Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Excuseme99

Excuseme99 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date June 19 2009, 07:54 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wildhartlivie

Excuseme99 has been challenged by multiple editors regarding edits made and POV editing across a variety of articles over the last several months. The issues became serious in regard to the article Natalie Wood regarding the death section and relationships, when the editor posted article content that implied Wood's husband, Robert Wagner was physically involved and responsible for her death , that Wood and Christopher Walken had spent the night prior to Wood's together at a hotel and that Wood claimed to have caught Wagner having sexual relations with another man. [1] At one point, Excuseme99 even stated unequivocably on the talk page "It is ridiculous lies told by Wagner, the murderer himself." This WP:BLP violation increased the scrutiny of all the account's edits and increased challenges to the editor's ability to edit the page neutrally.

At that point, Misty313 popped up to make edits on the article, leading to edits of the death and relationship sections. [2] within a short period of time after Excuseme99 had edited the Cher article. [3] While looking at the contributions history of Misty313, I then noticed this edit made by Misty313 to Nicholas Ray, followed one minute later by an edit by the IP IP 66.233.18.83. [4] The contributions history of IP 66.233.18.83 included a posting here as a response to my comments to Excuseme99 regarding the death allegations about Robert Wagner. A great deal of this was declared to come from a book by Suzanne Finstad.

Misty313 first posted to Wikipedia here to Talk:Natalie Wood at 18:43, 7 June 2009 (my time), immediately preceding a series of edits by Excuseme99 to Talk:Natalie Wood, [5] Natalie Wood [6] and Robert Wagner. [7]

DJ-x3 also has edited Natalie Wood in tandem with Excuseme99. Excuseme99 made this edit to the article, which I removed and was immediately returned by DJ-x3 here, along with adding images, and returned it again here, here, and here.

Images have been an issue with this user on many articles. On Talk:Jodie Foster, XxTaylor15 posted a complaint about the main picture in use here, to which I responded. A short few hours later, the IP associated with Excuseme99 earlier, IP 66.233.18.83, posted a response here, and 1 minute later, changed the post signature to XxTaylor15, here.

In April 2009, Excuseme99 made this edit to Priscilla Presley, which was reverted by another editor, Scott MacDonald, citing WP:BLP. IP 66.233.18.83 returned it here, which was reverted by the same editor, citing " WP:BLP allegations of underage sex need better sources and relevance." A new username, Donald MacScott changing up the username of the reverting editor, returned the content here. That username was not used again. Again, Scott MacDonald reverted it, citing "there are any number of poorly or unreferenced allegations here." It was then returned by a different username, XxTaylor15, here, who "added SOURCES to prove info". The account Donald MacScott referred to the content added on this page as from a biography by Suzanne Finstad, similarly to the Natalie Wood page. DJ-x3 made this edit to Priscilla Presley, which was reverted and then returned by Excuseme99 here.

4Real182 has also been used in in reinforcing or reverting edits with Excuseme99. On January 10, 2009, 4Real182 posted content regarding Razzie awards to Madonna, here. A couple hours later, an editor removed the content, stating it was already covered in the article. A couple hours after that, Excuseme99 returned the content in a somewhat modified form, here. Again, 4Real182 made this edit to Madonna on March 19. Shortly after, another editor altered the post to remove the age of the person under discussion saying it was not sourced, Excuseme99 came in within a few minutes and returned the age content with a source, here. A similar thing occurred on Cher, where a widely divergent opinion regarding album sales existed, so finally content that adddressed a specific number was removed. 4Real182 made these edits that returned the content, which I removed a short time later, stating that "the number was removed for lack of a clearly reliable and definitive source". Shortly thereafter, Excuseme99 actually tipped his or her hand by returning the content here, and left an edit summary which said "i gave FIVE SOURCES! it is a fact, why don't you believe it?" Please note that Excuseme99 basically admitted to being 4Real182 by saying he/she gave the sources, when the content was in fact added by User:4Real182. At that time, I left a warning at the Excuseme99 talk page regarding the slip up and using more than one username account and the 4Real182 account stopped being used for over 2 months. If more evidence from this particular pairing is needed, I'm sure it can be readily found.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

To clarify that all of these accounts are the same user. New accounts seem to pop up whenever the edits of the Excuseme99 account are questioned or challenged. This has increased with the increase of editors expressing concern.


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed per the provided evidence. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Donald MacScott is Red X Unrelated.

 Confirmed all of the following:
Dominic· t 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I knew there had to be more, but I didn't realize there quite that many. Thanks so much! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply


Report date July 23 2009, 01:35 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Aside from the generally similar names, these users have all been editing similar pages, i.e. The Saturdays discography, Kým nás máš, Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2010, Eurovision Song Contest 2009, various "(Name of country) in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest" articles and other Eurovision Song Contest articles, Hayden Panettiere. Generally inserts false chart positions, inflated sales, and similar vandalism. The previous report showed this user to be a prolific sockpuppeteer, and he's not slowing down. Time to see if there are some underlying IPs that can be blocked to bring this under control, as well as a sweep for sleepers.— Kww( talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Reply to Nathan I see your point, and I didn't do my homework properly. I saw the sock farm and the block blaming it on Excuseme99, but didn't track it back to the original socking report properly. I can see the connection is difficult to see. The whole xxxrocks farm is clearly a sock farm, and clearly needs a checkuser to find the underlying IP and see if it can be blocked. What's the best path forward? Should we close this report and have me resubmit under one of the xxxrocks IDs? Or proceed with this one, and create the report after the checkuser reveals the master account?— Kww( talk) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Question - The problem with User:Excuseme99, and a bit of what I'm seeing from the "xx rocks" accounts is that in some cases, an account would be created to only deal with specific articles, which made it harder to identify until a couple slip ups. Then the Excuseme99 sock result turned up far more accounts than I'd originally realized. Is it even necessary to connect it back to Excuseme99 of since an obvious sock farm is revealed by just the "xx rocks" accounts? That certainly would be easier, to a degree. Just asking. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

I have added another name to the list that was identified as belonging to Excuseme99, in case there is an IP usage connected to the others. A new account to edit Hayden Panettiere was registered, User:Xtinarocks. Also edited the Eurovision articles and Ashlee Simpson discography. Xtinarocks made several edits to the Simpson discography, including this one, which inflated the chart position of a song and to the song La La (song). I tagged User talk:Xtinarocks with a suspected sock puppet tag and the account made no new edits. But a new account was registered [8] which came back in to restore the same chart position on the discography [9] and the song [10]. User:Xtinarocks, User:Britneyrocks, User:Spearsrocks and User:Haydenrocks were all registered after User:Excuseme99 was blocked. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

70.126.151.97 also has a history of edits which are very similar to those made by the above users, including inflating chart positions, frequently in the same articles as those edited by the above users. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Kww( talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • I see the connection between Excuseme99 and Staplestore, but not necessarily the "xy rocks" farm. That stack of socks can be blocked without a CU, but the Staplestore connection seems strong enough to warrant a block and, given the sockfarming history, a CU. Nathan T 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, on further review, the Staplestore account listed here is blocked as a confirmed sock (although I don't see the name in the archived report). Can the reporters post up some evidence connecting the *rocks accounts to Excuseme99? Nathan T 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The link to Excuseme99 doesn't seem terribly strong, but at least one of the *rocks accounts was blocked by Nihonjoe as a "confirmed" sock of Excuseme99. Endorse CU to see if any accounts in this sockfarm were missed and to confirm the link to Excuseme99. Nathan T 14:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following as one user:
  1. Xtinadbest ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Christinarocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Britneyrocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Xtinarocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Ashleerocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Spearsrocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Haydenrocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also,  Confirmed the following as socks of Excuseme99:

  1. Staplestore ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Staples6 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The first and second batch of socks are Red X Unrelated. Anya rocks ( talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to any user. IPs blocked. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 6 2010, 23:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

IP was previously blocked as a sock, but is back editing after the 6 month block. Needs to be blocked for another 6 months. Nymf talk/ contr. 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.


Report date January 18 2010, 13:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

It's a duck. Same kind of edits in the same articles, with the same kind of edit summaries. (e.g. listing each section changed in the edit summary.) Nymf talk/ contr. 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Added a 2nd IP. Continuing the edits of the IP above, and is on the same subnet/ISP as the old blocked IP. Nymf talk/ contr. 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked 66.233.23.3 24h. The user is IP-hopping around like a jackrabbit. – MuZemike 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I just realized the longterm block on 66.233.18.83. If the IP I just blocked or any other IPs within or around that 66.233.16.0/21 range pops up, let me know or submit another SPI. – MuZemike 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
Report date February 25 2010, 02:23 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

Same type of edits (and edit summaries) in the same articles. Same IP range. It's a duck. Nymf talk/ contr. 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, and I just saw that this is one of the previously blocked IPs, so I guess it just needs to be extended. Nymf talk/ contr. 02:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The account admitted to being the same person here. Nymf talk/ contr. 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: the IP block has been extended, just waiting on a block for Jarjar66 ( talk · contribs · block user) ( duck) Spitfire Tally-ho! 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 18 2010, 22:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Wildhartlivie

Same type of edits (and edit summaries) in the same articles. Special attention to Natalie Wood and Lana Wood and removing content about Wood going on dates with noted gay actors, the same as edited by Excuseme99, and content related to connecting Robert Wagner to Wood's death, and uploaded the same copyrighted photo as one of the earlier socks. Also to Kirstie Alley and Sophia Loren. It's a duck. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk declined – Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is Excuseme99. No CU necessary. – MuZemike 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. I believe the autoblock nabbed the IP. – MuZemike 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date June 4 2010

Closeminded8 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

For the record, Closeminded8 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) was found in the same geographical area as the recent User:Classic80 sock. Given the distinctive editing of this account, I consider it  Confirmed and have blocked appropriately. Cool Hand Luke 13:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

01 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

Registered a couple of days after the last sock was blocked. Editing the same articles, with the same type of edits, with the same edit summaries. Nymf hideliho! 21:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

  Looks like a duck to me Someone feel free to block them as the patterns are the same in the grammar style of the summaries and the fact that they all have an extreme fascination with celebrities. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TN X Man 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



04 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

Another duck. Requesting checkuser to catch any other sleepers and block the underlying IP if possible. Nymf hideliho! 09:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Amalthea, have a look at the edits of some of the banned accounts, and you'll see that the moment he disagrees with someone, he'll start calling people names (e.g. the moments just before Closeminded8 was banned). Also, have a look at the history in the archives, and you'll see that there has been some quite severe cases. 25+ socks. Nymf hideliho! 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed that

are the same. FWIW, it doesn't appear that he is using any accounts concurrently. I'm not familiar with the history here, but from a glance the edits by this person seem absolutely constructive. I think if we can come to some kind of agreement with him it might be beneficial for us all. Amalthea 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Blocked & tagged. Additionally, I stated I would be willing unblock if they agreed to stick with one account. Tiptoety talk 23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
17 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

User refused to do this the right way after he was blocked on his last account, so it's yet another duck. Nymf hideliho! 10:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 01:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

23 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

Same IP that was previously blocked as a sock. Yet another duck. Nymf hideliho! 10:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked. TN X Man 17:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

06 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Nymf

Re-editing all the old articles with the same kind of edits and edit summaries. Quack! Nymf hideliho! 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Nymf hideliho! 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged all but Saint Jasper. Some of these accounts had no edits, but accounts created in pairs and sitting dormant without edits can't be up to good things.— Kww( talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
21 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Nymf

An IP doing redoing a lot of the previous edits, using the same kind of edit summaries. Same ISP as the previous blocked IPs. Hear the quacking from the pond? Nymf hideliho! 11:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Obvious block evasion. IP blocked for two months. Amalthea 12:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

23 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Nymf

Won't he ever let it go? It's a duck. Nymf hideliho! 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, and the IP needs to be reblocked. As you can tell the account was created the day the ban on the IP expired. Can we go for a longer one (6 months+), since it's very stable? Nymf hideliho! 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Canstraw blocked and tagged. 50.8.180.103 was autoblocked, not a surprise here. But I reblocked it and extended the block to 6 months. Elockid ( Talk) 14:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

31 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Just another duck. Nymf hideliho! 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
23 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same kind of edit summaries, edits the same articles, IP geolocates to the same area as the old 66.* IP. Quack! Nymf hideliho! 02:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
23 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same subnet, same articles, same edit summaries. Quack! (A CU to check for accounts would be nice as well, but not necessary to block the IP.) Nymf hideliho! 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Nymf hideliho! 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Lo and behold! Found an account when looking through a couple of articles. Nymf hideliho! 01:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Account blocked and tagged. The IP was autoblocked so I rangeblocked 76.201.96.0/24 for 1 month. Elockid ( Talk) 01:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

26 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Yep, it's a duck again. Previously blocked IP, too. Nymf hideliho! 17:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed See below. -- Avi ( talk) 03:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply


26 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Saw this one as well shortly after the previous SPI was closed. Any chance of a checkuser for sleepers? Since there obviously was at least one that we almost missed. Nymf hideliho! 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed  IP blocked -- Avi ( talk) 02:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

30 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Sigh. The duck is back. Nymf hideliho! 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Another duck. Nymf hideliho! 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note 76.201.96.0/24 reblocked 3 months. Elockid ( Talk) 12:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply

25 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Another duck. Requesting CU as well if possible, as there are other accounts in the history of Sondra Locke displaying quacky behavior. Nymf hideliho! 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are technically indistinguishable:

03 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Excusme99 has a long history of various sockpuppets editing on Sondra Locke and several other pages. These include User:Trend5085 and User:ClearedClosed among others. User PlaceboComp8705 created his/her account [11] and promptly continued the discussion started by other known socks of Excuseme99. In this on August 3, PlaceboComp writes, "For the past thirteen days I have only argued this point on Locke's talk page" but the PlaceboComp account was created on August 2, 2011. This statement seems to indicate an admission by Placebo that he/she has indeed been editing as a sock for some time. A checkuser should confirm. Erikeltic ( Talk) 16:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are the same:

02 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Been a while since the last block, but it's the same M.O., same article, same kind of edits, same kind of edit summaries. Quack! Nymf hideliho! 18:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I ran a check since the previous cases uncovered some sleepers. Didn't find any this time. Looks definitely  Possible though. Elockid ( Talk) 02:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply

11 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Edits same articles as named editor, reverted in a paragraph the named editor insisted on being in Natalie Wood article Lhb1239 ( talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Didn't realize that IPs don't qualify for CU because of privacy concerns. Makes sense and I won't be making that error again!

Re: the last admin comment: the article's no longer protected. Lhb1239 ( talk) 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
23 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Another duck. Nymf hideliho! 07:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I was hoping to avoid from going into what gave it away, so he wouldn't eventually pick up on it. If you can, blank this comment afterwards. It's the article itself (he has been plaguing it for 2 and a half years), but more importantly, his edit summaries. Some of the contribution histories of past socks: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Compare it to the current sock. I think you'll see the pattern, too. Nymf hideliho! 13:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Milancholiu is a new incarnation/ user that immediately began editing the wikis that Excuseme99 and all of his other incarnations have been editing over the past couple of years. Their editing style is the same. It looks like a duck to me. [18] Erikeltic ( Talk) 12:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Good catch on User:Tradepath8, Kww. It is definitely a duck. I can tell from just looking at the edit summaries and the type of articles edited, e.g. old actors/actresses, Elvis related articles, Natalie Wood, etc. I wish I had the energy to keep watching the articles this sock is interested in, and we might have caught him months ago. Nymf hideliho! 13:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I blocked Milancholiu. In looking at his edits, I came across his creation of Tradepath8's user page, which seems suspicious. I would like others to look at Tradepath8's edits, as I have't quite formed a conclusion yet.— Kww( talk) 14:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Blocked and tagged Tradepath8, reverted contributions.— Kww( talk) 14:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply
26 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:MuZemike&oldid=494338860#Julie_Christie — Kww( talk) 12:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Filing SPI report to document socks already blocked by MuZemike.— Kww( talk) 12:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply

10 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Canoe1967 began editing primarily in February 2012. Prior to this Canoe1967 had a couple of edits in mid & late 2011. On May 20, 2012 another of Excuseme99's sock puppets was blocked. On May 23, 2012 [19] Canoe1967 showed up in Sondra Locke to defend the unending incarnations of Excuseme99. Today Canoe1967 made this edit to the Lock talk page [20] which is virtually identical to an earlier edit made by a confirmed sock puppet of Excuseme99. [21]

To recap: Canoe1967 had never edited the article prior to Excuseme99's latest sock being blocked. Canoe1967's tone, style of type, and arguments (including the same "proof") are identical to Excuseme99. Canoe1967 has been overly hostile w/ the same editors that disagreed w/ Excuseme99 and has an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia that a new editor wouldn't have.

In short, this looks like yet another WP:DUCK. Erikeltic ( Talk) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

My first edit there was to put the birth year in the info box. There was only one year in the lead at the time. Soon after someone added the other year and I deleted both in good faith and boldly as a BLP article should not contain false facts. One year is impossible and the talk page should reach consensus as to which year is correct. Having two years is just ridiculous. I have the same thoughts as that person(s?) because I looked at the same evidence in the same way. The lead of Patrick McGilligan (biographer) states that the biography is unauthorized and the rest is in all the same sources. I could ask my father if I may have a sibling out there that thinks like me if you like?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I added my own checkuser tag. This should close the case quickly. I could also have it closed with and office action if you wish.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly" I do consider this as an attack accusation and feel that Erik's and other editor's edits should be reviewed more closely.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Look at the archive of this page. Excuseme99 is a user who has had about 60 different incarnations. It is perfectly reasonable to raise suspicions of a user that resembles Excuseme99, and it is certainly not in bad faith. Nymf hideliho! 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I can't believe this bullshit. I come across an article with a 3yr+ discussion that still hasn't reached consensus an I get dragged into petty power trips by other editors. I actually had to show some how to read sources. I do consider this as an attack and the other editor's edits should be examined more closely. I believe in the same evidence that some sock gets blocked for and now I have to sink to your level and play your childish games when I actually have better things to do with my time.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Right. You just came upon it out of the blue... three days after the latest Excuseme99 sock was blocked... using the same tone of voice, same terms, same insults, same everything... and all of this while showing off advanced knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies from an account that's got about two months worth of edits. Right. "Some schmuck" [22] indeed. If it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Erikeltic ( Talk) 21:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If I read the checkuser report correctly it seems that the sock an I only crossed on Jodie Foster and Sondra. My only edit to Jodie was to remove her from a cat that didn't qualify under BLP:CAT and it was not reverted. Seems the only thing we have in common are two female blonde celebs? I doubt the sock edited any of the other articles I have because they are not in the same areas. I have done a lot of work on commons if you would like to compare us there as well.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • ??? Could you speak normal please? Are you the checkuser? If so I would prefer one that speaks a language I can understand.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Berean Hunter is saying that we do not perform requests to prove innocence. The reasons why are quite complicated, and not really within the scope of this SPI case. I'll ask the clerks not to use the term "duck" as much because you're right that it can be quite confusing. You can read more about it here. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I am a volunteer mediator at WP:DRN where a discussion of a dispute involving this user is ongoing. I am otherwise uninvolved. In my opinion, this fails the "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has webbed feet, it probably IS a duck" test. The main "duck" argument is that both users are advocating the same position, but Sondra Locke is a celebrity with many fans, and there are almost certainly multiple people who have the same opinion concerning her date of birth. In other words, I hear something that sounds a little bit like a quack, but I see no feathers or webbed feet. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Welp, that's one hell of a platypus. Erikeltic ( Talk) 02:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but I just don't see it. And I now see that the checkuser shows that I was right. The two are posting from many hundreds of miles away from each other. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed. The evidence you've provided is a start, but there's still quite a few unsupported allegations in the reason for the request. In particular, the second paragraph completely lacks diffs supporting the statements. Please add some and we can proceed. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Extraordinarily, I made my own review of the investigation and do see behavioural evidence that Canoe1967 is a reincarnation of Excuseme99 (and his last blocked sock). However, Erikeltic should be aware that we require every statement used as evidence of sock-puppetry to be substantiated with diffs. We must be able to validate every part of your hypothesis, or a check cannot be made. In future, requests for a check which fail to give a valid rationale with supporting evidence will be declined.

Having said all this, this account is Red X Unrelated (on geographical grounds, in terms of many hundreds of miles) to Excuseme99's last sock. AGK [•] 12:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

25 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual edit summaries that always gives him away if you look at the beginning of the user's edits, tendentious editing to Natalie Wood, Jane Fonda, Kim Novak, Demi Moore, Lisa Marie Presley, etc - typical pages frequented by Excuseme99. Quacking like crazy, and quite a bit of damage done during the 2 months that he went undetected. Nymf hideliho! 16:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Please take a look at Waltcoogan ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). I came across the account while handling the reversions, and I'm betting it's Excuseme99 as well.— Kww( talk) 22:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
They would have come up in the sleeper check. I see similarities, but I also see some key differences at first glance, summaries in particular. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Excuseme99/Archive&oldid=1142567527"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Excuseme99

Excuseme99 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date June 19 2009, 07:54 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wildhartlivie

Excuseme99 has been challenged by multiple editors regarding edits made and POV editing across a variety of articles over the last several months. The issues became serious in regard to the article Natalie Wood regarding the death section and relationships, when the editor posted article content that implied Wood's husband, Robert Wagner was physically involved and responsible for her death , that Wood and Christopher Walken had spent the night prior to Wood's together at a hotel and that Wood claimed to have caught Wagner having sexual relations with another man. [1] At one point, Excuseme99 even stated unequivocably on the talk page "It is ridiculous lies told by Wagner, the murderer himself." This WP:BLP violation increased the scrutiny of all the account's edits and increased challenges to the editor's ability to edit the page neutrally.

At that point, Misty313 popped up to make edits on the article, leading to edits of the death and relationship sections. [2] within a short period of time after Excuseme99 had edited the Cher article. [3] While looking at the contributions history of Misty313, I then noticed this edit made by Misty313 to Nicholas Ray, followed one minute later by an edit by the IP IP 66.233.18.83. [4] The contributions history of IP 66.233.18.83 included a posting here as a response to my comments to Excuseme99 regarding the death allegations about Robert Wagner. A great deal of this was declared to come from a book by Suzanne Finstad.

Misty313 first posted to Wikipedia here to Talk:Natalie Wood at 18:43, 7 June 2009 (my time), immediately preceding a series of edits by Excuseme99 to Talk:Natalie Wood, [5] Natalie Wood [6] and Robert Wagner. [7]

DJ-x3 also has edited Natalie Wood in tandem with Excuseme99. Excuseme99 made this edit to the article, which I removed and was immediately returned by DJ-x3 here, along with adding images, and returned it again here, here, and here.

Images have been an issue with this user on many articles. On Talk:Jodie Foster, XxTaylor15 posted a complaint about the main picture in use here, to which I responded. A short few hours later, the IP associated with Excuseme99 earlier, IP 66.233.18.83, posted a response here, and 1 minute later, changed the post signature to XxTaylor15, here.

In April 2009, Excuseme99 made this edit to Priscilla Presley, which was reverted by another editor, Scott MacDonald, citing WP:BLP. IP 66.233.18.83 returned it here, which was reverted by the same editor, citing " WP:BLP allegations of underage sex need better sources and relevance." A new username, Donald MacScott changing up the username of the reverting editor, returned the content here. That username was not used again. Again, Scott MacDonald reverted it, citing "there are any number of poorly or unreferenced allegations here." It was then returned by a different username, XxTaylor15, here, who "added SOURCES to prove info". The account Donald MacScott referred to the content added on this page as from a biography by Suzanne Finstad, similarly to the Natalie Wood page. DJ-x3 made this edit to Priscilla Presley, which was reverted and then returned by Excuseme99 here.

4Real182 has also been used in in reinforcing or reverting edits with Excuseme99. On January 10, 2009, 4Real182 posted content regarding Razzie awards to Madonna, here. A couple hours later, an editor removed the content, stating it was already covered in the article. A couple hours after that, Excuseme99 returned the content in a somewhat modified form, here. Again, 4Real182 made this edit to Madonna on March 19. Shortly after, another editor altered the post to remove the age of the person under discussion saying it was not sourced, Excuseme99 came in within a few minutes and returned the age content with a source, here. A similar thing occurred on Cher, where a widely divergent opinion regarding album sales existed, so finally content that adddressed a specific number was removed. 4Real182 made these edits that returned the content, which I removed a short time later, stating that "the number was removed for lack of a clearly reliable and definitive source". Shortly thereafter, Excuseme99 actually tipped his or her hand by returning the content here, and left an edit summary which said "i gave FIVE SOURCES! it is a fact, why don't you believe it?" Please note that Excuseme99 basically admitted to being 4Real182 by saying he/she gave the sources, when the content was in fact added by User:4Real182. At that time, I left a warning at the Excuseme99 talk page regarding the slip up and using more than one username account and the 4Real182 account stopped being used for over 2 months. If more evidence from this particular pairing is needed, I'm sure it can be readily found.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

To clarify that all of these accounts are the same user. New accounts seem to pop up whenever the edits of the Excuseme99 account are questioned or challenged. This has increased with the increase of editors expressing concern.


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed per the provided evidence. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Donald MacScott is Red X Unrelated.

 Confirmed all of the following:
Dominic· t 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I knew there had to be more, but I didn't realize there quite that many. Thanks so much! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply


Report date July 23 2009, 01:35 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Aside from the generally similar names, these users have all been editing similar pages, i.e. The Saturdays discography, Kým nás máš, Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2010, Eurovision Song Contest 2009, various "(Name of country) in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest" articles and other Eurovision Song Contest articles, Hayden Panettiere. Generally inserts false chart positions, inflated sales, and similar vandalism. The previous report showed this user to be a prolific sockpuppeteer, and he's not slowing down. Time to see if there are some underlying IPs that can be blocked to bring this under control, as well as a sweep for sleepers.— Kww( talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Reply to Nathan I see your point, and I didn't do my homework properly. I saw the sock farm and the block blaming it on Excuseme99, but didn't track it back to the original socking report properly. I can see the connection is difficult to see. The whole xxxrocks farm is clearly a sock farm, and clearly needs a checkuser to find the underlying IP and see if it can be blocked. What's the best path forward? Should we close this report and have me resubmit under one of the xxxrocks IDs? Or proceed with this one, and create the report after the checkuser reveals the master account?— Kww( talk) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Question - The problem with User:Excuseme99, and a bit of what I'm seeing from the "xx rocks" accounts is that in some cases, an account would be created to only deal with specific articles, which made it harder to identify until a couple slip ups. Then the Excuseme99 sock result turned up far more accounts than I'd originally realized. Is it even necessary to connect it back to Excuseme99 of since an obvious sock farm is revealed by just the "xx rocks" accounts? That certainly would be easier, to a degree. Just asking. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

I have added another name to the list that was identified as belonging to Excuseme99, in case there is an IP usage connected to the others. A new account to edit Hayden Panettiere was registered, User:Xtinarocks. Also edited the Eurovision articles and Ashlee Simpson discography. Xtinarocks made several edits to the Simpson discography, including this one, which inflated the chart position of a song and to the song La La (song). I tagged User talk:Xtinarocks with a suspected sock puppet tag and the account made no new edits. But a new account was registered [8] which came back in to restore the same chart position on the discography [9] and the song [10]. User:Xtinarocks, User:Britneyrocks, User:Spearsrocks and User:Haydenrocks were all registered after User:Excuseme99 was blocked. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

70.126.151.97 also has a history of edits which are very similar to those made by the above users, including inflating chart positions, frequently in the same articles as those edited by the above users. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Kww( talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • I see the connection between Excuseme99 and Staplestore, but not necessarily the "xy rocks" farm. That stack of socks can be blocked without a CU, but the Staplestore connection seems strong enough to warrant a block and, given the sockfarming history, a CU. Nathan T 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, on further review, the Staplestore account listed here is blocked as a confirmed sock (although I don't see the name in the archived report). Can the reporters post up some evidence connecting the *rocks accounts to Excuseme99? Nathan T 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The link to Excuseme99 doesn't seem terribly strong, but at least one of the *rocks accounts was blocked by Nihonjoe as a "confirmed" sock of Excuseme99. Endorse CU to see if any accounts in this sockfarm were missed and to confirm the link to Excuseme99. Nathan T 14:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following as one user:
  1. Xtinadbest ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Christinarocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Britneyrocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Xtinarocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Ashleerocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Spearsrocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Haydenrocks ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also,  Confirmed the following as socks of Excuseme99:

  1. Staplestore ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Staples6 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The first and second batch of socks are Red X Unrelated. Anya rocks ( talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to any user. IPs blocked. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 6 2010, 23:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

IP was previously blocked as a sock, but is back editing after the 6 month block. Needs to be blocked for another 6 months. Nymf talk/ contr. 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.


Report date January 18 2010, 13:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

It's a duck. Same kind of edits in the same articles, with the same kind of edit summaries. (e.g. listing each section changed in the edit summary.) Nymf talk/ contr. 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Added a 2nd IP. Continuing the edits of the IP above, and is on the same subnet/ISP as the old blocked IP. Nymf talk/ contr. 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked 66.233.23.3 24h. The user is IP-hopping around like a jackrabbit. – MuZemike 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I just realized the longterm block on 66.233.18.83. If the IP I just blocked or any other IPs within or around that 66.233.16.0/21 range pops up, let me know or submit another SPI. – MuZemike 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
Report date February 25 2010, 02:23 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

Same type of edits (and edit summaries) in the same articles. Same IP range. It's a duck. Nymf talk/ contr. 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, and I just saw that this is one of the previously blocked IPs, so I guess it just needs to be extended. Nymf talk/ contr. 02:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The account admitted to being the same person here. Nymf talk/ contr. 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: the IP block has been extended, just waiting on a block for Jarjar66 ( talk · contribs · block user) ( duck) Spitfire Tally-ho! 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 18 2010, 22:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Wildhartlivie

Same type of edits (and edit summaries) in the same articles. Special attention to Natalie Wood and Lana Wood and removing content about Wood going on dates with noted gay actors, the same as edited by Excuseme99, and content related to connecting Robert Wagner to Wood's death, and uploaded the same copyrighted photo as one of the earlier socks. Also to Kirstie Alley and Sophia Loren. It's a duck. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk declined – Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is Excuseme99. No CU necessary. – MuZemike 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. I believe the autoblock nabbed the IP. – MuZemike 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date June 4 2010

Closeminded8 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

For the record, Closeminded8 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) was found in the same geographical area as the recent User:Classic80 sock. Given the distinctive editing of this account, I consider it  Confirmed and have blocked appropriately. Cool Hand Luke 13:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

01 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

Registered a couple of days after the last sock was blocked. Editing the same articles, with the same type of edits, with the same edit summaries. Nymf hideliho! 21:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

  Looks like a duck to me Someone feel free to block them as the patterns are the same in the grammar style of the summaries and the fact that they all have an extreme fascination with celebrities. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TN X Man 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



04 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

Another duck. Requesting checkuser to catch any other sleepers and block the underlying IP if possible. Nymf hideliho! 09:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Amalthea, have a look at the edits of some of the banned accounts, and you'll see that the moment he disagrees with someone, he'll start calling people names (e.g. the moments just before Closeminded8 was banned). Also, have a look at the history in the archives, and you'll see that there has been some quite severe cases. 25+ socks. Nymf hideliho! 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed that

are the same. FWIW, it doesn't appear that he is using any accounts concurrently. I'm not familiar with the history here, but from a glance the edits by this person seem absolutely constructive. I think if we can come to some kind of agreement with him it might be beneficial for us all. Amalthea 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Blocked & tagged. Additionally, I stated I would be willing unblock if they agreed to stick with one account. Tiptoety talk 23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
17 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

User refused to do this the right way after he was blocked on his last account, so it's yet another duck. Nymf hideliho! 10:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 01:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

23 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nymf

Same IP that was previously blocked as a sock. Yet another duck. Nymf hideliho! 10:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked. TN X Man 17:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

06 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Nymf

Re-editing all the old articles with the same kind of edits and edit summaries. Quack! Nymf hideliho! 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Nymf hideliho! 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged all but Saint Jasper. Some of these accounts had no edits, but accounts created in pairs and sitting dormant without edits can't be up to good things.— Kww( talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
21 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Nymf

An IP doing redoing a lot of the previous edits, using the same kind of edit summaries. Same ISP as the previous blocked IPs. Hear the quacking from the pond? Nymf hideliho! 11:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Obvious block evasion. IP blocked for two months. Amalthea 12:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

23 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Nymf

Won't he ever let it go? It's a duck. Nymf hideliho! 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, and the IP needs to be reblocked. As you can tell the account was created the day the ban on the IP expired. Can we go for a longer one (6 months+), since it's very stable? Nymf hideliho! 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Canstraw blocked and tagged. 50.8.180.103 was autoblocked, not a surprise here. But I reblocked it and extended the block to 6 months. Elockid ( Talk) 14:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

31 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Just another duck. Nymf hideliho! 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
23 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same kind of edit summaries, edits the same articles, IP geolocates to the same area as the old 66.* IP. Quack! Nymf hideliho! 02:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
23 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same subnet, same articles, same edit summaries. Quack! (A CU to check for accounts would be nice as well, but not necessary to block the IP.) Nymf hideliho! 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Nymf hideliho! 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Lo and behold! Found an account when looking through a couple of articles. Nymf hideliho! 01:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Account blocked and tagged. The IP was autoblocked so I rangeblocked 76.201.96.0/24 for 1 month. Elockid ( Talk) 01:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

26 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Yep, it's a duck again. Previously blocked IP, too. Nymf hideliho! 17:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed See below. -- Avi ( talk) 03:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply


26 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Saw this one as well shortly after the previous SPI was closed. Any chance of a checkuser for sleepers? Since there obviously was at least one that we almost missed. Nymf hideliho! 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed  IP blocked -- Avi ( talk) 02:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

30 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Sigh. The duck is back. Nymf hideliho! 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Another duck. Nymf hideliho! 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note 76.201.96.0/24 reblocked 3 months. Elockid ( Talk) 12:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply

25 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Another duck. Requesting CU as well if possible, as there are other accounts in the history of Sondra Locke displaying quacky behavior. Nymf hideliho! 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are technically indistinguishable:

03 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Excusme99 has a long history of various sockpuppets editing on Sondra Locke and several other pages. These include User:Trend5085 and User:ClearedClosed among others. User PlaceboComp8705 created his/her account [11] and promptly continued the discussion started by other known socks of Excuseme99. In this on August 3, PlaceboComp writes, "For the past thirteen days I have only argued this point on Locke's talk page" but the PlaceboComp account was created on August 2, 2011. This statement seems to indicate an admission by Placebo that he/she has indeed been editing as a sock for some time. A checkuser should confirm. Erikeltic ( Talk) 16:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are the same:

02 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Been a while since the last block, but it's the same M.O., same article, same kind of edits, same kind of edit summaries. Quack! Nymf hideliho! 18:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I ran a check since the previous cases uncovered some sleepers. Didn't find any this time. Looks definitely  Possible though. Elockid ( Talk) 02:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply

11 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Edits same articles as named editor, reverted in a paragraph the named editor insisted on being in Natalie Wood article Lhb1239 ( talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Didn't realize that IPs don't qualify for CU because of privacy concerns. Makes sense and I won't be making that error again!

Re: the last admin comment: the article's no longer protected. Lhb1239 ( talk) 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
23 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Another duck. Nymf hideliho! 07:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I was hoping to avoid from going into what gave it away, so he wouldn't eventually pick up on it. If you can, blank this comment afterwards. It's the article itself (he has been plaguing it for 2 and a half years), but more importantly, his edit summaries. Some of the contribution histories of past socks: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Compare it to the current sock. I think you'll see the pattern, too. Nymf hideliho! 13:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Milancholiu is a new incarnation/ user that immediately began editing the wikis that Excuseme99 and all of his other incarnations have been editing over the past couple of years. Their editing style is the same. It looks like a duck to me. [18] Erikeltic ( Talk) 12:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Good catch on User:Tradepath8, Kww. It is definitely a duck. I can tell from just looking at the edit summaries and the type of articles edited, e.g. old actors/actresses, Elvis related articles, Natalie Wood, etc. I wish I had the energy to keep watching the articles this sock is interested in, and we might have caught him months ago. Nymf hideliho! 13:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I blocked Milancholiu. In looking at his edits, I came across his creation of Tradepath8's user page, which seems suspicious. I would like others to look at Tradepath8's edits, as I have't quite formed a conclusion yet.— Kww( talk) 14:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Blocked and tagged Tradepath8, reverted contributions.— Kww( talk) 14:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply
26 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:MuZemike&oldid=494338860#Julie_Christie — Kww( talk) 12:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Filing SPI report to document socks already blocked by MuZemike.— Kww( talk) 12:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply

10 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Canoe1967 began editing primarily in February 2012. Prior to this Canoe1967 had a couple of edits in mid & late 2011. On May 20, 2012 another of Excuseme99's sock puppets was blocked. On May 23, 2012 [19] Canoe1967 showed up in Sondra Locke to defend the unending incarnations of Excuseme99. Today Canoe1967 made this edit to the Lock talk page [20] which is virtually identical to an earlier edit made by a confirmed sock puppet of Excuseme99. [21]

To recap: Canoe1967 had never edited the article prior to Excuseme99's latest sock being blocked. Canoe1967's tone, style of type, and arguments (including the same "proof") are identical to Excuseme99. Canoe1967 has been overly hostile w/ the same editors that disagreed w/ Excuseme99 and has an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia that a new editor wouldn't have.

In short, this looks like yet another WP:DUCK. Erikeltic ( Talk) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

My first edit there was to put the birth year in the info box. There was only one year in the lead at the time. Soon after someone added the other year and I deleted both in good faith and boldly as a BLP article should not contain false facts. One year is impossible and the talk page should reach consensus as to which year is correct. Having two years is just ridiculous. I have the same thoughts as that person(s?) because I looked at the same evidence in the same way. The lead of Patrick McGilligan (biographer) states that the biography is unauthorized and the rest is in all the same sources. I could ask my father if I may have a sibling out there that thinks like me if you like?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I added my own checkuser tag. This should close the case quickly. I could also have it closed with and office action if you wish.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly" I do consider this as an attack accusation and feel that Erik's and other editor's edits should be reviewed more closely.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Look at the archive of this page. Excuseme99 is a user who has had about 60 different incarnations. It is perfectly reasonable to raise suspicions of a user that resembles Excuseme99, and it is certainly not in bad faith. Nymf hideliho! 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I can't believe this bullshit. I come across an article with a 3yr+ discussion that still hasn't reached consensus an I get dragged into petty power trips by other editors. I actually had to show some how to read sources. I do consider this as an attack and the other editor's edits should be examined more closely. I believe in the same evidence that some sock gets blocked for and now I have to sink to your level and play your childish games when I actually have better things to do with my time.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Right. You just came upon it out of the blue... three days after the latest Excuseme99 sock was blocked... using the same tone of voice, same terms, same insults, same everything... and all of this while showing off advanced knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies from an account that's got about two months worth of edits. Right. "Some schmuck" [22] indeed. If it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Erikeltic ( Talk) 21:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If I read the checkuser report correctly it seems that the sock an I only crossed on Jodie Foster and Sondra. My only edit to Jodie was to remove her from a cat that didn't qualify under BLP:CAT and it was not reverted. Seems the only thing we have in common are two female blonde celebs? I doubt the sock edited any of the other articles I have because they are not in the same areas. I have done a lot of work on commons if you would like to compare us there as well.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • ??? Could you speak normal please? Are you the checkuser? If so I would prefer one that speaks a language I can understand.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Berean Hunter is saying that we do not perform requests to prove innocence. The reasons why are quite complicated, and not really within the scope of this SPI case. I'll ask the clerks not to use the term "duck" as much because you're right that it can be quite confusing. You can read more about it here. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I am a volunteer mediator at WP:DRN where a discussion of a dispute involving this user is ongoing. I am otherwise uninvolved. In my opinion, this fails the "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has webbed feet, it probably IS a duck" test. The main "duck" argument is that both users are advocating the same position, but Sondra Locke is a celebrity with many fans, and there are almost certainly multiple people who have the same opinion concerning her date of birth. In other words, I hear something that sounds a little bit like a quack, but I see no feathers or webbed feet. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Welp, that's one hell of a platypus. Erikeltic ( Talk) 02:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but I just don't see it. And I now see that the checkuser shows that I was right. The two are posting from many hundreds of miles away from each other. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed. The evidence you've provided is a start, but there's still quite a few unsupported allegations in the reason for the request. In particular, the second paragraph completely lacks diffs supporting the statements. Please add some and we can proceed. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Extraordinarily, I made my own review of the investigation and do see behavioural evidence that Canoe1967 is a reincarnation of Excuseme99 (and his last blocked sock). However, Erikeltic should be aware that we require every statement used as evidence of sock-puppetry to be substantiated with diffs. We must be able to validate every part of your hypothesis, or a check cannot be made. In future, requests for a check which fail to give a valid rationale with supporting evidence will be declined.

Having said all this, this account is Red X Unrelated (on geographical grounds, in terms of many hundreds of miles) to Excuseme99's last sock. AGK [•] 12:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

25 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual edit summaries that always gives him away if you look at the beginning of the user's edits, tendentious editing to Natalie Wood, Jane Fonda, Kim Novak, Demi Moore, Lisa Marie Presley, etc - typical pages frequented by Excuseme99. Quacking like crazy, and quite a bit of damage done during the 2 months that he went undetected. Nymf hideliho! 16:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Please take a look at Waltcoogan ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). I came across the account while handling the reversions, and I'm betting it's Excuseme99 as well.— Kww( talk) 22:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
They would have come up in the sleeper check. I see similarities, but I also see some key differences at first glance, summaries in particular. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Excuseme99/Archive&oldid=1142567527"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE