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

27 February 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Judaispriest ( 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 "~~~~"

New user Judaispriest recently appeared with the apparent primary purpose of supporting Scieberking's position in a discussion at Talk:Led Zeppelin#Album Sales. In this series of edits, [1] and [2], the sockpuppetry was inadvertantly revealed. The explanation posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Judaispriest is weak and doesn't explain how Scieberking was logged in under another users account. Checkuser is requested to clear this up. Piriczki ( talk) 13:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I announced semi-retired on Feb 1, and retirement on Feb 25. On the other hand, Judaispriest created his account on Feb 14. The clarification provided for the above edit will remain the same as the one on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Judaispriest. I told this user to stay calm via Msn and to write an apology. He'd been asking me for advice for quite a few days. Instead of typing that into the IM window, I mistakenly added it to the section myself. I don't think this should be labelled as sockpuppetry. I've been earlier accused of sockpuppetry also, but the admin later realized that I was wrongly charged, and I was promptly unblocked. As I've already stated I'm a retired user with a considerable good history and lots of constructive contributions. Most users will agree. The rest is upto you to decide. Thank you very much. Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 15:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I would disagree. Using a sock account to abuse User:Revan_ltrl with foul threatening language and to POV stack consensus discussions is a low act. In addition to the two accounts above, there are these two edits from User:115.167.110.9 1 and 2. On the Talk page in December 2009, Scieberking admitted they were his edits [3], yet strangely in February 2011 just before the Judaispriest account was created, evidence of this was deleted by Scieberking [4]. Note there was also a previous SPI against Scieberking SPI:Wiki Libs, in which an admin confirmed Scieberking was using IP address ranges beginning 115.* User:Occultaphenia suspected Scieberking was a sock of another account given his sudden appearance in the middle of a dispute on the Pete Townshend article. A case of history repeating itself? FloydRule ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

All wrong accusations. I was cleaning up my stuff and unneeded edits after semi-retirement and Feb 3 is not "just before" Feb 14. With this said, I don't need to clarify my position anymore. Scieberking ( talk) 16:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Not wrong at all. The admin in the case Tiptoety blocked your accounts for one week for abuse. If you were innocent you wouldn't have been blocked at all. FloydRule ( talk) 16:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Wrong. Blocked by Tiptoety on 2009-11-30 (2:10:53) and unblocked the same day by Versageek on 2009-11-30T0 (6:46:50). From what I've already stated above. Thank you very much. -- Scieberking ( talk) 17:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

To be fair, that block was instigated by User:Occultaphenia, one of dozens of sockpuppets of CosmicLegg. Piriczki ( talk) 13:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Interesting that the text you intended for the IM Window happened to end with four tildes ;-) 199.20.118.101 ( talk) 19:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk endorsed - That excuse is kinda sketchy. As there's a WQA open, I'm endorsing for clarification. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The two are  Likely matches. TN X Man 14:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
•  Awaiting administrative action Requesting blocking on sock based on the CU result + 2 diffs shown in the original request. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply
•  Administrator note Blocked and tagged Judaispriest, and I blocked the master for two weeks (they were previously blocked for sockpuppeting.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply