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

25 September 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• TeapotDame ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Humuskedasticity ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GhostOfPhilLeeds ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• StrawWoodBrick ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Added after first CheckUser response:

• ZeroMostelZL ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• YoMamaSoDumb ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SevenOrEleven ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• YoMamaIsNotAFourLetterWord ( talk · contribs) — already blocked as a sock of YoMamaSoDumb
• HonourYoMama ( talk · contribs)
• MollificationDesperation ( 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

At 09:13, 24 September 2014, SeattliteTungsten was blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation at Israeli West Bank barrier (AE case report here).

At 17:52, 23 September 2014 (while the AE case was in progress), the account TeapotDame was created. About 18 hours after SeattliteTungsten was blocked, TeapotDame started to edit the same article ( Israeli West Bank barrier) with the same style as SeattliteTungsten. In particular, in three consecutive edits [1] [2] [3] TeapotDame carried out a large restructuring almost identical to what had been proposed by SeattliteTungsten on the talk page a few days earlier. This struck me as quite unusual for a new editor.

Humuskedasticity was created 04:27, 25 September 2014, 25 minutes after the last (to this point) edit of TeapotDame. As with TeapotDame, one edit in an unrelated article was followed by two edits to the same sections of Israeli West Bank barrier that TeapotDame had just edited. Compare [4] to [5]. Also note how the edit summary phrase "no text change" with the divider "--" in this edit of Humuskedasticity matches the same phrase and divider in the edit summaries of SeattliteTungsten here and here. Then in this edit on the talk page Humuskedasticity marked as complete the task outlined by SeattliteTungsten and performed by TeapotDame(!!). Later, in what I propose was a weak attempt to recover from this mistake, TeapotDame complained that Humuskedasticity had struck through some of TeapotDame's text and struck through some of Humuskedasticity's instead.

Yet another editor, GhostOfPhilLeeds comes along, created 08:17, 25 September 2014 and immediately starts editing the same article. Also replies on the talk page to a question put to SeattliteTungsten, using the same long-winded style with complex enumerated subsections that is characteristic of SeattliteTungsten. Some funny game on the article page: GhostOfPhilLeeds reverts innocuous Humuskedasticity edit without giving a reason and Humuskedasticity claims to not know what happened.

Needless to say, the three editors have consistent editing times.  Zero ^talk 07:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply

And another: StrawWoodBrick created 21:04, 25 September 2014, edited only same article [6].

Added after first CheckUser response:

ZeroMostelZL was created 17:45, 26 September 2014 and immediately went to edit the same article.

YoMamaSoDumb was created 20:17, 26 September 2014 and immediately went to edit the same article.

SevenOrEleven was created 01:55, 27 September 2014 and immediately went to edit the same article's talk page in a perfect imitation of SeattliteTungsten's style [7] in order to justify the edits made by ZeroMostelZL and YoMamaSoDumb. Zero ^talk 02:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

YoMamaIsNotAFourLetterWord and HonourYoMama are further obvious socks, created because YoMamaSoDumb was blocked, see admission. Zero ^talk 04:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

MollificationDesperation was created 00:43, 26 September 2014, same pattern.

I'm the worst sock-detector in Wikipedia but these are just amazingly obvious. Zero ^talk 01:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Also notice this message from SevenOrEleven which basically says the socks will keep coming and we can't do anything about it. Zero ^talk 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Comment relating to context: While I have no great knowledge of the history of the Israeli barrier article and while SeattliteTungsten is an editor that I have personally disagreed with, my impression is that his editing behaviour up to the sock puppet incident has been sincere. While both edits were made within 24 hours I am yet to see any evidence that either edit was itself unreasonable [8] [9]. I can see why SeattliteTungsten may have felt frustrated at the application of the rules and perhaps regarding the rule itself. The most important underlying issue is that of sensible editing and, beyond the legalism of the 1RR rule, I would be curious to see arguments to say that the edits weren't sensible. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is the wrong place to comment on the closed AE case. You need to go to WP:AE for that. Zero ^talk 04:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

That discussion is closed. The few additional comments are at User_talk:Gregkaye#1RR rule, re: SeattliteTungsten. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Another pattern between these editors. About their favorite page Israeli West Bank barrier, they repeatedly go to the editor's talkpage to discuss edits to that article. One expects discussions to continue at the article talk. SevenOrEleven [10], HonourYoMama [11], SeattliteTungsten [12]. This is an irregular way of discussing matters. (By the way, I banned the sockmaster from my talkpage after a PA [13]). - DePiep ( talk) 10:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Agreed but, unless I have misunderstood the context, it also seems questionable to discuss editor behaviour without pinging the people being criticised - SevenOrEleven, HonourYoMama. I have also contacted SeattliteTungsten so as to directly to ask about a questionable edit: User talk:SeattliteTungsten#Separation barrier. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between discussion that is appropriate for User talk pages and article talk pages. Transparency is important but Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier looks to be a busy page. Can editors be careful with generalistic statements like "discussing matters". Some matters are relevant for User talk. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

What do you mean? They were (or should have been) pinged in their first mentioning here, not by me. This is just an extension of behaviour pattern. - DePiep ( talk) 18:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

re Gregkaye: directly to ask [SeattliteTungsten] about a questionable edit you write? Huh? Why not asked directly on User talk:SeattliteTungsten? What else is there in your conversation? Weird. Did you contact any other users, listed here? - DePiep ( talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't think that is good enough. If you critically quote people's edits, let them know that you're doing so. What behavioural pattern are you talking about? You ask What else..? I hope direct communication. No, but if I had it would have been to make a direct enquiry about an editing behaviour. There are valid reasons to talk to people. Please don't make vague insinuations or undefined accusations without letting the people concerned know what you are doing. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. I expanded on editors already named here. BTW, any news from your secret conversations? - DePiep ( talk) 22:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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

First edit 01:38, 26 September 2014; edited same page [14], [15]. - DePiep ( talk) 11:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes thanks, I saw that one but forgot. Added now. Zero ^talk 11:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• The four named accounts are all  Confirmed. I should note that there was a concerted (yet unsuccessful) effort to try to cover their tracks here with multiple IPs and falsification of UAs, however the technical trail was obvious.-- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

•  Note: If YoMamaSoDumb ( talk · contribs) is involved, then so is YoMamaIsNotAFourLetterWord ( talk · contribs) per Phil Knight's comment here. Mike V • Talk 04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note: I've blocked ZeroMostelZL, SevenOrEleven, RespectYoMama, and MollificationDesperation, and updated YoMamaSoDumb and YoMamaIsNotAFourLetterWord. I'e tagged them all accordingly. Penwhale has protected the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• It appears that everything has been blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

16 October 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• When I Was Young It Seemed That Life Was So Wonderful ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• All The World'S Indeed A Stage And We Are Merely Players ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Why Was I born? ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• FreedomEnergy ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• FranciscoEggnog ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• "I think not!" -Descartes. And then he disappeared. ( 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

CheckUser'd based on this section on User talk:HJ Mitchell. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 16 October 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

All are  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. GentleTunaTestsIt ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Likely bordering on  Confirmed. Filing here for the record. @ Zero0000 and HJ Mitchell: For this master, at the moment, it's probably worth reporting to SPI and asking for checkuser as they seem to be creating a number of socks as as before they have intentionally attempted to hid. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

22 October 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• Take The Long Road Home ( 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

Obvious sock blocked an tagged. Would appreciate a check for sleepers. An IP block is probably impractical, but I'll ask just in case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 22 October 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

• There was also Good Night Elizabeth, Good Night Johnboy lurking about which I've now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks Ponyo, much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

23 October 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• NotBombsButFood ( 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

Another sleeper check please! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 23 October 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

• In addition to  Confirmed NotBombsButFood ( talk · contribs), there is also Tamika The Editor ( talk · contribs) and SpicyDoritos ( talk · contribs), both blocked. They're circling back on previously-used IPs and webhosts/proxies, so locking them down may become more effective.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 15:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

28 October 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• French Espresso ( 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

Another sleeper check please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 28 October 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

@ HJ Mitchell:, there's also Alexander Hamilton's Bank ( talk · contribs) and Michael Richard Connelly ( talk · contribs).-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Both blocked. Thanks, Ponyo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• All tagged, closing. Mike V • Talk 00:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

10 December 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• SolomonTwo ( 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

Sleeper check please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 10 December 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 endorsed Mike V • Talk 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

 No sleepers immediately visible. Courcelles 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for looking. Mike V • Talk 22:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks Gents. Until next time, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply