can talk to him and make him a team player because I think that when he plays by the rules he does the community good.

I haven't (and won't) examine all of the umpteen alleged sock puppets. From what I've seen I believe that most of these probably are cases of sockpuppetry. Some cases may just be friends of Mr. Salazar or possibly other students from EVHS. I haven't had much experiences with sockpuppetry so I wouldn't know how to distinguish between the two. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I had a bad experience with the BradlyRM sock. In my experience, single-purpose accounts with one-track minds on obscure subjects of little general interest tend to be some of the most POV-pushing users on the site. He got all over my case for tagging for deletion a NN article about his school's rivalry with another. Greg hit it on the nose. The guy is generally benign, but woe onto he who reverts an edit of his. As far as distinguishing between the socks, it seems unlikely to me that he could recruit so many meatpuppets dedicated to topics on New Mexico and his high school. There's also a great deal of similarity on the user pages with the presidential candidate userboxes (some for John McCain, others for Barack Obama), the personal descriptions and the call to help the site. I don't want to see this guy banned per se, but if he stays, it's with the agreement that he sticks to a single account and stops with the POV-pushing and incivility. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas:

This appears to still be open, so I think it's worth noting that today, Diamond Joe Quimby changed his username to PoliticianTexas. Anyone surprised that one of the first things he did post-rename was remove the sockpuppet warnings from his talk page?

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

Oh, and he once again nominated himself for bureaucratship (poorly), which has already been reverted. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

21 June

Back again with several new accounts:

AlbuCrazy‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Joe Diamond Thomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TexasPolitician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EVHSalazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

New user name, same old sock puppet. ~ WikiDon (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
with additions by Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
and again Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Other IPs that have been used:

68.35.77.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.42.35.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.54.1.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.16.47.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.70.177.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.88.233.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.88.237.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.88.239.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.91.163.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.91.164.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.91.174.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.91.173.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.91.175.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.111.105.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.161.81.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.26.108.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.113.50.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.113.100.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.59.144.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.59.255.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.155.113.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.155.121.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
216.243.118.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

IP4240207xx (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Admission of Sock Puppetry:

This is good:

adds Sockpuppet tag to one of his sockpuppet accounts!

Does it again!

Translation: "Please ban me"

(at least I got a laugh out of those, and the request for adminship) ~ WikiDon (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Steve provided the results of the usercompare, and the editing patterns confirm that Thomasalazar is a sockpuppet of Diamond Joe Quimby. Thomasalazar has thus been indefinitely blocked by me (log). PeterSymonds (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Addendum Diamond Joe Quimby, now known as PoliticanTexas per a request for rename, has now been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry (log). Further intervention by a checkuser is probably unnecessary, but if further confirmation is needed then it's still open. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

DJQ was renamed to PoliticianTexas. All the named accounts were confirmed at RFCU as socks of someone, so all are blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Diamond Joe Quimby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thomasalazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BradlyRM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EVHS (NNYDL) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evhs00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Martinez07‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.88.237.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.113.50.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.155.113.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

~ WikiDon (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby

Violations

1. Using sockpuppets to evade being banned for removal of tags and notices
2. Violating the Knowledge (XXG) three revert rule (3RR) by using sockpuppets
3. Violating the Knowledge (XXG) Civility rule
4. Knowledge (XXG) Sockpuppetry to evade a block
5. Changing his user name to avoid this case and being banned

Comments

User had his account deleted and renamed in a attempt to avoid the sock puppet case and the possibility of being banned, to evade a block. ~ WikiDon (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

DJQ was renamed to PoliticianTexas. All confirmed as socks at CU. All blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Motorhead12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

Report submission by

TheChrisD 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Several edits of Motorhead12 are very similar to edits made by another sockpuppet: Motofan. and . Plus Motorhead had been a little too insistent that he is not a sockpuppet, with consistent removal and editing of the {{Sock]} tag. Motorfanatic also seems to be a sockpuppet - had started editing again not very long after Motorhead12 being temporarily blocked, as well as suddenly reverting Motorhead12's user page to an old form.

Comments

From analysis of contributions I would say it's likely that all four are the same. Flyhead and Motofan are linked by edits they made on June 12, and the others are linked to Motofan by similar usernames and interests. Just to be sure, I'll request a checkuser. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems the checkuser result has come back, with Motorhead12 and Motorfanatic being confirmed as sockpuppets of Motofan, and Propeller driven as a new sockpuppet of Flyhead. TheChrisD 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser (and pretty obvious in any case). All accounts blocked indefinitely. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Buddha24 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both accounts have exact same editing pattern on kobe. Buddha24 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I need to create a separate page for this report. (Note to self.)

Normally I would say there is not enough evidence linking the two accounts. However, this is really weird: the first edit on User talk:Ramblinmindblues is from Ramblinmindblues himself, saying "Thank you for your comments." The first edit on User talk:CinnamonCowgirl is from CinnamonCowgirl herself, saying "Thanks for your help and comments." I don't know what that means, but it looks suspicious. I'm ready to send this to checkuser. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand. These newbies are thanking other people for comments they will leave on the user talk page. That makes sense, but it's still a little unusual, so my suspicion stands. It would be equally odd, based on the discussion about "Removing uncited material" at Talk:Kobe Bryant, if they were the same person because they speak in two different tones, the way I read it. So I'm really not sure. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Suspicious also because Ramblinmindblues only had a few edits til April/May then got active, then CinnamonCowgirl starts and they both stop on the same day, June 12. I'm blocking CinnamonCowgirl and leaving the other one open. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.31.80.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.9.72.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.9.18.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.85.92.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

LotLE×talk 00:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Kossack4Truth June 2 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:3RRNB#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_71.130.194.163_.28talk.29_.28Result:_48_hour_block_.29

Kossack4Truth May 20 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_.28Result:_blocked_24_hours.29

Fovean Author May 26 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Fovean_Author_reported_by_User:Bobblehead_.28Result:_24_hour_block_.29

Fovean Author restoration of Kossack4Truth material after 3RR block of latter:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Barack_Obama&diff=216735290&oldid=216630064
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=216742438

Accounts make identical edits on Barack Obama, and nearly exclusively on that page, generally as soon as one reaches 3RR limit. When one is blocked, the other takes up the edit war. Kossack4Truth was recently blocked (for second time) for 3RR on that page, at which time Fovean Author restored the material Kossack4Truth was 3RR'd for.

Kossack4Truth indicates on his/her user talk page that s/he is traveling today, and so allegedly unaffected by block. Traveling (if true) also makes it likely that s/he is using a different (temporary) IP address at that remote location. Traveling comment diff

WorkerBee74 is a new account added June 1, that also edits exclusively on the Barack Obama (talk) page, and that "argues" for the positions of blocked Kossack4Truth and Fovean Author, including stating the intended poll votes of those blocked accounts.

68.31.80.187 has only made edits supporting "polls" on Talk:Barack Obama. Other IP addresses all follow the same pattern of only having edits that are votes on polls on same article talk page.

Comments

Checkuser request (excluding Fovean Author and Andyvphil): Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth2

Any reason to not tie that request to the ForveanAuthor and 64.45.236.60 accounts, blocked for sock puppetry? Wikidemo (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth. While I still think it was likely an inconclusive result, Fovean Author was just blocked for 6 months for sockpuppetry using another IP address, in any event. The prior checkuser request did not request checks of all the other possible socks of K4T. I wish I would have had a better sense on the checkuser request procedure a month ago; but this seems like the right thing to request now. LotLE×talk 08:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that in addition to Forvean Author being blocked for sock puppetry (is there a link to anyplace where that action is explained?) there are two other new reports, Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009 and Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/216.153.214.89. That makes a total of four SSP reports and two confirmed sockpuppet operators on the Obama page in the past several days. It's only natural to wonder if some of these are related, and whether a narrowly focused checkuser might miss some of the connections. Maybe it's best to ask for guidance from a seasoned admin / checkuser operator. With two confirmed sockpuppets on one of the most important articles in the encyclopedia at the moment, I think there's a good case to be made for sorting it out once and for all in an orderly way. Wikidemo (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: As the initiator of this report, I do not belive that Andyvphil is a sockpuppet of Kossack4Truth. He has a similar range of opinions, but neither edit history nor tone on talk page indicate to me that it is the same person. LotLE×talk 05:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• That IP editor, like Workerbee and Kossack4Truth coins a group insult for those objecting to disparaging information: this time the "Whitewash Brigade". Wikidemo (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• WorkerBee74 seems fishy. Brand new account, in first edit creates userpage with"So how do I get started?". Yet a few edits later is fully in the fray, participating in polls and talking about BLP and the BLP noticeboard. Fast start indeed. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• On the Obama campaign talk page Workerbee74 claims to invent term "Obama campaign volunteers" to describe people opposing insertion of derogatory material into Obama article, and repeats the term (and sometimes, "campaign workers") many times. Kossack4Truth takes the term as well. Both make many comments about wanting to include the term "unrepentant terrorist" in the Obama article in connection to William Ayers, and take up related causes with similar arguments in similar laguage. At the minimum, WorkerBee is a possible meatpuppet. Kossack4Truth also engaged in possible canvassing, and at a minimum widespread notifications, of people to participate in a a poll on how much about Bill Ayers to put into the Obama bio article. As vociferous participants in the vote (the vote has its own issues), if these are meatpuppets or sockpuppets this runs the risk of slanting and degrading an important article. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - I have just notified the three accused accounts. In the future, if you start a sock puppet report you should give a courtesy notice to each accountholder, e.g. {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=Kossack4Truth}}. - Wikidemo (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Andyvphil, long time contentious editor (4 blocks since December, 2 on Obama article), using similar language, making edits in support of same material, has also adopted phrase "Obama campaign volunteers". Makes accusations of administrator dishonesty similar to Fovean Author (see below). If not sockpuppeting, this would seem to be meatpuppeting or some other game.Wikidemo (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Nah. We just agree that you're POV pushers, probably volunteers for the Obama campaign, editing disruptively and tendentiously, and distorting Knowledge (XXG) policy. That's all. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I added two more IP accounts that are being used for voting purposes on Talk page polls. There is obviously a ton of politically motivated garbage going on with this article. My proposal: do a checkuser, block whatever turns up, and then fully protect the article until after the Presidential election. An encyclopedia is not a current events blog anyway. Life.temp (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 48 hrs. Next incidents of edit-warring could trigger escalating blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In reply top comments made on user talk pages, the block was made on the basis of what seems a block evasion attempt. Even if a WP:RFCU is performed and results are inconclusive, the block is warranted as the Fovean Author was making the exact same edit reversions, while the other user was blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet, you have never held any Obama supporter to this standard - why is that? Fovean Author (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Kossack4Truth and FoveanAuthor are not the same. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10

35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The first and second cases resulted in blocks to three accounts; this is block evasion to continue fighting the same argument. Grandscribe's account was created eight days after the last indef sockblock, and immediately jumped into the same dispute, editing exclusively within the context of the current Linux-GNU/Linux naming debate. Grandscribe's idiosyncratic writing style has gradually gotten closer to that of the previous SPAs, most evidently on Talk:Linux, with a spat on Talk:gNewSense. Particular red flags are the latching onto WP:JIMBOSAID as official policy (Grandscribe: ; blocked sock Lightedbulb: ) and the bizarre conspiracy theory that opposing editors are working on behalf of the Linux Mark Institute (Grandscribe: ; blocked sock Midnightcrow: )

Comments

Left this for a good long time before reporting because Grandscribe appeared less interested in edit warring or in flagrant personal attacks than the previous personas. However, they've converged, and the conspiracy theories have started being trotted out again.

User Chris Cunningham (Thumperward) has been constantly provoking meWP:BITE, a new user because I do not agree with his point of view. It is all documented in the archives of the discussions. I have not broken any of wikipedia rules. On the other hand it can be shown that user Chris Cunningham has been aggressively provoking me with threats of suck puppetry. He is engaged in a heated discussion on the linux talk page where arguments from all sides are expressed. Both give comments that may heated at times. Chris Cunningham targets me because I have been on the other side of the dispute over the naming of the OS that uses the GNU system and the linux kernel. There is no reason or justification for blocking me from access to the site. Again I have not done anything that merits that.I have respected all wikipedia policies. I ask all serious and honest administrators to watch this and rather to take actions against this user Thumperward for his obvious self serving attacks against users that do not share his Point Of View.--Grandscribe (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I had asked kindly back in 20th May to consider other articles as I wanted to see if there was any hope (I *love* RMS, have actually emailed him twice on suit-level licensing issues and I have a bias towards using GNU/GPL) but...not a chance. All Grandscribe has done is chat lots, kick off 1 x revert edit war on Linux (I warned them ), and 1 x revert for what I think is WP:POINT here . That's it - Since march around 200 edits, all to talk except 4 reverts. Grandscribe is awfully quick with the Wikilawyering but slow with tangible article space edits. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can show the evidence that Ttiotsw did not ask me kindly anything. He simply did come to my page with to provoke. All administrators can see he is doing that even on this page.WP:BITEI did not start any edit war.--Grandscribe (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You should also read WP:AAGF. Facts are that your first set of edits in article space (i.e. not the talk space) in the two months or so since you joined were for 3 edit/reverts within 1 day to Linux. I wasn't part of that little revert war so I felt OK in using the 3rr template on your talk page. If you do not like what it says then complain on the user template page as those words are templated. My previous note to you was to kindly look at editing other Linux related articles as you were just all talk. OTOH, what I say back to you on my own talk page is up to me and WP:BITE is for *NEW* users having problems with articles and stuff. You've been editing for a few months now. You are NOT a new user. (note to self: must see the vet about this horse as it's not moving very fast.).Ttiotsw (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What is Grandscribe accused of? I don't know if one person controls both accounts. I've never really considered it, but putting that possibility aside for a minute, since Bald Eagle hasn't edited since Feb 15th, what would it matter if the guy who controlled Bald Eagle back in February is the guy who now controls Grandscribe? Gronky (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr, have you even read WP:SOCK? The previous accounts were blocked for contentious editing and flagrant personal attacks. You don't get to just pick a new user name and jump back in if your account gets indefinitely blocked. Both me and Ttiotsw gave Grandscribe a chance and requested that, given his history, it might be a good idea to avoid contentious editing and ludicrous personal assaults, to be treated to wikilawyering about WP:BITE and a complete failure to change tack. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User Thumperward never sent me any request. From the day I gave my comments with a position contrary to his POV he started the WP:BITE in the discussion page. User Ttiotsw came to my page to provoke WP:BITE. I have not done anything wrong. On the other hand if any admin looks at the archived comments he will see that some editors who share Thumperward's POV constantly use inappropriate language. They never received a single warning or request to change their tone. --Grandscribe (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On the 20th May I said where I commented that you should edit some articles. I linked a few policies I said I wouldn't have bothered but I noted that on the 1st April you had said this. That to me indicated a reasonable awareness of "RFC" and "consensus" (your words) only 4 days after you posted your first talk post to Knowledge (XXG) on Linux. New users don't usually do that. New users pick some articles, do some edits, sometimes OK, sometimes not, then settle down to a pattern of edits to talk and articles according to their interests. I think my waiting 6 weeks of watching you edit one article's talk space only is enough delay for you to not be deemed a new user. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(replying to Thumperward) That doesn't answer my question. The only link here about a ban is the link showing that "Midnightcrow" has been blocked from making new accounts. So, if the person who used to use that account is the same person who now uses the Grandscribe account (we'll leave that to be determined later, if necessary), can you link to something to show that the person who owned the "Midnightcrow" account (rather than the account itself) is never allowed make accounts on Knowledge (XXG) ever again? (I'm not saying such doesn't exist, but you haven't linked to any evidence of such, and I can't find it and I would find lifetime bans very strange if they existed in Knowledge (XXG) policy.) --Gronky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I should add that I don't see any of the accounts you mentioned on the Knowledge (XXG):List_of_banned_users. (The difference between a block and a ban is worth noting) --Gronky (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User Tiotsw shows again that he is here only to provoke WP:BITE and to try to link me to a banned user. I am NOT a sock puppet. And I have NEVER done ANYTHING to be banned. The only reason for these false accusations is that Tiotsw is trying to silence an editor who does not agree with the unjustified massive removal of the GNU and GNU/linux from wikipedia. Something he clearly supports. There are editors who defend those removals who have even used VERY offensive and coarse language. Tiotsw or Thumperward never complained against those editors simply because they share the same Point of view.--Grandscribe (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I waited 6 weeks before I advised you to look at WP:SPA. I think over a month and a half is a reasonable time period. I have read WP:BITE; it really only applies to users who actually edit articles. You don't. That is the problem. Be bold!. Ttiotsw (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think that Grandscribe would be damned if he did. He's damned now he don't. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If we assume good faith then a change in behaviour is the best possible answer. Why doesn't he just look at changes or missing ?. It's easy to find stuff to edit. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course. Were Grandscribe disposed to prove his good faith he should easily be able to do so. But there is no obligation on him to do so. To the contrary, the obligation is on us to assume good faith. Now, possibly GS could post in a way that would help us a little more to do that but I don't see that he has crossed any behavioural lines in a particularly serious way. And others happily provoke him (back?): I don't understand why the testiness and intolerance and intemperance of some editors here is allowed on the basis that they do good work elsewhere on the encyclopaedia. I would prefer all just behave well (and better than me). I'm with you: I would prefer it if Grandscribe were a contributor to scores of articles, and who knows, maybe he is  :-) Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whether anyone is or is not a sock puppet. Grandscribe has, on occasion at Talk:Linux, been intemperate but he is hardly alone. Grandscribe has not yet done anything to deserve a ban. I suggest we WP:AGF for the time being and back off. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that about sums up my position on the matter. —mako๛ 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I'm just leaving a note to say I've read the discussion above. I'll need to review some diffs and logs before I decide whether to request a checkuser. It looks like some people want to AGF and leave well enough alone, and I'll sleep on that. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've listed this for checkuser, Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Bald Eagle. Whenever there is evidence that a blocked user has returned with a new account, please request checkuser. Jehochman 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser case returned Stale on 26 June. (There is no remaining data on Bald Eeagle to compare to, which is logical since this is the first time a CU was requested, and Bald Eeagle has been indef blocked since February). I hope anyone who is watching this report who thinks further action is needed will jump in here. If anyone thinks that an open-and-shut case for Grandscribe=Bald Eeagle can be made using behavioral data, this is the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing as inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Crevaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
OldRightist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AmeriCan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Deaniack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thefreemarket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cenarium 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Most of them have similar userpages and userboxes, none of them have voted in a mfd before and have literally jumped on this mfd: . They also have similar center of interests as shown by the subpages of Voldemore, userbowes and contributions. Cenarium 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Note also that two users had problems signing, see these diffs: and . Cenarium 15:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional evidence, albeit circumstantial; with the exception of that bundle of edits, have not actually contributed since. Ironholds 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional: Look at the timing for their edits: 0:17, 0:50, 0:57, 1:12 and then 3:39 and 3:49 respectively. Ironholds 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'd advise asking someone with the Checkuser ability to find if they've been editing from the same/similar IP addresses. Ironholds 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deaniack's userpage is not similar at all with the others. OhanaUnited 15:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the recommendations from WP:RCU, posting a CU request would be premature now. Indeed, the profile of Deaniack is not that similar, and the user has no deleted contributions. Note the creation log however, 1 may 2007, while 30 April 2007 for the FreeMarket and 29 April 2007 for Voldemore. Cenarium 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The contributions are similar, for example, some are related to MSNBC, diffs: , , , or Fox news, diffs: , , , , , etc. Cenarium 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous! OldRighist, Voldemore, Thefreemarket, Deaniack, and AmeriCan are all friends of mine. I introduced them to Knowledge (XXG). A few of them tell each other about articles that need some editing that's all. Voldemore emailed us about the userpage/subpage issue and asked for some help. -- Crevaner (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

if that's true it's still a no-no; you've all posted edits biased by your friendship with Voldemore, posting a particular viewpoint regardless of its validity and thereby disrupted a wikipedia procedure. Ironholds 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. I for one didn't know that was a violation of rules. OK, I'll tell the others. We won't do something like that again. At least, I won't be a part of it. -- Crevaner (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's common sense! Articles for Deletion is based on people with neutral points of view debating it. If anyone was allowed to call in all their friends with a wiki account to vote nothing would ever be done fairly. Ironholds 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Assuming Crevaner is telling the truth (and not just Voldemore trying not to be banned) i suggest a formal warning to the accounts involved about neutrality and so on, and the dismissal of the case. I'll be keeping an eye on the accounts involved for a few months just to check, and i've also requested their votes be discounted from the deletion since they obviously cant be trusted as even having read the page involved. Ironholds 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• I can't speak for the others. But I did read the userpage involved and I genuinely believe it is not a violation of policy. Just out of curiosity, is there an official policy on collaborations with regard to deletion votes? -- Deaniack (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I'm posting on WP:AN/I about this, as admins should sort this out (and it will get more attention there). The discussion may be found here. 5:15 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The relevant pages are WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS. In this case, since the users weren't recruited specifically to stack the votes, it's not a particularly egregious violation, but canvassing your wikifriends for extra votes is not that cool, especially if you know them IRL. Since the matter has already resolved itself, and since I think the users in question really didn't realize they were doing anything inappropriate, I'm inclined to just let them know this sort of thing is frowned upon, and leave it at that. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I also don't think any further measure is needed at this point, but the users are warned. Using stealth canvassing in an attempt to sway consensus in a community debate is against our policies. Cenarium 23:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• It's not appropriate to talk of meatpupetry in this case, the users are not new, but have edited for a while. The possibility of sockpuppetry cannot be definitely discarded but assuming good faith, the explanation given is acceptable, so I'm probably going to close this after a reasonable period of time. Cenarium 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Its probably a good idea for an admin to warn them on their talk pages. 5:15 00:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I, or another admin, may warn them at some point, but in lights of new information, assuming good faith is not an option any more. It doesn't seem to be an isolated incident, so a checkuser will be filled soon. Cenarium 01:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• If the users are seperate meatpuppets who have been warned before rather than suspected sockpuppets will checkuser help? After all, they could be posting from completely different IP ranges. Ironholds 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• User:Cenarium has filed a checkuser case at Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Voldemore. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed that the users have the same IP, as well as Trojanian (talk · contribs) and Reid1967 (talk · contribs). All users have been bocked indefinitely. Cenarium 13:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Same old same old.

Comments

In other words, sockpuppet of banned user Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I agree with this, per the similar edits by another user reported earlier today by ScienceApologist with the same editing profile. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The account is consistent with other Davkal socks, and this time it was successful in getting SA blocked, which appears to be his current goal. PhilKnight (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I gather the Community doesn't mind Davkal and his two (three given recent events) enablers continuing to disrupt talkpages? Shot info (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

To EdJohnston: The other SSP case was for Clarityschmarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Will blocking the IP do any good? Maybe. The risk of collateral damage seems low because it has never edited before. I'd suggest blocking for two weeks to a month and tagging the userpage as a Davkal sock. I think the link between the IP and Clarityschmarity is solid. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm persuaded. I've blocked the IP one month and tagged it as a Davkal sock. Closing this report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Threop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Stem Pressure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (account created by Threop, Scibaby sockpuppets have a well-known habit of creating new sock accounts with his old sock accounts

Report submission by

Oren0 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Identical to previous Scibaby socks:

Comments

Conclusions

Raul654 indef-blocked them both. I concur that on behavioral evidence Threop is acting like Scibaby. I guess Raul654 has not quit on the Scibaby affair after all. :) Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 04:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ryan2845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

TJones05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
170.252.248.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.136.205.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.77.95.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Ryan2845 became involved an edit war at Kansas Jayhawks. After performing four identical reverts: (1, 2, 3, 4) on June 20th he was warned about 3RR by myself (). Fourteen minuets after I warned him and eleven minuets before he removed the warning on his talk page () an anon (64.136.205.87) performed the same revert (). Several editors undid this reversion causing another anon (User talk:63.77.95.90|63.77.95.90) . the anon edits were reverted again then one more anon 170.252.248.203 makes the same rv. This was also reverted. Finally User:TJones05 was created and performed the exact same rv as the anons here. This was TJones only edit.

Comments

Yes I admit that a couple, but not ALL of those are me. Others are simply KU fans that are fighting this unnecessary edit to this page. You simply do not understand the situation. This typical sports rivalry bullsh*t. Fans of Kansas State University like rub in that KU is on probation to make us angry or to put down our university. He has cleverly deceived you to make it seem like this information belongs on this page.

Those edits do not fit the page whatsoever. The page is a list of accomplishments of the university's teams. Not a rap sheet! No other sports articles such as this include the MANY NCAA offenses.

I have never purposefully sockpuppeted before, and won't again. I'm washing my hands of this situation and moving on.

Ryan2845 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an argument about the edit war/page content, I don't have a particularly strong opinion about that. This is an argument about whether or not you violated Knowledge (XXG)'s sockpuppetry and 3RR rules, and by your own admission above you did.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my apologies. What is my penalty here? I'm hoping not a ban on those IP addresses, because one is my place of work (aka several thousand people on that IP)

I do not plan on breaking the rules again now that I am aware of the consequences.

I'm not sure what an admin will decide, but usually all involved accounts are banned for a certain period of time. However since you've shown remorse an admin might take that into account. As far as you being aware the consequences, perhaps not, but you were certainly aware of the rules. That said I think you're genuine in your apologies, so some advice, when editing it has been my experience that being logged is generally helpful. Editors treat you with less suspicion and your edit history is freely available. When involved in controversies, edit wars, and consensus forming you should probably always uses the same account, ip address, or at least disclose your multiple identities relationships. Anyways, at Kansas Jayhawks I understand your defense and I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but since several editors have expressed complete disagreement an reverted your edits, its best to use the talk page, before reverting, especially if you've already been warned about the 3RR. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I gladly accept your constructive criticism and will be sure to heed your advice in the future. I just got a little hot headed and wasn't thinking straight.

Once again, my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan2845 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that a user with ip 99.10.87.254 has just removed the material involved in the edit war again. I just want to state for the record that it was NOT me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan2845 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say to the admins that while I admit I broke the rules, I was only doing so because I was attempting to protect the page from what I STILL see as vandalism. I've been protecting that page from vandals for months. None the less, I know I broke the rules and will accept whatever punishment. Again, my apologies. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I quote from the blocking policy:

"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Knowledge (XXG), not to punish users. (Footnote: Blocks are not punitive in the sense that they aren't retribution. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment.)"

"Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating."

Based on the letter and spirit of the policy, I see no reason to block Ryan2845. He acknowledged his mistake, and to the best of my knowledge, from reviewing his logs, this is his first offense. I will leave this page open for another few days to make sure that no further shenanigans occur on the Kansas Jayhawks page, then assuming that settles down, I or an administrator will close this page with no further action. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing this report per Shalom's recommendation. If problems recur with this editor, or strange editing happens on the Kansas Jayhawks article, the report can be reopened. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

SauceClone1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SauceClone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SauceClone3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SauceClone4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Enigma 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User not even attempting to hide that he's a sock.

Comments

I reported to AIV, but they won't block. This is clear block evasion. Checkuser may reveal additional sockpuppets (see User:Sandlaeors, for example), the previous RfCHU didn't really go anywhere.

• I just added Sauceclone2, 3 and 4 in the list of suspected sockpuppets above. Of these, only 2 has made any edits (I believe they are unconstructive but don't know anything about Dragon Ball so can't be sure). --Bonadea (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Permablocks all around. The rest of the Canpop (talk · contribs) meatpuppets remain unblocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

This is another Davkal puppet. You may wish to do a checkuser to get the proxy under which he is editing too: otherwise he's liable to start a new account.

Comments

I'm not familiar with Davkal, but this looks like somebody's sock/SPA from the way it posts immediately on Fringe theories with no prior edit history. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Obvious, disruptive sock. Clearly not a new editor, and this account is being used disruptively and uncivilly to influence an ongoing policy discussion. Blocked indefinitely. I think Davkal is likely the puppeteer, but it's largely academic. MastCell  21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

NAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
77.42.188.194 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Lebanon)
77.42.189.201 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Lebanon)
63.216.121.20 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (U.S.)
77.42.184.152 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Lebanon)
71.108.23.234 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (U.S.)
71.108.11.56 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (U.S.)
71.108.27.113 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (U.S.)
63.216.119.41 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (U.S.)
77.42.181.248 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Lebanon)

Report submission by

MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Ten months ago, Klaksonn was blocked due to his persistent incivility and disruptive editing. He had a penchant for editing topics that were controversial between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, pushing the Shi'a point of view, and had quite a short fuse. This was due to winners such as religious slurs against other Muslims, and telling users to eff off amongst other things over simple editing disputes; this came in addition to the editing by a number of IP addresses signing as Klaksonn and editing the same articles, though i've been unable to look through the four months worth of material for it, also throwing out religious/ethnic slurs against Jewish people as well. The above examples are just some of his more foul mouthed rants, but what he was really distinguished for was his pointed wit which was quite apparent.
So he was blocked, and flash forward to now. A number of anonymous IP addresses as mentioned began with a similar biting comments about other Muslims began appearing. My eyebrow was raised, however, when the new account mentioned started up with similar biting comments and multiple insances of throwing out the same religious slur. Theguy further went on to make comments to an admin involved in the editing disputes that, among other things, my entire time on Knowledge (XXG) has been spent here pushing a hatefull Wahhabi POV as is evidence in my contributions and user page history. How is this ostensibly new user so familiar with my editing history and user page history, and using the same type of writing mannerisms as Klaksonn?
I have only posted a few diffs for the sake of space here. I feel those alone are sufficient, however the editing histories of Klaksonn, NAccount, and the IP addresses serve as further evidence as well. Just take a few moments to peruse; not only his edit summaries but also his talk page comments contain the same passive aggressive tone, the same tired religious slurs, and the same fixation on my edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:AN#Al-Azhar University vandal

The first available administrator is requested to do the following:

1. Indef-block User:NAccount. He is clearly a disruptive POV pusher who makes personal attacks. The contribution log strongly suggests he is a sockpuppet as alleged. I can go into more detail if it's necessary.
2. Semi-protect Al-Azhar University, a favorite target of this editor. If other articles need to be semi-protected, please list them. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Shalom, could you please give more details? I have actually been looking at the history of Al-Azhar University, and the anon's edits there do not seem to be that out of line. I agree that there is some disruptive behavior, but I'm seeing that on the part of MezzoMezzo as well, so I want to make sure that we are not just "blocking an opposing view". Also, MezzoMezzo, could you please post a link to this SSP page, at the talkpage of all of the above accounts, including Klaksonn? Yes he's blocked, but others may be watching his talkpage, who would be interested in this report. Thanks, Elonka 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Elonka. If you look carefully at Special:Contributions/NAccount, you can see the first few edits:

1. 16:34, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:NAccount‎ (←Created page with '{{userpage}}')
2. 16:34, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N User talk:NAccount‎ (←Created page with 'Leave a message.')
3. 16:35, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Al-Azhar University‎ (NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear)
4. 16:39, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Aziz al-Abub‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
5. 16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) 'Amr ibn al-'As‎ (maybe you should read the source first before imposing your hateful POV)
6. 16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ali Atwa‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
7. 16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Hassan Izz-Al-Din‎ (stalking me now?)
8. 16:45, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) 'Amr ibn al-'As‎ (→573? – 610: Early Life: added material from the source you like so much)
9. 16:45, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ibrahim Hussein Berro‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
10. 16:46, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ghaleb Awwali‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
11. 16:46, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Imad Mughniyah‎ (NPOV)

These edits were followed by a half-hour break. The first two edits, in the same minute, were intended to create blue-links for the userpage and talk page. I know that sockpuppeteers do this because I did it myself last year. This is viewable only to admins, but Elonka, you're an admin so you can see it. Last year when I was suffering from mental illness I created a number of sockpuppets, as I later explained here. One of those sockpuppets was Dodo Gogo (talk · contribs) to impersonate administrator Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs). I started randomly reverting good edits, but before I did that, I made a meaningless edit to my userpage so that my username would show up as a blue link in the recent-changes, and people would not be suspicious why a redlinked username is reverting lots of edits. It didn't take long for an admin to catch me anyway. I learned in my months doing sockpuppet investigations that other sockpuppets think alike, and will turn their userpages and talk pages into blue links in order to avoid the curious questions of "Who is this new user?" That's evidently what NAccount was thinking. Then, one minute after creating his userpage and talk page, NAccount edits Al-Azhar University with a personal attack in the edit summary. In five of the next edits, all within a 12-minute period, NAccount leaves an edit summary of "stalking me now, Wahhabi?" or "stalking me now?" It is plainly obvious that this user arrived with an agenda and immediately came to push forward that agenda. He is not an innocent new user. My experience from welcoming new users on recent-changes patrol is that all truly new users arrive with some degree of tentativeness. Even User:CreepyCrawly, who was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet because he didn't appear like a new editor on the global warming article, showed signs of not knowing exactly how everything works, and edited at a reasonably slow rate in his first hours here. This editor, in contrast, makes 11 edits in his first 12 minutes on the site, all with a very clear agenda. He should be blocked as a sockpuppet without regard to who the sockpuppeteer might be. I think, based on the pattern of personal attacks, that this is the same person as most or all of the IP addresses cited above, but I have not checked this rigorously so I am not certain. Regardless, semi-protection seems warranted for any articles frequently targeted by this guy. Only Al-Azhar University has been edited in more than one of these contrib logs, so I can't think of other articles to semi-protect, but others who are more familiar with the situation might have suggestions. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that the account was created to be deceptive. I had actually asked the anon to create an account, rather than bouncing from IP to IP, so it would be easier to communicate. That's one of the reasons why I wouldn't like to immediately block the account as a sockpuppet. Even if it does turn out to be Klaksonn, that account has been blocked for several months. It is my opinion that if NAccount is willing to moderate his behavior, post in a civil manner, provide reliable sources, and stick to using one account, that it may be worth giving him another chance. So far his behavior has been (slowly) improving, which is why I'd like to make a sincere effort to work with him. However, I do agree that if he's just going to pop in and be uncivil and make unreasonable reverts though, then I would have no trouble with blocking him. --Elonka 23:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If it really is Klaksonn, take a look at his block log. I'm not completely comfortable with letting this guy return through a back door without owning up to what he did. However, if you think you can take control of the situation, I trust you to give your best effort. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

His last comments regarding this issue were to call me a pusher of "9/11 Wahhabi Islam". I'm personally a bit offended by that and wouldn't call it an improvement. That's not the kind of language that should be tolerated on here, especially from an editor that is obviously not unfamiliar with site policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I too have been on the receiving end of NAccount's abuse under several of his anonymous IPs, and I've had a chance to see his handiwork up close. I've also reported his disruptive activities twice on the Adminstrator's noticeboard. Here's a quick summary of some of his antics:

1)Inserting inflammatory POV material without bothering to support it with any reference(s).

2)Tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy references behind a slanderous POV phrase to lend an air of credibility to said POV phrase (see my analysis on how I know those sources are bogus here).

3)Mocking fellow editors.

4)Altering sourced material so that it reads differently but still looks sourced, and reverting subsequent edits other editors have made to those initial changes -- all with no explanation.

5) Removing wanted terrorists from Wiki categories that identify them as such. Here is yet another example of this. NAccount did this quite a few times.

And that's just the half of it. There's more info on this user's shenanigans on the Al-Azhar University talk page and here.

I'd also like to point out that in most of my dealings with this user, I've addressed him, based on the similarity of edits on different but related pages, as though it were a forgone conclusion that he was all of the aforementioned anonymous IPs, and not once did he bother denying this. I think that, in and of itself, is very telling. Given all of the forgoing, I also strongly recommend an indefinite block on User:NAccount, and page protection on the Al-Azhar University and 'Amr ibn al-'As pages in particular. Causteau (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I agree with you that the anon has made some questionable edits, especially as regards removing the Terrorist category from a couple articles of known terrorists. However, the anon was also removing that category in good ways as well, such as removing the category from biographies where there were no solid sources that the individual was ever called a terrorist. Especially when dealing with BLP subjects, removing such a category is absolutely correct to do, and it's actually disruptive for people to put the category back, as MezzoMezzo did, since that is a violation of BLP. As for the edits at Al-Azhar University, yes there was an edit war, but it went both ways. For example, Causteau, you too were removing sourced information, and doing so with inflammatory edit summaries. where you were making personal attacks and accusing someone of "slander". Do you see the irony in your edit summary here, where you said, "quit trying to make this personal; you just replaced a sourced, direct quote for some ambiguous, unsupported statement and tacked on a bunch of worthless, unrelated sources behind it; see talk page"? or "my POV? you've got some nerve; you post a bogus, unsupported, inflammatory statement, and when called on it, cite a bunch of sources that don't even support your initial bogus statement! see talk page" So it's a bit WP:KETTLE for you to be accusing the anon of being the disruptive element here. Please, I'd like everyone to calm down, and as FayssalF said, remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF. --Elonka 13:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at Elonka. I've already clearly admitted to you to having been uncivil at times toward that anonymous guy. Where have I denied it? What I did do was point out on your talk page that NAccount was the first to address me in a rude fashion, which I'm of course right about since time stamps readily prove it.

He was the first to turn the discussion personal on the Al-Azhar University history page:

1) no, actually they do; read them again and don't push it (date: 13:40, 30 May 2008 -> he drew first blood)

2) stop pushing your POV; they say "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt" (date: 13:50, 30 May 2008)

3) fixed; your intentionally disinformative version implies that Azhar became Sunni by choice, and gradually (date: 14:10, 30 May 2008)

4) you're pushing it; see talk (date: 14:46, 30 May 2008)

5) get a life (date: 17:24, 30 May 2008)

6) talk about POV; I'm sure the administrators are wise enough to actually check the sources instead of listening to you (date: 06:22, 1 June 2008)

7) rvv; stop pushing your POV and respect the source, which is Encyclopedia Britannica; also, I don't remember reaching a consensus (date: 23:50, 1 June 2008)

8) NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear (date: 16:35, 2 June 2008)

He was also the first to introduce incivility on the talk page:

Egyptians were Shi'a Muslims and when Saladin removed the Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam, they became Sunnis. Doesn't it mean that he converted them? Do you know the meaning of convert? (date: 13:53, 30 May 2008)

In short, NAccount was the first to be rude and uncivil in our dealings; it was he that opened up that particular can of worms. He is not a victim in all this since he initiated that very behavior. His rudeness also wasn't just confined to the Al-Azhar University history or talk pages either, but can be found on other Wiki pages as well. Call me crazy, but I refuse to be spoken to like that by anyone. And what about NAccount's attitude toward Mezzo? When he referred to Mezzo repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4) as "Wahhabi" -- is that not a religious slur? Does that not count for anything? You also write that I replaced sourced material in my reversions of NAccount's edits. That is not entirely accurate. I only twice (1, 2) reverted sourced material; the rest of the time, I was removing untrue POV statements backed by dummy sources, as I've already fully explained on the Al-Azhar talk page. I don't know if you've been reading my posts on your talk page or not, but I've already addressed this matter there too: literally one sentence differentiates NAccount's latest version of the Al-Azhar University page from mine, and that sentence is a direct quote. So what we have here is NAccount repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) replacing a sourced, direct quote I put in simply because it didn't fit his agenda with statements that were more to his liking, nevermind the fact that a) my direct quote was drawn from a source that he himself picked out, b) it was in place well before it ever occurred to him to include his own properly referenced direct quote, and c) both Mezzo and I also consider that version far preferable to his. Lastly, the "slander" I was referring to was the fact that NAccount repeatedly attempted to insert a blatantly untrue POV statement about Saladin -- a statement which NAccount also happened to have personally authored -- charging that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". NAccount did this a record of 6 times on the Al-Azhar University page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

He first did this without even bothering to include a source i.e. pure original research. Then, when I called him on it, he began tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy sources after the phrase to create the illusion that what he was saying was factual instead of the the POV it was and is. And I know his sources for the above statement are bogus because I followed up on them and posted a report on the talk page.

Administrators who are reading this: Please do not take this matter lightly. This isn't just some silly content dispute, and MezzoMezzo, Shalom and I are not all wrong. NAccount's edits are every bit as disruptive and ill-intentioned as they appear to be. Also, do not be fooled into thinking that he is a newbie. His facility around Knowledge (XXG) and his methodical, rapid posting style belie that notion. Please re-read Shalom's post for confirmation of this. If, in his haste to remove all reference to acknowledged terrorists, NAccount may also have happened to have removed reference to one or two folks not yet identified as such, that's great... but it still doesn't excuse his relentless POV edits, provocation, and attempts at concealing the identities of wanted terror suspects. Causteau (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to be clear:

• If someone else is rude, this does not give you the right to be rude back. Neither does it give you the right to ask for the first person to be blocked since "they were rude first". From an administrator's point of view, as soon as both parties are rude to each other, both parties are equally in the wrong. Lesson here: Don't take the bait
• In terms of sockpuppetry, I do not believe that all of the above listed IPs are being controlled by the same person, especially because they're coming in from different continents. So it would be wrong to block one person, for actions taken by a different one. First we need to sort out who is who.
• Regarding the edit-warring at Al-Azhar University, I am not seeing anything worth blocking the anon for. Instead, I see multiple accounts who were reverting each other, deleting each other's sources, and being equally rude to each other. If I were to block one account, to be fair, I should block them all (including Causteau and MezzoMezzo). But I think that would be excessive.
• Blocks at this point would serve little purpose, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, and not punitive. Right now, since NAccount and the anons are not editing, a block really wouldn't do anything. If edit warring starts up again though, then blocks or page protection may be an option.
• What this comes down to in terms of this SSP report, is trying to determine whether any of the accounts listed, were used by Klaksonn. So far I've been seeing evidence that the accounts were occasionally disruptive, but that's not proof of sockpuppetry. What I'd like to see instead, is evidence like, "Klaksonn was disruptive on article X,(diffs) and the anon was disruptive in the same way on article X"(diffs). Or "Klaksonn used the following language,(diffs) and the anon used the same language.(diffs)"
• In summary, since there was inappropriate behavior all around, what I'd like to do is wipe the slate clean at this point, and move forward. If there's name-calling, or edit-warring, I would ask those who are capable of moderating their behavior, to not respond in kind. Instead:
  • Stay civil
  • Do not revert, ever, unless you are dealing with truly blatant vandalism or policy violations.
  • If you see someone remove something, do not add it back unless you have a source.
  • If you see someone add sourced information, and you feel that the sources have been misinterpreted, don't revert. Instead, change the edit to something more appropriate.
  • If you see someone add unsourced information, don't revert it, instead, modify it, add your own source, or tag it with a {{fact}} template. If they don't provide a source in a reasonable amount of time, then the information can be deleted,
  • Stay civil
  • Keep edit summaries very calm and neutral
  • Keep talkpage comments very calm and neutral
  • In both edit summaries and talkpage comments, avoid using the words "you" and "your". Stick to discussing the article content, instead of the editors involved. There are venues for discussing disruptive editors (such as user talkpages, administrator noticeboards, and SSP reports). But article talkpages should be reserved for discussions of article content.

With the above guidelines (and especially with the more emotionally mature editors staying civil), it'll be much simpler to stabilize things, and identify any truly disruptive elements. Hope that helps, Elonka 17:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I have watched the Al-Azhar dispute from the window and I must say that there was no such real disruption except the edit warring. I have no opinion on the matter of the dispute but it seems that administrators, mainly Elonka, are not being sure if this IP/editor is really a disruptive sockpuppet or not. That is part of assuming good faith and not biting the newbies and I appreciate that.

Well, since sockpuppetry drains much energy from everyone, and due to the report filed above, I run a checkuser. Note that I have no conclusive idea if Klaksonn is running all the accounts. I have no IP information on that since no prior Klaksonn CU has been done before. What is concluded in this case is the fact the IP/NAccount is part of a set of 5 accounts. Only the IP and NAccount have edited Al-Azhar. 2 other accounts edit other areas. The rest (2 others) edit Lebanonn-related articles and one of the accounts violated WP:BLP policy once.

Please prepare a formal request for CheckUser in order to have official confirmation. I'll leave the administrative decision to the admins since they know more details about this case. -- FayssalF - 08:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Updates

I thought I was done but Elonka's last comment re IPs above made me think about it again. So I went to review again the findings of yesterday though I already knew that 63.216.X.X. has been used as a proxy ("Beyond the Network"). 71.x.x.x. is not related.

Back to 63 and 77. In fact they are based on different countries but one is used as a proxy. There are a dozen of accounts. The all share the same set of IPs, the same agent and they edit the same set articles. In fact, I would categorize those areas as following:

• Al-Azhar and Saudi Arabia Grand Mufti;
• Shia-related articles;
• Lebanon politics;
• Pakistan-related articles, mainly politics and religion;

While we can argue that it is legitimate to have 4 (or 3 if you'd consider the first two ones as one) separate and different accounts to edit the different areas above, having 12 accounts goes beyond simple violations of sockpuppetry especially when the accounts are used to circumvent Knowledge (XXG) policies.

Almost all of these accounts were created recently -- one was created a year ago, some a couple of months ago and the rest a few days ago including 2 that not being used. Everytime I clicked on the check button I thought it would be the last. In fact, there may be other accounts but I got really tired at this stage. Probably another CheckUser can help at the RFCU page.

Again, I cannot make any relationship between all the accounts and related IPs with that of Klaksonn. However, and regardless of Klaksonn, we have here a serious violation of WP:SOCK.

I'll be provinding info on the accounts once a RFCU is opened. -- FayssalF - 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My observations at the time when Klaksonn was at his peak in abusive behaviour (just prior to his indef block) was that he was also using addresses in both Lebanon and US. There were a few times when he would edit anonymously (either intentionally or due to not logging in) although I can't quite remember now, which articles they related to. However, as it was pretty evident who it was, there was no need to raise the SOCK issue (and assuming good faith that it was mostly not intentional). Looking at the current editing tactics and having reviewed many of the edit summaries, I would tend to agree with MezzoMezzo that it is Klaksonn. I would've suggested that after all this time, maybe it would be worth giving him another chance but given the behaviour, if it can be conclusively proved that it is Klaksonn, would suggest a more stringent ban. → AA — 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The CheckUser results could not prove that there is a connection with Klaksonn. There might be a connection if behaviour is similar but now after all this process we can guarantee for sure that any disruption similar to that of Klaksonnn can lead to a ban. -- FayssalF - 08:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Updates 2

I have just received an email from the editor is question. In the email, the user is recognizing the fact that he has been operating multiple accounts, with no mention to Klaksonn, and where he feels sorry for the reciprocal incivility which he promises he will refrain from engaging in. He also apologizes and promises not to do it again.

In my answer to the email, I reminded him as I reminded MezzoMezzo twice that NPOV and CIVIL should be observed all the time.

Now, apart from the SOCK policy prohibiting using open proxies and, for protective and transparency reasons this editor has been informed that will be also prohibited from using regular IP editing. The user will have separate accounts for each main area: Naccount for Islam, one for Lebanon and another for Pakistan-related articles as noted above. There are also other areas I got to discover while digging further (please see more details and rationale below). For privacy reasons, the only person, probably other CheckUsers and some admins, entitled to know about the usernames of these accounts is me. I'd let Elonka know if she has no problems in keeping an eye on the situation especially that both sides believe she is a neutral admin on this issue.

I will be blocking (two have already been blocked) the following accounts:

• Abanza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (an account created solely to harass opponents)
• Bonizus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (zero edits - no need for it)
• Carticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Shi'a articles)
• Clombo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Lebanese bios)
• ForVandalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (as it sounds)
• Kartikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (a déja vu - re Carticus)
• Lccn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (articles already touched by other accounts)
• Nasrulana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (this account made some decent edits but edits the same area as one of the oldest accounts)
• OtherAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (uselss and resonates so bad)

Please note that the block rationale is independent from the extra but needed comentaries in parenthesis.

There are 2 constructive accounts left. One is mainly dedicated to music, sports, popular articles and AfDs. No disruption and I must say that it is a very constructive and satisfying account. There is another one which has made no more than a few edits including the creation of an Iranian biography stub that has little to do with politics or religion in the real sense. I personally see no reason to block these accounts. However, I will not hesitate to block any of them in case they interfere with the editing of any of the three main areas described above; Islam, Lebanon and Pakistan topics.

I will now assume good faith and go on but make sure that administrators and myself will be watching from a distance. -- FayssalF - 07:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this FayssalF, and yes, feel free to keep me in the loop. My email address is --Elonka 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

MasterPlaster. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari} 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

IconoplastDesignsInc. blocked for username. Not yet unblocked and this was not the name s/he applied for. New account with fishy name based on industry began contributing to Iconoplast Designs, see here. Suspected sock currently blocked 12 hours for spamming the same information, sock secondary. _{TravellingCari} 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I can't see deleted revisions. Based on what I can see, it appears likely that these are the same person. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

and the silence from the main account while the IP is blocked for 12 hours following the second's spamming speaks volumes. We shall see when the block expires in six hours. _{TravellingCari} 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Iconoplast... is indef-blocked as an inappropriate username and for behavior. MasterPlaster has been blocked twice. The more recent block expired on June 19, and he has not edited since. I would say this is his last chance: any more spam, and he may reasonably expect a very long block. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Babaloo40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari} 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

See discussion here as well as here.

Comments

TravelingCari has indef-blocked Babaloo40 and blocked Hearsomeinfo for 24 hours. This makes sense to me. I considered that Babaloo40 might be the same as Babalooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Babalooobabalooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but there is no evidence to support this. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

and I'm happy to report that Hearsomeinfo has not resumed his/her spamming once unblocked. Only one of the company's articles is salted, glad it was all finally made clear. I don't think there's any question of this sockpuppetry though. Hope s/hell stick to one non-spamming account. _{TravellingCari} 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I support Travellingcari's decision. Babaloo40 is indef-blocked, but Hearsomeinfo is free to edit. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

SensibleSam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
38.112.113.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.105.214.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.42.148.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.42.148.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.61.185.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
99.163.241.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

neon white talk 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mysterious Universe seems to be plagued by ip and new accounts with few or no other edits making far too similar comments showing little understanding of afd, deletion or general wikipedia policy. Possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry?

Comments

I am at 99.163.241.82 today and the inclusion of that IP above is nonsense. I commented to point out an apparent misunderstanding on the part of another commenter on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.241.82 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think AFD closing administrators are familiar with how to handle situations like this. The votes by these users are all related, either by sockpuppetry or off-wiki communication, and for the purpose of answering the deletion request it makes little difference. Judge the arguments, not the numbers. I will be commenting in the AFD. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know how to fight this, and frankly don't care. Truthdemon is the only login I use for wikipedia. I sign in from work and home, thus the different IP addresses, I guess. I have never signed in under a different username. I have no idea who sensible sam is. I may have forgotten to sign in, and edited the wiki without signing in, but I can't be certain. Some of those up there could be me, but tried to sign in every time. Franky, accusing me of sockpupetry, or whatever, seems a lame excuse for disregarding my comments. I only created the account to keep the Mysterious Universe Wiki A)updated and B) fairly evenhanded, since someone, initially Thekloofy and now DestroHolmes seemed to want to whitewash (and now delete) the entry. If you wonder who I am, I am Gatorbobo; I was Gatorbobo at Mysterious Universe (before the Forums were deleted) and I use the same username in other forums as well. I'm easy to find, if you want to verify my existence. Truthdemon (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Gatorbobo

Conclusions

The AFD was closed as delete. The question of sockpuppetry is academic. I see SensibleSam is a second named account, but Truthdemon claims innocence, so I'll assume good faith and let it pass. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• Eurofinishusa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Harvard2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari} 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Repeated distruptive editing on Seesmic _{TravellingCari} 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Same pattern, new account. Going to file RFCU to ferret out others, whack a mole getting old. _{TravellingCari} 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

RFCU filed _{TravellingCari} 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed all accounts listed here are socks of Eurofinishusa. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Sockpuppets are blocked. Main account is free to resume editing but has not done so. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

GENIUS(4th_power) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Tratos the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar userboxes
Almost identical talk page headers that AFAIK aren't used by anyone else
Genius last edited at 03:36, 15 June 2008, due to his block. Tratos started on 01:17, 18 June 2008.
Awards pages which start with hello even though they didn't have any awards yet
First edit of Tratos was making a userpage

Comments

Hey, you ever thought about the fact that maybe people are like each other? I made my awards because i am very close to getting one due to my efforts against vandalism, helping out other users, and by helping clean up pages. My userbox was actually copied from a user, i just made edits to it (unfortunatly i cannot seem to recall that users name, but i know it wasnt Genius). Some of the userbox is still in liking to the other user, i havent gotten to editing that. What does AFAIK mean? And yes, the talk page header i got from another user (no Genius) which i am looking up rite now as a matter of fact, ill keep ya posted. And i started editing after i created my account which was on about June 18th when i was at my friend Josh's house ( he has an account and convinced me to join and help since i used Knowledge (XXG) alot for school). And i made a userpage because i sort of need one, if thats not obvious. K, im now going to find that user who i copied the userbox from and the other user who i copied the talk page header from. Bye>|< (p.s- this is Tratos>|<)

Hey I found it

For my talk page template, i used Stwalkerster's to copy and paste. After that, i just made it look pretty. Still looking for the userboxes, though. Ill keep ya posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tratos the Great (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

All of the accounts are indef-blocked. I support this decision. If the accounts had not yet been blocked, I would have recommended blocking them because the contribution profiles are very similar. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Kevin McE (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Identical user pages This is Zosimo "Zosy" R. Montez.This is my first account. This is my user page and you can leave me a comment in my talk page. Enjoy!

Apparent admission (although not realising that the practice is frowned upon) here.

This does not appear to be malicious, and may have come about through dodging blocks related to a suggestion (the accuracy of which I cannot vouch for, except that both seem interested in Philippine radio stations) that this user is linked to User:Pinoybandwagon.

Making appeals against be blocked, all in capitals, as ZRMontez has done was identified as a characteristic of Pinoybandwagon

The accounts seem to be being used in series (Zosimo Montez 28-31 May, ZMontez 1-5 June, ZRMontez on 7 June).

I have not had time, nor do I have knowledge of his areas of interest, to check whether the user's contributions are constructive. Maybe an admin can help the user: chastisement may not be called for. Kevin McE (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'd say this is a pretty clear-cut case: All we need is an admin and I'd say this is sorted...... Dendodge .. Talk 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The contributions of this user are identical to User:Pinoybandwagon on topics covered, articles edited, user page, specific edits, behaviour, messages, ownership of the same articles, etc., see the evidence I gathered at this ANI thread, and the sock case. The only change is that he is not moving the articles to the brand names anymore. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the light of his plea of innocence below, could ZRMontez please comment on this allegation. Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I have 3 accounts is because User:Orangemike blocked my first 2 accounts for no reason! ZRMontez (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you claim on all three accounts that it is your first one? Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

All above accounts now blocked indef as sockpuppets. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

• While the checkuser case came back unlikely, some recent ArbCom cases (e.g., Giovanni33 and SevenOfDiamonds) have shown that fooling a checkuser is not entirely impossible. I can also attest to this myself, as most of the IPs I come on through (and there are a lot) are off by a few hundred, sometimes a few thousand miles. Additionally, the new editor has edited quite a bit since the checkuser case, and additional evidence continues to present itself that a WP:DUCK comparison is quite likely. If this is not an obvious case, I would hate to see one that is obvious.

1. Immediately below I have presented the same articles edited by the two editors, and User:Ilya1166, a self-admitted sock . For certain articles, it makes sense both would edit them (e.g., Moscow); for others, it is extremely questionable (e.g., Indian MRCA Competition). Additionally, you will notice that the locus of edits is on the same articles

2. User:Berkunt is clearly somebody's sock: his very first edits are vandalism reversion, with the proper syntax and all: . He is awfully knowledgeable of policy for his third day: , and second month: .

3. The two users both have a surprisingly good grasp on the English language for a Russian.

4. The two users both edit exclusively (or nearly so) articles dealing with Russia, Eastern Europe, and related politics, in that order, with a heavily nationalistic Russian bent, for which the user is willing to edit war.

5. Both editors make extensive arguments in edit wars in their edit summaries.

6. Both editors use very similar language:

Also cf. edit summary 1 vs. edit summary 2

7. Same edits across different ac

a. Berkunt takes umbrage with removal of material added by Miyokan

b. Berkunt knows this has been discussed before, despite it being his first edit here, probably because Miyokan was the one adding it before

c. Removal of Ukranian spelling:

d. Edit warring over images on Grozny: vs.

e. The primary rationale for invading was Iraqs alleged possession of WMDs:

f. Edit warring to insert the same economic figures in Poland:

g. Exactly the same edit war with the Ukranians on Nikolai Gogol (both editors have 6-7 edits).

h. ... and on Serge Lifar (this makes 3, with c and g)

i. edit warring over use of term "Ukraine":

j. I will not bother with similaries on Russia: there are too many edits, and I believe the similarities listed above are enough.

8. General editing similarities, "intangibles", if you will. Both editors are obviously intelligent, and usually smart enough to avoid a block.

Comments

Convincing. Add to this the very similar habits in uploading serial copyvio images, as discussed recently on User talk:Moreschi. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am Miyokan, why didn’t somebody just ask me? I don’t know what exactly I’ve done wrong? I created a new account to have a fresh start. I haven’t been involved in any edit warring on this account - check my contributions for yourself. I did not read the Knowledge (XXG):Sock puppetry so I didn’t know there was anything wrong with creaing a new account, but now I see Moreschi is worried about a provision called Knowledge (XXG):Sock_puppet#Avoiding_scrutiny. I see there is also something called Knowledge (XXG):Sock_puppets#Clean_start_under_a_new_name. The Evil Spartan wrote:

Edit warring over images on Grozny: vs. - What edit warring?

Edit warring to insert the same economic figures in Poland: - What edit warring?

Edit warring over use of term "Ukraine": - What edit warring?

My main work has consisted of fighting vandalism. When my contributions get reverted in almost all cases do not bother to revert them back, and in the rare cases when I do, I usually go to the talk page before. After that I do not bother with a third revert. --Berkunt (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Okay, identity established. I note that in one sense Berkunt is right: It in fact would have been appropriate to first simply ask him. (That step seems to be forgotten all too often in these SSP cases). However, the "clean start" justification is not really applicable, because that implies a complete change in editing patterns. If you fail the duck test, the start wasn't really so fresh. Nevertheless, a change of account, especially now that it's out in the open, is generally tolerated. That leaves us with a finding of block evasion during the first day of Berkunt's editing, but that is stale now. Berkunt will of course be under closer scrutiny in the future than he would otherwise be, given the substantial block logs on his earlier accounts (and I'll leave it to other admins to determine if there's a pattern of concern), but I don't see grounds for a sockpuppetry block as such at this point.

However, one formal sanction that's clearly necessary: For a persistent pattern of copyvio image abuse, Berkunt/Miyokan is banned, until further notice, from making any image uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Additionally, I've annotated Berkunt's block log (by blocking him for one second, autoblock disabled) to include links to the block logs of his two prior accounts. This can probably now be closed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari} 05:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All admin only for deletions but see the two users' deleted contribs as well as the histories of 1 Andrea Concepcion, Andrea Aquino Concepcion, Andrea aquino concepcion and ANDREA AQUINO CONCEPCION.

Comments

Conclusions

• Both accounts are blocked indefinitely. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

KevinMcAllister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hanae Mori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.95.157.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ConcertoNo.888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Signal52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DueAmici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hayes E Recollection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Mintjulip52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

KevinMcAllister was created at 17:14 on 30 May 2008, an account with the same name was created on the commons at 01:33 on 31 May 2008. The account on the commons was blocked due to this thread, the account was not mentioned in the thread before the block and had made no edits so the account must have picked up by a checkuser. Their first edit was to create a user talk page with a welcome template. Many of their edits have been to articles related to Westchester County. They have used mathematical symbols in many of their edits summaries (a few examples ), a common Jvolkblum trait.

Adding Hanae Mori. This account was created 09:13, 6 June 2008, and its first edit 3 minutes later was to lecture a long-standing editor regarding Knowledge (XXG) policy. Subsequently, it proceeded to edit articles in which Jvolkblum puppets have had a continuing interest. Along the way, it created a user page that looks remarkably like others created for Jvolkblum puppets. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not Jvolkblum as you have claimed. My activity is specific to the Guilbert and Betelle article because I was searching online for that topic in particular when I saw the copyrighted text within the article. I signed up for an account to point out this issue. The original article had the following : Guilbert and Betelle was an architecture firm that was a prolific designer of schools and architectural buildings throughout the East Coast of the United States, notable for its adaptation of diverse styles to create a new American "Collegiate Gothic" style of school architecture. The firm was a partnership of Ernest F. Guilbert and James Oscar Betelle.
this is the same text from the website 'http://www.vineland.org/history/landisschool/architecture/architecture.htm' which reads: The firm of Guilbert and Betelle, architects of Landis School, were prolific designers of schools and architectural buildings throughout the East. James Betelle specialized in adapting diverse styles to create a new American style of school architecture
also, the article originally read: After Guilbert's death in 1916, Betelle became the owner of the firm. He was architect for hundreds of schools in five different states and a consultant on many more. Two of these schools, Greenwich High School in Greenwich, Connecticut and the Radburn School in Fair Lawn, New Jersey are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Betelle's organization was architect for such buildings as the Essex County Hall of Records, Newark, New Jersey, Hotels Robert Treat and Alexander Hamilton, Chamber of Commerce Building, Essex Club (now the New Jersey Historical Society) and a half dozen banks, also in Newark, New Jersey.
The same website 'http://www.vineland.org/history/landisschool/architecture/architecture.htm' reads: After Mr. Guilbert's death in 1916, J.O. Betelle became the owner of the firm. He set its policies, controlled its business, obtained the work and managed the entire organization. He was architect for hundreds of schools in five different states and a consultant on many more. Two of these schools, Greenwich High School in Connecticut and the Radburn School in New Jersey are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Included in the firm's work, his organization was architect for such buildings as the Hall of Records, Newark, New Jersey, Hotels Robert Treat and Alexander Hamilton, Chamber of Commerce Building, Essex Club and a half dozen banks, also in Newark, New Jersey.
I added an image of a school to the article because I found it available on the Knowledge (XXG) site already. I did not find any other photographs available. The other photograph on the website seems to have copyright issues as well which have been pointed out. I would appreciate it if I could be removed from this list. Thank You. --Hanae Mori (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also adding IP 202.95.157.17 (registered in Indonesia) that I am sure is Jvolkblum using a proxy; edits are to Beechmont, New York (recently created by a Jvolkblum puppet) and articles on related topics. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding User:ConcertoNo.888, a sleeper account that has not yet edited here. This account was created on June 3 at 09:18 (a few minutes before several already-blocked socks of Jvolkblum). A user by the same name uploaded several images of New Rochelle (some already deleted; all with doubtful status) at Commons (see Commons contributions log). Some of those images were inserted into articles here by IP 202.95.157.17 (noted above). --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding User:Signal52: registered on 1 June; only edit so far was to an article in Jvolkblum's neighborhood (this diff). The edit added fairly trivial content (a hallmark of Jvolkblum) that was sourced to two NYTimes articles that cannot be found on the comprehensive NYTimes website (one of Jvolkblum's practices is to supply plausible-sounding nonexistent sources), with reference callouts improperly formatted in the same manner as many others I have seen from Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I am not sure if this is the correct place to communicate this, but I am not Jvolkblum and do not know who he is. The two New York Times articles I linked to are legitimate. They are in the New York Times archive -- on the New York Times website you have to change the search box to search pre-1981 articles. Though you do need to pay to access the full article, the previews of the articles are available at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10913FA355B1B778DDDA90994D0405B838BF1D3&scp=1&sq=A+Strategic+Retreat+for+Headquarters+of+Washington&st=p and http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C11F9395410728DDDAB0A94DE405B8084F1D3&scp=1&sq=A+Washington+Memorial+Renovated%2C&st=p. I appreciate your vigilance, but please remove the sockpuppetry accusation from my account. Signal52 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've stricken the statements. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Yeah, it's probably him. At this point, I'm almost tempted to just let him be and pretend we don't notice, as if to say, "We know it's you, so stop creating sockpuppets and we'll leave you alone." On second thoght, though, it's probably better to block and wait for Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (12th) which is evidently not too far in the future. (Can anybody talk to this guy? He's obviously a student in the New York area...) Yechiel (Shalom) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with that plan is that Jvolkblum and puppets can and do create major messes in the encyclopedia (and at Commons), including inserting deliberate errors in articles, uploading numerous copyvio images that they claim to be self-made, de-wikifying articles, and harassing other users by posting nuisance templates on articles. (What am I forgetting?) It requires an enormous amount of user effort just to reverse the changes and add deletion templates to the bad images, and that doesn't even include explaining the situation to other users who are skeptical about assertions that the Jvolkblum content is bad (for example, in Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Castle, New Rochelle). --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hanae Mori is pretty likely to be a sock based on their editing. In this edit they added a photo of New Rochelle High School (one of their main articles of interest) to Guilbert and Betelle, it also appears part of their promotion of New Rochelle as they moved a picture that was already in the article down to the bottom of the page. Most of their edits were to Guilbert and Betelle, which another Jvolkblum sock focused on the same day. DueAmici was created at 04:50 on 6 June 2008. Their only edits have been to list Image:Great-neck-hs.jpg as a possible copyvio, the image appears on Guilbert and Betelle. In this edit they appended their signature to a comment by 85.219.9.3 (talk · contribs). That IP address is from spain and the only other edits from that IP address were to revert the reversion of Jvolkblum socks .

Hayes E Recollection was created at 05:47 on 7 June 2008, three minutes later they created a user page. Their first to articles edit were to a Sarah Lawrence College related article Fawaz Gerges , which I had edited the day before. The rest of their edits have been to List of Sarah Lawrence College people which has been edited by many Jvolkblum socks recently. In two of their edits summaries they used a mathematical symbol (>) , the same one was used multiple times by KevinMcAllister . In this edit they inserted in commented out form the most recent version of the article contents as edited by a Jvolkblum sock (that IP address was blocked as an open proxy). In the comment out section they claimed " this article keep getting vandalised". A previous sock Fajnzylberg101 (talk · contribs) had made an edit reverting the article back to Jvolkblum's version with an edit summary claiming that the reversion of Jvolkblum material was vandalism. BlueAzure (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I submitted a RFCU today. The results confirm several names listed here, plus some others. --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum (scroll down). Kevin McAllister and Hanae Mori are confirmed. I haven't checked the others. Anyone want to block them? Yechiel (Shalom) 23:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Several of the names in this report have now been blocked based on Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum results, together with several additional users. Specifically, blocks were applied to:

1. KevinMcAllister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. DueAmici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. MattHeffernan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Serbenica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. BuckWestonJr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. MarwahKarsah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. I'm Afraid I Must Go (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Glo-DEAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Hanae Mori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am adding User:Mintjulip52 to this report; this new user's only edits have been restoring an article version created by Serbenica, a Jvolkblum sock and added a "citation needed" template in a seemingly random location within an article that is sourced but has no inline citations (this type of edit is typical of the Jvolkblum socks). --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocked all that weren't already blocked (except the one crossed out). I'm sure we'll see report 12 on him soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Blanchardb--timed 21:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both accounts have only one contribution each: the creation of the attack page Larkined it.

Comments

Admin assistance is needed to view deleted edits. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Yes, one edit each to the same article. Both vandals, blocked as vandals. Prob throwaway accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gogetaki2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Gogetaki2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

Report submission by

Cenarium (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The contributions are all related to Soukgogon, a non notable "new anime", without sources (see prod), just a page on youtube.

Comments

• Soukgogon has been created and deleted several times, see the log and is now protected against recreation. The other pages have been deleted as well. Cenarium (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's half the job well-done. The other half is blocking all of the accounts except for one. Anyone want to volunteer? Yechiel (Shalom) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocking two socks indef, main open 48 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Jaysweet (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

First edit was pure vandalism, next six edits were undos of User:Dayewalker ( , oh I'm tired of copying links), who Hdayejr has been stalking due to username.

Hdayejr is really persistent, please do not close the SSP case as was done with Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr. He's jsut going to keep coming back and we need a centralized place to add his new IP socks.

Comments

Struck my request above to keep this case open, as per a conversation I had with R. Baley. Future "simple sockpuppetry" by Hdayejr will be reported to ANI. Thanks, and feel free to close! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

For all the good it will do, I've blocked the IP for 31 hours for ban evasion and disruption. R. Baley (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this open for a couple of days because Dedalus asked me to reopen the old case: Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing per above. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Dgtsyb (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Direct evidence of sock puppetry:

• Puppet master editing IP sock puppet's edits and referring to them as being done by "someone else".
• IP sock puppet inserting link spam.
• Me reverting link spam.
• Puppet master complaining about revert.
• Puppet master acknowledging control of IP sockpuppet.

Additional external link spamming and confict of interest activities of IP sock puppet:

• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site and vandalising existing links.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site and vandalising existing links.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site and vandalising existing link.
• Editting link spam linking to puppet master's commercial site.
• Creating link to puppet master's commercial site by vandalising existing link.
• Editting link spam linking to puppet master's commercial site.
• Editting link spam linking to puppet master's commercial site.
• Editting link spam linking to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site and vandalising list order.
• Removing link competitive with puppet master's commercial site and vandalising list.
• Editting link to puppet master's commercial site to include corporate name.
• Adding link to puppet master's commercial site.

Additional puppet master activity:

• Puppet master adjusting link added by IP sock puppet.
• Puppet master correcting link to SIGTRAN page where other sock puppet links are located.
• Puppet master adding link to SIGTRAN page where other sock puppet links are located.
• Puppet master removing links that compete with own commercial site.
• Puppet master adding link to commercial site.
• Puppet master adjusting link added by IP sock puppet.
• Puppet master referring to IP sock puppet as "someone else".
• Puppet master account established so that page could be created.

Comments

The IP sock puppet is used repeatedly to add external link spam pointing to the puppet master's commercial websites, removing and vandalising competing and existing links. The puppet master avoids adding link spam but, instead, adjusts, positions more favorably, corrects, and defends in talk pages, the links added by the IP sock puppet. Note that although the puppet master has claimed to be Lee Dryburgh, the author of a recent book on SS7 (to which all of these articles are related), neither the puppet master nor the IP sock puppet have contributed any content to the articles.

Comment by Dgtsyb

The puppet master has used the IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny and hide conflict of interest for the purpose of repeated external link spamming, deletion and other vandalism for commercial gain or advantage. The puppet master and IP sock puppet accounts should be blocked for the appropriate period. --- Dgtsyb (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Counter

The above claim is completely false. It is with much regret that user Dgtsyb persists in harmful actions and time wasting of others. My full response to the claim above can be found here Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion. Unless there is a reason not to, I suggest that the conversation be continued there since that is the place where the above claim originated. LeeDryburgh (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally please note that another user posted "first, I think accusations of sock-puppetry are unnecessary, here. I don't see any indication that the anon edits were in bad faith, particularly since Leedryburgh mentioned them outright." (see start of Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion) before Dgtsyb made the accusation here. This suggests that Dgtsyb may not have good intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedryburgh (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Shalom

In my capacity here, I review the question over whether two user accounts are the same person or two different people. That question is not in dispute. Leedryburgh has admitted that he edits from the IP address listed above. The edits by Leedryburgh and the IP address complement one another: there is no evidence, as far as I can see, of a deliberate attempt to conceal this connection or to pretend that these were two users in such a way as to win a content dispute. In other words, there is no violation of the sockpuppet policy. It is permitted for users not to login if they prefer to edit anonymously: I have done this myself many times.

The dispute here needs to be resolved by other means. I am no expert at dispute resolution, but I will try to mediate if I can help. I can see at the talk page discussion that two mediators, Ludwig2 and Athaenara, are already making progress to reach a compromise or understanding. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Athaenara's question over there: I see no evidence to link Leedryburgh to any previous user account. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on this clear attempt to avoid scrutiny by concealing conflict of interest through use of an IP address. Why does Leedryburgh refer to himself as "someone else"? In this case, if other editors knew that the IP address and Leedryburgh were one in the same, the conflict of interest would have been apparent instead of concealed. This seems to fit the very definition of the policy of avoiding scrutiny: the edits would have been inappropriate from the single user, and Leedryburgh conceals his connection to the IP address that would have made editors aware of the conflict.

If this is not sock puppetry, please tell me how it is acceptable so that I can begin using this technique to my own advantage with anonynmous edits and external link spam placement. I too wish to be told that it is okay to use a dialup IP address to place an otherwise conflict of interest external link to my personal and corporate websites, and then bless those additions with Dgtsyb edits, sufficient enough to make the original IP address addition impossible to revert simply. Because if this practice is okay, I can surely use it to my own advantage too. — Dgtsyb (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you make a good point. I did not notice that particular trick, and it is not allowed for the reasons you say. Now I won't punish Leedryburgh because there's not much I can do. (Even I were an admin, which I'm not, blocks are preventative, not punitive.) It would be appropriate for him to acknowledge that lying is wrong.

This should have no effect on the substance of the dispute, but like I said, lying is wrong. And it looks like Leedryburgh lied. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you giving the evidence additional consideration and for clarifying this instance for me. I cannot speak to the application or duration of blocks as I have no experience in that regard. It is enough for me that the placement of links in this fashion is acknowledged as deceitful. In the matter of the dispute, I have agreed to abide by Ludwigs2's proposed resolution on Talk:Signaling System 7#third opinion, so I will now withdraw from this matter as well. Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Athaenara

With regard to "Athaenara's question over there" (on Talk:Signaling System 7#External Links) mentioned above by Shalom:

After I asked this question:

"To Leedryburgh (talk · contribs): Are you also M i t r a (who is 38.99.84.14 - e.g. here) and Ad99sl? — Athaenara ✉ 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)"

the reply was:

"No, why do you ask? Leedryburgh (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)"

I asked because, like user Leedryburgh, they exhibited some or all of the following:

• adding new posts to top of page
• dating with false timestamp or none
• signing at top of post
• signing with nonexistent userpage link
• promoting external links, with similar arguments

For example:

• 63.204.19.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) signed "Mitra ] ] 9 Nov 2006 (UTC)"
• 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) signed "Mitra ] ] 10 Nov 2006"

• ad99sl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC) added at top of page, signed "ad99sl 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)" at top of post

• m i t r a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 25 November 2006 (UTC)"
• 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006 (UTC)"
• 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 27 November 2006"

• 38.99.84.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006"

(Userlinks and diffs posted for clarification.) — Athaenara ✉ 18:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. It's certainly possible that these are the same user, but there is no way to prove it. You can suspect it, but you can't prove it. Checkuser doesn't go back to 2006, and even if it did the user would probably have changed his IP address since then, so we don't have that option either. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it interesting, but it takes all kinds to make the world up! As I said in the first instance it has zero connection with me. And the talk about "false stamps" was simply because I did not know you could use 4x~ to do it automatically. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis in the comparisons is not so much on the "falsity" of timestamps (though the falsity of some sigs is significant) as on the similarities. — Athaenara ✉ 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do not think that these are sock puppets of Leedryburgh and that is why I did not list them. Linkbit and bittech's interests appear orthogonal. Similarities are likely due to the later emulating the former unpunished behaviour. Expect more of the same, as Leedryburgh has now shown others that variations and protestations will avoid punishment.

Leedryburgh performed a variation of the above in several ways:

• The 63.204.19.188 address resolves to Linkbit Inc: 80.108.90.135 resolves to some broadband access in Austria. My suspicion would be that Leedryburgh seeing 63.204.19.188 getting caught in his anonymous COI external link spamming decided on additional indirection to avoid the same detection. (And it worked for longer than a year.)
• Leedryburgh immediately admitted to the address upon detection, feigning the injured party. This is now an easy way to avoid repercussions that others can use with cookie cutter accuracy.

Expect more to come in the way of emulations and copycatting of this behaviour: the barn door is swinging wide. Dgtsyb (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston

I agree with Shalom that this report doesn't show a violation of WP:SOCK, and I suggest that it be closed without action, as soon as the discussion is finished. The account named as the puppet, 80.108.90.135 (talk · contribs), has made only four edits in 2008. It appears that Leedryburgh and the IP are likely the same editor. Now that he has a named account, Leedryburgh has stopped editing with the IP. There was a brief overlap period where the misleading edit summary about 'someone else' was made. The replacement of sigtran.org with sigtran.net with a deceptive edit summary was abusive in my opinion, and is getting close to a block. If Leedryburgh persists in adding links against consensus, I suggest that a report be made to the spam authorities, who are more suited to this kind of complaint. If User:Dgtsyb is satisfied with the compromise arranged by User:Ludwigs2 at Talk:Signaling System 7#third opinion then it might be best to leave things as they are and not request any further admin actions, either here or at the spam noticeboard. I am adding some pages to my own watchlist to be sure that things go straight from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closed with no action, per the discussion above. I checked with the submitter, User:Dgtsyb, and he does not object. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nimbley6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kristopher James Owen Nimbley‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.144.135.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.149.91.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.196.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.72.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kristopher Nimbly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kristopher (Quid) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kristopher J Nimbley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kris (Quiz K) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Robert5564 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.249.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.148.71.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.150.157.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Doorspiteweekscrazy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Music4545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

As previously shown in WP:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (2nd), this user — also known to administrators as User:Bennet556 — keeps coming back to make low-quality edits to Kilmarnock and its environs, as well as add information about himself. In this case he has created User:Kristopher James Owen Nimbley and made his user page look like an article about an actor.

Comments

Look at the username! It is definitely a sockpuppet, I should know! StewieGriffin! • Talk 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the contribs of the accounts but not the IP addresses. They seem to match what we already know about Nimbley. I think it's reasonable to block these guys, deleted the userpage of Kristopher James Owen Nimbley, and semiprotect Kilmarnock for a while. For future reference, please do not reveal the real names of contributors if you can avoid it (although simply saying that the username is identical to the real name is okay). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. My (misguided) intent was to call this user out, but naming him undoubtedly plays into his desire for self-aggrandisement. That said, can someone please put these blocks in place? He's back again, and creating new accounts as quickly as we can identify them. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another user with a similar username and an identical user page to one already listed here: Kristopher J Nimbley (talk · contribs) . --Snigbrook 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And another: Kris (Quiz K) (talk · contribs) -- Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And another: Robert5564 (talk · contribs). Different style username, but created 109 Bluevale street (East End), which I believe was already created by another of the socks and subsquently deleted. --Schcambo 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another anonymous: 78.148.71.24 (talk · contribs). Attempting to reintroduce many of the same edits to Kilmarnock. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Add another anon: 78.150.157.91 (talk · contribs). Seriously, this is becoming a bit of a joke at this stage. The kid has a couple dozen socks. Can a range block please be placed? Thanks. --Schcambo 19:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Another possible, but not yet 100% certain: Doorspiteweekscrazy (talk · contribs). Typical inappropriate cut-and-paste additions from other pages (), and the usual fascination with Kilmarnock (). Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Another: Music4545 (talk · contribs) More cut-and-paste additions from other pages (, ), heavy typos and the same subjects in Kilmarnock edits . Kevin Forsyth (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

All named accounts blocked indef and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Tennis scores 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The username is exactly the same. A possible single purpose account as both users have used there userspace as a tennis scores record. Knowledge (XXG) is not a webhost. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

However, as Knowledge (XXG) isn't a webhost, that has nothing to do with Knowledge (XXG), I know. But the fact that these are the same person is definite (i think). StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Dragonfly67 gave an interesting reason in his block log for Tennis scores.

+250 edits to userpage and 1 edit to an article = not a useful contributor

Regardless of the merits of this rationale, the same rationale applies to Tennis scores 2. He has just two edits to Alexander the Great, and all other edits are to his userpage. The similarity in names complements the similarity in behavior. These are one person.

That being said, since at least some admins would disagree with Dragonfly's original block, I will seek an outside opinion. My suggestion is that the block is valid and a block-evading sock should not be allowed to continue editing in the same behavior pattern that got him blocked in the first place, but I'm open to a dissenting opinion. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I add, as an aggravating factor, that both of Tennes scores 2's edits to Alexander the Great were reverted by established users on that page. Apparently he introduced an unreliable source. So the net result is that he has zero useful article edits so far. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet were reversed, so I corrected it. Enigma 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we still need one of them blocked. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Reports at SSP do not get immediate attention, so patience is what is required. Enigma 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Very obvious. Indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Cookie81910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - indef-blocked. Yechiel (Shalom)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cookie81927 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yngvarr (c) 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Very few contribs thus far, just blanking another users page and editing some children show articles. The username similarity is just too much for me to overlook.

Comments

These are likely the same user, but I am not certain.

Two questions:

1. Do you want a checkuser?
2. Do you want me to rollback all edits by Cookie81927? Yechiel (Shalom) 03:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

1. If you're not confident that they're the same, then a checkuser would be in order. I'll leave that up to you; my personal opinion, just based on observation, that contribs and the username are too similar for coincidence, is that they're the same.
2. Cookie81927 doesn't have many edits, several of them have been audited by other people, so you probably don't need to do that. Given the low number, it should be easy to check and verify. Thanks Yngvarr (c) 09:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Pretty obvious to me. Indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

24.155.110.67 68.19.218.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 70.109.2.198 71.92.113.47 71.139.175.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 74.129.50.173 84.90.212.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

Report submission by

NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bongwarrior&action=history

Comments

Conclusions

4chan/ED/Grawp vandalism by random IPs. Reports should be made to WP:AIV in the future. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

90.201.150.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.201.150.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.201.150.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (later discovered by Smjg (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)) 90.199.49.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (currently blocked for 1 week for block evasion and vandalism}} Gwernol 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Report submission by

Smjg (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Targeting a number of the same articles with the same kinds of edits that are contrary to policy, for example:

• Take It Or Leave It (game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Deal or No Deal (UK game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Deal or No Deal UK special episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comments

The behaviour coming repeatedly from these IP addresses includes:

1. Changing articles on UK-centric topics from UK to US English
2. Changing articles on UK-centric topics from UK to US date formats
3. Removing {{cn}} and other maintenance templates without addressing the issues
4. Allegedly introducing subtle factual inaccuracies and copyright violations
5. Reinstating edits that were reverted because they fell under points 1 to 4
6. Never filling in the edit summary
7. Never participating in talk page discussions

I'm willing to confirm this. The IP addresses are all in the same range and they all edit the same articles. I think semi-protecting those articles is probably the best response. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm this too, however he does (very very very slowly) seem to be getting the message. Nzseries1 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Dynamic IP abuse. Seems to have passed. Report to WP:RFPP if it starts up again and semi-protection is reqired. Mr.Z-man 03:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Willking1979 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Rapeseed article vandalized by two IP addresses that came back to the University of Tennessee. Vandalism occured within a matter of minutes. Puppetmaster has been blocked.

Comments

Conclusions

He's probably not at the computer anymore. Let it pass. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Run-of-the mill IP vandalism, reports of this should be made to WP:AIV where it might get attention while still relevant. Mr.Z-man 03:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bongwarrior&action=history

Adding on to previous report.

Comments

Conclusions

Alison semiprotected User talk:Bongwarrior. That should take care of problems. If it doesn't, ask her for an IP check. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Evidence

This account may have been blocked indef, however, the name is similar to User:HurricaneKatrinaSUCKS. Evidence is that both are vandalism only accounts, and both are named after a devastating tropical cyclone. Narutolovehinata5 10:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Account mentioned is blocked indef by Woohookitty, just seeing if it can be proven a sockpuppet.

Conclusions

More than likely that these are sockpuppets, but since they're already indef-blocked, it's academic. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Control room a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Control room b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gazimoff _Read 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both inserting vandalism into WTAE-TV in the same kind of style. Also, it smells like a WP:DUCK.

Comments

Conclusions

Very obvious case. Both have been blocked by east718. I've reverted their edits. Seems dealt with, for now, but wouldn't hurt to check back and see if they crop up again. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Shem 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

1. Back in March, User:Fovean Author and the IP address User:64.45.236.60 both voted delete on Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/A More Perfect Union. Fovean Author's first vote was worded innocuously , while the subsequent IP vote was extremely uncivil ("What, every time he farts in an elevator, you want to make a Knowledge (XXG) entry?"). Fovean Author's IP vote drew immediate suspicion, but there was no evidence to act upon.
2. Today, in a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, the IP address returned to vote in a content poll; two minutes later User:Fovean Author signed in to claim the vote as his.
3. Between March 19th and March 22nd 2008, User:Fovean Author edited A More Perfect Union, an Obama-related article, with both his account and his IP address. During this time period, he edit-warred on his IP address over controversial insertions with administrator User:Bigtimepeace , who's tried to mediate Obama-related disputes more recently. While using his IP to insert negative material, he used his account to delete positive material.

Comments

User:Fovean Author's been a fundamentally disruptive partisan editor, leveling the worst personal (userpage vandalism with personal attacks) attacks ("your messiah Obama") of the recent flare-ups at Barack Obama. He's now inadvertently outed his past sockpuppetry, and should be banned for disruption, personal attacks, incivility, and all-around tendentious editing. Shem 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

• User blocked for 6 months for abuse of editing privileges via sockpuppetry, disruption, personal attacks, incivility, and tendentious editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the IP address is blocked for 6 months. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Seanmccoy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Seanmccoy16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

role 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Comparison of contributions leads to the conclusion of either sock or meat, similar username makes it kind of obvious

Comments

Conclusions

These accounts are obviously the same person, but no violation of policy has occurred. (Anyway, if he was trying to hide anything, he wouldn't use a second account with such an obviously similar name.) I'll tag the userpage of the alternate account as such, and leave it there. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Improve2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fixedit1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.121.222.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)