From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vitorreid

Vitorreid ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log· investigate · cuwiki)
19 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Connection to each other:   Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Connection to Fleetham: also quacking. All blocked per the duck test with the master blocked 3 months, requesting CU for sleepers. The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

    • SPI was based on this; User:JamesBWatson was the blocker of Fleetham and the original sock (Vitorreid), with the remaining socks continuing a distinct pattern started by Vitorreid. From what I can see these accounts are created to stalk an editor's edits ( User:Dave1185) and disrupt the articles he works on - which all of the socks, at least, have absolutely consistently done, using legit-sounding edit summaries to disguise their disruption (i.e., removing the "AH-64A" part of a photo caption saying "A U.S. Army AH-64A helicopter aboard a ship" with the edit summary "no sources and NPOV" [1].) Fleetham has, from what I see, followed this editor around before, hence his being the putitve master. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Yes, let's take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Checkuser note: On what basis is Fleetham being included in this? He has precisely one overlapping edit with all of the rest of the accounts, an uncontentious one several days before on a topic that is currently in the news. Unblock him; that doesn't even take a checkuser review to realise that he is not the same editor. Further, I want to see what evidence there is that ANY of these accounts is editing abusively. Risker ( talk) 06:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply


Tagging done. Perhaps this should be moved to a new SPI archive? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a good idea. Sorry for moving your comments before, I'd not realised you were essentially the patrolling admin in this matter. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 08:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No worries. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

25 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same method of cherry picking on my properly sourced and accredited edits on various article pages. Please check for sleepers and block accordingly, thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:53, 25 November 2011 (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


26 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Another let's-hound- Dave account, already blocked for impersonation and disruptiveness. Method of hounding different from the other accounts here (impersonation with nonsense messages on various talk pages - including Jimbo's), but given the underlying MO I think it's worth a look. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 26 November 2011 (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

05 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same behavioural pattern of cherry picking on my sourced edits in them article pages, note also the same method of intentionally providing erroneous/misleading edit summary to cover his tracks so as make his edit look legit and logical sounding. Request to check for sleepers and to block accordingly, thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:32, 5 December 2011 (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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vitorreid

Vitorreid ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log· investigate · cuwiki)
19 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Connection to each other:   Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Connection to Fleetham: also quacking. All blocked per the duck test with the master blocked 3 months, requesting CU for sleepers. The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

    • SPI was based on this; User:JamesBWatson was the blocker of Fleetham and the original sock (Vitorreid), with the remaining socks continuing a distinct pattern started by Vitorreid. From what I can see these accounts are created to stalk an editor's edits ( User:Dave1185) and disrupt the articles he works on - which all of the socks, at least, have absolutely consistently done, using legit-sounding edit summaries to disguise their disruption (i.e., removing the "AH-64A" part of a photo caption saying "A U.S. Army AH-64A helicopter aboard a ship" with the edit summary "no sources and NPOV" [1].) Fleetham has, from what I see, followed this editor around before, hence his being the putitve master. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Yes, let's take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Checkuser note: On what basis is Fleetham being included in this? He has precisely one overlapping edit with all of the rest of the accounts, an uncontentious one several days before on a topic that is currently in the news. Unblock him; that doesn't even take a checkuser review to realise that he is not the same editor. Further, I want to see what evidence there is that ANY of these accounts is editing abusively. Risker ( talk) 06:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply


Tagging done. Perhaps this should be moved to a new SPI archive? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a good idea. Sorry for moving your comments before, I'd not realised you were essentially the patrolling admin in this matter. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 08:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No worries. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

25 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same method of cherry picking on my properly sourced and accredited edits on various article pages. Please check for sleepers and block accordingly, thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:53, 25 November 2011 (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


26 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Another let's-hound- Dave account, already blocked for impersonation and disruptiveness. Method of hounding different from the other accounts here (impersonation with nonsense messages on various talk pages - including Jimbo's), but given the underlying MO I think it's worth a look. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 26 November 2011 (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

05 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same behavioural pattern of cherry picking on my sourced edits in them article pages, note also the same method of intentionally providing erroneous/misleading edit summary to cover his tracks so as make his edit look legit and logical sounding. Request to check for sleepers and to block accordingly, thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:32, 5 December 2011 (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


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook