I believe Belrien12 to be a sock puppet of User:Screwball23. After being blocked twice for edit warring on the World Wrestling Entertainment article, Screwball started a mediation and meanwhile suddenly we see Belrien12 make a few unrelated efforts from late May 2010, and then make the following two suspicious edits to the talk page of the WWE page and the article History of World Wrestling Entertainment.
It's the same opinion being pushed in effect by the both of them and it is highly suspicious. I ask that a checkuser be applied, and if found to be true I ask that appropriate action be taken against both accounts. !! Justa Punk !! 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed –
MuZemike
01:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/68.39.100.32 locates to Middletown, New Jersey. Master is part of Meetup NYC. Most action occurred on this talk page. diff LookinPace and Walepher were just created today and concur with original sockpuppet suspects in the same manner. All sockpuppets have very similar arguments, tone, and dismissiveness of alternate opinions. Master has been involved in editwarring now and several times previously, has had continuous disregard for Wikipedia policy, and common courtesy. Metallurgist ( talk) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Further evidence: IP somehow found my edit war report and is attempting to defend suspected master account. The tone sounds a bit like that of someone covering something up. Metallurgist ( talk) 23:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Added another suspected IP 46.165.193.133. Same disregard for Wikipedia policy and unilateral editing, determining of consensus, self-appointing "third opinion". Thats not how it works.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I was going to say there is not enough evidence - but the problem here is that there is sufficient evidence. The term "redundant" is iterated by an IP, and by the brand new users who have essentially no eidts on Wikipedia, but who seem inexorably drawn to repeat the exact words of Screwball23. And using posts like: Like Screwball previously said and saying that asking for a consensus is somehow wrong do not sound to me like two brand-new, unrelated and suddenly appearing on the same article independent editors. At least get up to 11 edits before asking us to believe in this coincidence <g>. They are socks of someone - and this will find out who. Collect ( talk) 02:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
But the thing is, I am the one who initially started using "redundant", not Screwball. And what, if I agree with you I cant say, "Like Collect previously said," without people thinking I am a sockpuppet of you now? 68.39.100.32 ( talk) 02:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if you are going to somehow use my location and a group Screwball joined to try to get me blocked, please at least look up 46.165.193.133's location. 68.39.100.32 ( talk) 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This is absurd. I see now reason why Collect and Metallurgist are even trying to pull this dirty nonsense. They should be grown men and shouldn't resort to this to fight a pathetic case that they can't even argue logically. Collect has been proven wrong again and again, and honestly, the guy probably has issues because of all the anger and resentment he stores for me. (This guy patrolls my edit history in his lonely room, and he's always on my back). I think Metallurgist should have been forthcoming about his investigation because I have yet to see a discussion on this topic from him. This is a desperate move from a sore loser; he lost consensus and wants to bite both me and this IP user. Shame on him.-- Screwball23 talk 05:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just based on tone, general combativeness, and argument style I would have to say that Screwball23, 68.39.100.32, and possibly LookinPace all seem to be the same person. There are even instances in the talk page of the article they edit where Screwball23 and 68.39.100.32 will type words in the middle of a sentence in ALL CAPS to stress a point. I haven't personally seen many editors who do this, so this appears to be more circumstantial evidence. Rxguy ( talk) 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to sound too pushy, but why has a CheckUser not stumbled upon this investigation yet? This is taking away from improving and coming to a true consensus throughout Wikipedia. 68.39.100.32 ( talk) 00:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
[1] Collect ( talk) 20:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Reinserting material into the Linda McMahon article which had been discussed many times, with User:Screwball23 being the prime proponent of the wording used here. [2], [3] show the tenor of the edits. The other article Vvv2012 heavily edits is Polish-American vote where almost all of his edits occur. Screwball23 has a very extensive history of edit warring and disruptive editing. [4] and he has specifically been warned not to edit about WWE related articles (including the McMahon article).
The fact that the material added is substantially the same as that added by Screwball23 in multiple edits, and that this editor specialises in only two articles - both of which were edited by Screwball23, I consider to be quite sufficient evidence that this new SPA may well indeed be that other editor who recognises that the edits on Linda McMahon would be scrutinises were he to make them. Cheers.
Note also
[5] where Screwball23 uses the exact same edit summary as Vvv2012 "rv biased editing" which cerainly implies that they are the same editor.
Collect (
talk)
23:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Even more and absolutely non-controvertible evidence:
[6] by Votevotevote2012 -- and
[7] where Screwball affixes his own sig to the post! He is using two separate accouts to edit and comment on one article in order to be "two editors". I suggest this is exactly what is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia.
Collect (
talk)
22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Note both accounts already blocked by Bwilkins Nobody Ent 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe Belrien12 to be a sock puppet of User:Screwball23. After being blocked twice for edit warring on the World Wrestling Entertainment article, Screwball started a mediation and meanwhile suddenly we see Belrien12 make a few unrelated efforts from late May 2010, and then make the following two suspicious edits to the talk page of the WWE page and the article History of World Wrestling Entertainment.
It's the same opinion being pushed in effect by the both of them and it is highly suspicious. I ask that a checkuser be applied, and if found to be true I ask that appropriate action be taken against both accounts. !! Justa Punk !! 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed –
MuZemike
01:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/68.39.100.32 locates to Middletown, New Jersey. Master is part of Meetup NYC. Most action occurred on this talk page. diff LookinPace and Walepher were just created today and concur with original sockpuppet suspects in the same manner. All sockpuppets have very similar arguments, tone, and dismissiveness of alternate opinions. Master has been involved in editwarring now and several times previously, has had continuous disregard for Wikipedia policy, and common courtesy. Metallurgist ( talk) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Further evidence: IP somehow found my edit war report and is attempting to defend suspected master account. The tone sounds a bit like that of someone covering something up. Metallurgist ( talk) 23:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Added another suspected IP 46.165.193.133. Same disregard for Wikipedia policy and unilateral editing, determining of consensus, self-appointing "third opinion". Thats not how it works.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I was going to say there is not enough evidence - but the problem here is that there is sufficient evidence. The term "redundant" is iterated by an IP, and by the brand new users who have essentially no eidts on Wikipedia, but who seem inexorably drawn to repeat the exact words of Screwball23. And using posts like: Like Screwball previously said and saying that asking for a consensus is somehow wrong do not sound to me like two brand-new, unrelated and suddenly appearing on the same article independent editors. At least get up to 11 edits before asking us to believe in this coincidence <g>. They are socks of someone - and this will find out who. Collect ( talk) 02:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
But the thing is, I am the one who initially started using "redundant", not Screwball. And what, if I agree with you I cant say, "Like Collect previously said," without people thinking I am a sockpuppet of you now? 68.39.100.32 ( talk) 02:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if you are going to somehow use my location and a group Screwball joined to try to get me blocked, please at least look up 46.165.193.133's location. 68.39.100.32 ( talk) 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This is absurd. I see now reason why Collect and Metallurgist are even trying to pull this dirty nonsense. They should be grown men and shouldn't resort to this to fight a pathetic case that they can't even argue logically. Collect has been proven wrong again and again, and honestly, the guy probably has issues because of all the anger and resentment he stores for me. (This guy patrolls my edit history in his lonely room, and he's always on my back). I think Metallurgist should have been forthcoming about his investigation because I have yet to see a discussion on this topic from him. This is a desperate move from a sore loser; he lost consensus and wants to bite both me and this IP user. Shame on him.-- Screwball23 talk 05:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just based on tone, general combativeness, and argument style I would have to say that Screwball23, 68.39.100.32, and possibly LookinPace all seem to be the same person. There are even instances in the talk page of the article they edit where Screwball23 and 68.39.100.32 will type words in the middle of a sentence in ALL CAPS to stress a point. I haven't personally seen many editors who do this, so this appears to be more circumstantial evidence. Rxguy ( talk) 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to sound too pushy, but why has a CheckUser not stumbled upon this investigation yet? This is taking away from improving and coming to a true consensus throughout Wikipedia. 68.39.100.32 ( talk) 00:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
[1] Collect ( talk) 20:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Reinserting material into the Linda McMahon article which had been discussed many times, with User:Screwball23 being the prime proponent of the wording used here. [2], [3] show the tenor of the edits. The other article Vvv2012 heavily edits is Polish-American vote where almost all of his edits occur. Screwball23 has a very extensive history of edit warring and disruptive editing. [4] and he has specifically been warned not to edit about WWE related articles (including the McMahon article).
The fact that the material added is substantially the same as that added by Screwball23 in multiple edits, and that this editor specialises in only two articles - both of which were edited by Screwball23, I consider to be quite sufficient evidence that this new SPA may well indeed be that other editor who recognises that the edits on Linda McMahon would be scrutinises were he to make them. Cheers.
Note also
[5] where Screwball23 uses the exact same edit summary as Vvv2012 "rv biased editing" which cerainly implies that they are the same editor.
Collect (
talk)
23:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Even more and absolutely non-controvertible evidence:
[6] by Votevotevote2012 -- and
[7] where Screwball affixes his own sig to the post! He is using two separate accouts to edit and comment on one article in order to be "two editors". I suggest this is exactly what is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia.
Collect (
talk)
22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Note both accounts already blocked by Bwilkins Nobody Ent 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)