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

05 January 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

This was raised at WP:ANI#Stonewalling by User:Deleting Unnecessary Words. They pointed out some edits where the accounts restore edits that had been originally made by one of the other accounts and reverted. There is substantial overlap in the articles edited, and the times of editing are nearly identical. Intersection between SubcommandanteM and GoldDragon: [1]; MaxForce and GoldDragon: [2]; SubcommandanteM and MaxForce: [3] Wikichecker reports: [4] [5] [6] Fences& Windows 22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The sudden reappearance of User:Deleting Unnecessary Words, who gave this lead, is odd, thinking about it. I am minded to accept the argument that this was not done with any intent to sockpuppet, though it gave that impression. Could they now be declared as alternate accounts? Undeclared alt accounts can be used, but not to avoid scrutiny, and not in the same area of editing. Seek help if being hounded by another user. Fences& Windows 02:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

The other accounts came about because I was consistently being followed by an anon user, 69.159.27.XXX, who kept reverting my edits and never actually adding anything constructively to an article. As that anon user refused to sign up and kept following GoldDragon, I created the other accounts to try to throw that anon off.

However, I have never used these multiple accounts to create the perception of different users during an active article dispute, whether to skirt the 3RR or manipulate votes. While I may have edited the same article with different accounts, this was not in any short period of time (once I realized that the other editors rejected the edit due to content and not because of GoldDragon, I backed off). I have not overlapped accounts with an article recently unless it was inadvertent. In particular, I've never used multiple accounts in any disputes against User:Viriditas, therefore that user had no good reason to request an SPI investigation. GoldDragon ( talk) 01:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Not trying to go off on a tangent but User:Deleting Unnecessary Words's sudden reappearance [7] is really surprising, as I've never had any disputes with that user at all. As for scrutiny, as certain users have reverted my edits without bothering to read the content, that was why I tried an alt account a long time ago. GoldDragon ( talk) 02:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have had dealings with both of these accounts in the last week. Looking back, I should have known by the fact that both were edit warring with the same IP, at the same time, but I thought I was dealing with two different editors. GoldDragon claims above that "I created the other accounts to try to throw that anon off." Is this a legitimate way to edit wikipedia? It seems to me that I and quite posibly other editors were duped into thinking we were dealing with two people, when the whole time, it was GoldDragon with multiple accounts. As a legitimate editor trying to help the project, I know that editing can be frustrating at times, but why do we have to put up with stuff like this, that just makes the whole proces even more frustrating? It may not have been GoldDragon's intention to trick anyone other than an IP that he felt was harassing him, but there has to be a better way to deal with the problem than resorting to using sockpuppets. Cmr08 ( talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry if this is getting into too much detail for this discussion, but above GoldDragon mentions that he never used the accounts to give the perception of different users. If it turns out that that User:SubcommandanteM is indeed GoldDragon, this edit summary may contridict the above statement. dif Cmr08 ( talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I think the most troubling and telling aspect of this case is GoldDragon's statement above (emphasis added): "I have not overlapped accounts with an article recently". Viriditas ( talk) 09:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

GoldDragon and MaxForce are  Confirmed. SubcommandanteM is  Stale; that will need to be determined solely on behavioral evidence. – MuZemike 22:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

•  Administrator note So I've indef blocked and tagged the sockpuppet, and I've blocked GoldDragon for 2 weeks for sockpuppeting. I too find the comments about not socking recently to be troubling. As to the stale account, I've tagged it as being a possible sock, but I'm not going to block it just yet. However, feel free to relist if it becomes active again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

15 January 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

I'm filing this report on behalf of User:Cmr08, who claims to have found a new GoldDragon sockpuppet. [8] [9] DowDiamond ( talk · contribs) was created on 8 January 2011, [10] two days after the GoldDragon account was blocked. [11] Since then, DowDiamond has followed closely in the footsteps of GoldDragon, with an astounding 12 out of 16 topics matching GoldDragon's contribution history from a total of only 32 edits made from 8 Jan to 14 Jan. [12] [13] This appears to be a clear case of sockpuppetry based on evidence alone. Note: The use of the DowDiamond account is in violation of GoldDragon's current block, however precautions should be taken to insure that GoldDragon isn't the victim of a joe job. Viriditas ( talk) 03:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

DowDiamond indef blocked, either an obvious sock [14] or a hoaxer, but in either case not an account we need. Checkuser would be good to flush out the "truth". Fences& Windows 03:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

•  Clerk endorsed - CU to clear up what's going on here, and if the master's block should be extended. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Confirmed. TN X Man 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
•  Administrator note Sock was blocked and tagged, and I reset and extended GoldDragon's block to a month for continued sockpuppeting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

18 April 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

RememberCharlie has just been revealed as an obvious GoldDragon account. The contribution history shows that it violated the previous one month block that began on January 15 with more than 40 edits during that time. [15] Because the account is currently active, I am therefore asking for a new, 2 month (or equivalent) block to be placed on the GoldDragon master account and an indefinite block given to RememberCharlie. Viriditas ( talk) 08:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

This is getting frustrating, the editor doesn't seem to take wikipedia guidelines seriously. He gets blocked in January 2011, starts using another account, DowDiamond, making the same type of edits to the same types of articles. He gets caught, and his block extended, then starts another account while still blocked, and continues the same patern. I also suspect that he was using this IP [16] during the same block, as the edits are mostly removing fact tags, some even more than once. From this patern, it doesn't seem like the editor is going to stop. I have to wonder, how many more accounts does this editor have that we have not discovered yet? Cmr08 ( talk) 23:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I dug out what I could from the archive - it appears this user is using the same IP that GoldDragon did in January. More than that, I can't say. TN X Man 13:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

•  Administrator note Indeffed both. T. Canens ( talk) 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

04 August 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Cmr08 has identified a new obvious sock puppet of indef. blocked User:GoldDragon. I'm copying over his evidence that was posted on my talk page: "The contribution list [17] shows that he has been edit warring in a number of articles, and just tonight has now attempted to re-insert an edit in which Gold Dragon was involved in an edit war. Compare the edits. Demon Hill [18], Gold Dragon [19], and even Max Force (another of his sockpuppet) [20]. Can anything actually be done about this? He just keeps creating new accounts everytime he gets blocked, and goes back to editing the same articles, making the same obvious edits, there just seems no end to this. Is it even worth looking into to? If he was to get blocked today, by next week, he'll have a new account and were back into the same problems again." [21]

Can we get a longer term solution to the continuing abuse? Viriditas ( talk) 03:14, 4 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

•  Administrator note I've blocked and tagged the sock on behavioral grounds. I'd like to point out, though, that this is not nearly as bad as you guys are making it out to be. This is the fourth case we've had in six months, and we've got a total of four tagged sock accounts. It's a rather slow burning case, and there isn't really much we can do in terms of a long term solution. Lengthy article protections or extended IP blocks would cause collateral damage, I'd think. Relist and report as necessary and we can take it from there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

27 April 2013

Suspected sockpuppets

• Touranushertz ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 99.238.125.223 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Touranushertz seems to be replicating GoldDragon's behaviour pretty closely. See this edit compared to this one. Both users also have an obsession with BMW's M-cars, the BMW N54 engine and the Audi A8/S8. IP1 is definitely a puppet of Touranushertz (I hate that name), see this vs this one. The similarity with GoldDragon was also pointed out by another user on T's talkpage, which spooked T enough to delete the comment - which is T's only contribution to their own talkpage so far!  Mr.choppers |  ✎  17:29, 27 April 2013 (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

•  Clerk note: After looking at the behavior, which shows some striking similarities, I can't find enough evidence to warrant a block. Closing with no action taken. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 20:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply

30 January 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Limefrost Spiral has the same very unusual combination of interests as GoldDragon and the many socks.

Limefrost Spiral compared to GoldDragon. [22] They have both edited the following articles: Mercedes-Benz M278 engine, Honda Pilot, Walmart Canada, Infiniti, History of Chrysler, Cruise ship, Howard Webb, Pensacola-class cruiser, Third place playoff, Chris Simon, and Chief operating officer.

Limefrost Spiral compared to confirmed sock DowDiamond. [23] DowDiamond only edited for a week, but the following articles were edited by both: Hawthorne Village, Ontario, BMW 7 Series (F01) and South Dakota-class battleship (1939).

Limefrost Spiral compared to confirmed sock RememberCharlie. [24] They both edited the following articles: Ted Turner, Descent II, Descent 3, Mark Hurd, Audi S6, BMW 7 Series (F01), Acura RL, Pensacola-class cruiser, Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff), Corporate title and Chairman.

Limefrost Spiral compared to confirmed sock MaxForce. [25] They both edited the following articles: Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff), Boston Bruins, Bobby Orr, Curse of Billy Penn and Black Friday (shopping).

Limefrost Spiral compared to suspected/blocked sock SubcommandanteM. [26] They both edited the following articles: 1972 Stanley Cup Finals, BMW 7 Series (F01), Infiniti, Ontario Highway 401, History of Chrysler, Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, Acura RL, Honda Pilot, Hockey Hall of Fame, Detroit Red Wings and Infiniti QX70.

Limefrost Spiral compared to suspected/blocked sock Demon Hill. [27] They both edited the following articles: Acura RL, Audi S6, Serious Sam, Chris Simon, Mercedes-Benz M278 engine, 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs, Stanley Cup playoffs, Audi A7, Vezina Trophy, Gerry Cheevers and Chrysler Pacifica.

Limefrost Spiral compared to suspected/blocked sock Touranushertz. [28] They both edited the following articles: Ontario Highway 401, Phablet, Ultrabook, PenTile matrix family, Steve Ballmer, Feature phone, Infiniti, Nokia Lumia series, BMW 6 Series (F06/F12/F13), HTC One series and Ocean Tower.

This is a very unusual intersection of interests: hockey teams, championships and players; Ontario local topics; cars such as Audi, BMW and Chrysler; corporate leaders and leadership topics; warships and cruise ships; and the odd article about handheld mobile devices, buildings, classical music pieces and politicians. Hopefully without violating WP:BEANS, I want to point out that the editing style is very similar between all of the socks and Limefrost Spiral. Bare citations are added with only brackets to enclose the URL, without a title and sometimes without being placed inside ref tags. Examples of this are seen at Limefrost Spiral [29], Touranushertz [30], suspected IP 99.238.125.223 [31], Demon Hill [32], RememberCharlie [33] and GoldDragon [34]. The confluence of interests is unique and the editing style is similar in this and other ways. Binksternet ( talk) 06:54, 30 January 2014 (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

•  Clerk declined All GoldDragon's socks are very stale so there's nothing for CU to connect this account with. Also there hasn't been a history of sleepers so far so no need to check for that reason. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply
•  Administrator note I've blocked (and tagged) Limefrost Spiral as a suspected sock on behavioural grounds. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply

11 April 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

http://tools.wmflabs.org/intersect-contribs/index.php?project=enwiki&user1=GoldDragon&user2=Brimspark&sort=0 99.224.51.134 ( talk) 13:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

• The intersection tool shows Brimspark intersecting with blocked sock Limefrost Spiral on the following unusual collection of articles: Microsoft Surface, IPhone 5C, Symphony No. 5 (Sibelius), Luxury vehicle, Miracle on Manchester, Foul (association football), Gary Carter, Bobby Orr, Galácticos, Roberto Luongo, and Presidents' Trophy. This ones quacks like a duck. Binksternet ( talk) 18:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Brimspark started editing just a few days after Limefrost Spiral was blocked as a sock on behavioral grounds. The unusual combination of fields of interest marks Brimspark like a thumbprint of GoldDragon. Binksternet ( talk) 18:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I have not abused multiple accounts and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. What am I suppose to do about this anon user [35] that keeps trolling me? Brimspark ( talk) 21:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• The sock is edit-warring at Shamrock Summit; I'd like to see a block as we don't need problem editors, either using one account or more. Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• For what it's worth, Brimspark and I have been discussing how he can return to Wikipedia in a legitimate manner via his old account GoldDragon. See User talk:Binksternet#Sockpuppet. My answer was WP:Standard offer, though I did not offer an optimistic result. Binksternet ( talk) 02:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Blocked and tagged as an obvious duck. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC) reply

24 April 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• 142.205.241.254 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Documenting for the record. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 24 April 2014 (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

Blocked, tagged as an obvious sock. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

29 April 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

1. The account was created two days after GoldDragon's last sock (Brimspark) was blocked. 2. Firefiend is editing the same unusual combination of articles that GoldDragon and his socks edited: military history, hockey, soccer, and Canadian politics (see [36]). Firefiend has edited Cape Fear (1991 film), which was also edited by GoldDragon's sock Brimspark. Firefiend has edited Manager (association football), which has also been edited by GoldDragon's socks MonkeyKingBar and Demon Hill. Firefiend has edited Dave Keon, which has also been edited by GoldDragon himself, by GoldDragon's sock MaxForce, and by Touranushertz, who disappeared after being accused of being a GoldDragon sock. In short, Firefiend is going to all the places frequented by GoldDragon and his many, many socks. 3. Firefiend is restoring at least some of Brimspark's edits (compare [37] and [38]). 99.224.51.134 ( talk) 13:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

• I see DUCK similarities, and the creation date of Firefiend is revealing, coming after the other socks were blocked. Binksternet ( talk) 14:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Administrator note This is quacking pretty loudly. Even the user page (which just says "Quake enemy") matches the user page of most of GoldDragon's sockpuppets (before they were replaced by sock tags). There is more than enough behavioral evidence for me to block this editor, and I'll do so. -- Atama 頭 19:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

01 June 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Just as before, the new GoldDragon sock is editing articles about cars, engines, stadiums, athletes, hockey, computer devices, business concepts and video games.
*The editing intersection between GoldDragon and YavinEight includes a very unusual mix of articles: Arsène Wenger, Boeing 777, Diablo (video game), Don Cherry, Dunga, Emirates Stadium, F.E.A.R., Florida State Road 970, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, Grand Theft Auto (series), Heckler & Koch MP5, North Hollywood shootout, Ray Bourque, Roberto Carlos (footballer), SPARS code, Short-handed, Submachine gun, V12 engine, W12 engine.
*The editing intersection between confirmed sockpuppet Limefrost Spiral and YavinEight includes the same unusual mix of articles: Arsenal Stadium, Arsène Wenger, Canada's Wonderland, Emirates Stadium, F.E.A.R., Grand Theft Auto (series), North Hollywood shootout, SPARS code, Stanley Cup playoffs, Target Canada.

As in previous SPI reports, this editor has added URLs enclosed in just brackets and ref tags, without other context, such here and here. Binksternet ( talk) 17:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I believe that I've been a good editor with no edit-warring or any other incidents, and I've never used the sockpuppets to claim multiple accounts supporting one side nor have I used them for fake votes. Is there really anything that I've done that is disruptive or harmful to warrant being banned from wikipedia? I would rather not be forced to keep doing this, but as long as you admins keep putting down the hammer... Shouldn't I have a chance? GoldDrake ( talk) 15:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

When you were editing as GoldDragon, you abused multiple accounts at the end of 2010 and into the first month of 2011. Your one chance to work constructively at Wikipedia is to stop socking for six months and then ask for your GoldDragon account to be unblocked, per Wikipedia:Standard offer. Can you do that? Binksternet ( talk) 15:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I would be open to editing under your supervision (or any other admin), with my original account, but six months is way too long. Those multiple accounts in 2010 were my attempt to try to avoid harassment from an anon IP address (probably still the same one as the one trollling me now, 99.224.51.134, not to claim multiple support for a version of an article, nor for fake votes. In the meantime, I'll stop editing while this dialogue is being conducted. GoldDrake ( talk) 15:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

In fact, that anon IP 99.224.51.134 probably makes a sport of reverting my work for the slightest perceived infringement, and I think that they were using socks User:Limefrostfriend and User:Monkeygolde just make threats [39]. GoldDrake ( talk) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Using multiple accounts was not the way to solve your problem; you should have reported the harassment at WP:ANI. At any rate, if you refuse to stop editing for six months then you will continue to be prosecuted for sockpuppetry, and your edits reverted. Did I mention that you have one legitimate choice ahead of you? WP:Standard offer is the only offer there is. Binksternet ( talk) 15:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I understand that I did wrong back in 2010-11 and I've learned the hard way. Since then I have been able to continue editing relatively trouble-free for over a year, so I shouldn't need a six month probation. Going back to that whack-a-mole doesn't do any of us any good, nor does it help the wikipedia project. It does legitimize the cause of that anon IP 99.224.51.134 and that is a bad cause GoldDrake ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Way back in 2011 when I did get banned for those socks, I should have just accepted the one week block (the admins stated taht I violated policy but they were somewhat sympathetic and gave a lesser sanction), and then I could have continued using my account as normal. My mistake was that I took the punishment too hard at the time and violated the ban to keep editing, I'm now trapped in this never-ending hell. GoldDrake ( talk) 16:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Blocked per WP:DUCK, closing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• In the past, this user has created new accounts prior to the latest one being discovered, so I am wondering if it is worth a checkuser to look for sleepers. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Agreed; that's why I asked for CU in the first place. I'm sorry I did not make myself clear initially. Binksternet ( talk) 05:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

•  Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check. (Diff from master showing ref pattern: [40].) Binksternet: If you want a sleeper check, please ask for one next time; we're not mind readers. :) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
•  Confirmed + GoldDrake ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• GoldDrake: As Binksternet suggests, wait six months before filing an unblock request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The six month period would have to start today on 30 August 2014 because of three articles at which GoldDragon text was restored by Special:Contributions/99.238.175.149, some of the restored text including outdated notes and commented-out images, showing that it was restored from earlier rather than written anew. Binksternet ( talk) 00:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

25 September 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• BenefactorDubsta ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 99.238.175.149 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))
• 142.205.241.254 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

No need for checkuser as this is an easy case. BenefactorDubsta is focusing once again on GoldDragon's usual topics of business concepts and leadership issues, and on computer devices. As was typical of GoldDragon, this sock can be found putting his bare url reference into plain brackets, without the HTML ref tag. [41] This new sock returned to some usual articles such as Macintosh [42] which was also edited many times by confirmed sock Limefrost Spiral [43] and by suspected IP 99.238.175.149 [44] which is from the same Canadian metropolitan area as GoldDragon. IP 99.238.175.149 was also interested in the Apple Store [45] just like BenefactorDubsta [46] and Limefrost Spiral. [47] As well, IP 99.238.175.149 was interested in Desktop computer [48] just like BenefactorDubsta [49] and Limefrost Spiral. [50] This case was not slow to dawn on me; rather, the moment I saw BenefactorDubsta show up on some articles on my watchlist I knew it was GoldDragon returning. Binksternet ( talk) 03:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

• Just wondering, has this person actually been doing anything wrong to articles? I know it's socking to evade a block, but if that block was back in 2011 and there's been no actual bad edits since then and this is (as it seems) a genuine enthusiastic editor, wouldn't it make more sense all round to just change the original block to "time served" and let him get back to work? Neatsfoot ( talk) 09:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Neatsfoot: They can bring up these points if and when they request an unblock from their original account. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • That's a fair point. I'd like to see people working together to get this editor unblocked, but you're right, an unblock request should be the way to start it off. Neatsfoot ( talk) 16:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for vouching for me. It reminds me of the editors on Roy Halladay who fought successfully at Talk:Roy_Halladay#Reverting_edits_by_banned_user to keep my contributions in the article, over the the reverts of 99.224.51.134. Indeed, 99.224.51.134 has such a grudge that he/she makes a sport out of reverting my contributions just because its me rather than seriously looking at the content or making changes. Admin Binksternet is taking the 6 month final offer so literally that he'll go on a revert rampage once he discovers that I'm back, and 99.224.51.134 is only too happy to follow suit. BenefactorDubsta ( talk) 03:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
        • The six-month requirement of WP:OFFER is your only avenue of legitimacy, and even that path will not be easy. But until you resolve to stay away for six months, including IPs and sock accounts, then revive your GoldDragon account and ask for the standard offer, you will be evading a block. Block evaders are not welcome at Wikipedia, no matter the absolute value of their contributions. Binksternet ( talk) 19:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• • Continuing to add original research after being warned: [51] [52]. Edit warring, edit warring, and more edit warring: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Vandalism: [58] [59] It's the bad behavior that gives him away. 99.224.51.134 ( talk) 20:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• I've marked this with a request for a checkuser, for the same reason as last time: In the past, this user has created new accounts prior to the latest one being discovered (or while an SPI is under way), so I believe it is worth a checkuser to look for sleepers. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for that... I endorse the request per case history. Binksternet ( talk) 00:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Indeffing sock and hardblocking two IP addresses (one year) at which he has been persistent for months. No CU should be necessary here as everything in the archive is stale. It will be hard for him to use sleepers when we hardblock his IPs. Closing.
   —  Berean Hunter (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

22 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

• JoshDonaldson20 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This user has been registered on Wikipedia since November 2015. Their editing pattern is very similar to Limefrost Spiral and MonkeyKingBar who were later found as sockpuppets of GoldDragon: (American sports, aviation, games consoles). Having a browse through his talk page, there are a lot of edit warnings, and an interesting reversion. What piqued my curiosity was the user's edits to 1998-99 Manchester United as it's on my watchlist. Take a look at JoshDonaldson20's edits and compare with Limefrost's edits, near identical don't you think? Even down to the poorly referenced links. Lemonade51 ( talk) 10:03, 22 May 2018 (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

This case is  Stale. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 11:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

•  Awaiting administrative action - evidence is persuasive enough for a block based on behavior. Sro23 ( talk) 05:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  •  Administrator note  Blocked and tagged clpo13_{( talk)} 18:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply