Tao2911 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Report date February 25 2010, 14:17 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Diannaa

• Chaschap's first edit was Feb 17, on day after David Starr filed his wp:ani [ [1]]. Tao did not edit that day.
• Chaschap edits using linking techniques, citing refs, etc that do not seem those of a brand new user. Examples: [ [2]], [ [3]], [ [4]].
• Chaschap supports everything Tao says on the talk page: [ [5]], [ [6]], [ [7]] in an attempt to show wider support for Tao's point of view.
• Chaschap is a single purpose account who almost exclusively edits Adi Da, as is user:Tao2911.
• Kookookoojoob is a single puprose account who commenced editing Feb 27, 2010 on the Adi Da talk page.

I am an independent editor who got involved on the Adi Da page about a week ago after User:David Starr 1's complaint at wp:ani got archived without any action being taken, about a week ago. David Starr has not edited since then and may have left the project. I never even heard of Adi Da until I saw David Starr's complaint and have no connection the these users or the real-life Adi Da, his church, or its adherents. -- Diannaa ^TALK 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

There are potentially relevant threads at WP:ANI and Requests for Mediation. -- Diannaa ^TALK 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Tao2911 has posted attacks on me at my talk page here and here and at the Adi Da talk page. I am going to disassociate myself from the Adi Da article now. -- Diannaa ^TALK 15:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Both Chaschap and Kookookoojoob blocked per WP:DUCK; CU may still be useful to confirm/flush out any other accounts. EyeSerene ^talk 13:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Administrator note Sockmaster blocked 2 weeks for sock puppetry. – MuZemike 02:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

28 November 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Radh ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• F. Simon Grant ( 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 "~~~~"

After an odd, acrimonious dispute with a long-time editor of the Beat Generation page, the relatively infrequent editor Tao2911 began a campaign of "cleaning up" the page, deleting more than half of it. He was assisted in this by another relatively infrequent editor, Radh. Based on the timing, I strongly suspect (but can't claim to know) that he was using a second account to provide an illusion of support in what he expected would be a controversial set of actions. It also seems suspicious that this same account has been investigated for sockpuppetry in the past. A checkuser could help clarify this issue. Doom ( talk) 22:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree the disagreement on "Beat" was odd - as demonstrated by said other user (apparent ally of Doom) having three separate ID's blocked, as well as 2 IP addresses. I am not Radh, as any inquiry will quickly clear up, and as even reading the discussion page and page history will show. We are both established editors, who have worked cooperatively together in the last week on Beat. Bit of a red herring by disgruntled editor Doom. Tao2911 ( talk) 23:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply

F. Simon Grant was not an ally in any sense. We disagreed frequently, but his behavior has always seemed reasonable (e.g. he could be convinced by citing references). I have no idea what set him off recently. In any case, whether I'm "disgruntled" or not is the actual red herring, I'm raising this issue in "good faith" because I'm genuinely puzzled about recent events. -- Doom ( talk) 05:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, reviewing the edits to Beat Generation in detail, I'm getting the feeling that Radh has different obsessions (e.g. Elise Cowen). Perhaps this is a false alarm on my part. If so, my apologies. -- Doom ( talk) 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I think Doom's nerves are to blame, this happens :-), but please compare my German page de:User:Radh). I use the same name on all regular wikipedia-projects. My pet project for the last months has been to find American literature published in Japan and Europe (The Lost Generation), Underground poetry in German translations, Little Magazines and publishers Cold Turkey Press and Cut Up de:Cut-up, I come to Beat from this angle. But I stand by my conviction (and am in agreement with Tao2911) that the Beat Generation page was way to long, and not because of information alone; but with too much hot air and repetition. -- Radh ( talk) 08:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk endorsed - Okay, I don't think that Tao2911 == Radh; there's not enough in common, really. But I've added F. Simon Grant to the list, because there's a chance that Radh == F. Simon Grant based on edit history. Maybe a CU will clear the air. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the clear up - but if you look carefully Radh and Grant were on opposite sides of any dispute. Radh and I have been working together - Grant flamed me (and Radh somewhat) and was banned. Tao2911 ( talk) 23:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll leave this for another checkuser to look at as I'm somewhat involved here, but I have serious doubts regarding the motivations behind this report. Based on comments from the filing editor on my talk page, this seems to be a retaliatory and largely unfounded report in response to F. Scott Grant's block. While two editors being on different sides of a debate doesn't necessarily mean anything - it's called "strawman" or "good hand/bad hand" socking depending on what's going on and happens more often than you'd think - I don't see any reason to believe these users are related, and as such no reason to conduct a check. Please also be aware that I have previously done a check on F. Scott Grant, and the only other account I found there was one he had created for the express purpose of continuing his harassment of Tao2911. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Per Doom's comment above, as well as Hersfold's thoughts, I think I'm just going to close this for now. If someone wants to reopen it they're more than welcome. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

10 August 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Aa1232011 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BbBlick ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Alteran1 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) <- Still needs a CU run, was added late.

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Based on their numerous comments on the talk page of that article and on the AFD debate page, the two users use similar terminology, similar phrases, etc Mr. Brown ( talk) 00:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

apparently Mr. Brown can't read a user history. I have been editing for years. I have edited page in question twice. Two years ago once, and the last two days. I have tens of thousands of other edits. He managed to miss the obvious fact that there is quite probably a sockpuppet, but it is another user, who is pretty clearly the subject of the page being nominated for deletion. Amazing lack of perspicacity... Tao2911 ( talk) 00:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

from the talk page, showing that Mrbrown has history of protecting page: "Since user MrBrown has admitted to knowing Marisol Deluna personally and even linked to her website from his own and claimed as much in the AfD discussion, it constitues a conflict of interest and he should refrain from editing this page. Thank you." BbBlick" Tao2911 ( talk) 02:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

BbBlick - that has nothing to do with the sock puppet investigation. It is irrelevant and changes the subject. -- Mr. Brown ( talk) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If there is a way for administrators to check cities, IPs, and other info that may smoke out sockpuppets, I say let them do it to ALL the people posting the most in that article! Its become a circus of accusations, legal threats, and now there is even someone claiming to be Marisol Deluna herself! It need some looking into for sure. BbBlick ( talk) 01:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I also am requesting someone look into LegalEagleUSA and also ElizabethCB123 who have made verbatim legal threats against others and claims to posess the same insider info plus they express themselves in near identical language. Thank you. BbBlick ( talk) 01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If admin happens to be looking into this, maybe follow up with a check over here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ElizabethCB123 Tao2911 ( talk) 02:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I just added Alteran1, as it appears that account is an SPA in the whole Marisol Deluna ‎AfD mess.

I would like to reassert that while, yes, I do know Mrs. Deluna personally and professionally, I am not a sock puppet account. This is why I no longer edit any articles related to her, as I do not want to deal with the potential for a conflict of interest. Alteran1 ( talk) 10:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Question: I originally opened this sock puppet investigation for Tao2911, when the investigation uncovered that he's not a sock, but it's likely that Aa1232011 and BbBrick are... does anything need to be done (e.g. open a new investigation with one of those users as the named user) or is this investigation sufficient for action to be taken against the likely socks? -- Mr. Brown ( talk) 00:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk endorsed - Whatever, just check everyone. And check the OP as well, I guess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Will do. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 03:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Aa1232011 and BbBlick are very  Likely, bordering on  Confirmed; they share one IP address with the same operating system, and both on another range, although that one's heavily used. Still looking. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 03:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Mrbrown and Tao2911 appear  Unrelated to each other and the two above. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 03:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Could you also please guide me to where I can verify findings and contest them? I know what I haven't done and would hate to be accused due to a provider coincidence. Thank you. BbBlick ( talk)

That would be here. Checkuser data is private and I am unable to release it. However, this is more than a simple provider coincidence. You used the one shared IP address on 01:56, July 10, 2011; Aa1232011 used it from 21:22, May 31, 2011 -- 20:17, July 28, 2011. It is a dynamic IP address, which means that in order for another computer to gain access to it, Aa1232011's computer would have had to lose access to it. Since it clearly had access on both sides of your edit, you are either a different person who used Aa1232011's computer, or you are the same person. The other shared range corroborates the second view. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 03:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This is Chinese to me but I where can see the report? I know I'm not another user and have only ever edited from one device. So the only thing that could possibly link us is the same ISP or a WiFi connection which I use. Not a big stretch since I've used all major networks like T-Mobile and TimeWarner I acess the internet. BbBlick ( talk) 03:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

As I said, I cannot release that data. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 03:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I undertsand this but from what I know, a dynamic IP address is potentially shared by all users of a provider. Case in point, my previous IP addresses have been and are being used by others since they were assigned to me which I'm sure you can check. I checked them and can provide diffs. However, I will defer to your findings if you believe its impossible. Thank you. BbBlick ( talk) 03:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

While many networks will allow shared traffic on a single IP, that does not seem likely in this case. I maintain that the only two possibilities are those I listed above.

Alteran1 is  Unrelated. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I respect your opinion, yet I know for a fact that at times when I have "borrowed" an open WiFi connection or shared a network or even used my own and have edited on Wikipedia, sometimes when I check the edit history of the IP address, there are edits I KNOW I did not do and months apart! This has happened on several occasions, so personally, I know this to be a possibility since I've experienced it more than once. This however, is a personal observation and you are certainly welcome to stand by your own. BbBlick ( talk) 04:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

For the record, just going back to some previous IPs of mine, some specific edits I've found that were not done by me but have been assigned the same IP address as me and have been used by other editors unrelated to this discussion are: IP 208.54.39:134, shows edit to "Superfiction" from I believe Riverside California which I've never heard of or been in. IP 208.54.40.133, shows edits to "Health Effects of Chocolate" from I believe Snoqualmie Seattle, also not my edits and I've never been there. IP 208.54.4.237, edits I did not do were to "Steve Mcqueen, Tepic, and The Fame", and IP shows as being from Irvine. Please note the date of changes of IPs since its sometimes two or three in a day and in cities across the country which would be impossible for me to have visited in one day. There are more shared IPs I had noticed but I don't have the time to go back to all of them. I admit to using open WiFi hotspots in public places, my own service, and shared networks, not to desgise myself or as a sockpuppet master, but when I didn't have my own signal. I've also only edited from this device (never anyone elses computer) and the only time I reverted to IP edits was when I forgot to log in after signing up for this account. Don't know if it matters at this point and I obvously haven't checked all my previous IPs but thought it was worth noting anyway. Thank you. BbBlick ( talk) 16:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

•  Administrator note Blocked and tagged BbBlick per the findings. Everything else is unrelated, so I'm closing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply