Similar vandalism to User talk:Little green rosetta from banned sockpuppet: see [1], [2]. And of course similar username. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 03:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I'm no fucking sockpuppet, I was invited to come here to help clean this place up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesTheHallster ( talk • contribs)
Been watching creation log and I noticed this user User:James Hamner which has a similar style (James and first letter of "last name"). Is it appropriate to check if that user is indeed the same person? ViriiK ( talk) 04:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious. Visiting sockmaster's haunts and attacking "enemies" and talking to "allies"
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
02:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
02:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you please add
USER:JimEdgers to the mix?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
11:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
BEFORE YOU SHUT THIS DOWN, maybe also take a look at
129.7.255.110 (
talk ·
contribs), whose edits emanate from Houston just as 98's do. Not edited recently, but maybe part of a range. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
02:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This looks like block evasion from User:SCIENCE MEANS REALITY via named account "Let's Have Some Science". IP 73.166.188.62 is making similar edits, and has editing behavior identical to blocked IP 76.31.236.94.
Behavioural evidence shows that this editor is concerned with 1. Vani Hari's talk page. 2. Filing page protection lifting requests for Vani Hari [4] and using multiple accounts to discuss them. [5]. These requests are similar to a request to remove page protection made by blocked user 76.31.236.94 here, [6] with both requests using similar language in claiming page protection is "abuse". 3. Making identical accusations of administrators of participating in a cabal against them. [7] [8] [9] [10]
The most recent account, despite having a days-old editing history, complains of having to deal with months of "abusive admins". [11]
Compare editing history of IP 73.166.188.62 with editing history from blocked IPs 76.31.236.94, 98.196.234.202. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The reason for linking this to the earlier blocked user SCIENCE MEANS REALITY concerns their claims to have added significant material to the Vani Hari talk page in this diff [12], despite no contributions to that page listed in their edit history. This indicates they were making edits there with a different account and under a different name. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The anon IP has just been first-blocked for a month. This was either a very heavy block for a minor issue of adding unsourced content, or else (as the block log states) because of socking.
This IP has been accused of socking before, on no evidence other than the widely-held view that Vani Hari is a charlatan. The SPI was inconclusive, except for user:Elaqueate's unevidenced claim and the (significantly content- WP:INVOLVED) admin Guerillero. In the absence of technical CU to back this up, there is just no justification for handing out month-long blocks on no other basis. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Filing for the record. — DoRD ( talk) 13:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
DoRD and Bbb23, I have added one named account as well as 9 IPs that all geolocate to the Houston, TX area. After looking into the history of the previous SPIs filed for this sockmaster, I noticed one IP was previously blocked (see here [13] on very strong, convincing duck evidence. That IP geolocates to the Houston, TX area, as do the IPs I listed above. I believe that seeing they all showed up at the same article and talk page the newest sock was involved in, this gives further credence to the above IPs belonging to the sockmaster. The PatriotWolf showed up out of the blue to continue the doxxing done by the IP (see here [14]) that was encouraged by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. Further, that account was created about a half hour after the edit warring block notice was placed on PVJ's talk page [15], [16]. Duck by behavior, certainly. Coincidence, highly doubtful. I think the evidence from the previous SPIs as well as the timing of account creation, similarities in style and purpose, and geolocation of the IPs is quite compelling. Request CU of the named account and check for sleepers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I am entering this because Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is now a confirmed sock of SkepticAnonymous, and his interactions on Texas Revolution have always made me question about the above two redlink editors. It came out of nowhere, and just seemed too coincidental for three redlink editors to be backing each other in this after an article had only months before passed Featured Article review. In the case of that article, what preceded numerous edits by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz was a type of round-robin Talk:Texas Revolution threads, sections "Noobie Editor Question about deleting a Reference book" and "Evaluating removal of Scott's "After the Alamo" references". Bobwolfe23 began the dialogue, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz made most of the actual article edits, with supporting talk by MiztuhX. In the case of MiztuhX, this editor has a previous history of disruptive editing on Battle of the Alamo, and was the cause of a long-term protection on that page last year. He also made disruptive edits on Mexican Texas; and at the time, seemed to be targeting those two articles because Karanacs was the common admin/editor and also the main editor who brought the Texas Revolution up to Featured status. Bobwolfe3 edit, 9 edits by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz edit directly crediting MiztuhX as the reason Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz 2, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz May 1, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz May 2 — Maile ( talk) 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I deny — Maile 's charge of sockpuppetry. I do not have multiple IDs or IPs (although I have just recently begun using an IP spoofer over privacy protection). I have no affiliation with any of the users Maile has reported, and my comments have always been my own.
The claims (attacks?) that Maile makes are not relevant to the issue of sock puppetry; although I could provide insight and evidence to support my editing, if needed. MiztuhX ( talk) 23:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Bobwolfe23 is a very old account, and MiztuhX is five years older than SkepticAnonymous.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It is only one edit to the American Sniper article, but in that edit, the suspected sockpuppet has done the exact same thing SkepticAnonymous did while operating under the sock account Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( [17] [18] [19] [20]). Now, this could simply be a new user who saw Skeptic's edits and agreed with the removal of that material, but I got suspicious after seeing that the suspected sock joined Wikipedia exactly one week after Skeptic's sockpuppetry was exposed yet again and he/she was banned. In addition, the suspected sock has also made edits to the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and Chris Kyle articles, both of which Skeptic previously edited under the Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz banner. Parsley Man ( talk) 02:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Oneshotofwhiskey has barely tried to conceal their true identity, as they participated in a discussion with another SkepticAnonymous sockpuppet— User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz—at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza, in which both socks (and an IP, quite probably a sock as well) joined together to reiterate the same arguments and manufacture an illusory consensus in favor of describing D'Souza as a "convicted felon" in the first sentence. Despite being a brand-new account barely over one month old, Oneshotofwhiskey's edit history displays impressive knowledge of Wikipedia polices including WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; moreover, they share Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's interest in Ghostbusters (2016 film) as well as D'Souza. Combined with SkepticAnonymous's previously documented affinity for whiskey (see User:AlphaWhiskeyTango911), I think this is a clear-cut case of WP:DUCK, but I am requesting checkuser just in case an admin decides they would like more incontrovertible proof. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 04:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Feb 24, March 3 redacted, March 8 (posted on my talk page), Request to remove semi-protection of Texas Revolution article March 8 This is ongoing. The first two IPs were blocked for a month for personal attacks. The 3rd IP just posted a semi-threat on my talk page (diff above). This does not look like it will cease on its own. — Maile ( talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Maile ( talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Signing posts as "MC", referring to past sock User:Morty C-137. Compare IP to Morty's edits here. Same page, same issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note the IP geolocates to Texas, like past IPs in this SPI's archive. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Duck, identical account of already blocked sock Morty C-137 ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 08:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Very
Likely, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
See below.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
03:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This account has been IP socking and their edits as anon, coupled with their reactions to others as well as the cu log suggests this to be SkepticAnonymous.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
03:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a evidence in two parts. The first is to link 6Years to 73.76.220.8. The second is to show that sock1 and the second IP address can be matched to the first IP address and thus 6Years was using the second IP address and the sock account to EVADE.
73.76.220.8 to 6Years.
There is no overlap between the IP edits and 6years so it wouldn't be a violation for 6Years to have initially used the IP address then moved to a use name, initially "Imadethisstupidaccount".
The 6Years account was established minutes after the last post from the IP. IP last post 1:11, 22 July [ [22]], 6Years's account established 1:45 22 July [ [23]]. The IP address was encouraged to sign in [ [24]] and seems to have taken the hint. 6Years's first comment as a named user made it clear they were picking up where they left off [ [25]] noting that another editor had inserted comments in the middle of a post by 73.76.220.8.
Both the IP and 6Years accuse other editors of " DARVO". I did a talk page search for the term. Not at all common yet both the IP and 6Years use it.
Both the IP address and 6years are interested in inserting claims of racism in articles.
I think the above is sufficient to show that the first IP editor created the 6Years account. Now to show 6Years used an IP account and second login to EVADE.
The two IP addresses are based in Huston, TX
CoogLyfe makes only two types of edits; trolling edits of the Andy Ngo article accusing of racism (see the racist theme above) and edits to the University of Huston, Cullen College of Engineering page.
The UofHuston IP address hounded me at the same time 6Years was arguing with me following me to several pages where 6years was also active [ [35]], [ [36]], [ [37]], [ [38]], [ [39]]
The IP also made a series of edits adding "white supremacist" material to several articles.
Note that 6years also added related white supremacist content to the Anslinger article [ [46]]
Update: 6Years is adding content regarding Bell Park, a stub article about a park in Huston, TX [ [47]].
With the above we have links between IP address locations, a user name that edited UofHuston web pages as well as the Andy Ngo webpage that was also edited by 6Years and the UofHuston IP. We also have 6Years and the Uof Huston IP adding similar content to several pages including a page in common.
I think this is strong DUCK soup. Springee ( talk) 01:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is nothing but a vexatious request by Springee. Springee is aware of
[48], and Drmies' specific statement regarding me:"plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated." My understanding of Springee's motivation is that Bishonen topic-banned
[49] Jweiss11 from
Andy Ngo. Springee blames me for Bishonen's action, and started making accusations about me very shortly after posting there, repetitively and apparently hoping to either provoke me into a reaction they can declare uncivil or simply to make me frustrated enough to end participation.
6YearsTillRetirement (
talk)
12:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
To @ Ivanvector: I'm not "evading" anything. Shame on you. 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 14:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I also find some of the similarities between 129.7.105.123 and 6YearsTillRetirement very suspicious. For example, when faced with counter-arguments they tend to act dismissively and imply the other party doesn't embrace the opinions they put forward simply because the other parties "does not like them". Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Additionally, they both seem to reply with contempt and insinuations: you question the credentials and reliability of a journalist/blogger and they both seem to use the same bullying technique: accusing you of racism, bigotry and so on because the respective journalist/blogger belongs to an ethnic/minority group, examples: 1, 2. Mcrt007 ( talk) 14:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur in general with Springee and WP:DUCK on this one. Buffs ( talk) 15:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Here IHateAccounts indicated that they were the same person as , an editor using an IPv6 /64 range geolocating to Houston, Texas. (See Special:Contributions/2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361::/64) SkepticAnonymous is known to use Houston-based IPs. IHA and SkepticAnonymous apparently share the view that Wikipedia should be used to expose the sins of American right-wing or libertarian figures: see for example IHA's contributions here, here, here, and here. IHA and SA have the same sort of angry approach; in particular, both revert ordinary, civil posts to their user talk pages with edit summaries along the lines of "remove abusive harassment by a terrible person".
Example diffs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
SkepticAnonymous and socks:
IHateAccounts:
|
gnu 57 09:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
None of this is conclusive on its own and I haven't examined the IP edits, but I did want to point it out – make of it what you will. Best, Blablubbs| talk 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
{{yo|User}}
to reply to people (
[125]
[126]
[127]
[128]
[129]
[130]
[131]) while IHA uses {{reply|User}}
(
[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136]
[137]
[138]).
{{yo|User}}
and instead used a combination of {{replyto|User}}
(
[139]
[140]
[141]
[142]
[143]
[144]) and {{ping|User}}
(
[145]
[146]
[147]
[148]
[149]). I can only find two instances of IHA using {{re|User}}
(
[150]
[151]), and every other IHA reply template I can find is {{reply|User}}
. IHA's use of these templates seems atypical for a SA sock.{{replyto}}
and {{ping}}
to {{reply}}
seems like it could be significant.
Srey Sros
talk
07:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
yo
to replyto
and ping
happened gradually over the span of two accounts and many edits, while as far as I can tell, even though there was a decent-sized gap in time between the replyto
/ping
edits and the first IHA IP edits I can find, IHA has basically used reply
100% of the time. The assumption that I'm making here is that editing habits change while editing, rather than just over time. Unless there are other socks that we haven't caught that made this change gradually, IHA seems like an outlier here.
Srey Sros
talk
17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
what did SA do with their socksGenerally speaking attacked perceived conservative editors (such as a Pearland, TX IP calling someone a "conservatroll"), adding negative information about right-wing politicians (such as a Pearland IP adding alleged white supremacy links to Steve Scalise). Compare this with IHA adding links about white nationalism to Madison Cawthorn and a Pearland IP – the one we know preceded IHA's account – attacking Masem for "disgusting troll level dishonesty". Many of the archived IPs have been blocked, identified with socking and had their attacks rev-deleted. These can be found in the SPI archives. I noticed that the wireless Sprint PCS broadband IPs geolocate to Houston, TX, but the fixed line Comcast IPs geolocate to Pearland, TX with the same postal code. Mobile internet geolocations can be wildly inaccurate, but some fixed line broadband geolocations can be very accurate because they trace to a postal code. What are the odds that there are several Wikipedia users who pop-up to attack perceived right-wing editors as trolls or bullies, specialize in white nationalism allegations and end up being blocked for personal attacks based in Pearland? -- Pudeo ( talk) 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
there are lots of people who exhibit these similarities, lots of rather aggressive editors in AMPOL, lots of people on those ranges, lots of people in that corner of Texas, lots of people using that UA, lots of people exhibiting certain linguistical quirks. The question we need to ask ourselves is: "How likely is it it that two people on that range and device, in that area, share political views, posting style and linguistic markers?"As I and others have argued here, I don't think the linguistic/stylistic markers are anywhere near conclusive, one way or the other. And honestly the behavioral similarities are a bit weak too. They all seem to fit neatly into an editor being angry and opinionated. So the question we are left asking is: "How likely is it that two of the seven million people in the greater Houston area are irritable leftist Wikipedians who use the same OS and browser?" Given that there's basically only two operating systems and three or four browsers, I don't think the odds here warrant a block. As I'm writing this, I see IHA has been blocked, apparently because they don't plan to return to Wikipedia so unblocking would serve little purpose. Perhaps this comment will be useful if IHA ever returns. Srey Sros talk 23:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Tangential discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
cohortis on the sending
end of sealioning behavior[194] is an allegation of a wild plot. "Civil" POV pushers are a thing, and sometimes one encounters more than one of them pushing the same POV — it doesn't even require coordination, just a topic that attracts people with axes to grind. Comparing that with the accusation thrown around by SA, the two seem strikingly dissimilar to me. I wouldn't even say there's a coincidence that needs explaining away: the behaviors aren't co-incident. One is plausible (or at least I could buy that a legitimate editor might feel that way and react defensively), while the other isn't. The rest of the behavioral evidence, debated at considerable length above and at User talk:IHateAccounts, seems to suffer from similar difficulties, and to be counterweighted by behavioral discrepancies. Overall, I'm glad the final decision isn't mine to make. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Call them what they are / they're a violent, white supremacist terrorist group.Honestly, that pretty much speaks volumes right there; no signature, no date, just a direct statement of their position. From my experience, that's how most newbies tend to act on Wikipedia. They start by asking something to be changed even if they don't know how yet.
lots of people using that UAUm.. Literally no one has said anything about them sharing a similar UA (if anything, they're probably different given that this is is a {{ likely}} and not a {{ confirmed}}.
lots of people exhibiting certain linguistical quirksAs has been shown by multiple people, these two users don't share similar linguistics quirks. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The UA and ISP are very common, which I take to mean that they are indeed using the same browser and operating system. If they weren't, I'd expect a {{ possible}}, {{ possilikely}}, or similar. "Confirmed" is probably unlikely in this case because there is no recent data for the master, at least not as far as I can tell (+ big ranges and common UA). As for the linguistic quirks and behavioural similarities, I can only leave it up to you whether you find them convincing or not. Blablubbs| talk 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone on IHA's IPv6 /64 range later edited Mr. Williamson's BLP to call him a racistdiff? Vexations ( talk) 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
As for List of the NRA presidents, IHA seemed similarly disinterested...except they were interested. There's one edit out of the IPv6 range a month and a half after IHA created their account commenting on the FLC discussion.
IHateAccounts was blocked on Jan 27. Nmi628 started editing on Feb 27. Ironically, one of their first edits was complaining about "new accounts". In their first day of editing, they already used wikijargon like "LGV" and now linked to more obscure pages like "WP:SQS".
In Oct 2020, IHateAccounts inquired why did Beaneater00 choose an ethnic slur as an username. Nmi628 has now edit-warred with Beaneater00 and alleged that he has a history of pro-Nazi edits. Regardless of the merit of these claims, it is suspicious to butt heads with the same user who isn't even that prolific of an editor.
In the last SPI, the white nationalism topic area was covered. Nmi628 exclusively edits that topic area. Nmi28 requested an edit to use 'transphobia' in J.K. Rowling: [210]. There's the active use of requests for page protection by both users [211] [212] (IHA 10 edits on WP:RFPP, Nmi628 12 edits). Both users capitalize words in edit summaries but write 'twitter' with lower-case: Nmi628 & IHA.
I can't say with certainty that SA is the sockmaster here, but it's obvious Nmi628 is not a new user. Running a check here would be reasonable to protect Wikipedia from socking.
For good measure, Rockypedia sock Ewen Douglas ( talk · contribs) also has history in Nick Fuentes, Steve King and James Allsup, but I don't know if there's coherent CU log data for him. Pudeo ( talk) 13:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
SkepticAnonymous is a sockpuppeteer who adds unsourced inflammatory labels like "white supremacist" to AmPol BLPs. This IP geolocates to Pearland, Texas, as have past SkepticAnonymous IP socks. Recent edits include characterising Wikipedia editors as "klan defenders" of a conservative judge [213] and calling a sci-fi author "white-supremacist, homophobic and transphobic". [214] gnu 57 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Logging for the future that this account is Possible based on the CU evidence but the behavioral, particularly the post-block behavior pushes this over the edge for me.
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
registered 2 days after the old sock /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Saikyoryu was blocked. obviously not a new user as they already know all the rules and guidelines. similar tendency to use talk pages a lot. also voted "yes" in this rfc https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1168755020 like previous sock Saikyoryu FMSky ( talk) 20:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
obvious from user's tendency to make new accounts and then immediately join discussions in contentious topics and lecture users about guidelines (which obviously a new user wouldnt know about). immediately creating a user page to avoid the page showing as red is also typical sock behaviour --- FMSky ( talk) 15:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
According to the readings for our class we were asked to do before creating an account, this is a personal attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AOperation_Underground_Railroad&diff=1174140372&oldid=1174139927 Please withdraw it. HTownLegends ( talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Duck blocked. Would still like a CU check. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Similar vandalism to User talk:Little green rosetta from banned sockpuppet: see [1], [2]. And of course similar username. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 03:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I'm no fucking sockpuppet, I was invited to come here to help clean this place up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesTheHallster ( talk • contribs)
Been watching creation log and I noticed this user User:James Hamner which has a similar style (James and first letter of "last name"). Is it appropriate to check if that user is indeed the same person? ViriiK ( talk) 04:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious. Visiting sockmaster's haunts and attacking "enemies" and talking to "allies"
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
02:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
02:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you please add
USER:JimEdgers to the mix?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
11:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
BEFORE YOU SHUT THIS DOWN, maybe also take a look at
129.7.255.110 (
talk ·
contribs), whose edits emanate from Houston just as 98's do. Not edited recently, but maybe part of a range. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
02:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This looks like block evasion from User:SCIENCE MEANS REALITY via named account "Let's Have Some Science". IP 73.166.188.62 is making similar edits, and has editing behavior identical to blocked IP 76.31.236.94.
Behavioural evidence shows that this editor is concerned with 1. Vani Hari's talk page. 2. Filing page protection lifting requests for Vani Hari [4] and using multiple accounts to discuss them. [5]. These requests are similar to a request to remove page protection made by blocked user 76.31.236.94 here, [6] with both requests using similar language in claiming page protection is "abuse". 3. Making identical accusations of administrators of participating in a cabal against them. [7] [8] [9] [10]
The most recent account, despite having a days-old editing history, complains of having to deal with months of "abusive admins". [11]
Compare editing history of IP 73.166.188.62 with editing history from blocked IPs 76.31.236.94, 98.196.234.202. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The reason for linking this to the earlier blocked user SCIENCE MEANS REALITY concerns their claims to have added significant material to the Vani Hari talk page in this diff [12], despite no contributions to that page listed in their edit history. This indicates they were making edits there with a different account and under a different name. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The anon IP has just been first-blocked for a month. This was either a very heavy block for a minor issue of adding unsourced content, or else (as the block log states) because of socking.
This IP has been accused of socking before, on no evidence other than the widely-held view that Vani Hari is a charlatan. The SPI was inconclusive, except for user:Elaqueate's unevidenced claim and the (significantly content- WP:INVOLVED) admin Guerillero. In the absence of technical CU to back this up, there is just no justification for handing out month-long blocks on no other basis. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Filing for the record. — DoRD ( talk) 13:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
DoRD and Bbb23, I have added one named account as well as 9 IPs that all geolocate to the Houston, TX area. After looking into the history of the previous SPIs filed for this sockmaster, I noticed one IP was previously blocked (see here [13] on very strong, convincing duck evidence. That IP geolocates to the Houston, TX area, as do the IPs I listed above. I believe that seeing they all showed up at the same article and talk page the newest sock was involved in, this gives further credence to the above IPs belonging to the sockmaster. The PatriotWolf showed up out of the blue to continue the doxxing done by the IP (see here [14]) that was encouraged by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. Further, that account was created about a half hour after the edit warring block notice was placed on PVJ's talk page [15], [16]. Duck by behavior, certainly. Coincidence, highly doubtful. I think the evidence from the previous SPIs as well as the timing of account creation, similarities in style and purpose, and geolocation of the IPs is quite compelling. Request CU of the named account and check for sleepers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I am entering this because Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is now a confirmed sock of SkepticAnonymous, and his interactions on Texas Revolution have always made me question about the above two redlink editors. It came out of nowhere, and just seemed too coincidental for three redlink editors to be backing each other in this after an article had only months before passed Featured Article review. In the case of that article, what preceded numerous edits by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz was a type of round-robin Talk:Texas Revolution threads, sections "Noobie Editor Question about deleting a Reference book" and "Evaluating removal of Scott's "After the Alamo" references". Bobwolfe23 began the dialogue, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz made most of the actual article edits, with supporting talk by MiztuhX. In the case of MiztuhX, this editor has a previous history of disruptive editing on Battle of the Alamo, and was the cause of a long-term protection on that page last year. He also made disruptive edits on Mexican Texas; and at the time, seemed to be targeting those two articles because Karanacs was the common admin/editor and also the main editor who brought the Texas Revolution up to Featured status. Bobwolfe3 edit, 9 edits by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz edit directly crediting MiztuhX as the reason Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz 2, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz May 1, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz May 2 — Maile ( talk) 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I deny — Maile 's charge of sockpuppetry. I do not have multiple IDs or IPs (although I have just recently begun using an IP spoofer over privacy protection). I have no affiliation with any of the users Maile has reported, and my comments have always been my own.
The claims (attacks?) that Maile makes are not relevant to the issue of sock puppetry; although I could provide insight and evidence to support my editing, if needed. MiztuhX ( talk) 23:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Bobwolfe23 is a very old account, and MiztuhX is five years older than SkepticAnonymous.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It is only one edit to the American Sniper article, but in that edit, the suspected sockpuppet has done the exact same thing SkepticAnonymous did while operating under the sock account Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( [17] [18] [19] [20]). Now, this could simply be a new user who saw Skeptic's edits and agreed with the removal of that material, but I got suspicious after seeing that the suspected sock joined Wikipedia exactly one week after Skeptic's sockpuppetry was exposed yet again and he/she was banned. In addition, the suspected sock has also made edits to the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and Chris Kyle articles, both of which Skeptic previously edited under the Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz banner. Parsley Man ( talk) 02:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Oneshotofwhiskey has barely tried to conceal their true identity, as they participated in a discussion with another SkepticAnonymous sockpuppet— User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz—at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza, in which both socks (and an IP, quite probably a sock as well) joined together to reiterate the same arguments and manufacture an illusory consensus in favor of describing D'Souza as a "convicted felon" in the first sentence. Despite being a brand-new account barely over one month old, Oneshotofwhiskey's edit history displays impressive knowledge of Wikipedia polices including WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; moreover, they share Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's interest in Ghostbusters (2016 film) as well as D'Souza. Combined with SkepticAnonymous's previously documented affinity for whiskey (see User:AlphaWhiskeyTango911), I think this is a clear-cut case of WP:DUCK, but I am requesting checkuser just in case an admin decides they would like more incontrovertible proof. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 04:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Feb 24, March 3 redacted, March 8 (posted on my talk page), Request to remove semi-protection of Texas Revolution article March 8 This is ongoing. The first two IPs were blocked for a month for personal attacks. The 3rd IP just posted a semi-threat on my talk page (diff above). This does not look like it will cease on its own. — Maile ( talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Maile ( talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Signing posts as "MC", referring to past sock User:Morty C-137. Compare IP to Morty's edits here. Same page, same issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note the IP geolocates to Texas, like past IPs in this SPI's archive. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Duck, identical account of already blocked sock Morty C-137 ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 08:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Very
Likely, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
See below.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
03:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This account has been IP socking and their edits as anon, coupled with their reactions to others as well as the cu log suggests this to be SkepticAnonymous.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
03:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a evidence in two parts. The first is to link 6Years to 73.76.220.8. The second is to show that sock1 and the second IP address can be matched to the first IP address and thus 6Years was using the second IP address and the sock account to EVADE.
73.76.220.8 to 6Years.
There is no overlap between the IP edits and 6years so it wouldn't be a violation for 6Years to have initially used the IP address then moved to a use name, initially "Imadethisstupidaccount".
The 6Years account was established minutes after the last post from the IP. IP last post 1:11, 22 July [ [22]], 6Years's account established 1:45 22 July [ [23]]. The IP address was encouraged to sign in [ [24]] and seems to have taken the hint. 6Years's first comment as a named user made it clear they were picking up where they left off [ [25]] noting that another editor had inserted comments in the middle of a post by 73.76.220.8.
Both the IP and 6Years accuse other editors of " DARVO". I did a talk page search for the term. Not at all common yet both the IP and 6Years use it.
Both the IP address and 6years are interested in inserting claims of racism in articles.
I think the above is sufficient to show that the first IP editor created the 6Years account. Now to show 6Years used an IP account and second login to EVADE.
The two IP addresses are based in Huston, TX
CoogLyfe makes only two types of edits; trolling edits of the Andy Ngo article accusing of racism (see the racist theme above) and edits to the University of Huston, Cullen College of Engineering page.
The UofHuston IP address hounded me at the same time 6Years was arguing with me following me to several pages where 6years was also active [ [35]], [ [36]], [ [37]], [ [38]], [ [39]]
The IP also made a series of edits adding "white supremacist" material to several articles.
Note that 6years also added related white supremacist content to the Anslinger article [ [46]]
Update: 6Years is adding content regarding Bell Park, a stub article about a park in Huston, TX [ [47]].
With the above we have links between IP address locations, a user name that edited UofHuston web pages as well as the Andy Ngo webpage that was also edited by 6Years and the UofHuston IP. We also have 6Years and the Uof Huston IP adding similar content to several pages including a page in common.
I think this is strong DUCK soup. Springee ( talk) 01:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is nothing but a vexatious request by Springee. Springee is aware of
[48], and Drmies' specific statement regarding me:"plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated." My understanding of Springee's motivation is that Bishonen topic-banned
[49] Jweiss11 from
Andy Ngo. Springee blames me for Bishonen's action, and started making accusations about me very shortly after posting there, repetitively and apparently hoping to either provoke me into a reaction they can declare uncivil or simply to make me frustrated enough to end participation.
6YearsTillRetirement (
talk)
12:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
To @ Ivanvector: I'm not "evading" anything. Shame on you. 6YearsTillRetirement ( talk) 14:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I also find some of the similarities between 129.7.105.123 and 6YearsTillRetirement very suspicious. For example, when faced with counter-arguments they tend to act dismissively and imply the other party doesn't embrace the opinions they put forward simply because the other parties "does not like them". Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Additionally, they both seem to reply with contempt and insinuations: you question the credentials and reliability of a journalist/blogger and they both seem to use the same bullying technique: accusing you of racism, bigotry and so on because the respective journalist/blogger belongs to an ethnic/minority group, examples: 1, 2. Mcrt007 ( talk) 14:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur in general with Springee and WP:DUCK on this one. Buffs ( talk) 15:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Here IHateAccounts indicated that they were the same person as , an editor using an IPv6 /64 range geolocating to Houston, Texas. (See Special:Contributions/2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361::/64) SkepticAnonymous is known to use Houston-based IPs. IHA and SkepticAnonymous apparently share the view that Wikipedia should be used to expose the sins of American right-wing or libertarian figures: see for example IHA's contributions here, here, here, and here. IHA and SA have the same sort of angry approach; in particular, both revert ordinary, civil posts to their user talk pages with edit summaries along the lines of "remove abusive harassment by a terrible person".
Example diffs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
SkepticAnonymous and socks:
IHateAccounts:
|
gnu 57 09:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
None of this is conclusive on its own and I haven't examined the IP edits, but I did want to point it out – make of it what you will. Best, Blablubbs| talk 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
{{yo|User}}
to reply to people (
[125]
[126]
[127]
[128]
[129]
[130]
[131]) while IHA uses {{reply|User}}
(
[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136]
[137]
[138]).
{{yo|User}}
and instead used a combination of {{replyto|User}}
(
[139]
[140]
[141]
[142]
[143]
[144]) and {{ping|User}}
(
[145]
[146]
[147]
[148]
[149]). I can only find two instances of IHA using {{re|User}}
(
[150]
[151]), and every other IHA reply template I can find is {{reply|User}}
. IHA's use of these templates seems atypical for a SA sock.{{replyto}}
and {{ping}}
to {{reply}}
seems like it could be significant.
Srey Sros
talk
07:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
yo
to replyto
and ping
happened gradually over the span of two accounts and many edits, while as far as I can tell, even though there was a decent-sized gap in time between the replyto
/ping
edits and the first IHA IP edits I can find, IHA has basically used reply
100% of the time. The assumption that I'm making here is that editing habits change while editing, rather than just over time. Unless there are other socks that we haven't caught that made this change gradually, IHA seems like an outlier here.
Srey Sros
talk
17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
what did SA do with their socksGenerally speaking attacked perceived conservative editors (such as a Pearland, TX IP calling someone a "conservatroll"), adding negative information about right-wing politicians (such as a Pearland IP adding alleged white supremacy links to Steve Scalise). Compare this with IHA adding links about white nationalism to Madison Cawthorn and a Pearland IP – the one we know preceded IHA's account – attacking Masem for "disgusting troll level dishonesty". Many of the archived IPs have been blocked, identified with socking and had their attacks rev-deleted. These can be found in the SPI archives. I noticed that the wireless Sprint PCS broadband IPs geolocate to Houston, TX, but the fixed line Comcast IPs geolocate to Pearland, TX with the same postal code. Mobile internet geolocations can be wildly inaccurate, but some fixed line broadband geolocations can be very accurate because they trace to a postal code. What are the odds that there are several Wikipedia users who pop-up to attack perceived right-wing editors as trolls or bullies, specialize in white nationalism allegations and end up being blocked for personal attacks based in Pearland? -- Pudeo ( talk) 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
there are lots of people who exhibit these similarities, lots of rather aggressive editors in AMPOL, lots of people on those ranges, lots of people in that corner of Texas, lots of people using that UA, lots of people exhibiting certain linguistical quirks. The question we need to ask ourselves is: "How likely is it it that two people on that range and device, in that area, share political views, posting style and linguistic markers?"As I and others have argued here, I don't think the linguistic/stylistic markers are anywhere near conclusive, one way or the other. And honestly the behavioral similarities are a bit weak too. They all seem to fit neatly into an editor being angry and opinionated. So the question we are left asking is: "How likely is it that two of the seven million people in the greater Houston area are irritable leftist Wikipedians who use the same OS and browser?" Given that there's basically only two operating systems and three or four browsers, I don't think the odds here warrant a block. As I'm writing this, I see IHA has been blocked, apparently because they don't plan to return to Wikipedia so unblocking would serve little purpose. Perhaps this comment will be useful if IHA ever returns. Srey Sros talk 23:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Tangential discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
cohortis on the sending
end of sealioning behavior[194] is an allegation of a wild plot. "Civil" POV pushers are a thing, and sometimes one encounters more than one of them pushing the same POV — it doesn't even require coordination, just a topic that attracts people with axes to grind. Comparing that with the accusation thrown around by SA, the two seem strikingly dissimilar to me. I wouldn't even say there's a coincidence that needs explaining away: the behaviors aren't co-incident. One is plausible (or at least I could buy that a legitimate editor might feel that way and react defensively), while the other isn't. The rest of the behavioral evidence, debated at considerable length above and at User talk:IHateAccounts, seems to suffer from similar difficulties, and to be counterweighted by behavioral discrepancies. Overall, I'm glad the final decision isn't mine to make. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Call them what they are / they're a violent, white supremacist terrorist group.Honestly, that pretty much speaks volumes right there; no signature, no date, just a direct statement of their position. From my experience, that's how most newbies tend to act on Wikipedia. They start by asking something to be changed even if they don't know how yet.
lots of people using that UAUm.. Literally no one has said anything about them sharing a similar UA (if anything, they're probably different given that this is is a {{ likely}} and not a {{ confirmed}}.
lots of people exhibiting certain linguistical quirksAs has been shown by multiple people, these two users don't share similar linguistics quirks. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The UA and ISP are very common, which I take to mean that they are indeed using the same browser and operating system. If they weren't, I'd expect a {{ possible}}, {{ possilikely}}, or similar. "Confirmed" is probably unlikely in this case because there is no recent data for the master, at least not as far as I can tell (+ big ranges and common UA). As for the linguistic quirks and behavioural similarities, I can only leave it up to you whether you find them convincing or not. Blablubbs| talk 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone on IHA's IPv6 /64 range later edited Mr. Williamson's BLP to call him a racistdiff? Vexations ( talk) 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
As for List of the NRA presidents, IHA seemed similarly disinterested...except they were interested. There's one edit out of the IPv6 range a month and a half after IHA created their account commenting on the FLC discussion.
IHateAccounts was blocked on Jan 27. Nmi628 started editing on Feb 27. Ironically, one of their first edits was complaining about "new accounts". In their first day of editing, they already used wikijargon like "LGV" and now linked to more obscure pages like "WP:SQS".
In Oct 2020, IHateAccounts inquired why did Beaneater00 choose an ethnic slur as an username. Nmi628 has now edit-warred with Beaneater00 and alleged that he has a history of pro-Nazi edits. Regardless of the merit of these claims, it is suspicious to butt heads with the same user who isn't even that prolific of an editor.
In the last SPI, the white nationalism topic area was covered. Nmi628 exclusively edits that topic area. Nmi28 requested an edit to use 'transphobia' in J.K. Rowling: [210]. There's the active use of requests for page protection by both users [211] [212] (IHA 10 edits on WP:RFPP, Nmi628 12 edits). Both users capitalize words in edit summaries but write 'twitter' with lower-case: Nmi628 & IHA.
I can't say with certainty that SA is the sockmaster here, but it's obvious Nmi628 is not a new user. Running a check here would be reasonable to protect Wikipedia from socking.
For good measure, Rockypedia sock Ewen Douglas ( talk · contribs) also has history in Nick Fuentes, Steve King and James Allsup, but I don't know if there's coherent CU log data for him. Pudeo ( talk) 13:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
SkepticAnonymous is a sockpuppeteer who adds unsourced inflammatory labels like "white supremacist" to AmPol BLPs. This IP geolocates to Pearland, Texas, as have past SkepticAnonymous IP socks. Recent edits include characterising Wikipedia editors as "klan defenders" of a conservative judge [213] and calling a sci-fi author "white-supremacist, homophobic and transphobic". [214] gnu 57 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Logging for the future that this account is Possible based on the CU evidence but the behavioral, particularly the post-block behavior pushes this over the edge for me.
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
registered 2 days after the old sock /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Saikyoryu was blocked. obviously not a new user as they already know all the rules and guidelines. similar tendency to use talk pages a lot. also voted "yes" in this rfc https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1168755020 like previous sock Saikyoryu FMSky ( talk) 20:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
obvious from user's tendency to make new accounts and then immediately join discussions in contentious topics and lecture users about guidelines (which obviously a new user wouldnt know about). immediately creating a user page to avoid the page showing as red is also typical sock behaviour --- FMSky ( talk) 15:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
According to the readings for our class we were asked to do before creating an account, this is a personal attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AOperation_Underground_Railroad&diff=1174140372&oldid=1174139927 Please withdraw it. HTownLegends ( talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Duck blocked. Would still like a CU check. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)