Jason Gastrich (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Creashin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nascentatheist 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
In addition to some of the edit history [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], which is indicative of a veteran Wikipedia editor:
Bigglove (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Quaiqu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Isarig (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
csloat 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Quaiqu ( talk · contribs) is the name that replaced User:Elizmr, a contentious and abrasive user with whom I had several unpleasant interactions surrounding various Middle East related pages. Elizmr asked to "disappear" from Wikipedia, blaming me in the process, and took the name Quaiqu. A few months later, Bigglove ( talk · contribs) began editing, curiously drawn to similar obsessions as Elizmr/Quaiqu:
Such examples do not tell us much, of course, but the user showed a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and customs early on; his/her earliest edits showed an understanding of how sources are cited here, an understanding and use of the term " wikify" (an odd term to use on one's second day of editing), and his/her aggressive participation on a deletion review suggests a user with a far longer familiarity with Wikipedia than a few weeks.
I was a little taken aback when this user rather suddenly and viciously went after a page on a Muslim community newspaper, first raising a notability case that appeared incorrect to me, and then being very aggressive about pursuing an argument about notability but never actually listed the case for AfD. I did not want to waste time arguing with him/her since such a debate was useless outside of an AfD context, and I urged him/her to list the article for deletion if s/he felt it was non-notable. I should add that this user's participation on the page came after I had been attacked in talk by User:Isarig and User:Armon, two users who Quaiqu (then Elizmr) used to ally with against me in long and fruitless (and often acrimonious) arguments in talk pages and on my user talk page. Bigglove's appearance on that page seemed sudden and seemed intensely committed and vehement -- to the extent that I began to wonder why he/she was so focused only on going after me. I protested his/her actions, and made comments that were perhaps inappropriate and uncivil (for which I have apologized). But the more I thought about it, the more I saw a familiar pattern between this user's attacks and those of Elizmr. Then the user launched an RfC against me based on incivility. Again, I found the RfC completely out of line and uncalled for, and it made me wonder if this was the same user who had attacked me in the past and then "disappeared." It seems very strange for a user that has been around just over a month to already be filing a conduct RfC.
I don't know at all if this user is a sockpuppet, and I'm not sure it would be so bad if he/she were, since the Quaiqu/Elizmr account is no longer active. But I do think it is problematic if this user created a sock account just to cause trouble for me and try to get me blocked (he/she asks for a week long block in the RfC). I ask only that an admin look into it; I am not accusing this user as I honestly don't know. But my suspicions are strong enough that I think someone should look into it.
I have not reached any conclusions about this at all, but I hope someone who understands how to look into the issue can offer evidence that he or she is or is not a sockpuppet. If he/she is not, I apologize for bringing up the case, but I could not in good conscience let it go, especially after the RfC.
I ask whoever does the checkuser on this case to also compare Bigglove's IP to that of Isarig ( talk · contribs), who has also been involved in these disputes, and who is now confirmed as a sockpuppeteer. csloat 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
PEAR (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RucasHost (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mrwalkers (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TotesBoats (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hornet35 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Draken36 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ornis ( t) 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Common Interests
Timing
Edit summaries
Frequent use of the edit summary "Revert of vandalism" or variants, regardless of whether the edit was vandalism or not.
Also their pattern of edit summary use is very similar: PEAR, RucasHost, TotesBoats
"Not vandalism": [110], [111], [112]
Closing remarks
I would also point out —though purely circumstantial— their shared habit of obsessively linking dates, and drive-by tagging is suspicious.
The writing style, interests, use of edit summaries and timing make me almost certain that PEAR, RucasHost and Hornet35 are being operated by the same user. user:Mrwalkers and user:TotesBoats I think are highly probable, but mrwalkers and Draken36 have made too few edits to tell for certain, and I would like to request a check user if possible.
MarkBul seems to do very little except pop up on AfDs after Hornet35, always agreeing with this suspected sockpuppet. Suspicious? Lurker ( said · done) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is ridiculous, merely a plot to banish Christians from Wikipedia by accusing them all of being sock-puppets. -- Hornet35 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
75.10.121.55 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Traxamillion (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cheers, Je t Lover 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Me and other editors were in a dogfight with 2 or more IP vandals on the page Brenna. After the IP stops, Traxamillion comes in and takes over. Some diffs:
Suspicous much?
Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. MastCell Talk 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I've courtesy-blanked this page, so a Google or Wikipedia search on the name of the victim of the sock puppet attacks doesn't lead directly to this page, with the inappropriate user names used as part of the attack. If I'm not supposed to blank an old sock report for some reason, feel free to revert. Old version can be found here. -- barneca ( talk) 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I've courtesy-blanked this page, so a Google or Wikipedia search on the name of the victim of the sock puppet attacks doesn't lead directly to this page, with the inappropriate user names used as part of the attack. If I'm not supposed to blank an old sock report for some reason, feel free to revert. Old version can be found here. -- barneca ( talk) 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Sptx (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Startvtk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Simsvc (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
"Sptx" is the shortest name and it posted first (to pages on my watchlist), but I have no reason to suspect it to be the puppeteer, instead of just another puppet. If these socks are part of a known puppet gang, my apologies.
The timing and style of these edits - all links to the same web domain - make it clear that these accounts are from one editor whose only goal is to promote spam. I suggest an indef-block for all three accounts. Shalom Hello 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Yup. All blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
CorpsReformNetwork (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Gsorvalis (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Y4kk 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I apologise if I have made any mistakes, its my first sock puppet report Y4kk 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It is clear that these two editors are the same person, but it is not a violation of policy because the first account was blocked as a username violation. I agree with Coren. Note, however, that the only contrib by these users has been reverted as an improper external link. Shalom Hello 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Lester2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
John and James (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brendan.lloyd (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Another user and myself believe serial edit warmonger Lester2 has taken our repeated requests to find consensus too literally and has now engaged in sockpuppetry, and is using socks to "votestack" and claim consensus on the contentious article John Howard. A vote to include article content is being conducted at the John Howard talk page here [118] "John Howard's secret ancestry revealed". User:John and James has made one edit to the entire wikipedia and is included in this vote. Brendan.lloyd also loves a good edit war on the Howard article and seems to divide his wiki time with Lester2. If you check their contribution history you see that;
I think all parties concerned have made comments and discussed at length. Both Lester/Brendan have claimed they have nothing to hide and freely submit to a "checkuser". Both are posting around wikipedia demanding apologies, and decrying how humiliated they both are. I think everyone agrees that the checkuser has to take place. Due to my failure in due process I already have a Checkuser request posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lester2. The admin Lar advised waiting until this page had run it's course. I believe all parties agree this should be taken to checkuser to settle this once and for all. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
As the "other user" referred to above, I echo Prester John's evidence above. I freely confess to massive and very naughty sockpuppeteering during my long ban, [119] [120] and I gained familiarity with the techniques for hiding sockpuppets. It seemed to me that Lester2's contributions contained a good deal more wikilawyering and familiarity with procedures than a new account should, as well as being a single purpose account dedicated to adding negative material to the John Howard article and then being disruptive on the talk page. I was also suspicious of the fact that Lester2 was not continuously logged into his account, occasionally making anon edits which he later claimed. This is a common mistake amongst sockpuppet/eers logging in and out of accounts. -- Pete 00:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi everyone. I'm not a sockpuppet, so you can run all the checks as I've got nothing to hide. Did I forget to login before making a comment on a talk page? Maybe I did, but I'm not aware of it. Firefox browser automatically signs me out of Wiki after a period of inactivity. Look at this recent edit by Jimbo Wales where his comment is "duh, forgot to sign" [121], and nobody says he's a sockpuppet! Also, I would have thought that someone would have to actively use an IP address and a user-account together to be accused of misusing the system.
Just looking at that link to the talk page posted by User:Prester John. Prester mentions that I'm trying to avoid consensus on the subject "John Howard's secret ancestry revealed"' by what he calls "votestacking". I just looked through that section of the talk page and I can't find an example of where I forgot to log on, let alone using that to manipulate a "votestack". It seems to be a case that a consensus was achieved on the talk page, which is how Wiki is meant to work, but the consensus was not the verdict that 'Prester' and 'Skyring(Pete)' wanted, so they're bringing the issue here, with no other evidence except to link people who voted against Prester & Skyring(Pete)'s ideas.
To put this into context, though, User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) have a long history of listing me on every complaint board they can think of, so this one is the latest of many from those two users. It would be kind of amusing, except that it wastes the time of Wiki volunteers to follow up these fallacious complaints.
User:Prester John seems to be desperate to find a way to have me blocked, and has filed 2 erroneous 3RR reports about me in the past few weeks. One resulted in User:Prester John being blocked himself after filing the report. Another 3RR is on the list here which turned out to be 3 edits over 3 days so the case was dropped. You'd think the administrators would be getting a bit bored of this string of false complaints. So now I get to learn what a sockpuppet report is. I don't know how to defend it except to say I haven't done anything, and I hope the investigation doesn't waste too much of your valuable time. Cheers, Lester2 01:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Despite User:Skyring and User:Prester John tag-teaming to judge contributors instead of content, deny/avoid concensus, and avoid substantive relevant discussion on the Howard talkpage (re: Howard "New Guinea interests" mention & reference), I am not discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia. I am no "sock puppet" nor "puppeteer". I have never created multiple Wikipedia accounts. I have never masqueraded as another Wikipedia entity. His "evidence" concerning me is flimsy for good reason -- the inferences Pete has made about me are false. I'm happy to give my contact number to the adjudicator for private independant verification, if emailed a request by them (to my email address recorded on my Wikipedia account) to end to this farcical diversion. I eagerly await the only credible outcome of the part of the inquiry involving me, after which I expect an unreserved apology and commitment from User:Skyring and User:Prester John to participate more constructively on talkpages, in good faith, and duly acknowledge concensus when it occurs instead of overt wikilawyering. -- Bren 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Produke (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Apacheguru (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Scjessey 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Adding external links to personal site ( diff, diff) in various Apache and HTTP-related articles.
Might be the same person, but it makes no difference. Produke voluntarily stopped editing at the end of May without being blocked, and Apacheguru started in August. There is no sign of a coordinated attack by the two of them. I've warned Apache, and that should be sufficient. Shalom Hello 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree with Shalom; no violation of WP:SOCK at present. However, if the accounts begin to be used together or as a tag-team, please come back. MastCell Talk 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Disturbedrcool1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Immortal Lord (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Disturbed02 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Edit to Chaos Space Marines exactly the same as User:Disturbedrcool1 and confrmed sockpuppets here.
Obvious sockpuppets. Second chance given after Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Disturbedrcool1 but this user is apparently not interested. Pascal.Tesson 01:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
aliasd· U· T 09:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contribs
Obvious by similarity of names, editing times, and editing interests. One of them is blocked; the other is not. Shalom Hello 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Yup. Blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Green108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Lwachowski (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bksimonb 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Lwachowski appeared as a single purpose account and immediately started editing the BKWSU and related articles disruptively and trolling users talk pages [122] [123] [124]. Similarities with Green108 are shown below.
This case has already been sent to checkuser - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green108 - so I'll close this and results will depend on the outcome of checkuser. MastCell Talk 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jetwave Dave (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
65.102.180.200 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
65.102.180.200 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
65.102.184.215 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
65.102.184.215 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
71.35.158.203 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
71.35.158.203 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
168.103.149.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
168.103.149.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
168.103.148.163 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
168.103.148.163 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
168.103.147.237 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
168.103.147.237 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
63.226.202.34 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
63.226.202.34 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
70.58.66.191 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
70.58.66.191 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
Parsecboy 20:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The contribution logs make clear that the IPs are all related, follow similar edit patters, and are controlled by Jetwave Dave. Here is an instance of one of the IPs signing his name as Jetwave Dave. Several IPs have also stated "Jetwave Dave will kick your ass" in edit summaries.
The user Jetwave Dave was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, outright vandalism, and incivility. He has repeatedly circumvented the block by the use of sock IPs, listed above, as well as creating an impostor account User:Parasec boy, that has already been indef blocked.
Yes, these are all presumably dynamic IP's used by Jetwave Dave. I don't see any that have been active in the last day or so, meaning that a block would be pointless. The best approach is probably to report the next occurrence to WP:AIV immediately for a block, and consider requesting semi-protection if particularly heavy IP vandalism is hitting a certain article. MastCell Talk 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ohsunnysgod (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brookelittle (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
PBP 04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Brookelittle mainly vandalizes pages with information about "Slovak Director Arvin Brdarevic", as seen by his contributions, like Ohsunnysgod did in this edit. He also uses the name of one of the pages that Ohsunnysgod liked to vandalize, John Brooke-Little, as seen in his contributions.
Brooke Little is my real name, I've got nothing to do with that John Brooke-Little guy, who's page I found when I searched my name on Wikipedia. And the cinema of Australia Page doesnt have anything about the Slovak director, the ohsunnygod guy just added a movie name with the name Arvin in it. Brookelittle 06:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Indef-blocked by Blnguyen. Shalom Hello 23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SallyForth123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Francis45 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
75.37.13.69 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.204.176.109 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.204.178.62 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.203.48.190 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.14.136 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.36.174.23 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.9.91 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
Sancho 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SallyForth123
Special:Contributions/Francis45 matches pattern of Special:Contributions/Mineo3
Contributions of the IP users undid reversions to the articles that Mineo3 (a suspected sock of SallyForth123) was working on.
From Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SallyForth123
From this report
I'm just listing this here to better organize evidence and provide a location for others to add other sockpuppets of this user to. There have been many in the past few days, both IP users and registered accounts, making edits to many articles on astronauts and other NASA related topics. Sancho 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Range block covering four moderate sized ranges has been applied. The blocks cover a total of 6,144 IP addresses.
Block on SallyForth123 extended to indefinite. See block log.
THF 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Making same edits as previous sock User:Jewbaccas. E.g., [144]
Both accounts are indef-blocked (not by me). Shalom Hello 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hayden5650 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Phral (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Comment:
User:Phral is a suspected sockpuppet of indef-blocked
User:Hayden5650 (indef-blocked for sockpuppeteering)--
Ramdrake
11:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Phrallus Secondus (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Phral von Phralstadt (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Commander Phralson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sir Phrallington (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Muntuwandi 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Excessive use of the term "Negro"
Hayden5650 was claiming to edit from New Zealand, a checkuser should be able to tell whether there is a connection. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650
User:Phrallus Secondus has opened this account unde the name Phral the second and has imediately given his position in a mediation case on the Talk:White people page, a page that User:Phral was heavily involved in. This is surely a simple case? Alun 05:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There is now a Phral von Phralstadt making similarly disruptive edits - could someone please confirm that he is a sock-puppet and block him if so? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All of the accounts have already been blocked indef, not much really to be done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Zelogan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Zel999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
JasonCNJ 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
For the last few days, Zelogan has continued to add/re-create an article on the Dennis Kucinich website. After it was speedy deleted, he re-created it. After an AfD that showed a clear consensus for deletion, he re-created it. He was warned repeatedly by an Administrator to stop and was given a final warning earlier today that he was not permitted to re-create the article or he would be banned. Then, User Zel999 appeared and created "Kucinich website" (which has already been deleted) and created a link on the Dennis Kucinich site.
I suspect Zelogan and Zel999 are the same person, with Zel999 having been created to skirt a warning that was issued to Zelogan to stop recreating deleted content. Since the articles in question have been deleted, I will use their link from the subject's main page as evidence of their activities. Perhaps an admin or someone else will have access to the logs of the deleted articles.
Actions by Zelogan:
Action by Zel999:
It appears that Zel999 has only re-created the Kucinich campaign site article and posted a link to it on the main page; he appears to have no other user contributions
Looks like a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry to me. Similarity in names, same interests, recreated the article after a final warning on his main account. Block, I'd say. Melsaran ( talk) 12:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Clear enough case. Sock blocked indef, puppetmaster blocked 72 hours since (s)he was clearly warned to quit recreating that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Poop4700 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Poop4701 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Poop4702 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Poop4703 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Poop4704 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pointe LaRoche 05:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The five have been registered within the same period and active the same period and have very similar usernames.
User:Poop4700 registered on 05:04 UTC, 24 August 2007 and was blocked indefinetely six minutes later by User:Keegan. User:Poop4701 registered nineteen minutes later, on 05:29 UTC, 24 August 2007. User:Poop4701 was indefinetely blocked eight minutes later by User:Grandmasterka. Another Poop470x was registered, User:Poop4702, on 05:44 UTC, 24 August 2007, six minutes later after User:Poop4701 was indefinetely blocked. Six minutes later, this account was indefinetely blocked by User:Grandmasterka. Then, another one, User:Poop4703 was registered two minutes later. This account was indefinetely blocked two minutes later by User:Grandmasterka. Then again, another one appeared, User:Poop4704, one minute later and this account was indefinetely blocked two minutes later by User:Gogo Dodo
All accounts blocked as violations of the username policy. No further action required.-- Chaser - T 03:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DigiFilmMaker (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
James8445 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Girolamo Savonarola 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jebbrady (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
208.253.158.36 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.115.162.235 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.68.9.131 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Lisasmall 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
To save space here and your time, please glance at any of the archived or active article talk pages on Herbert W. Armstrong for examples of Jebbrady using various IP's and then manually typing in his Jebbrady name, rather than signing in. This practice means his activity is dispersed among at least three accounts and is very difficult to track in article history pages, where the manually typed "Jebbrady" does not appear. It has been explained to him by more than one editor, more than once, that the manual signature is not enough, and why. In violation of the explicit policy laid out in Sec. 2.2 of WP:SOCK, "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors," he continues to use multiple IP's and the typed sig, rather than signing in as Jebbrady and using a tilde sig. There is no question that Jebbrady and the first two IPs listed are all one person; he acknowledges it when he manually adds his signature to the IP tilde sigs.
Evidence for the third IP puppet differs. This account 72.68.9.131 may be a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet, or it may be an innocent situation in which a brand-new account on Wikipedia has an editor who knows what a barnstar is, knows how to give them out, and goes immediately to grant one to one and only one deserving individual -- and makes no other contribs at all.
Please see here for numerous WP:WQA comments from me and from other editors regarding his persistent use of sockpuppets.
Please see here for the first SOCK report July 21 and its resolution.
The July 26 intervention by MastCell is here.
The July 29 intervention by MastCell is here.
Please see here for my July 29 - July 31 messages where I followed up his violation of initial sockpuppet warning by asking a third party (MastCell) to gently intervene, rather than just file a second formal report at that time. At that point, I was still assuming GF; but see subsequent developments and current conduct.
Please see this part of MastCell's talk page for yet another editor's third-party expression of concern on August 10 re Jebbrady's puppetry, followed by a comment by me on August 17.
Please see User_talk:EdJohnston#Sockpuppet_Issue for EdJohnston's August 3 attempt to correct this behavior.
The behavior continues.
Zim2007 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Thehalo1noob (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Angrygamer (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Flnclan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.178.194.212 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.178.195.77 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- milk the cows ( Talk) 02:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
They have very similar editing styles as shown in the contributions. They were each created within weeks of each other after one got a warning message about vandalism.
I agree totally with milkthecows. I initially discovered the similarities between Zim2007, Thehalo1noob, and 69.178.194.212 and I posted a question on all three talk pages asking about this. Shortly after that, an admin blocked Zim2007 for vandalism. Almost immediately after that, the Angrygamer account was created and started making very similar edits to the earlier accounts. After I again posted a question about similarities between Zim2007/Thehalo1noob/69.178.194.212/Angrygamer, the Flnclan account was created. It seems as though this user doesn't wish to deny or verify the connection between all of these accounts. Instead, the individual is more inclined to ignore any and all questions, put his most recent account into hibernation mode, and create a new account. All of these user accounts have been warned about these suspicions of sockpuppetry, but — again — there has never been really any kind of response. -- MatthewUND( talk) 02:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Disturbedrcool1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Immortallord (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Immortal lord 00 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pak21 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Repeated editing of Chaos Space Marines to introduce incorrect edition information
Obvious.
The sock accounts are indef blocked; the main account (Disturbedrcool1) looks like there's been some attempt at productive edits in addition to vandalism, so I'll leave it unblocked in case the guy comes back. It looks like it's been abandoned, though. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
190.53.15.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cartagenagirl (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
66.161.18.212 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
LaNicoya •Talk• 10:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Dissectional (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.124.33.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
You can see from his talk page that I've tried to be as helpful as possible but circumventing discussion using IPs is very disruptive.
Seraphim Whipp 09:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The reason i was always signed on as Dissectional was because i never logged out. I must have deleted my browsing history which caused the log out, and my laziness caused me to use my IP adress instead. 74.124.33.181 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SallyForth123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
76.221.186.28 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.220.200.86 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.15.138 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.12.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.204.178.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
Sancho 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It seems that SallyForth123 was blocked, then used sockpuppet 75.36.172.192 which was blocked, and is now using 76.221.186.28. Sancho 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I think we have enough evidence to block these IPs and extend the block on SallyForth123. I'll block the IP addresses for 48 hours and add notices. Sancho 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The following have been blocked for a period of 48 hours.
76.221.186.28 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.220.200.86 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.15.138 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.12.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.204.178.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
Ohconfucius 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Yueyuen has been established as a sockpuppet of User:Samuel Luo, a known activitist who runs a website denouncing Falun Gong. There has been persistent vandalism on the Falun Gong article, and occasionally sister articles by different users using fairly anonymous names, mostly bearing the prefices 'G', 'US', or 'Free' followed usually by a string of numbers. The characteristic is that each "user" account is used two or three times, and then apparently abandoned so that no account ever violates WP:3RR. In actual fact, the versions of vandalised text are virtually identical. One of the user names adopted is Yueyuen3, similar to another sockpuppet account used by User:Samuel Luo. The socks appear to be active only on FG-related articles. Since before User:Samuel Luo was banned, there has been recurrent vandal activity from these socks. The table lists the vandal's attacks in chronological order.
Isn't it possible just to do some IP ban of him or something? Is it possible to vandalise these pages in this fashion with an automated process?, that is, could this go on indefinitely, or are we relying on the fact that he is mortal and will tire?-- Asdfg 12345 07:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
John Smith's (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Foula (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:John Smith's has been arguing for WP to use the BC/AD dating format (as opposed to BCE/CE) across multiple pages here on WP.
There are other pages as well, but I won't list them all here. Then along came User:Foula, who created the now-deleted Template:History of China - BC. The template was an exact duplicate of Template:History of China except that all the BCE/CE was replaced with BC/AD. The new account then inserted the template into several articles. [178] [179] [180] [181] Then John Smith's proceeded to mass insert the template into a number of other articles as minor edits. [182] John Smith's and Foula were the only two accounts that tried to insert the duplicate template into articles.
Note that Foula has so far only made edits related to this BC/AD vs. BCE/CE date format issue. Normally this is perfectly acceptable usage of a sock. However, there is possible vote fraud going on.
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Tiffelie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Soundofcourage (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Valente1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vespatiff (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.241.37.140 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Matthew_hk t c 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Creat Valente (artist), once replaced Valente page, uploader of Image:Valente.jpg (see old image deletion log)
assume bad faith, by no need to multi account to edit one article
Valente (artist) currently on AFD
These accounts come from the same person and maintain the same agenda. I'd recommend to limit this user to Vespatiff, his most recent user account, but not to impose any other sanctions on him because he has not tried to subvert process using multiple accounts. Shalom Hello 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Astrotrain (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
81.79.203.71 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
163.167.129.124 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) - if any, this would be the user's home address.
90.240.21.121 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
81.77.251.19 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
84.68.13.116 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Evil Spartan 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The three IPs are clearly all sockpuppets. They show extensive knowledge of WP and its policies (see additions by 81.79 to WP:RPP), and are being used to circumvent scrutiny and often 3RR. I believe that they are sockpuppets of User:Astrotrain, who has been around since early 2005, and accumulated something like 9 blocks in the meantime, all for edit warring (and has recently been issued another warning by User:John for edit warring). It just so happens that the IPs are adding information in accordance with Astrotrain's POV, and often step in right after Astrotrain is does editing. In particular, I would like to point out:
The only other users engaged on this side of a POV in any of the edit wars all have a much cleaner history, are edit warring less often than Astrotrain, and are willing to at least try to use the talk page to come to a consensus (Astrotrain is not); in fact, some of the said pages have only had an edit war with Astrotrain and these IPs pushing a POV, which is pretty damning evidence. To the closing admin: if you are unable to conclude that these are the same users, I would ask that you could kindly copy the information over to WP:CU, where hopefully the checkusers will look at the IP's. The Evil Spartan 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
- Alison ☺ 23:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
WHOIS - 84.68.13.116 mail iconEmail link to results Generated by www.DNSstuff.com
Location: United Kingdom [City: Stoke On Trent, England]
Using 1 day old cached answer (or, you can get fresh results).
Displaying E-mail address (use sparingly -- this will make it more likely that you will trigger our rate limiting system).
% This is the RIPE Whois query server #1. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % Rights restricted by copyright. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/copyright.html
% Information related to '84.64.0.0 - 84.71.255.255'
inetnum: 84.64.0.0 - 84.71.255.255 netname: EU-EN-20040315 country: GB org: ORG-CaWT1-RIPE descr: Cable & Wireless Telecommunication Services GmbH admin-c: GNOC4-RIPE tech-c: GNOC4-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-lower: CW-IPGNOC-MNT mnt-domains: CW-DNS-MNT mnt-domains: ENERGIS-MNT mnt-routes: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-routes: AS5378-MNT notify: ipadmin@eu.cw.net changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20040315 changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20061206 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070130 source: RIPE
organisation: ORG-CaWT1-RIPE org-name: Cable and Wireless Telecommunication Services GmbH org-type: LIR address: Landsbergerstr. 155 address: 80687 address: Muenchen address: Germany phone: +49 89 926 99 111 fax-no: +49 89 926 99 808 e-mail: ipadmin@cw.net admin-c: DS3356-RIPE admin-c: MG10145-RIPE admin-c: SM6163-RIPE admin-c: DOM12-RIPE admin-c: SA79-RIPE admin-c: RS27341-RIPE admin-c: AB14382-RIPE admin-c: TOC-RIPE admin-c: JO361-RIPE mnt-ref: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20040415 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20040511 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041019 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041112 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041122 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041217 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041228 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050201 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050310 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050315 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050406 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050418 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050502 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050623 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051014 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051014 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051117 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051117 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060224 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060330 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060406 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060509 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060628 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060711 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060817 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061005 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061009 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061011 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061016 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061017 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061124 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061124 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061130 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061206 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061207 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061207 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061213 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061218 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070110 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070212 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070215 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070221 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070308 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070308 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070322 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070416 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070416 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070716 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070727 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070808 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070809 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070813 source: RIPE
role: Cable and Wireless IP GNOC Munich remarks: IP Admin Department address: Landsbergerstr. 155 address: 80687 Munich address: Germany e-mail: ipadmin@cw.net admin-c: TOC-RIPE tech-c: TOC-RIPE tech-c: SM6163-RIPE tech-c: RS27341-RIPE tech-c: SA79-RIPE abuse-mailbox: abuse@cw.net nic-hdl: GNOC4-RIPE mnt-by: CW-IPGNOC-MNT changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20040203 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20040727 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20041105 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20051014 changed: annette.moll@cw.com 20051126 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20060714 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20060807 changed: smorhoff@cw.net 20070403 source: RIPE
% Information related to '84.64.0.0/13AS5388'
route: 84.64.0.0/13 descr: Energis UK origin: AS5388 mnt-by: ENERGIS-MNT changed: matt.mcintyre@energis.com 20020916 source: RIPE
[The following lines added by www.dnsstuff.com per requirement by RIPE]
This service is subject to the terms and conditions stated in the RIPE NCC Database Copyright Notice.
Contact dnsstuff.com's 'info2@' address to report problems regarding the functionality of the service.
This is one of the Cable and Wireless results from whois, as you can see from the bottom it links to Energis UK, the other Cable & Wireless one does as well, I am not totally convinced this is Astrotrain or him working alone I suspect someone else involved in this.-- padraig 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thedeadmanandphenom (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Lostinspace123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Johncenaiscool123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dasaniisgood (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Deep Shadow 03:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thedeadmanandphenom began a dispute with Darrenhusted on June 24 2007 at 18:04 (UTC). [188] At 18:43 (UTC) Lostinspace123's account was created and the first post was to Darrenhusted. [189] [190]
On 3 August 2007 at 21:07 (UTC) an account with the same 123 affix was created (Johncenaiscool123) and at 21:08 (UTC) they awarded Thedeadmanandphenom with a barnstar. [191] [192] They made no further contributions. [193]
On 3 August 2007 I addressed a concern I had to Thedeadmanandphenom about their edits. [194] The responses I received were totally uncalled for. [195] Darrenhusted informed me that I was reported for "vandalism". [196] On 12 August 2007 at 22:48 (UTC) Dasaniisgood's account was created and their first post was at 22:55 (UTC) to Darrenhusted, attacking both him and me. It is also similar to Lostinspace123's first post. [197] Both also claim to be from Maryland. [198]
Clear sockpuppetry, and all accounts are now indef blocked. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ghetsmith (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jbntj (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Power2708 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (admitted on
[199])
Bhlimn (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (already blocked)
Smilth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) only made edits on 5 July 2007
164.107.167.35 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.75.18.59 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
OhanaUnited Talk page 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jbntj assessed {{ environment}} as stub [200], then added {{ climate change}} [201]. I spotted the error that he assessed the article Fossil fuel power plant as stub (even though that article is long and has references), so I corrected it back to B-class. I also removed climate change template. [202] 1 day later, Ghetsmith came and add back the climate change template and reassess the article back to stub class. [203]
In Ghetsmith's contribution page and Jbntj's page, both are involved mainly on articles and talk pages related to energy, renewable & conventional energy resources.
Another editor, mbeychok, left me a message on my talk page questioning the coincidental edits the 2 users made. Mbeychok suspects that they are using Wikipedia articles as propaganda for environmental issues.
An interesting note is that Ghetsmith's editing stopped after July 9 and resumed on August 7. During this period, Jbntj edits between July 12 and August 6. It is not a concrete evidence, but this is a hint that Ghetsmith used Jbntj in mid/late July.
There is circumstantial evidence of sock puppetry, but no "smoking gun" that I can see. The incident cited above, where the two users made the same controversial edit regarding article assessment, seems to be the only blatant violation of the user account policy.
I think the correct response is to block Jbntj, the newer of the two accounts (and the currently inactive one), and to advise Ghetsmith that sock puppetry is a Bad Thing. Shalom Hello 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Potters house (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sapienz (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Daniel Case 05:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I was clearing out expired prods when I came upon Harold Warner, from which the tag had been removed [204] by Sapienz, who claimed that sources had been added as xlinks. Since he turned out to be a relatively new user, I decided that I would list the article at AfD and leave a note about removing prods on his talk page.
But as I looked at his history, [205] and the article's, I noticed that there seemed to be a focus on articles related to Potter's House Christian Fellowship. I noted also that there seemed to be an edit war between Sapienz and Darrenss ( [206], [207] and [208]) who he claimed was an ex-PHCF member biased against the group. Darrenss's userpage does seem to suggest this.
I then decided to put this on WP:AN/I. But then I decided to look into Potters house, who had originally created the article [209]. And things got interesting.
Potters house was blocked indefinitely in May for an inappropriate username. This was after two blocks, one for spam and another for 3RR, (the latter lifted after two of the 24 hours) last summer. [210]. But I noticed Potters house has a similar thing about Darrenss and his purported agenda ( [211], [212], [213]). Sapienz has been, and Potters house was, actively editing Wayman Mitchell.
It also seems to me their language is similar. Is Sapienz simply Potters house, trying to evade a ban?
Yes I can verify that this is true. The same user aka user:Potter's House, aka User:Xsxsxsxs, aka user:Sapienz, aka heaps of anon IP's. I recently placed an incident report for his behaviour under the heading user:Sapienz - Incidents on the 3rd of August outlining his various IP's that he has used to harrass me and others. I already had 2 posts I left on Sapienz talk page and he deleted them both, besides only Nick aka potters house guy knows I used to attend his church, that fact he uses against me. I tried to be civil to him to explain my edits on those talk pages and even invited him to discuss it but so far he has chosen to complain to other editors about me and has avoided any coversation regarding his favorite articles. One more thing, on the Wayman Mitchell talk page Nick explains that he runs a site http://www.waymanmitchell.com and has scanned onto his site a book he is using for reference which is copyrighted. Also Nick is the web admin for http://www.cfmau.com and http://www.pottersclub.com which he has furiously fought to get into the Potters House related articles. Darrenss 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Madsurrealist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
BenjaminPeret (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Worldeater (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Thikeboylove (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Madsurrealist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RedAnarchy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
notey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- TextureSavant 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
PRIOR EVIDENCE: This sockpuppetry is repeated vandalism by Keith Wigdor, who has been harrassing other users associated with the Surrealism article. This same individual, Madsurrealist for a long time was using the account of Classicupiter2 and is a previously proven sockpuppeteer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Classicjupiter2
The arbitration committee looked into the problem, but they didn't do anything about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/TextureSavant
RECENT EVIDENCE:
Here are some of the most recent diffs:
[214]
[215]
[216]
[217]
[218]
[219]
[220]
[221]
A checkuser analysis was recently completed, confirming that the above accounts are indeed socks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thikeboylove
This Suspected-Sockpuppet case is being filed in order to take further action in preventing this individual from causing further disruption to the
Surrealism article.
The first four user accounts in this case are all new and use the same disruptive language and mannerisms that suggest that the Classicjupiter2 sockpuppeteer has returned from a few months' reprieve in order to cause more trouble for the
Surrealism article. His usual motive is the skewing of consensus & disruption of discussion regarding the article. In particular, he has a beef with the Chicago Surrealist Group, and repeatedly attempts to remove references to them that appear in the article. Keith Wigdor is sore because he can't succeed in getting his own name and website (
http://www.surrealismnow.com) into the
Surrealism article. --
TextureSavant
14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
These various sock accounts should be blocked, so as to prevent Keith Wigdor/ User:Madsurrealist from causing more disruption to the Surrealism article.
EdwinCasadoBaez (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jimmyjones1122 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jonathanmbaez (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Memeco (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
70.177.181.129 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.119.127.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
130.245.239.126 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.118.48.94 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
24.190.180.244 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.131.205.111 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Please note two accounts listed were already blocked for disruptive behavior 70.177.181.129, 69.119.127.181 in another sockpuppet case [222] 64.131.205.111 04:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
EdwinCasadoBaez ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [223] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [224] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [225] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [226] , [227]. He has been warned numerous times [228], [229], [230] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [231] . Can be seen here. [232] . New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [233] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [234] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [235] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [236] refering to other users as idiots [237] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [238] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [239] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [240].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [241] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [242] [243] Later he was "Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grand master ka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)" ignoring the block which using his 69.119.127.181 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.177.181.129 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Just got off of block [244] and violates Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as well as Wikipedia:Civility [245] [246] . Has been noted to not be able to control his temper by an admin. [247] His previous block was lengthened because of ban-evasions [248] Also please take a look at the block log http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:EdwinCasadoBaez and an admission of using sockpuppets http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:69.119.127.181&diff=prev&oldid=140359231 Tells other users to "suck it" [249] Adding a Checkuser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Memeco reply
He stated that I was using a sockpuppet when I wasn't [250] . And was answered by Jpgordan that creating an account was perfectly alright [251] . When I did create another account it wasn't in any manner to be disruptive as EdwinCasadoBaez did. He was reported on numerous occasions to AN/I [252] , but all they did was lengthen his ban. He was given a pass the first time around b/c he seemed apologetic [253], but came back full force and was put on a week long block. His disruption of checkuser cases was unprecedented [254] . He would carry on, invite meatpuppets (i.e johnathenbaez) [255] to further disrupt articles, and more. His personal attacks were hard and hurtful. [256] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). I left numerous warnings on his page as did many other wikipedians as to his unruly behavior [257] and he would simply ignore them or attack others verbally. He would also mock his blockings [258] ; encouring the use of MEATPUPPETS [259] ; stating that people (banned users) were his family when it seems very likely that it was him as shown by checkuser [260] He has warred with many different wikipedians in articles . [261]. He also disrupted other AN/N cases [262] 64.131.205.111 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I couldn't help but noting while browsing the IP's contributions that he/she contributed to a case ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111) involving his/her account where it was confirmed that it was a sockpuppeter (confirmed socks are User:YoSoyGuapo, User: DMVGuy, User: BoriquaStar and User:Bombaplena, those are the ones on the checkuser at least, that is an awful lot of sockpuppetry in my humble opinion) how is it possible that a user that has been proven as abusing multiple accounts is still active and of all things contributing to the sock puppet board? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
You're taking soundbites and out of context. This issue carried on from "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic
"Weeeeeeepaaaa!!! 64.131.205.111 16:30, 24 May 2007 - Wepa means cool
to which he replied "Actually if you going use Dominican slang use it right...mira te di lu, tamo cloro...oh what should I use your slang okay pai. Avfnx 22:40, 24 May 2007" - which means more or less "look here, what you do in the dark, you take it in the dark" referring to "getting F**** by another male in the dark"
i replied "thats dirty but cute. do you want milk" -- meaning what he said was dirty, do you want milk -- because kids with dirty mouths talk like that
his reply " dejame dalte lu de nuevo, pork parace k te k daste en lo oscuro. ------ en tu cara? tamo cloro or is to much for you. Avfnx 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)"
meaning "listen here you dickhead, you freakin take it in the darkness in your face. take it now..is that too much for you"
my reply "Avfnx no eso fue porque tu tio te lo dijo oh cuando tu eras mas joven i despues que tu abuelo te toco el pene" which was "avfnx that wasn't me that was you and your uncle. you learned that after your grandfather touched you."
I never reported these attacks b/c they went both ways and were in spanish.
User:Avfnx has stated things in english such as "full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are", "This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR."
This though does not take away from the fact that said user EdwinCasadoBaez was using sockpuppets.
64.131.205.111
01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
If you look. I've served my ban for sockpuppetry and it lasted over a month. I was even instructed to make a new account "I probably shouldn't be telling you this: just register a new account (if you can't, then wait about a day and try again). If you contribute constructively, you will not be connected to the blocked accounts; should you vandalize pages or harass users, you will be blocked, sockpuppet or not. -" [267]. I'm not creating another account for a while. He never served anything longer than a week and continued to use sockpuppets on multiple occasions even during his ban. Bad faith no (a point to be made, yes), but point blank he used a large amount of sockpuppets. 64.131.205.111 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
PS also take a look at the commentary made by EdwinCasadoBaez and sockpuppets for their edit summaries! 64.131.205.111 02:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Also look at this checkuser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Memeco
EdwinCasadoBaez simply negates any type of information that is even perceived to be negative about DR and will not posted in regardless of the sources. Amnesty International, the UN, etc. When references such as ESPN are used as recently as his reply was "What the hell does Steroids has to be in the Dominican Republic article?!!!go put it in some other page!!!do You see steroids being mentioned in the United States Article, where atlethes use it the most?"
[270]
He stated that I was using a sockpuppet when I wasn't [271] . And was answered by Jpgordan that creating an account was perfectly alright [272] . When I did create another account it wasn't in any manner to be disruptive as EdwinCasadoBaez did. He was reported on numerous occasions to AN/I [273] , but all they did was lengthen his ban. He was given a pass the first time around b/c he seemed apologetic [274], but came back full force and was put on a week long block. His disruption of checkuser cases was unprecedented [275] . He would carry on, invite meatpuppets (i.e johnathenbaez) [276] to further disrupt articles, and more. His personal attacks were hard and hurtful. [277] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). I left numerous warnings on his page as did many other wikipedians as to his unruly behavior [278] and he would simply ignore them or attack others verbally. He would also mock his blockings [279] ; encouring the use of MEATPUPPETS [280] ; stating that people (banned users) were his family when it seems very likely that it was him as shown by checkuser [281] He has warred with many different wikipedians in articles . [282] . 64.131.205.111 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Your contributions are valued in Wikipedia and who else then Dominicans to make their related articles better. I must tell both of you that if you are going to add any information to any article, you must provide a verifiable reliable source to proof the allegations as required by Wiki policy. If not added material my be subject to deletion, however if the material added contains the proper source and is reverted by anyone, that action maybe deemed as vandalism.
Do not ask nor instigate others to join in a discussion which may turn hostile. When entering a discussion, remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. If any of you enter a dispute ask for the help of an outsider, a mediator or arbitrator. There are times when people differ in opinions and which amy require a consensus.
Therefore, I am asking both of you to accept the following agreement for the good of the image of the Dominican Republic and its people.
If you both agree, sign your user names here:
1.I Completely Accept!and thanks for giving me another Chance EdwinCasadoBaez 06:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2.
I will be watching, if either of you break the agreements or rules, you will be blocked and possibly banned. Tony the Marine 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I cannot agree that EdwinCasadoBaez goes unpunished for his actions. He was already given a pass for his unruly behavior
[283] and proceeded to simply do worse. My account was suspended and I was blocked as a sockpuppet while he continued to go along his merry way as if what he did was perfectly alright. I served my suspension and as a result of his actions am without a user account. If my account
YoSoyGuapo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) was reinstated then I would have a change of heart (as well as him serving at the very least a token suspension). At this point I think the only thing that is fair would be the loss of his account due to the overwhelming evidence that shows his poor behavior and violations of wikibehavior.
64.131.205.111
21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
My final decision is that I will not block nether of you as of now. Both of you should have asked for a mediator before your arguments got out of hand and nether of you did. I have set up rules and asked for an agreement between both parties and EdwinCasadoBaez has agreed to follow the rules plus Wikipedia policy. Regardless of wheather the parties involved agree or do not, Wikipedia policy will be enforced and whoever breaks the rules will be blocked. If any of the parties involved does not agree with my decision, then said party has the option of seeking an arbitrator. Tony the Marine 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I find it a bit disturbing that with such heavy evidence against EdwinCasadoBaez concerning his use of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and multiple accounts that no one even bothered to confirm whether or not he actually used them. Even you can see this. [284] I was actually in the gathering evidence on EdwinCasadoBaez and made numerous reports on him to AN/I to no avail. I would like this to be looked over by another administrator. 64.131.205.111 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Also why is EdiwinCasadoBaez allowed to keep his name account and mine was taken away? 64.131.205.111 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
If my account YoSoyGuapo is unblocked you won't see the ip used anymore. The checkuser was a violation of my privacy with the use of an IP. Even if it is moved to YoSoyGuapo the original page wasn't deleted. Which is what I was asking for but no one is helping me at all. I understand that you have a special relationship with him (because of his membership in the WikiCarib project). This isn't becoming old it's simply the fact that the language used was agressive and people have been blocked on wikipedia for far less. Anyway, lets see what another admin says. 64.131.205.111 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (on library IP) reply
region? http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation ? come on now. this again doesn't take away from the almost definitive use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets by edwincasadobaez. offering protection to a friend is sometimes fine. objection is typically best. 64.131.205.111 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Well lets see what other admin's have to say. I guess you're ok with the strong use of sockpuppets and meat puppets so long as they are contributing to the wiki carib project. anyway, i said i'd drop this if 1) edwincadadobaez was blocked for his use of sockpuppets or 2) we both served a punishment and my account was restored. 64.131.205.111 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONFIRMATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE SOCKPUPPETS USED BY HIM? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
64.131.205.111 (
talk) 02:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
Insanity Incarnat e 07:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Vandalizing Cassowary at the same time, while I was reverting "their" edits, similar usernames. May also be the same person as User:Arsehole11, who was another recent, similar vandal on that page.
THF 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SPA trying to "CSD" well-researched Richard Rossi article. Jacksbernstein (Rossi's press agent) created a different sock, The InnocenceProject, to try to edit article after being indef-blocked for legal threats; that account has been indef-blocked also.
Justlit (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Miley hilary (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Xxdisneyxfanxx (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
James Luftan contribs 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
First notice how both of their usernames are Disney related.
Justlit adds disney related content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justlit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laila_Richard_Sadeq According to this Miley hilary is a new user, editting on a improperly listed AfD, supporting the suspected sockpuppeteer. Notice how they both try to manipulate the time.(so far as two months back!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xxdisneyxfanxx According to that, the user lives in Florida and England.(?)
They have day old accounts, but tons of userboxes.
Both accounts were created minutes after the AfD began.
This evidence is overwhelming, and they both (sloppily) try to manipulate the system. I will request for checkuser once somebody responds. James Luftan contribs 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, James Luftan contribs 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion is User:Justlit is the sock puppeter and the other 2 are his puppets. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laila Richard Sadeq for further details 3tmx 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Added Justlit James Luftan contribs 21:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I think they may have thought it had already been nominated (when it had just been flagged for notability).Its a possibility they were trying to make it look like an archived discussion as they pasted from an archived discussion, (although this was changed) - could explain the weird thing with the dates too. I don't think whoever is responsible totally new what they were doing, but had a good go. I'm 99.9% certain that he is the puppet master. One of the suspected sock puppets was created 10 min after his changes to the AFD - enough time to get a load of userboxes and create a sock puppet. Bit of a coincidence that another person was looking at the particular page at that time, made the same mistake of thinking it had been nominated for deletion, then decided to make themselves a page and contribute 3tmx 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Also
On Justlit's very first edit to the AFD he formats his text to make it look like he's struck through a previous edit - like hes thought about the proposed deltion and changed his position from clean up to keep - what a joker. Block 'em. 3tmx 23:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Vinay412 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Never_bdsd (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Miyamw (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (added 2 August 2007)
andy 11:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User is attempting to undo revisions to two articles that were favourites of banned sockpuppeteer Vinay412
The restored revisions are sections that were heavily edited by sockpuppets of Vinay412
User's only other edit is this - there is a link to this talk page from my contributions page and my archived talk but no other obvious link that Never bdsd might have followed
Miyamw - evidence
User has recreated Human_figure which was deleted and redirected after an AfD debate which included a lot of sockpuppetry.
The user is a single-purpose account
The recreated article contains a reference to Female body shape which was jealously guarded by Vinay412, as was the original version of this article.
The style of English is very similar to that of Vinay412's previous edits.
The previous discussion on the article has been archived, without any link to the archive
andy 09:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
You say striked? I disown you, boor. What's your business in IIsc? Milching the buffaloes? 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a match. All the listed accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Florentino floro (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Juanatoledo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Shrumster 10:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am Judge Florentino V. Floro. I want to submit evidence that I am not a sock puppet. First, due to limited knowledge of the Rules, I registered Judgefloro the first account, and then the correct present florentino floro. Fisherqueen notified me of this ambiguity, so I replied in my Userpage that I will from that time use the 2nd florentino floro; so I obeyed and never edited judgefloro nor used it.
I have no idea about the whereabouts of Juanatoledo. My problem is: I had been known worldwide and I made many enemies here in the Philippines. In fact I know that some of my detractors are using my name or any similarity of Floro to make it appear that that name or username are my ALTERS. If ever, juanatoledo or melanie almera are accused to me me
the BEST EVIDENCE is to call me since I am Judge Floro here at 123 dahlia alido malolos, 3000 Bulacan, with land line (044) 662-8203 philippines;
my contributions are the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Florentino+floro
I examined juanatoledo's contributions, and they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Juanatoledo
there are lots of differences and similarities
with respect to similarities
I judge and state this user juanatoledo, is also here in the philippines, and could have used the site, place and areas, where I edited, PLUS, studied carefully my contributions, TO CONTRIBUTE AND EDIT what I did edit, thus, making it appear to harm florentino floro to make a case of socket
But it is very clear that my own contributions are in favor of WIKIPEDIA and are very good and timely contributions especially for top people like reynato puno, gregory s. ong, teresita de castro, these are big people or justices here, and I got first hand info to write about them.
What is the harm?
my own article Florentino V. Floro was incorrectly written by such melanie, and then I committed a mistake of editing it, and Fisherqueen the admin re-wrote it coz of its world-famous value
Tito Pao even encouraged me to be at Tambayan
why?
It is clear from the contributions that juanatoledo
Tito Pao, and I myself like Shrumster, I, I myself, graduated 1965 elementary at St. Mary's Academy Meycauayan Bulacan, then I graduated AB and LLB Ateneo de Manila University, 1974, 1982, so Shrumster should know me.
Based on my contributions, which are so FAVORABLE to WIKI, why should I be charged Sockpuppet?
At the very least, juanatoledo or melanie should be the ones charged not me, a JUDGE who already suffered INJUSTICE here in my own country.
Wikipedia is great, and my contributions are great. I followed the rules, why should other usernames make me a sockpuppet.
I do not advertise I never wrote on my friends, I just add and edit on great autos or events I first see on the internet to MAKE WIKI bigger.
Shrumster graduated elementary from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school from the Ateneo de Manila High School, and college from the Ateneo de Manila University. Currently pursuing a Master of Science in Marine Biology degree at the University of the Philippines' Marine Science Institute.
Just BECAUSE juanatoledo or melanie contributed in like manner is this a reason for me to be blocked.
Wiki should weigh the quality and greatness of the contributions rather than piece-meal and circumstantial evidence of sockpuppet.
I know what Shurmster is driving at, but he is unaware of the fact that I have detractors and enemies due to my predictions ... the deaths in the Philippine Judiciary and because of this, some may have read my dire death prophesies and took vengeance on me, even here....
If THERE IS HARD EVIDENCE in law, equity and under Wiki Rules, that these juanatoledo and melanie are sockpuppet, then, do not include me or accuse me of such actuations.
I had contributed many many good news and things about many big people here, to make NEUTRAL their articles and to let people know about them ...
I therefore, petition that the accusation against me, be DENIED for utter lack of basis, merit, and due to impetinence and misnomer.
-- Florentino floro 05:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
In addition to the above refutation, contradiction and traversing the accusations and allegations of
Shrumster,
I am JUXTAPOSING the critical facts and proofs, that I Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. and Shrumster -
1) are from the same town of Meycauayan City, 2) studied from same Meycauayan St. Mary's Academy and 3) graduated from the same Ateneo De Manila University,
these SAME places reveal that the
MOTIVE behind the filing of this sockpuppet case against me: I want to show that NO WIKIPEDIAN outside the Philippines, outside my SCHOOL ATENEO, outside my TOWN MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, ever accused me of such violation of Wiki Rules.
It is UNTHINKABLE in law, morals, ethics and Wiki principles that a SCHOOLMATE, TOWNMATE would accuse me of such grave violations.
MOTIVE THEREFORE is so important: What is the AGENDA or HIDDEN REASON why he accused me
despite the fact that NOTED WIKIPEDIANS honored me and NOTED my great contributions here: Tito Pao
[[User:Algabal|Algabal]
THE FOLLOWING IS MY OWN PROFILE - (PART OF)
The name of this writer is Florentino V. Floro, Jr. He hails from Calvario, Meycauayan City, Bulacan, a province where the historic Barasoain Church is located and produced notable Filipinos:
Florentino floro graduated elementary (1965) from
St. Mary's College of
Meycauayan, high school (1969) from St. Vincent's Seminary, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, and college,
Bachelor of Arts, pre-divinity and philosophy, from the
Ateneo de Manila University. He earned the [[degree] of
Bachelor of Laws (1982) at the
Ateneo School of Law, with FULL SECOND HONORS. He placed 12th in the 1983
Philippine Bar Examination, with a bar rating of 87.55% in one of the hardest examination, where only 21.3% passed. He was duly appointed Regional Trial Court Judge of Br. 73,
Malabon City, on his natal day of November 5, 1998, was placed under indefinite preventive suspension on July 20, 1999 until he was separated from service and paid 3 years back wages by the
Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 6, 2006.
THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF THE PROFILE OF Shrumster -
Shrumster graduated elementary from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school from the Ateneo de Manila High School, and college from the Ateneo de Manila University. Currently pursuing a Master of Science in Marine Biology degree at the University of the Philippines' Marine Science Institute.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY AND CONTRADICTION SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSATION:
Verily, the foregoing CLEARLY proves that the MOTIVE, that is, the accuser Shrumster is my own schoolmate and townmate who knows me and who has a HIDDEN AGENDA of SHUTTING me out to contribute to Wiki due to personal and hidden anger, hatred and baseless and utterly without merit accusations.
-- Florentino floro 05:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I want to submit evidence that aside from the fact that I and accuser Shrumster both hail from MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, and both of us are ALUMNI of ATENEO de MANILA University, Philippines, I have contributed so much to Wikipedia: I quote parts of my User profile:
Florentino V. Floro is of Filipino and Chinese ancestry.
He is currently a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines.
Florentino floro graduated elementary (1965) from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school (1969) from St. Vincent's Seminary, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, and college, Bachelor of Arts, pre-divinity and philosophy, from the Ateneo de Manila University. He earned the [[degree] of Bachelor of Laws (1982) at the Ateneo School of Law, with FULL SECOND HONORS. He placed 12th in the 1983 Philippine Bar Examination, with a bar rating of 87.55% in one of the hardest examination, where only 21.3% passed. He was duly appointed Regional Trial Court Judge of Br. 73, Malabon City, on his natal day of November 5, 1998, was placed under indefinite preventive suspension on July 20, 1999 until he was separated from service and paid 3 years back wages by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 6, 2006.
This writer also contributes to the Wikipedia and expresses his views in his blog ANGEL OF DEATH, LUIS ARMAND and ANGEL. He is a practicing Roman Catholic; a mild environmentalist; and a strong advocate of healthy living.
I have an eclectic range of interests, but am primarily concerned with editing and creating well-written pages relating to my own country, specifically, concerning Law, the Philippine Judiciary and Filipino people. Contributing in Wikipedia since 2007 gives me a sense of fulfillment as I'm able to share to others what I know. I hope to expound more on articles related to Law. Florentino V. Floro is well-versed in subjects relating to Philippine politics, Law, media, society, popular culture, and entertainment.
-- Florentino floro 12:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, I request the Wikipedia administrators to DISMISS for utter lack of merit and basis, the accusation of Shrumster. Please weigh my contributions vis-a-vis his own HIDDEN AGENDA and impropriety or insult to WIKIPEDIA. Besides, of all Wikipedians, I, Judge [Florentino V. Floro]] stands out due to the fact I had been IMMORTALIZED in world judicial history (just type judge floro in google or yahoo, etc. search engines, and my world entries, reports, in forums and blogs etc. are unduplicated as far as Philippine judiciary is concerned). Wikipedia MUST BE PROUD to have a WORLD-famous and IMMORTAL Judge who suffered injustice and vindicated by international reports. Wikipedia is GREAT, and it must have GREAT and FAMOUS wikipedians too. Accuser Shrumster cannot even show PROOF that he can match just 1% of my google entries and results.
It will be a great loss to Wikipedia if I am banned. MY conscience is clear and his accusation based on technicalities must perforce be branded as SPAM and suspicious. He is unworthy to be a Wikipedian, most unworthy to be an ATENEAN who goes for TRUTH and INTEGRITY.
I accuse Shrumster of being the ALTER and sockpuppet of some justices here, who do not want me to contribute to judiciary articles to make them NEUTRAL.
It is UNTHINKABLE that this accuser will DENY not knowing me, when he wrote in HIS PROFILE that he is from my OWN TOWN MEYCAUAYAN, and from my OWN SCHOOL ATENEO. That is EVADING the ISSUE and my CONTRADICTIONS. He is not telling the TRUTH, He is LYING.
PROOF: When I edited and added Extra-juidicial killings summit plus the twin deaths of Narcisa PUno and Luzviminda Puno, the mother and wife of our Chief Justice, per verifiable links, the accuser suddenly NOTICED my ALLEGED but unproved errors or technical mistakes here. Such editing of these twin deaths for sure MADE them got angry. So, why should Shrumster instead edit and delete these? Here is the auto
Reynato Puno our Chief Justice now
-- Florentino floro 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
If you read carefully my above refutations, reply and contradictions of all your baseless and unjust accusation, when YOU SHOULD ASSUME GOOD FAITH in the editing of editors, as basic Wiki Rule, you can clearly comprehend that I utterly destroyed each and all your malicious accusations. You, yourself, never come out of the open, never identified yourself, hiding under an incognito or blank name, for hidden purposes, proving my point that you ARE verily a puppet or and alter of some ateneans or jurists in the Philippines whom I had caused pains by cleansing our corrupt judiciary by Imprecation under Psalm 109,and 53 Bible, towards 8 medical surgeries of incumbent justices, as God's will and punishment. Why don't you refute each and every contradictions that I submitted to you? Why can't your EXPLAIN my contra-accusation that as TOWNMATE and CO-ALUMNI of the ateneo, WHY in this big and prestigious Wiki world, that no other Wikipedia accused me CONSIDERING MY MANY CONTRIBUTIONS here, of being sockpuppet? Why a filipino, a bulakeno, my own town meycauayaneno, and co-atenean, and not others or WIKI foreigners or even other school wiki here should accuse me? This is a simple case of UTTER VENGEANCE to me by you, and I fervently pray that this injustice be undone. Every midnights starting your accusation I had prayed PSALM 109 and 53 including your name Shrumster in my very HOLY and BLESSED catholic and religous IMPRECATION of your and your family up to the 4th generation. This is my religous belief.
-- Florentino floro 07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I read about vadalism, and I quote:
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
I am a lawyer and judge. I read carefully the intent and literal meaning of vandalism. You accused me first of sockpuppetry and I read the rules, thus, I submitted evidence and counter-evidence against your defamatory and malicious allegations. That is the essence of protecting the intergrity of Wikipedia. For me, it clearly appears, that based on your accusations and replies, you are the sockpuppet of some ateneans or jurists here who are interferring in my legal, just, and neutral contributions to Wikipedia. Due process of law even in Wiki assures me of my right to submit not censored but full evidence to contradict your accusations. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm If you read this news today, some edit in Wiki as puppets really.
If you do not like my evidence, then you are free to delete edit or even erase your entire userpage and make a new one. I cannot accept your statement that you do not know me, since, you were not yet born when I graduated ... that is silly, if you are a good wikipedian as you claim, why did you not read my auto written by Fisherqueen Florentino V. Floro? Why did you not bother to ask from Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan who I am? Ask Dean Cesar L. Villanueva of the ateneo, my classmate who am I? You just filed this case against me without even knowing who I am. That is plain defamation and libel. In fact DOJ Gonzales filed a case of Libel against Co, now in the Courts. Read that news. I also notice that you did not even put your name in your Userpage and you have no picture. Why are you not brave enough to identify yourself? Ateneo is a school which deals with LUX IN DOMINO, integrity, justice and so on. You miserably fail to be a good ateneo alumni. I already suffered martyrdom in Filipino Justice, and I found kindness in more than 1,000 blogs and 100 forums that compassionately sided with me against the courts. If you read the news, under PERC survey our country is No. 1 in corruption. Now, even if thousands of Wiki users never accused me of such PETTY technicalities that you deal with, you, my townmate and co-atenean would file this UNJUST case? To silence me to contribute to this great encyclopedia. I do pitty you.
-- Florentino floro 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The above-responses to the accuser seemed to be legal threats. To make it clear, I am not suing or filing any case in court against the accuser, just that my reply are layman's terms. For sure, in our Philippine Jurisprudence, there is no such this as libel in the internet, since our penal code in 1932 punishes only written in the papers and published. Since there was no internet in 1932, any and all defamation or threats in the internet and here are not actionable.
I am only traversing the accusations and allegations of sockpuppet against me. A cursory perusal of my above responses cleary shows them to be mere replies or re-joinders. I never did consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. It is the accuser who makes this case more baseless. Hence, I respectfully request the admins to look deeply at my contributions compared to his contributions and the merits of my submissions, instead of techinicalities. I admit that I am a new user and not familiar so much with computer. But with my little learing, I want to learn and my GOOD FAITH shows that I never used any other username other than this and the other judgefloro that I told admin FisherQueen that I would not use anymore due to my mistakes.
-- Florentino floro 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Spigot Map 08:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
THF 21:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Identical edit style of abusive editor, Jewbaccas reverted Jewish right page to version of 74.116 after latter was blocked.
Kephera975 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Frater FiatLux (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MA'AT (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hogd2007 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mp474ret (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tatenen (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Leviathan6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Rondus (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brahman0 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS ( talk) 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Kephera975 shows a remarkable similarity in POV-pushing for the articles involved in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with User:Frater FiatLux who has already been blocked for contentiuous editing and page move vandalism.
There has been a history of short term single-purpose accounts backing up the POV of both these users. Many but not all are listed above. Some are no longer accessible because they only edited deleted article Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. A whole series of these which appeared during a short period of time have already been blocked as sock or meatpuppets, but the puppetmaster was never identified. These, who were all blocked as obvious socks by Tariqabjotu are:
Both the primary users repeatedly accuse other established editors with edits over a wide range of articles of having a conflict of interest. After Kephera975 could not intimidate me into agreeing to change the name of that article without documentation of the actual name of the organization, he nominated a whole range of articles for deletion, apparently in retaliation for my insistence on his providing sources to verify his claims. Now that it appears that the ones he really wanted deleted will survive, he has continued with false accusations that I closed an AfD at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn.2C_Inc. and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JMax555 where he bases his bizarre accusations of sockpuppetry on the "fact" that I closed an AfD "prematurely" when it was actually closed by JoshuaZ.
The most recent apparent sockpuppet Rondus has repeatedly spammed AfDs and talk pages with a bizarre accusatory rant. He apparently has knowledge of 3RR, because when he was about to break it, suddenly C00483033 appeared and continue the revert to reinclude this rant multiple times until blocked for 3RR. He also makes the same accusations of conflict of interest against me as Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux, continuing to repeat them after I have clearly stated my lack of affiliation with the person and organization they accuse me of being an "agent" of.
Both Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux's methods include frequent accusations that opposing editors are "members" or "agents" of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. I have repeated truthfully stated that I have no affiliation with any of the Golden Dawn orders, but these baseless accusations continue to be repeated, for example in the AfD for the articles.
I am at the end of my rope with these baseless accusation, and since they seem to be coming from Kephera975, User:Frater FiatLux, and now from users Rondus and C00483033, I can only assume that there is either sockpuppetry or coordinated meatpuppetry occurring here. I feel that I am now being intentionally harassed and intimidated by the repeated accusations on the AfD and the opening of a suspected sockpuppet report based on a complete falsity. Please someone look into the relation between these users. I will help in whatever way I can, but much of the evidence has been deleted along with the articles:
primarily in the first article and primarily on the talk pages.
(The following was noted by Mattisse on my talk page.) "Look at User:Frater FiatLux's contribution history. [288] It's very interesting. There is a year hiatus. Look at User:Kephera975's contribution history [289] Almost the same hiatus."
An easier way to compare is using Interiot's tool, bring up a window for each: Kephera975 vs. Frater FiatLux. Both were active June-July 2006, inactive August 2006-April 2007. Both made exactly 14 edits in May 2007! Both inactive again in June. Only in July is there a difference, with Frater FiatLux making some edits and Kephera975 remaining inactive. In August, Frater FiatLux starts editing on the 1st until he is [290] blocked on the 2nd at 22:08. Kephera975 then reappears nearly immediately. I can't tell exactly when because his first edit was to a deleted article talk page Special:Undelete/Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega.
What happened in May 2007 is especially interesting, each having so few edits. Kephera975 appears first on May 2, and is especially interested in the dab at the top of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn: [291], [292], [293], [294]. His last edit to the dab was May 3. Frater FiatLux appears on May 4, to make further edits to the dab: [295], [296], [297], [298]
Also note that all the short-term socks listed above were active at this time supporting and reverting to Kephera975's changes. They were all blocked on May 3, just before Frater FiatLux became active.
There is another open SSP case involving Rondus and C00483033 at this link.
While I can't say for sure, the actions of those editors do seem to be consistently in line with Kephera975 and the timing of their appearance to support multiple AfD's proposed by Kephera975 seems quite coincidental, to state it as fairly as I can and not imply that I know with certainty.
Aside from any other user names that may be involved, Rondus and C00483033 strongly appear to be puppets of a single user. These diffs of multiple almost-identical sequential disruptive edits on multiple articles are already listed in the SSP case I linked just above regarding User:Frater FiatLux, but they apply here as well so I will provide them for convenience:
Rondus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log):
There are more examples in the contribs -- Parsifal Hello 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Further evidence confirming that
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) is the same as indef blocked user
Frater FiatLux (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) is
this comment, which is practically identical to an argument archived from Frater FiatLux's talk page,
here (first section).
GlassFET
18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Also- for all readers- Kephera's sockpuppet filing against Ipsos was in response to Ipsos' filing one against him. [
For User:IPSOS- when users are scrapping over an article quite a few users will accuse you of being a fan of the org concerned, if you do edits they don't like. I had the same problem on Gillian McKeith- just because I removed some tripe, they thought I was a McKeith lover. As your edits are pro-Cicero and HOGD Inc, you are bound to meet these accusations. If they're untrue, simply deny them as you've been doing. This is more a matter for RfC or something than sockpuppeting. Merkinsmum 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I recently joined Wikipedia, only to be immediately persecuted by User IPSOS. My first impression at Wikipedia has been a very bad one because of him. I had not been a member here 24 hours before User IPSOS because stuck a "Suspected Sock Puppet" tag on my talk page (I have since learned that this was inappropriate behavior from him). Moreover, IPSOS has harassed me on my talk page non-stop ever since. Since the very moment that I arrived here, I have been forced to defend myself against one false accusation after the other coming from User IPSOS. He accused me of being a sock puppet after my very first contribution. He is now also accusing me of being an SPA (whatever that means). During entire time at Wikipedia I have been forced to spend hours and hours learning my way around an ocean of rules, merely to defend myself against the BULLYING tactics of user IPSOS. Along the way, I found a rule called "Be nice to newcomers." If only that rule were truly in effect, I would have had a very different experience here until now.
Upon joining Wikipedia, I immediately was given the impression that user IPSOS was using his superior knowledge of the rules here in order to manipulate discussions to fit his point of view as well as to silence any and all opposing opinions. I do not even know who user Fiat Lux or C00... are. I have never even had any contact with them. User Keph..., however, I have noticed is a frequent critic of User IPSOS tactics as well as of his biased point of view.
I would like to state clearly that I am not any of the users listed in this article. I am not a sock puppet of anyone nor do I use more than one account. I have not intended to break any other rules here either. A simple investigation of my IP address should be enough to clear me of this latest, baseless charge from User, IPSOS.
If I have broken ANY rule here, it is only due to my goofiness being new together with being forced to defend myself against bullying from the very first moment that I arrived. Unfortunately, what has happened here since I arrived has given me the distinct impression that what is really going on at Wikipedia has precious little to do with the accuracy of the Encyclopedia, but rather with the egos of the Editors and that the first and foremost rule here is: "THE BIGGEST BULLY WITH THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PREVAILS." I have also unfortunately been given the distinct impression that newcomers are most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator would ask User IPSOS to kindly quit bullying me once and for all.-- Rondus 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural Note: This report here and at the one at
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) appear to be almost identical and contain much of the same information and list of accounts. As a result, the comment above by Rhondus and my question for him have been cross-posted for clarity. It might be useful to combine the two reports, but I don't know anything about those procedures or if it should be done. --
Parsifal
Hello
20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
JMax555 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hogd120 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
GlassFET (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Parsifal (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kephera975 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:IPSOS shows a remarkable similarity in POV-pushing for the articles involved in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with User:JMax555 and User:999 who has already been banned for sockpuppetry. Since 999 worked and created these articles it would not surprise me if he has come back to defend the contemporary articles found here: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn and here: The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. . User:JMax555 is a prominent member of The Open Source and this behavior is remarkably familiar to his. The use of capitolized letters, for example, to emphasize a point is apparent in both User:IPSOS and User:JMax555: here Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 1 and here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Notice that an unknown new sigle purpose account COI driven User:Hogd120 just appears providing citations for User:IPSOS on the AfD page. This current AfD may be being disrupted by sockpuppets as was the case with User:999 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina in the first AfD nomination. Notice that User:999 was a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Baba Louis and User:Hanuman Das and others. Furthermore, User:JMax555 would understand that his editing could be discounted as he is a known member of that organization as can seen from his talk page: User:JMax555 . This would be why JMax would use socksAdditionally, it appears that User:JMax555 was somehow alerted that User:IPSOS was conversing with an administrator: User:Isotope23 without any evidence showing on his own talk page: User:JMax555 that he was alerted at all. It was my decision to put up all the contemporary Orders for AfD because they lack or lacked in verifiability but these users continue to manipulate Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP box for their own POV's. Their views are so similiar that they are almost clones of one another, and with the fact that User:999 created these articles, it would not suprpise me if he created more socks to defend them in an attempt to use Wikipedia for COI and advertisment on behalf of these two organizations. Could someone check if there is any relation between these users? Kephera975 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I forgot to sign the above. JMax555 23:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Kephera975 says: "On The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, an AfD was posted in which IPSOS removes the tag before any consensus is reached on whether the article should be deleted or not." This is demonstrably false. The Afd was closed by JoshuaZ here and the AfD tag was removed by him as well, here.
Furthermore, I've never added any pro-organization content to any of the articles. I've improved grammar, added text to bare reference links, fixed the capitalization of headings, and undone blind reverts which undid these improvements and those of other editors. I have never added any significant content to any of the articles that Kephera975 is apparently obsessed with. IPSOS ( talk) 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ausbuild (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
CanberraStudent (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
OzTruth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DicksonCollege (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
203.22.237.33 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
124.176.58.195 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
203.51.24.253 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Golden Wattle talk 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
My accusation is of meatpuppet rather than necessarily sock puppet although I am not sure. The evidence is based on a single focus on an otherwise rather obscure candidate for the forthcoming Australian general election : Troy Williams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The single focus of their edits is clear in each of their contributions history and also through the talk page comments - see current version of the page [309] and also the talk page history.-- Golden Wattle talk 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There are a number of claims to be students working on research assignments from CanberraStudent (1) and CanberraStudent (2). Also Ausbuild which contradicts his earlier assertion to User:Garion96 that he worked in Williams's office and is also contradicted in part by the article creation date of the article - September 2006 [310] which is not congruent with the Australian academic year (= calendar year) - ie not an assignment task. Three people seem conscientiously to be seeking references: Canberra Student's very first edit to wikipedia DicksonCollege has a lot of enthusiasm for referencing in his 3rd edit (all to the same talk page) and 1st day on the wikipedia and OzTruth also has been doing some googling. -- Golden Wattle talk 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Unfreeride (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
80.175.28.165 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
66.118.138.195 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.185.237.63 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Master of all Puppets (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Negrit0 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Negrit0 reply
Identical edit summary reasons http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&action=history for different edits ie (sources are in fact valid, not original research) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149779813 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149780516
The same edits with different IPs to evade edit war rules - in all three edits Soccer is changed to Football http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149780516 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149637834 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149358198
Increasing Chinese height and adding information about lactose intolerance ( a pet habit of Unfreeride ) under the name of Master of All Puppets, that account is now currently blocked > be sure to block all of Unfreerides sock puppets! http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=150153484&oldid=150083902
pushing a POV that Unfreeride has been banned for previously, the use of sock puppets is designed to give further support to Unfreerides POV and also to evade the scrutiny of admins who have banned him previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unfreeride#Blocked_again
Unfreeride is a serial offender uses ad hom against people editing his work, uses sock puppets (to add weight to his arguements, to edit war and to evade admin scrutiny), has a racist POV and is on a soap box pushing the POV that Northern Chinese are superior in terms of height and intelligence to the rest of the world.
Unfreeride has resorted to using sock puppets to further his POV, participate in edit wars and evade scrutiny from Admins. All of the sock puppet accounts should be banned, and the favorite haunts of Unfreeride (Race and Intelligence, Human Height, Chess,Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians, etc) should be watched to ensure he does not come back with new sock puppets to push his supremacist POV.
Frater FiatLux (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brahman0 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Rondus (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS ( talk) 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Following on these two, C00483033 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is obvious.
Further evidence confirming that C00483033 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same as indef blocked user Frater FiatLux ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is this comment, which is practically identical to an argument archived from Frater FiatLux's talk page, here (first section). GlassFET 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I noticed these accounts doing multiple almost-identical sequential disruptive edits tonight on multiple articles. I came here to report them and found this report already open, so I am adding this note to confirm that I saw the problem also.
Examples of a few of the identical edits all within a half-hour or so tonight:
Rondus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log):
There are more in the contribs - those are the most recent. -- Parsifal Hello 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am not a sock puppet of anyone as can easily be verified from my IP address by Wikipedia administration. What is actually happenning here is that user IPSOS is acting as an agent of HOGD, Inc. in an inappropriate attempt to manipulate Wikipedia to gain unfair business advantage in an ongoing legal dispute. I got involved in this when it was brought to my attention what user IPSOS has been doing. This nonsensical complaint by user IPSOS is merely an atempt to inappropriately use Wikipedia rules to silence anyone who disagrees with his POV that should be barred due to conflict of interest. User IPSOS is attemptiing to use this end run around Wiki rules in order to get unlimited reversions and suppress the following and highly relevant information
I would like to point out that what is actually happening here is that Wikipedia is allowing itself to be dragged into a fifteen-year old legal dispute between two esoteric orders. One of the parties, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., is presently sending its members en masse here to Wikipedia to “edit” in a misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their order in an attempt to 1. gain an unfair business advantage, 2. misrepresent the status and results of litigation, 3. misrepresent the current status of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn trademark, and to 4. falsely portray HOGD, Inc. as the successor of the historical, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, while depriving the other party of its legitimate and legal rights.
The following is true and correct information that elilminates the HOGD, Inc. biased POV:
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega, is, through its Chief Adept, David John Griffin, the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Owner of the Golden Dawn” trademark, registration number 000063295, in the European Union (making it the registered owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in all 27 member-states of the European Union, and “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark, registration no. TMA 510,385, in Canada. On November 20, 1996, David John Griffin and Patricia A. Behman, as general partners of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (H.O.G.D.), a general partnership, as owners of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” in the European Union, and Charles Cicero, as president of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (H.O.G.D., Inc.), as owners of the same mark in the United States, entered into an Agreement to manage the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” mark on a worldwide basis whilst preventing infringement of the mark by third parties. On May 8, 1998 Behman sold her partnership interest to Griffin, at which point Griffin became sole proprietor of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Griffin, however, always differentiated his organization in trade and commerce, while primarily identifying it as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega so as to differentiate it from a plethora of identically or similarly named groups in the United States relying on no more than the published Regardie materials.
On January 28, 2005, H.O.G.D., Inc. attempted to repudiate the November 20, 1996 Agreement by filing suit against Griffin for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Griffin counter-sued for breach of contract. This litigation consisting of 169 documents filed in the public record, may be accessed by any interested party at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?609863100750398-L_835_0-1 through the Pacer system of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
On January 17, 2007, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement read into the public record by U.S. Magistrate-Judge Maria Elena James as FTR 3:44-4:07 of date 1-17-2007.The Settlement Agreement provides that: 1) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in the European Union; 2) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark in Canada; 3) Griffin recognizes H.O.G.D., Inc. as the sole and exclusive owner of the same mark in the United States; 4) the parties will not contest the ownership of each parties respective marks and mark: 5) H.O.G.D., Inc. will not contest the use, validity or ownership of the mark “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega” in the United States; 6) the January 17, 2007 Agreement supersedes the prior Agreement between the parties; 7) the parties covenanted not to interfere with the operations of each other; 8) the Agreement inures to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. On February 12, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice both H.O.G.D., Inc.’s claims and Griffin’s counter-claims while retaining in perpetuity to retain enforcement of the January 17, 2007 Agreement through motion filed by either of the parties. Over a period of several months, editor IPSOS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly (nearly 30 times) vandalized the H.O.G.D./A.O. article from the first below quotation to the deliberate misrepresentation in the second quote below. “According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 2007 settled litigation with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. guaranteeing the Alpha et Omega's right to use the name of its outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in the United States without interference.[33]” has been repeatedly vandalized to: "According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 1996 contracted with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. a mutual "right to usage" of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® worldwide while acknowledging each Order's "exclusive ownership" of their respective nationally registered trademarks. A copy of this contract was filed for recordation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office." The repeated vandalism by Cicero-associate IPSOS shows a remarkable familiarity with the above-referenced litigation by the parties. Whilst Cicero’s attorney maintained that the 1996 Agreement was a “right to use” agreement in which each party accorded to the other party a “right to use” its respective mark or marks, Griffin’s attorney never characterized the 1996 Agreement but maintained that each party acquired a vested property interest in the mark or marks of the other party by virtue of the specific language of the Agreement. The matter was never settled in that the parties settled on January 17, 2007, two weeks before they were scheduled to go to trial on January 28, 2007, and the January 17, 2007 Settlement Agreement superseded the November 20, 1996 agreement. When the knowingly inaccurate and misleading defacement of the H.O.G.D../A+O article by Cicero-associate IPSOS was repeatedly corrected, IPSOS subsequently enlisted the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its legal name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article describing the order to “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.” It is therefore requested that the H.O.G.D./A.O. article be unfrozen and returned to its appropriate legal name of “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega).” In order to avoid confusion both with the HOGD/A+O, as well as with the historical “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,” the H.O.G.D., Inc. article should be re-named “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.” or “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Florida corporation).”-- Rondus 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
← Rondus, Are you aware that the long legalistic post you entered above is exactly identical to this edit by C00483033? It doesn't make your rebuttal very strong that you show additional evidence of sockpuppetry in the text of your rebuttal. -- Parsifal Hello 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I recently joined Wikipedia, only to be immediately persecuted by User IPSOS. My first impression at Wikipedia has been a very bad one because of him. I had not been a member here 24 hours before User IPSOS because stuck a "Suspected Sock Puppet" tag on my talk page (I have since learned that this was inappropriate behavior from him). Moreover, IPSOS has harassed me on my talk page non-stop ever since. Since the very moment that I arrived here, I have been forced to defend myself against one false accusation after the other coming from User IPSOS. He accused me of being a sock puppet after my very first contribution. He is now also accusing me of being an SPA (whatever that means). During entire time at Wikipedia I have been forced to spend hours and hours learning my way around an ocean of rules, merely to defend myself against the BULLYING tactics of user IPSOS. Along the way, I found a rule called "Be nice to newcomers." If only that rule were truly in effect, I would have had a very different experience here until now.
Upon joining Wikipedia, I immediately was given the impression that user IPSOS was using his superior knowledge of the rules here in order to manipulate discussions to fit his point of view as well as to silence any and all opposing opinions. I do not even know who user Fiat Lux or C00... are. I have never even had any contact with them. User Keph..., however, I have noticed is a frequent critic of User IPSOS tactics as well as of his biased point of view.
I would like to state clearly that I am not any of the users listed in this article. I am not a sock puppet of anyone nor do I use more than one account. I have not intended to break any other rules here either. A simple investigation of my IP address should be enough to clear me of this latest, baseless charge from User, IPSOS.
If I have broken ANY rule here, it is only due to my goofiness being new together with being forced to defend myself against bullying from the very first moment that I arrived. Unfortunately, what has happened here since I arrived has given me the distinct impression that what is really going on at Wikipedia has precious little to do with the accuracy of the Encyclopedia, but rather with the egos of the Editors and that the first and foremost rule here is: "THE BIGGEST BULLY WITH THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PREVAILS." I have also unfortunately been given the distinct impression that newcomers are most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator would ask User IPSOS to kindly quit bullying me once and for all.-- Rondus 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural Note: This report here and at the one at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 appear to be almost identical and contain much of the same information and list of accounts. As a result, the comment above by Rhondus and my question for him have been cross-posted for clarity. It might be useful to combine the two reports, but I don't know anything about those procedures or if it should be done. -- Parsifal Hello 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fioranoweb (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
202.142.98.7 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
61.95.199.88 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Fiorano Software (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Fiorano123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Itpl fiorano (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanjaya fiorano (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanjaya123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanjayakumarsahu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Webteam fiorano (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A. B. (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fiorano Software has been waging an ongoing PR effort on Wikipedia for over 18 months, spamming links and articles
Links:
Accounts:
Spam articles created as blatant advertising and deleted by Wikipedia administrators:
Articles vandalized:
References:
I made mistakes in reporting this case, somehow creating an empty first case. This report is in fact the first real case, not the 2nd. Sorry. -- A. B. (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Hariharan91 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maddy20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Chelsea123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Universal Hero 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Users have very similar edit history and see edit history of Trisha Krishnan and Chelsea FC which all seem to own.
All seem to claim to support Chelsea, similiar edit patterns.
Universal Hero
12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Notes: The article interests of the three accounts are similar. I did not check any diffs to compare editing styles. Universal Hero, the user who reported this case, is himself suspected of sock puppetry below on this page (I have not yet examined that case, and I have no opinion). Chelsea123 has been inactive since Jan. 2007. Shalom Hello 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
M12390 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
They are meatpuppets, pushing their collective agenda at MQM, Altaf Hussain and related pages.
Spartaz: Please refer to Shehzadashiq's suspected sock puppets page. If you need further detials, then you can see their mutual communication on their and my talk pages. You can also see how they have buddied up by alternatively reverting my posts to avoid the 3RR rule. M12390 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Green108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Faithinhumanity (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TalkAbout (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS ( talk) 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Green108 has been editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) disruptively for some time. After a 20 July 2007 block for 3RR, there began a pattern that after Green108 has reverted three times, suddenly Faithinhumanity would appear to do the next revert.
Recently Green108 has been blocked for a week for using two sockpuppets, Bkangel ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Shortskirtlonglegs ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). After these blocks, the regular editors (I am not one, simply have been monitoring the situation) were proceeding to clean up the biases which had been introduced into the article by Green108. Shortly thereafter, Faithinhumanity ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows up and begins to reinsert the same biases.
While I am not certain that this is a case of sockpuppetry, I am sure that it is either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I will continue to research and add evidence to try to determine which it is. In any case, it is Wikipedia policy to treat meatpuppetry as if it were sockpuppetry when they cannot be distinguish, so I believe there is a cause for investigation and possible action here.
With respect to TalkAbout ( talk · contribs):
Reply by TalkAbout to False allegations :
I am current blocked from editing while logged in but can still edit when not logged in.....I am trying to respond to this matter alone , it seems mad someone can be tried without being allowed to defend themself
I'd like to ask for evidence to support all this allegations being made against me ,(+diffs) not just for this case but also the previous one . I understand that as the one accused , I can ask for this
I really have no interesting in all this trickery , for me it is clear...the BKWSU Internet PR team are out to block , ban, revert or otherwise any informed independent voice with experience of the Bkwsu, see; [344] . The two Bkwsu followers are Bksimonb ( talk · contribs) and Riveros11 ( talk · contribs). I am not the sort to sit down making up accusation but if these two are not working a "team" who is!!!!!
I stand by my edits on the article which have included the addition of 30 plus references and the tidying up off them all.....once shown how. the issue is not about me , the issue is that the Bkwsu members have been resisting full exposure for months and months making just such accusations User:Green108
The pasting a 'this user is a suspected sockpuppet of' on someone's userpage is quite rude too and I would advise people that they are well within their rights to simply remove it. (I've heard of other suspected sockpuppet reports being filed and this template has never been used. Particularly mean as it seems to be only User:IPSOS who's suspecting any of these people. Merkinsmum 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Any judicial system that does not allow for the accused person to defend themselves, or further accuses and punishes the individual for attempting to defend themselves, is very highly flawed and suspect. Especially one without imperial evidence. This is as much about Wikipedia standards and ethics as the topic in question and I ask IPSOS to withdraw the prejudicial and pejorative tone to his accusations.
I have been advise to sit this out but I wont for the reason above. I would like it noted that I have not attempted to edit any topic and I have instead attempted to answer this accusation, ask for advice and communicate with the admins involved to ask for their evidence.
I have not "switched" identity as I am accused nor attempted to hide my identity by sockpuppetry. I have signed each comment clearly with my user name. I have clearly document the reasons for this and the circumstances of my responding. Puppetry involves an intent to deceive. (And, no, I am not TalkAbout either, even Simon knows that !!! IPSOS lacks a history with this article).
I would not want the goodwill of the Wikipedian admins to be abused nor their time wasted. Just to clarify, the "Team" I have referred to is known as "The Internet PR Core Team" that writes "on behalf of the RCOs" (Regional Coordinators) within the BKWSU; and not the general IT team of which Simon was or is also engaged in doing server support.
The BK members working as a 'team' on the BKWSU article, which is quite different, are Bksimonb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Appledell ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and others. Actually, in most cases we can or they have put specific names to them. Simon is engaged not just in actions such as the Wikipedia but also setting policy. He no doubt remembers that this was discussed at the the NCO (National Coordinators) meeting in February 2007 at the BKWSU headquarters in India.
As it is BKSimonb's stated intent to have me or any other informed contributor banned, he and Riveros11 continuing to work in tandem which I have therefore to interpret as an "official" policy of the BKWSU, I would ask that this is taken in consideration with these continued broad distortions and accusations; and especially remove any other user that might agree with any point I make from their firing line. User:Green108
Universal Hero ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Prin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Prince Godfather (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Blegend (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
GameKeeper 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User has very similar edit history and style to blocked user's Prin ( talk · contribs) and Prince Godfather ( talk · contribs) which are both banned. see edit history of R. Madhavan edit history. He seems to have a particular WP:OWN issue with this article.
He started editing on a large scale after Prince Godfather was banned (prince godfather banned on [13:04, 5 March 2007]], Universal Hero's edits start in earnest on 2nd of April [346]. He has used a similar "wait and use another ID" technique before when he created his 1st sockpuppets.
He has uploaded an image which looks like a copy vio which was the original reason he was banned, before he engaged in sock puppetry. Sadly he looks like he is getting better at faking the copyright of these. The image in question is here Image:AVMstudios.jpg and it appears to have come from here. I have asked the user to explain this on his user page.
user Blegend appears to have been reverting to Universal Hero, edits in an unusual way. If this user is Prin then he has used this trick before.
For reference: the case that got Prince Godfather banned is detailed here [347]
Gscshoyru 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
JJonz and CrystalB4 joined within 3 days of each other, whereas Kbmann joined about a half-month later. All three of them have made the same kinds of edits to various comic book pages, usually making superman-favoring edits. I've suspected JJonz and CrystalB4 to be socks for quite a while, but when Kbmann suddenly started reverting all my edits yesterday, I took a look at his contribs, saw that his edits were the same as the other two, and figured it was JJonz getting revenge.
Added an ip address, edits are the same as JJonz and other socks.
The ip, today, just now, went about reverting edits to these articles, in order to get around JJonz's month-long block. Gscshoyru 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Added JJonz2, whose edits were the same as the other socks during his short stint before he was blocked. His username and contribs speak for themselves. Gscshoyru 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
CrystalB4 has now just been indef blocked, the user went on a trolling spree, making non-controversial edits, but his edit summaries were trolling directed at me and others. I reverted the changes as vandalism originally, but realized my mistake, and stopped, waiting for an admin to block. Others reverted his changes, however. Please note that both JJonz2 and CrystalB4 refer to me as Gaashooru for some unknown reason. Gscshoyru 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe that these are all socks, based on the timing and style of the contribs, including articles of common interest to all three accounts. Kbmann has been indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account by Persian Poet Gal. The other two accounts have been blocked a combined four times for edit warring and personal attacks. Given the new information that this person has been using sock puppets to disrupt other editors, I would endorse an indefinite block. Shalom Hello 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Edwardsville (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.230.142.124 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
146.163.162.184 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Just David (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jakew 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Avi 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Edwardsville has, for some time, been focused upon making a particular change to the circumcision article (eg. [348] [349] [350] [351] [352]). Recently, User:74.230.142.124 has made the same reverts (see [353] [354]), including on his first edit (an extraordinary coincidence). The talk page contributions are likewise remarkably similar in language and style of argument, both referring to 'truth' and 'censorship' (eg [355] and [356]), and neither acknowledging the 3-4 other editors other than myself who object to the changes.
If 74.230.142.124 is indeed a sockpuppet, there is a 3RR violation (Edwardsville has been warned on two occasions about 3RR). Edwardsville denies that he made 74.230.142.124's edits, [357] so I am unable to assume that he accidentally logged out.
I believe this is a match. Checking the contrib log, the IP edited at 20:00 on Aug. 7 and at 1:00 on Aug. 8, sandwiched around edits at 23:00 on Aug. 7 by the logged-in user. Since this is a case of 3RR violation, you might consider taking it to WP:AN3RR. Shalom Hello 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I do hope that this case is pursued to its conclusion and exposed for the false charge that it is and when my innocence is proved, I would like a public apology from the people who accused me. I happen to know now who made that revision and it is a man in Florida. The ISP address for my posts will be from Illinois and his will be from Florida, demonstrating that we are different people. If that is not enough, I am more than happy to identify myself by whatever means are acceptable to Wikipedia. I suggest you ask the other guy to do the same thing.
If a lot of our points are in agreement, that will be because I have been emailing poeple with my concerns and encouraging them to get involved with the Wikipedia article. I only hope that more people respond by posting on the article, instead of writing back to tell me that it is hopeless to try to get truth into Wikipedia.
Edwardsville 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
And yeah, I do know Just David who is local to me. I am happy to ask the two people in question if I can publish their identities and email addresses, and/or to ask them if they can be telephoned to establish their identity. If I can get any more people, local or distant, to contribute the article, I assure you that I will do so.
Edwardsville 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Edwardsville [359] and Just David [360] both use the same misspelling of "definately". -- Coppertwig 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Both Edwardsville [361] [362] and Just David [363] have expressed clear opinions that a letter should not be cited, and both of them have failed to specify ( Edw J.D.) what letter they're talking about when asked for bibiographic details of the letter. -- Coppertwig 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
IguanarayD: (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
As noted above, the first four IPs are from the same ISP, in the same geographic area. The fifth is from a different part of the planet, but shows signs of puppetry, be it proxy or meat.
IguanarayD: first uploads an image intended to attack the creator of Ctrl+Alt+Del by sarcastically implying that he has no creativity, due to the similarity of their facial expressions in the selected frames. He adds it to the article, making another sarcastic note about the facial expressions. I remove it as a violation of WP:NPOV (based on the comments about the art being amazing, before I realized it was a thinly veiled insult), and it is added again by Sockpuppet#1 here, in a different part of the article. I remove it as an attack, having realized that, and tag the image.
Sock#2 adds a giant BLP violation in accusing the creator of the comic to be homosexual. A "rumours" section is added again by Sockpuppet#1, again violating BLP by accusing him of lewd acts with a minor. Sock#5 (Who seems to attend the same high school as Chultu and Rice Krispies...) agrees, and reinforces the "truth" of it.
Iguanaray has shown their tendancy to edit via IPs, by making this comment on Sock#4 and then immediately logging in to sign it. In addition, the only other edit on their user page is from Sock#1.
Sock#3 vandalizes my user page, again attacking web comic art (for those who do not know, Tycho and Gabe are the main characters in the Penny Arcade webcomic strip) in the same manor that the sockpuppeteer and sock#1 have. Again, it also resolves to the same ISP, in the same location.
Starting loads of proxy accounts for the sole purpose of making a few mock edits on CAD's page is just silly. I only posted a thread about my initial edit on a forum that might or might not be associated with Ebaumsworld.com, so I assume other, equally bored people thought adding more fake edits would be funny. It sounds a bit more rational if you ask me. - User:IguanarayD:
For what it is worth, these IP-addresses are not all in the same geographic area. They are certainly not assigned to RIPE NCC. Two of the addresses are assigned to a LIR in Romania, one is in Finland and one in the UK. I recomend using a whois tool which is able to resolve assignments that are not done by ARIN. Havardk 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
CenturyRain (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Payapichit (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cool Blue talk to me 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
One piece of strong evidence is reviewing the contributions of Payapichit and those of CenturyRain. Payapichit repeatedly adds the photo Image:Srirasmi.JPG to the page Srirasmi, in which CenturyRain has made revisions to. They both also have made revisions to Srirasmi and Ploypailin Mahidol Jensen. CenturyRain has also loaded Image:Ploy Jensen.JPG in which CenturyRain added the picture, but Payapichit re-added it when it was removed. Payapichit and CenturyRain have both been adding information to pages about Thai royalty. Both accounts were created within] a few days of eachother. Cool Blue talk to me 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Both CenturyRain and Payapachit appear to be the same user as MKPluto ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FlamingSpear ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Compare these edit summaries:
Proabivouac 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Per Luna Santin, both FlamingSpear and MKPluto claim to have taken Image:Prem.JPG. [370] [371] Proabivouac 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I think CenturyRain and MKPluto are the same since they uploaded the same photo Image:Srirasmi.JPG and claimed the ownership. CenturyRain uploaded on 13 July 2007, then it was deleted. MKPluto uploaded again on 26 July 2007; already mentioned above. You might be able to find more info at Admin noticeboard -- Manop - TH 06:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It's likely that CenturyRain and Payapichit are sockpuppets of MKPluto/Flaming Spear. There's a Checkuser case on this that's been pending forever, I guess it never got listed. Anyway, all of these accounts are serial violators of image policy, presenting copyrighted work as their own, and then supposedly releasing it into the public domain. I can't see the images they uploaded, but some of their uploads have been considered vandalism. I'm going to indef block all of the accounts. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Toddy Ball 2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kerry Perry (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.251.25 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Short pat (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Yancyfry 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
These 3 accounts have been having an arugment about the Iraq War on Talk:Iraq War and Talk:Chili pepper. The accounts have responded to each other with a two-word insult.
Short pat has been a recent addition to the sockpuppets.
The first three accounts are single-purpose accounts focused on the Iraq War, so they appear to be sock puppets. It's harder to tell about Short pat. Shalom Hello 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I was searching through other reports, and found another page with same socks. I added these socks to that report. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.29.240.115.
All the accounts listed here have received blocks of various lengths, let's see if this solves the issue. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
86.29.240.115 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.25.50.222 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.246.148 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.248.245 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.244.175 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.251.25 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.255.64 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.255.39 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.247.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.241.244 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.241.253 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.241.114 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.25.52.233 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.246.193 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.56.232.180 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.240.115 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.25.51.217 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
VegitaU 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is one of the most annoying things I've come by…a real mess. I can't tell whether the above clowns are sock puppets, meat puppets, straw puppets or just a bunch of separate clowns all hailing from Great Britain. They've all descended upon the Iraq War talk page and just wreaked havoc. It all began innocently enough: some unregistered user ( User:86.25.50.222) trying to voice his opinion. Soon, however, it began to unravel. User:86.29.246.148 added this offtopic nonsense. Some time later, User:86.29.248.245 added this personal attack, reverted it, and added it again. Next day, User:86.29.244.175 added this garbage. Later the same day, User:86.29.251.25 added all this nonsense over the course of several edits. Other users decided to embroil themselves and soon added further piles of trash. After a few minutes, User:86.29.255.64 added unnecessary tags. I promptly reverted all the nonsense. Things went well for a couple days…didn't receive any vandalism for a while. Then, they came back with a post about Iraqi feminists, veterans, and a picture of a dead Iraqi. For a few days, nothing happened, but yesterday they came back. At this time, we had begun a discussion dealing with what picture we wanted to have as our lead on the Iraq War article. I had hoped this would be a dignified discussion to lead to an agreement. A few posts by User:86.29.247.13 and User:86.25.54.26 began to come in. Then, User:86.29.241.244 posted this nonsense which I promptly reverted. He added this which I also reverted out of a bad faith suspicion. User:86.29.241.253 added this, and User:86.29.241.114 all this and this. User:86.25.52.233 came in, making more edits. User:86.25.52.233 added his subjective remarks, followed by User:86.29.246.193 with this and this garbage. User:86.29.240.56 decided it would be nice to blank the entire talk page (reverted). Then, User:83.56.232.180 walked in on his soapbox. Finally, User:86.29.240.115 finished up with and edit agreeing to another unregistered user's comments. I've used him as "puppeteer" because, unfortunately, I haven't seen any centralized puppet master. This just looks like a multitude of nonsense that fell on the talk page. Maybe a semi-protect would solve the problem, but I don't have an issue with the comments so much as all the IP addresses looking the same and all adding to a childish and misspelled bickering on the site. Looking at the talk pages of some of these users, you see the insults they like to throw at each other. If you can help me with this, I appreciate it. Thanks.
Update: User:86.25.51.217 just recently added vandalism to the page again. Interestingly found that User:86.29.253.55 is suspected of being User:Elspeth Monro's sock puppet. Though not a party to this issue, the question emerges: is this a related case? -- VegitaU 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe User:Freetown may be the scokpuppeteer. The problems continue on the Iraq War talk page. -- VegitaU 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
86.29.251.25 is on this list. This same IP has been making arguments on some of the same pages as these other sockpuppets. Such as the talk page on Iraq War. My report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Toddy Ball 2 is merged into this report.
216.163.40.100 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Temp cleanup3 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
77.232.80.10 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kekeke9181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Chunky Rice 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User Temp cleanup3 is an SPA which was created with the sole purpose of listing the article GameTZ.com for deletion [372]. 216.163.40.100, other than one edit, has existed solely for the purpose of advocating this deletion. At the AFD, 216.164.40.100 made unfounded accusations of incivility towards those who argue for keeping the article, including Seicer and myself, Chunky Rice [373] [374].
Subsequently, Kekeke9181 is created and places civility warnings on my user page [375] and Seicer's talk page [376]. 216.164.40.100 adds the same template to Nihonjoe's talk page [377]. In all cases, the template was placed at the very top of the page. Kekeke9181, then uploads an obscene image, which 77.232.80.10 then places on Seicer's user page [378].
I'm fairly certain that there is a puppetmaster that I'm not aware of, since these are all single purpose accounts. I suspect that the same puppet master is responsible for the previous AfDs of GameTZ.com, as well, since they are littered with SPAs.
These may also be connected ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I guess I just wanted some kind of human contact, even if it has to be like this. I won't bother you anymore. 216.163.40.100 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
SalvNaut (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MarkCentury (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Immediately after User:MarkCentury was blocked for WP:3RR in Steven E. Jones, User:SalvNaut made the same edit.
The evidence is very strong that these are sock puppets. Aside from the revert warring - the alleged evasion of 3RR occurred less than an hour after MarkCentury was blocked - an examination of SalvNaut's contribs shows a concentrated interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is not beyond the scruples of some POV editors to use sock puppets to win an argument, and I suspect that's what happened here. Shalom Hello 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
71.249.40.182 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.249.32.191 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.92.249 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.135.141 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.249.32.58 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.87.48 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.140.54 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.142.169 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kariteh 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
[380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387]
Keeps on re-adding a list or bits of a list of films in the post-credits scene article, even though this list was deleted as an article. Has been directed to that deletion page and warned for vandalism several times across his/her different IPs, but keeps on stubbornly re-adding the list.
Komdori (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nightshadow28 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Watermint (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Endroit (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kusunose (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Komdori (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kokiri (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
[388] [389] [390] [391] [392] [393] [394] [395] [396] [397] [398] [399]
Please see Liancourt Rocks, 2005 in Japan, Korea, Usan-do. This user has engaged in seriously edit war.also, also, he is not a korean. but he said he is a korean in his page. [400] Bason0 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, looks completely bogus to me. John Smith's 23:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Campbells56 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Campbells59 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
EEBZ1414 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The sunder king 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All of these accounts have been used to create a nonsense page called Frogloshean, which is being recreated and deleted slowly over the months, and I have relised this by looking on "What links here", on the page itself, linking to the talk pages of these users where warnings of creating the page are included. The sunder king 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It has absolutely no google hits, the word itself does not exsist, whilst the users have also added nonsense and WP:BLP violations in articles about people being in this religion. The sunder king 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
main suspect:
G-Dett (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
secondary suspects:
PalestineRemembered (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
CJCurrie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
88.25.6.27 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jaakobou Chalk Talk 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User G-Dett has made 6 edits in 24hrs and a 3RR notice was placed, by me, on his page (without a pursue of a block). [419] after the notice was made, a new anon. editor [420] appeared on the article and made the "Reverting to NPOV version by G-Dett" [421] and a "This version is unnacceptable" [422] commentary which reminds of language used by G-Dett before about "red lines; anything crossing them will be reverted" [423]. also, the timing of the edits, at 22:59 and 23:13 revols closely to 23:10, the time in which G-Dett issued his apology to the 3RR note.
note: if PR is unrelated to this issue, i plan on issuing an apology for the suggestion of his possible involvement.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
note: perhaps i'm over streaching the number of possible seconary suspects without real evidence, but this article has been a disaster to work on and i believe that a simple checkuser can find the culprit anon. abuser. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Gutocomplicated (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Davizim (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
WebHamster 02:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Both seem to show an interest in reviving articles on Marc!o Mathers and his "works". User talk:Davizim seems to have appeared after User talk:Gutocomplicated was blocked for a month in March of this year.
Both the same person doing their level best to promote Marc!o Mathers.
83.131.24.159 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.131.30.87 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Spring Rubber 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The original IP was blocked for 24 hours by RockMFR. One of the edits made with this IP was a comment on User talk:RockMFR. Shortly after the IP was blocked, further edits were made to the aforementioned user talk page by the suspected sockpuppet IP in a style similar to those made by the suspected puppetmaster.
NORDKAPP (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A Rotor Smote Marinaded Nun (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A Naiad Floored Oms (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The range of ip's: 80.102.220.xxx and 80.102.248.xxx ( 80.102.220.4, 80.102.220.19, 80.102.220.9, 80.102.220.33, 80.102.220.11, 80.102.248.35, 80.102.248.43, 80.102.248.32, ...)
Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The page Barcelona has become vandalized since begining of June, when Heliodore ( talk · contribs) introduced unbalanced content with a strong POV against the city. Since then, many different anonymous users and newbies have been introducing more and more non sourced false information with an extremely pejorative and sensationalist point of view. Most of them contributed only in this article or just in another one. Most of them had an empty User Page and most of them were writting some sentences in Catalan in the Edit summary [426], [427], [428]. Also all of them are making reversions without mantaining the corrections made . In the worst case, NORDKAPP, has even deleted the categories, the interwikis with other languages, (s)he has truncated the article, and he continues reverting to this terrible version of the article (also without the "protected" template) [429].
During the time the users (sock puppets?) changed, and the dynamic ips changed also. So, in the suspected sockpuppet list I just report the last possible sock puppets, but, along the time, the users who have been introducing this information and therefore perhaps also sock puppets but with a different ip because of the dynamic condition of the ips and the time, are:
It started Heliodore ( talk · contribs) (June 17th) introducing some non discussed controversial stuff and it was reverted. Then some vandalism was introduced and Notthebarcelonatouristboard ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reverted to last version of Heliodore... mantaining the vandalism.
From June 19th till June 25, SERRALONGA ( talk · contribs) introduces againg the controversial data until the page is blocked. It expires on July 2nd. Serrallonga ( talk · contribs) adds again the controversial material from July 4th until July 9th, when (s)he is blocked by 3RR. The anonymous 88.25.242.192 adds again the info with a edit summary in catalan [430]. Another ip (81.32.134.180) adds again the info also with a comment in Catalan [431]. Some hours later, a symilar range anonymous (81.32.135.116) adds it again. The same anonymous adds the information twice again the same day ( 81.32.135.116).
On July 12th, an anonynous of the range 83.33.xxx.xxx (83.33.34.172) attacks again. Now 83.40.74.135 adds again more controversial info. After finishing the block, Serrallonga attacks again on July 13th. This day, the ips 80.102.xxx.xxx start adding again the information and... copying it TWICE the article: ( 80.102.248.12). 80.25.3.93 help reverting the "normal version", this is, copying twice again the article. Some more contributions of 80.102.248.xxx copy twice again the controversial info (80.102.248.46, 80.102.248.60, 80.102.248.11). On July 15th, the other range (80.102.220.xxx) start (80.102.220.35).
Then, some more ip reversions (some 81.32.xxx.xxx, 83.33.xxx.xxx and 83.34.xxx.xxx)(specially interesting this one, with a summary edit in Catalan which says "more info on Gaudi work", and (s)he adds the controversial part again) and then Maitedebarcelona ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) adds again the same controversial info. 83.33.xxx.xxx adds again. Then some more 81.32.xxx.xxx and 83.33.xxx.xxx again. On July 24th, 80.102.xxx.xxx again.
On July 25th Barcelona is blocked again because of the anonymous disruptive behaviour. Some tranquility and on August 14th, 80.25.3.93 starts again. The new users A Naiad Floored Oms ( talk · contribs), A Rotor Smote Marinaded Nun ( talk · contribs) together with the ips 80.102.220.xxx and 80.102.248.xxx start the battle again. I ask to administrators to block the page for newbies, and they recomend me to report in to WP:SSP (here). I think it's quite hard to accuse someone of sock puppeting and I preffer still not to do it. Then, comes an "old registerd newbie" NORDKAPP ( talk · contribs) vandalizing again.
There is some sockpuppeting, but it's difficult/not possible to identify the sock puppet master. Perhaps has never contributed directly with this article. Some users (administrators will decide after reading my evidences) should be brought to Checkusers and, if it is the case, be blocked.-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
24.168.46.238 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.38.198.61 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.38.198.53 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.38.198.54 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.38.198.55 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Edward321
13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
CyberGhostface
16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
After 24.168.46.238 was blocked for harassment and legal threats, 64.38.198.61 posted, admitting to be 24.168.46.238 and asking for the ban to be overturned [432] While the edits as 64.38.198.61 were civil, they were also obviously false to anyone who had followed 24.168.46.238's edit history.
Now 64.38.198.53 has posted [433]. Edit summariers show they are continuing 24.168.46.238's personal attacks on Spirot [434] and Cyberghostface [435] and is signing themself as ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you!
Also, User:64.38.198.54 (again in the same IP) has reverted CyberGhostface's removal of the previous vandals.
This user also went as much as going through my talk page and harassing people who I was having unrelated discussions with, as with the case of User:Famguy3 here. He also signed my talk page with "CyberGhostface, you are an antagonistic scumbag and a cowardly faggot!"-- CyberGhostface 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All of the last three IP's are editing around a block, yet none are banned for anything near the puppetmaster's block lenght. Edward321 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Majoreditor (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.220.146.66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Peter cohen 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
(Please note At the time I started this report, I had miscounted the number of reverts by a second editor User:Anietor. I have now noticed this editor too had reached three reverts. Therefore please regard this user as a candidate for puppeteer. I shall leave the material building the case against Majoreditor unchaged before moving on to Anietor.)
The sockpuppet has only edited one page but by using reverts shows the behaviour of an experienced user. [436]
The sockpuppet appeared after the alleged puppeteer had already made three reverts to the article [437], [438], [439].
There is a shared pattern of misleadingly named edits. [440]includes a revert which is not implied in the title. [441] is not explained in the talk as claimed. [442] refers to a non-existent consensus as evidenced both by the talk page and the edit-warring in the article itself.
The puppet's three reverts [443] [444] [445] were in support of User:Anietor, (who had posted [446]) an ally of the alleged puppeteer as evidenced by posts to the talk pages with titles stating agreement [447] [448] and by posts about the article on each other's talk pages [449] [450]. (They also discuss other articles together.)
User:Anietor must also be considered as a candidate for sockpuppeteer having also made three reverts when the puppet appeared. [451] [452] [453]
Whichever is the true puppetteer, the three ids form a tag team. I believe that the motivation is a combination of WP:OWN and a strongly held WP:POV motivated by religious belief. WP:OWN is demonstrated by Majoreditor's immediate reversion of my first ever edit to the page [454], the same editor's subsequent indiscriminate rollback [455], which removed multiple edits of mine this reinsting typos and a cite tag which I had addressed, and Antienor's [456] which does not WP:AGF but instead accuses me of trolling for having a different opinion form the WP:OWNERS. It is further demonstrated by the previously cited claims that there is a consensus which can only be claimed by someone who reflexively discounts the view of the non-WP:OWNERS.
Apart from the general issue of edit-warring, the sockpuppet's and its allies' activities have also contributed to the appearance of blank entries in the citation list (notes number 53 and 57 in this version of the file [457])
No, I don't use sockpuppets. A simple ARIN lookup shows that 72.220.146.66 is a Cox IP; I edit from Comcast and AT&T. User Peter cohen has been engaged in edit wars and has become unnerved. Thanks, Majoreditor 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Since the person who filed this case can't even decide who the sockpuppeteer is, this looks to me as if this is not a bona fide sockpuppet report, but an extension of an editing dispute. Please pursue discussion on the article's talk page instead of scattershot accusations of editing abuse. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Anietor (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.220.146.66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Peter cohen 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I have named Anietor as an alternative candidate for puppeteer at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Majoreditor.
The following text is copied form there:
The puppet's three reverts [8] [9] [10] were in support of User:Anietor, (who had posted [11]) an ally of the alleged puppeteer as evidenced by posts to the talk pages with titles stating agreement [12] [13] and by posts about the article on each other's talk pages [14] [15]. (They also discuss other articles together.)
User:Anietor must also be considered as a candidate for sockpuppeteer having also made three reverts when the puppet appeared. [16] [17] [18]
Whichever is the true puppetteer, the three ids form a tag team. I believe that the motivation is a combination of WP:OWN and a strongly held WP:POV motivated by religious belief. WP:OWN is demonstrated by Majoreditor's immediate reversion of my first ever edit to the page [19], the same editor's subsequent indiscriminate rollback [20], which removed multiple edits of mine this reinsting typos and a cite tag which I had addressed, and Antienor's [458] which does not WP:AGF but instead accuses me of trolling for having a different opinion form the WP:OWNERS. It is further demonstrated by the previously cited claims that there is a consensus which can only be claimed by someone who reflexively discounts the view of the non-WP:OWNERS.
Apart from the general issue of edit-warring, the sockpuppet's and its allies' activities have also contributed to the appearance of blank entries in the citation list (notes number 53 and 57 in this version of the file [21])
I suggest that it is best to discuss the two alleged puppeteers together under the older case.
Yeah, don't really know what more to say beyond what Majoreditor said here. It's hard to prove a negative. I am among several editors who have been dealing with some borderline vandalisms in the Mother Teresa page. A small but aggressive group is trying to delist it as a GA (failing twice recently). I think they are just frustrated that editors like Majoreditor and me, and several others, have been keeping them in check and dealing with edits that violate various WP policies. I'll let my edit history speak for itself. Thanks! --Anietor 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the person who filed this case can't even decide who the sockpuppeteer is, this looks to me as if this is not a bona fide sockpuppet report, but an extension of an editing dispute. Please pursue discussion on the article's talk page instead of scattershot accusations of editing abuse. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
— Coren (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Repeat vandal posting disrupting rants to my talk page. Pupeteer and one other sock already blocked for that vandalism.
Case in point: [461] [462] vs [463] and [464].
Also, other pages similarly vandalized: [465], [466]
Neoballmon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Neoballmon II (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nyttend 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Robert599 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Fadix (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Artaxiad (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Azizbekov ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Atabek 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Azizbekov was established for yet another campaign smear against Azerbaijan. Using this unsourced image [467], which he inserted here [468] and was one of short of 3RR, inserting it here [469], [470], [471], created page and inserted some OR here Azeri_Waffen_SS_Volunteer_Formations. The users aggressive OR seems to be of the same nature as the one at Ziya Bunyadov previously and this is clearly an experienced user, too much so for only couple of days of registration.
Yes, I agree that this looks like another incarnation of Robert599 ( talk · contribs), who was engaged in similar POV editing. -- Grandmaster 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
83.26.34.139 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.26.37.187 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.26.45.184 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.26.46.65 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
– sebi 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Pioneercourthouse (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
70.58.51.131 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Powhome (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nationalpioneer (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Washingtonfan2007 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nationaly (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Oasis07 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneerusa (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Usworld05 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Americadude34 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dudoman (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ilovepioneercourthouse (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pdxdude20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneerfan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneersquare1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneeramerica1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneeramerica (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cacophony 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Continuned inclusion of unsourced POV at Pioneer Courthouse Square. The user was apparently permanently banned by User:Jayjg, but that has not stopped the edits of the article. There was a related Mediation Cabal case opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Pioneer Courthouse Square, but nothing seemed to have come of it (or maybe that was the start of the ban?). The page was semi-protected for a while, but it is a shame to do that to a page based on one bad-faith editor. In any case, the editor has shown a blatant disregard for Wikipedia guidelines including, but not limited to, WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR and WP:3RR.
Don't forget WP:SPA. It seems pretty clear to me that this editor either thinks this edit war is amusing, or is feeding his/her ego off the attention. I don't think there's a coherent or malicious POV pushing here, more just button-pushing. The longer the sock puppet issue goes unaddressed, the longer the page - which is not generally a target for vandalism - will have to remain protected, which is very unfortunate. - Pete 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Cz mike (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tewfikisrael (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Moshe 230 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Isacc3go (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dayan1967 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Isarig 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Cz Mike was blocked for 24h for edit warring & breaking 3RR on several related pages - Dalal Mughrabi, Coastal Road massacre, Wafa Idris and Baruch Goldstein. he was reported by me & by User:Tewfik, who also reverted him on those pages. New user User:Tewfikisrael then appeared, and proceeded to make the same edits as User:Cz mike on all the above pages. After User:Tewfikisrael was indef-blocked as a sock, User:Isacc3go appeared with same pattern, and after he was indef-blocked as a sock, User:Moshe 230 appeared, with same pattern of edits.
User:Dayan1967 has reverted edits by an administrator who removed edits by the other socks, and like User:Cz mike, has uploaded images with false copyright notices
The first three SSPs are indefblocked. Dayan1967 seems like a match also. I'd extend the block on Cz mike to a week, but not being an admin, I can't. Shalom Hello 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All four sockpuppets have been indef-blocked. As the admin who blocked all the sockpuppets, and extended Cz Mike's block to 31hrs for sockpuppetry, I have not extended Cz Mike's block any further. Cz Mike has not edited with that account since. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thefunk42 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hip Hop Jin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
76.83.4.147 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thefunk42 created an article called L.S., which is being considered for deletion. Mr. Jin, shown here and here deletes the AfD template and edits the article. He uploads an image for the article as well. The IP also does a similar thing here here and POV pushes here Jin is also an alternate account of CraftyKid™ who was blocked because of his username. It is suspicous that an account would be made and immediatey edit an article like that.
UPDATE: The article was deleted, but what they were doing is removing the deletion templates and editing the article in a similar way.
I don't even know who those people are, my guess is that they are fans of Jin and LS and decided to try and upload/edit the information on the pages. The only reason I've made mistakes with the articles I've created/edited so far is because I'm still new to creating Wikipedia articles and still learning from my mistakes.
All I know is that thefunk42 is the only account that I've created on wikipedia. If anyone has any suggestions on other ways to prove this, please let me know, thanks.
-- thefunk42 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll checkuser request, see how that goes. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This too difficult. I'm making an RFCU request. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hdayejr (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hd3576 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Orange Mike 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Aside from the name itself (I believe the human behind it is probably named H. Daye, Jr.), the only two edits this account has made so far were to blank a discussion from the blocked puppetmaster's talk page; and to remove a cleanup tag from an article the blocked puppetmaster guards, with an incivil summary abusing me by name (puppetmaster is angry with me).
Confirmed and blocked by Finlay McWalter. Shalom Hello 16:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jj1010 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.141.201.178 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.140.166.5 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.140.163.111 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.126.177.132 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Banazir 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suspected puppetmaster has been given repeated warnings for blanking the Controversy section of iTalkBB, the only page that Jj1010 and the above suspected meatpuppets have ever edited, and the only section and edit action that they have committed. Warnings for Jj1010 culminated in a brief (31-hour) temporary block on 20 May 2007.
None of these users has ever responded to requests to desist from blanking, nor edited the talk page to provide any sort of justification. At least three editors (Banazir, AndroidMouse, and Chetblong) have rolled back the page a total of about 20 times to date, to undo the section blanking. Since January, 2007, the Controversy section has contained negative allegations - one of them with a cited reference - of bad business practices by the company described in the article.
The discussion page for iTalkBB contains a calendar of section blankings, showing that the suspected meatpuppets are carrying out blankings in alternation that are cumulatively frequent. It is evident from this alternation that the meatpuppets are working in tandem to avert frequent vandalism blocks. In a recent case, one of the suspects, 216.141.201.178, committed two blankings in a three-day period, four in a one-month period, and six total within about three and a half months, but did not incur a block due to the individual frequency of vandalism being too low.
Circumstantial diff link evidence is provided in the section below.
For Jj1010
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=131037479&oldid=128639074
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=125944267&oldid=125943713
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=119761028&oldid=119226718
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=118527792&oldid=118494064
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=109835972&oldid=108293231
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=105005184&oldid=104980260
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=104866372&oldid=104866031
For 216.141.201.178
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=147246406&oldid=146860933
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=146810550&oldid=145446660
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=140599773&oldid=136894117
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=136894050&oldid=133397741
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=122502626&oldid=121885200
All of the suspected meatpuppets are anonymous, and their IPs differ significantly, but the timing is suspiciously regular, and the blanking edit is identical in almost every case. I submit that the rotation is deliberately intended to subvert Wikipedia anti-vandalism policies by "slipping under the radar".
None of the suspected meatpuppets have ever even written an edit summary, but the puppeteer, Jj1010, once tagged a blanking edit as "delete unverifiable content". (Considering that the content in question is cited with a verifiable source, this rationale is invalid.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735
The frequency of vandalism is not high by absolute measures, but blanking and restoration constitutes almost all of the edits to this page at present, creating an extreme nuisance for its maintainers.
In one of the only cases where Jj1010 made any edits in addition to blanking the Controversy section, he or she demonstrated what I believe to be a vested interest in the company, adopting a defensive POV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=prev&oldid=104866372
I have collected the above evidence in the hopes that the apparent collusion among the users who are blanking this one page will be identified and discouraged.
Crate321 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wallyjack (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pax6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kl4m 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contributions should be evidence enough.
Wallyjack removes {{prod}} from admin DGG.
My opinion : this user creates and edits a single article under 3 different user names.
Admins : decide if it's the same person.
I agree. These editors are singularly focused on Anti-procreation movement, which was created a few days ago by User:Crate321. It cannot be a coincidence that three separate accounts suddenly edit the same new article at the same time. The socks need to be blocked, and Crate321 must be limited to one account. Shalom Hello 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hearsayheresy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mrkilgoretrout (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
KP Botany 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User contributions puppet master: [473] User contributions sock puppet: [474]
This appears to be a sleep account (the puppetmaster), or seldom used account, just reinvigorated to creat an attack article Martin Chretien. The puppetmaster's only recent edits are to this ariticle, and the sock puppet's only edits are to this same article. I believe both accounts should be permanently blocked. KP Botany 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) And the edits were removed because they were attacks, meanwhile I failed to follow the reams of densely worded instructions after spending ages just trying to find this page, who knows what else isn't correct. KP Botany 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Repda206 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Daoutcastofrenton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Datboireppinrenton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Already known)
Papa November 09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks like a match to me, based on the pattern in the deletion log of the respective articles. I'll ask User talk:Irishguy to render a decision. Shalom Hello 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Obvious sock. Blocked. IrishGuy talk 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Godzilla1138 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
67.166.28.214 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ThuranX 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
[475] and [476] show a ridiculous amount of overlap. At [477] the IP defends killing homosexuals, stating a list of nations that permit is intolerant of the cultures permitting such actions, [478] here, Godzilla also trolls the homosexuality page. Here, the IP trolls Captain America as a NAMBLA puppet, [479], only to see godzilla reverting it, [480], an hour later. Both also have hit the Global Warming page, as seen from the contribs, and both almost exclusively hit the talk pages to troll. I posted most of this text at WP:AIV as well, but thought bringing it to both would ensure a full examination. ThuranX 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Bremskraft (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Urgeback (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ladeda76 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RebelAcademics (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sliat 1981 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Following Bremskraft's 3RR [481] block RebelAcademics and Ladeda76 weighed in on his behalf and got autoblocked. [482] & [483]. Ladeda76 claims they are living together. Sliat1981 gets himself blocked for image abuse [484] and Bremskraft & Urgeback get caught in that autoblock and all 3 use the same malformed unblock request. [485]. Bremskraft doesn't know the others by this stage but Urgeback does [486].
Given the correlation between these users, similarities of unblock requests, conflicting admissons of who knows who when and the suggestion that 5 people share one computer in one household; I'd say that the case of meat/sockpuppetry is fairly conclusive.
I have blocked all accounts indef until more credible explanations arise. I have raised this SSP for information and review. Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It's obvious that Ladeda76 and RebelAcademics are throwaway socks of Bremskraft (the accounts were created just after that 3rr warning). The other three are unclear. First, Bremskraft doesn't appear to have any editing in common with Urgeback and Sliat1981. Tracing Bremskraft back to his/her first edit indicates what his/her IP address was [487], but it's not static, as there's a similar IP now [488], but this one strangely traces back to Louisiana. In any case, they aren't the same IP as that claimed by Sliat in unblock requests here. In fact, that IP traces back to California, not Nevada. What's more, Bremskraft's auto-unblock request had the wrong block reason for him to have gotten caught in Sliat's block [489].
I think there are perhaps two groups here. Bremskraft and the two obvious meatpuppets are one group. Urgeback and Sliat are the other group. Urgeback and Sliat share an interest in Australian football and may be the same person. Urgeback's light edit history is at least consistent with an alternate account and these two edits are similar [490] [491].-- Chaser - T 01:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I've ran some checks on this, and there are indeed two batches, Sliat and Urgeback are different from the others. Voice-of-All 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you VOA, I'm unblocking Urgeback now and reviewing the block of Bremskraft. Spartaz Humbug! 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Dblock4 life (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Gblock4 life (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nucleusboy 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Dblock4 life vandalised Sand and American Bison with remarks questioning the sexuality of someone named Elwood, among other things ( diff). Gblock4 life has done the same thing, also on American Bison ( diff).
They are w/o question sockpuppets. Patterns, edits match and they share almost the exact same username. James Luftan contribs 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DJvac (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DJVaccar (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Same M.O. as User:DJvac who was blocked for vandalism ...
As evidenced by his contributions, User:DJVaccar is adding the same dead links that got him blocked from Wikipedia under DJVac.
Yep. Already blocked (main = 1 week; sockpuppet = indef). MER-C 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Eep² (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Eeky (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Piet Delport 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
(Background on Eep²'s ban: request for comment · community sanction notice · admin incident notice)
As User talk:Eep² is protected, an admin might want to place the notification of this case there. — Piet Delport 2007-08-07 12:13
I've run across Eep² in the past, and while it does look like this editor has had previous experience with Wikipedia, I don't see the same style of additions to disambiguations as Eep² made. I don't see any objectionable edits, actually, so if it is Eep², s/he may have reformed. If the editing become problematic in the future, I will be happy to review again, but my opinion at this time is that there is no problem here so no solution is needed. IPSOS ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Mushrambo 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe the users are one and the same due to the new IP adding "a douche nozzle" to the Andy Borowitz page, which the old IP also did frequently
Practically, it might be justified to extend the 31-hour block on the ...212.33 IP because the ...117.27 IP evaded the block, vandalizing within an hour after the original IP was blocked. However, since he stopped after one edit, I think the simplest thing is to ignore the problem and let the block run its course (which it already has). Shalom Hello 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
67.98.206.2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
146.115.58.152 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Cerejota 04:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Multiple reverts with same argument, but different users. [506]
Admits being sock puppet and taunts for a checkuser: [507] In fact a checkuser should be performed to insure no further sock puppets exist, including registered accounts.
Raised related ArbCom enforcement here: [508]
I understand the situation, but this is an editor that popped out of nowhere I do not want to do a RfCU myself, but do ask you (Newyorkbrad) or some other uninvolved admin did it. He *taunted* me to perform a Checkuser in my talk page, and admited the multiple IPs. And it is not based on a few edits, the editor is now editing in the RfAr for Allegations of apartheid, and for being a relatively recent editor, has an in depth knowledge of policy as obscure as WP:ASR. This is all highly suspicious.
In fact, when I started this, I was hoping that it would be a simple anon troll. Now I worry about actual sockpuppetry by a registered user...
Based on these things, I must state a suspicion that these might be sockpuppets of a registered user. Hence, my asking for mediated RfCU. If I am out of line, please let me know. Thanks!-- Cerejota 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Under category "G" for the reasons I have already stated and possibly a modified "B" and "F" (I mean, what are the chances of an recent anon user knowing the intricacies of
WP:ASR???). To be clear, I initially thought it was a troll/vandal attack, but when you started to engage that suspicion disappeared, then you taunted me with checkuser and changed your tone from a
WP:ASR-based objection to more classic edit conflict in terms only an editor with a year+ of experience in these articles could have. I mean, it was your own writting that made me suspicisious.
If you quack, people are naturally going to think you are a duck.
I got a proposal: reveal your possible registered accounts to Newyorkbrad, and he sends a message to the community that you are not a puppet/master for active registered accounts, or banned accounts or in any other way are anyone other than an anon editor of these IPs. I have no interest in knowing your identity, I do have an interest in making sure you are not a sock of a registered account, in particular one active the articles in question.
Lastly, I again request guidance, should I pursue RfCU or should a third party neutral admin do it?-- Cerejota 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
If all that is involved here is the same individual editing anonymously from two different locations, then the anon is right that in and of itself there is no policy violation, particularly since the relationship is acknowledged.
Theoretically, checkuser could establish whether any registered users edit from either of these IP's, but I doubt that an RfCU would be entertained based on just a couple of edits. Of course, if this anon is the same individual as a registered user who has edited on the same articles, he or she should kindly say so.
Absent further evidence, I am inclined to close this case, but will await any further responses or input first. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Kurt Shaped Box 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-identifies as User:Ram four ever - a sockpuppet of banned User:Eir Witt.
Already blocked indef. MER-C 12:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jddphd 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous contribs suggest similar pattern
User:Daniel Case has already blocked Bob Lee Swagger indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MadeinFinland. Based on the obsessive editing to Romani people by both accounts, I endorse the block. Shalom Hello 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Will ( talk) 09:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Self admission. Will ( talk) 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Clear and self-admitted sock of a banned user, blocked indefinitely, Fadix's one-year ban has been reset. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
TurkmenstanSSR (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bobabobabo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TurkmenstanSSR (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Clawed One 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The user has stated right here User talk:WarthogDemon#Ryulong that they are Bobabobabo and have made similar edits to him, including edits to the pages of Bobabobabo's talk pages and the talk pages of his confirmed puppets.
Like all of B5's sockpuppets before him, please ban him right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Clawed One ( talk • contribs)
User:TurkmenstanSSR has been indefinitely blocked by User:Persian Poet Gal - I will ask him to action/close this report. John Smith's 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Richard Deagon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
209.212.28.50 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
At Choke (film), 209.212.28.50 attempted to add an unverifiable photo of a piece of paper that purportedly lists the production schedule for the film. Edit warring took place, at which I stopped at my 3RR limit and the anonymous IP exceeded his (he was warned after his third revert of the 3RR violation). I filed a 3RR violation report, seen here, which went through, and the anonymous IP was blocked for 24 hours. The article was left at the last revision by that editor, since I had exceeded my limit and the article receives no apparent traffic. Shortly after, Richard Deagon, not having edited since July 25, 2007, began editing the article. This evidenced sockpuppetry allowed the user, initially editing on his IP, to sign onto his registered handle, to continue editing on Wikipedia despite the 3RR block.
The evidence is compelling: both the user and the IP have focused on the articles Choke (film) and Choke (novel) on July 25 and again yesterday and today. An appropriate punishment, in my opinion, would be a long but not indefinite block for Richard Deagon - maybe one week. Shalom Hello 12:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Sir Nicholas has already blocked the IP for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Shalom Hello 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The editing patterns strongly suggest the named account and the IP are used by the same person, but this activity is now stale, and a block would serve no purpose at this point. If any further problems occur, blocks would certainly be appropriate. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
98E (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
PitOfBristol1973 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cheers, Lig hts 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Before banned user 98E ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned, he made undiscussed changes to templates and reverted it back whenever his edits were reverted (see [512]). PitOfBristol1973 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account. He has reverted to the old version of {{ SockpuppetCheckuser}} ( history) and {{ SockpuppetProven}} ( history) without discussion, and was reverted because his changes were undiscussed. Every time he was reverted, he reverted it back. He is currently blocked for violating 3RR at the time this case was created.
SLSB talk 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
*Same userpage
I have a hunch that they arent related, that "Woooooooooly" is User:Ockenbock, who tends to always create socks to troll User:The Hybrid, User:Metros, and my talk pages. I strongly suggest a checkuser.There appears to be two users with very similar names. User:--Wooooooooly da Woog and User:Wooooooooly da Woog.-- User:Atomic Religione
I don't beleve in Sock Puppets!!!!And I Definately WOULD NOT USE ONE!!!! Wolly da wanderer 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) On a another note I didn't create my page on the 6/08/07 I created mine on the 5/08/07 Wolly da wanderer 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ideogram (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. [516]
Ideogram also admits operating other socks, but we don't know for sure which ones those are. [517]
Jehochman Talk 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
You Are Okay ( talk · contribs)
Yes, it's my sockpuppet. My understanding was that sockpuppets are tolerated as long as no policy is violated, and I don't see any policy violation cited here. -- Ideogram 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Woah. You think I was edit-warring with myself? I suggest you not waste time on this. -- Ideogram 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See here. There are only three edits by Galindo ( talk · contribs) and the first is not a revert. -- Ideogram 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Outside opinion: The contribs of User:You Are Okay are completely explainable without an sock relationship; his first three contribs were sort of spammy ext links (the first one using the "cite web" template copied from the link in the line above his), and DreamGuy reverted them all; when he went to complain at DreamGuy's talk page he noticed the AN/I controversy and piled on against DreamGuy. Just a newbie, not a sock. Dicklyon 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The idea that I'm a sock of Ideogram is laughable, unless evidence is presented, I'm going to ignore this. Addhoc 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Referred to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for further discussion. Jehochman Talk 05:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Elvisandhismagicpelvis (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tomasthetankengine (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dibo T | C 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Elvisandhismagicpelvis is an editor who has a fondness for rugby league that crosses over to POV pushing and disruptive editing. For the latter he was blocked for a week for 'WP:EW|edit warring]] on multiple articles, despite being warned to stop. This is utterly disruptive behaviour.'.
The block period has now expired, but a new user, Tomasthetankengine, has arrived and is apparently going through recent edits of mine and another user, Tancred and editing in a similarly disruptive way.
For example, the insistence on referring to rugby league as rugby league football is characteristic.
See Tomasthetankengine's edit of Sydney Football Stadium and Elvisandhismagicpelvis's edit of Sport in Australia.
Essentially all other edits have been to disrupt pages that either Tancred or I work on from time to time with the aim of pushing a pro rugby league POV.
I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to suspect that this user is also User:Rugby_666, User:Ehinger222, User:Licinius, User:J is me and User:NSWelshman - all of which have engaged in the same sort of disruptive POV pushing. Some of the sockpuppets go about making constructive edits for a time but the common thread is wilfuland repetitive POV pushing and incivility.
Each time an account gets knocked off, even for a short time, the user goes and creates a new one essentially to bring the warning processes back to the start. It's not fun or funny to have edit wars crop up time and time again because one person can't stop repeating the same destructive behaviour. This person has been blocked countless times and returns constantly. It makes a mockery of WP's structure of sanctions and bans. It needs to be stopped.
There's a decent chance that you're right about all this. The similarity of adding "football" after "rugby league" is solid circumstantial evidence, to go along with the logic that this editor may have wished to start over with a clean block log.
I recommend that you file a request for checkuser (code F) because you allege that these two accounts are socks of a banned user. Shalom Hello 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All accounts have been blocked as well as the following:
subsequent to checkuser and as per this comment on jpgordon's talk page:
Hi You asked me if I felt Elvisandhismagicpelvis ( talk · contribs) is the same person as Rugby666/Ehinger222. I am very sure they are the same person. They both push the same narrow POV, ignore talk pages, and when blocked he/she simply creates a new account and keeps going. Within the first few edits the new accounts will accuse others of "wikistalking" "trolling" etc, showing the user is notsuch a new wikiperson afterall. There is also an interesting list of single use accounts such as
- Moretimefor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Serendipitouscontributor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Grooveyyoutuber ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tosserandmasterdebater ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Russellthelovemussell ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Senibleconext ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
At the moment Elvisandhismagicpelvis ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is blocked and I believe the new account is Tomasthetankengine ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tancred ( talk • contribs) 14:45, August 8, 2007
and this comment on my talk page:
- Hey, there, you may remember we discussed this, the other night. Sorry I wasn't more helpful, at the time, and also that AN/I proved less fruitful than it usually does, for these situations. In any case, I've had a look over things, and I've blocked all accounts mentioned at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Elvisandhismagicpelvis, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine, and User talk:Jpgordon#Elvisandhismagicpelvis. I believe that covers everything, for now, yes? – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dibo T | C 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Msukach (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
M321s (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ms012 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ms198 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ms789 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Msxone (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ivansanchez 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_18#Deletion_question_-_thank_you
Suspiciously similar user names.
Contribs from the sockpuppets were spam for the "xplusone" website, the same as Msukach's contribs.
Msukach may have been using sockpuppets to avoid being blocked, as he was given a last warning for spamming.
These are obvious spam accounts, but since there's no recent activity, there's not much point in handing out blocks right now. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
JForget 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Same person targeting Canadian Liberal politicans with vandalism. The same person (possibly during work shifts) has kept on vandalism several articles on Canadian politicians (some would-be polticians also) such as Stephane Dion, Justin Trudeau, Bob Rae, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau and several others including Olivia Chow, Jack Layton and Peter Kormos as well as the Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party. He also made attacks against Liberal members on other articles, one of them included Tiny. In addition, when editors included me, warn the user, he often made personnal attacks or vandalism to the user pages or talk pages. The person used about hundreds of the computers from the AOL headquarters in Virginia for several months. The IP range looking at the WHOIS is ranging from 172.128.0.0 to 172.191.255.255 and has used hundreds of account whiten this range (an example is 172.165.129.102 and 172.130.95.37 used immediately after 172.130.221.247). The vast majority of the IP's were clean prior to the rampage by the small person. A user also mentionned a few months back at the AIV talk page that a User:aolworker existed and that some the 172.xxx have used this for vandalism which may suspect that the user name was used by him as well. However, after an IP was block or made several edits (vandalistic in nature), he changed IP and this happened several times, but it's difficult to pinpoint the initial AOL IP account that started the strings of socks.
We need something more specific to go on than IPs in the 172.0.0.0/8 range and "Canadian Liberal politicians." Please give more detailed info including specific examples of IPs and articles. Raymond Arritt 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This report is too vague. In any case, the problem described is not sockpuppetry, but vandalism from the AOL range, which is best addressed through reversion, and judicious semi-protection, if necessary. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Brianga 08:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See userpages for those in question.
Doesn't matter: both accounts are stale for many months. Shalom Hello 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This seems very suspicious to me.
Sorry about that, when I first created an account with Wikipedia, I didn't know that my user name would be so public, once I learned that it was I thought I should create a new name that does not give off as much information about me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pl2010XC ( talk • contribs) 19:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
No violation. I've seen a case like this before. Creating a second user account is not a violation; there can only be a problem if there are coordinated edits between two accounts. Shalom Hello 13:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Creepy Crawler (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RealityTelevisionFan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
EndlessDesign (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ThuranX 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
RealityTelevisionFan has recreated categories formerly generated by Creepy Crawler, creating categories of the nature "Actors by superhero movie franchise", [554], [555], [556], [557]. EndlessDesign follows behind removing other, similar categories, then alphabetizing the list [558], or instead, simply continuing the process of adding the categories [559].
Further, Creepy Crawler [560] and RTF [561] both maintain user pages full of movie charts. Both have also used their user pages for dreamcasting Spiderman:CC [562], and RTV [563].
Doczilla linked me to his lengthy Previous analysis of EJBanks/CreepyCrawler Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/EJBanks. He compiled extensive evidence there. ThuranX 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Further, I am not the only user to notice this. User:Doczilla also commented User_talk:RealityTelevisionFan#Civil_socks here on the similarities.
59.144.165.88 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nalini_sharma1984 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dibo T | C 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
59.144.165.88 was blocked for the 4th time (this time for 6 mths) on August 3 for persistent linkspamming. Nalini_sharma1984 started making same edits, i.e. [564] and [565]. All other edits are linkspam.
I agree with the finding. The edits are all linkspam to mapsofworld.com and similar sites. Block the new account indefinitely. Shalom Hello 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Blocked. See WT:WPSPAM#http://spam.mapsofworld.com. MER-C 12:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ockenbock (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
hail and Snow (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
D A V I D C A T 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Hail and Snow's first edit was to admit on user talk:Metros that he is User:Ockenbock, who has created many ban evading socks
Blocked by User:Metros. Shalom Hello 20:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Djmckee1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Djminisite (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Plm209( talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It seems as though this might be a clear case of good hand ( User:Djmckee1), bad hand ( User:Djminisite). The one makes poor edits then the other goes and fixes them. Then, after the good hand criticizes the way that the bad hand edits, they turn around and invite them into a Wikiproject or offer to make them a userpage. Seems too similar to me.
No match. The recent talk page conversations are ordinary, with two users writing in two different styles, like normal people would do. They seem to be friends on-wiki, and that's great! Both accounts are well-established (March 2007 and December 2006, respectively) and they both welcome users, but they never use the same welcome template. Furthermore, in the extremely unlikely event that they are the same person, no argument has been put forward to suggest any violation of the relevant policy. Shalom Hello 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Watchdogb (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sinhala freedom (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Evidence I am NOT Sinhala freedom
MY Contrib : 22:45, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/3RR (New report on 3rr violation)
MY Contibs: 22:46, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:watchdogb (result))
Sinhala Freedom's contrib: 22:46, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (→Regarding the proposed section about external support)
Seems like I can be at 2 different places at same time. Or mabe I can travel closer to the speed of sound and get from one spot to another (more than 10-15 km away) and contribute less than a minut later. Watchdogb 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Almost no connection has been demonstrated between the two accounts. The complaints of trolling, harassment, etc. by Sinhala freedom may be valid, but there's not enough evidence to conclude that he is abusing sockpuppets. - Amarkov moo! 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
TiconderogaCCB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TiconderogaCCB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.26.182 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.158.125.4 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Comments Removed link to Wikipedia article that was asked to be placed on by the talk page [607] of St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 . Deletion of sourced material [608]. Using the same IP range as he did before. Most likely in avoidance of WP:3rr. UnclePaco ( talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
TiconderogaCCB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TiconderogaCCB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
208.40.192.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.15.84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.107.202 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.98.157 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.253.39.211 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.25.243 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.25.243 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.158.125.217 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.253.55.133 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.158.115.99 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.151.137.191 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Utilizing multiple IP address to circumvent edit wars and 3rr blocks. Has been blocked previous to this for 3rr violations. [609] Has engaged in personal attacks against various users and has same editing patterns.
Is it just a bit weird that the person making the report is a new account whose 10th edit was to insert a series of fact tags and whose 14th edit was to create a SSP case? There's fast learning, but that's a bit odd... Dibo T | C 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Goes to show it's probably a bad idea to come to the sockpuppet board if you're a sock yourself, SuchAGoodGuy is indeed YoSoyGuapo, and is blocked indef as such. However, regardless of the merits of the reporter, it's pretty clear that TiconderogaCCB was behind the use of the IPs to aggressively revert war at St. John's University, and has been blocked for a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kephera975 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS ( talk) 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Kephera975 ( talk · contribs) posted a comment on my talk page signed as banned user 999. He immediately realized his mistake and replaced it with another message.
The date of signing of the first post is curious. Its 9 June 2006 (UTC). This looks like a cut and paste job from a comment on Kephera975 talk page. [610] -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Kephera's edit using the dated signature of 999 was bizarre, but it does not prove sock puppetry. He copied the source code verbatim from the first nontrivial comment that someone else left on his talk page, namely, this pair of comments by 999. I have no idea why he did that, but it doesn't mean he has secret access to 999's offline identity. It just means he was copying something from his talk page archives. I'll assume good faith until further evidence comes to light. Shalom Hello 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Aqua Teen 53 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Aqua Teen 52 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bongwarrior 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Aqua Teen 53 has claimed to be blocked user Aqua Teen 52 here and here and has vandalized several articles.
Extremely obvious. I'll take it to WP:AIV. Shalom Hello 08:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Blocked by "Can't sleep...". Shalom Hello 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
AgentA (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.96.72.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) According to him "asswipe" reply
I recently tagged the agent's user sub-pages, then this damn IP comes out of nowhere and vandalizes my userpages putting "Wikipedia is communism" which was AgentA's slogan. Then he's all vandalizing my page calling me "asswipe" and such, in the same kind of "punk-ass language" AgentA used. Pretty obvious sock.
Tenofalltrades has indef-blocked AgentA. Newyorkbrad has blocked the IP for 72 hours. Shalom Hello 07:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DearPrudence 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
203.109.162.87 vandalised Pewter (see edit here. Grimkn1ght was created soon after, and one minute after creation, vandalised Pewter using almost the exact same text (see edit here).
I've just realised that it's supposed to be the other way around - 203.109.162.87 is the sockpuppeteer, and Grimkn1ght is the sockpuppet. As I'm not sure I know how to change that completely, could someone else fix it if they know how? -- DearPrudence 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Named account indefinitely blocked. IP warned. MastCell Talk 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DearPrudence 06:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Both users have vandalised Killara High School a number of times today; after 58.172.8.87 had been given a final warning, 211.30.215.222 started. In addition, 58.172.8.87 vandalised Ben Stiller (by adding an image of Spongebob Squarepants, seen here); 211.30.215.222 soon after vandalised the Zoolander article (Zoolander is a Stiller film).
One IP already blocked for vandalism, the other I've warned. I've semi-protected the high school page temporarily to slow things down. In the future, just warn the vandals (see WP:VANDAL for instructions), and if they vandalize after that, just report them at WP:AIV for a faster response. MastCell Talk 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jeremyb 07:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
example of Ferrariman5's vandalism:
diff
example of Ferrariman6's vandalism:
diff
diff between the 2 revisions just mentioned:
diff
Also similarity of names and timing of activity in relation to blocks.
Sockpuppetry is obvious. Don't see a need to file a SSP report, if all socks are already blocked. -- DarkFalls talk 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Closing; both accounts already blocked. MastCell Talk 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Pretty clear-cut case of sockpuppetry. No need for a case here. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
67.55.159.44 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Stephen C. Sillett (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DrVarkey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
David Eppstein 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The two users DrVarkey and Stephen C. Sillett, taking the names of two faculty at Humboldt State Univ., appeared here simultaneously and immediately started editing the same articles and attacking each other, particularly in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Jacob_Varkey, where their comments also have a very similar textual style as each other. The public and personal nature of their attacking comments against each other seem unlikely for the senior academics they claim to be. 67.55.159.44 has been commenting in the same AfD claiming to be a student at the same university who has taken their classes, and again has no edit history longer than the last couple of days. It all looks to me very much what one would expect to see from a single sockpuppeteer trying to stir up controversy, and it also raises WP:BLP issues if they are impersonating and attacking real people.
I have not attempted to do so, but it should be possible to contact the real Drs. Sillett and Varkey by the contact information they list on their faculty web pages: Sillett, Varkey.
Thank you for doing so much legwork. I've indefinitely blocked both named accounts. The IP is wireless and likely dynamic, and hasn't edited since August 2nd, so blocking it would probably not accomplish much at this point. MastCell Talk 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fourdee (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MoritzB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Muntuwandi 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
What policies would you suggest a government adopt? Ship them back to africa? Exterminate them? diff However after the 2nd of July his edits to the talk page abruptly end. A day later on the 3rd of July 2007 a new user is created called User:MoritzB. This is large a single purpose account editing mostly the race and intelligence article. In the first few weeks almost entirely. The tone is similar to Fourdee in that it is promoting xenophobic topics. For example diff
While a single purpose account in itself is not a violation, using one for sockpuppetry is. I therefore suspect the Fourdee is using a sockpuppet to circumvent the 3RR rule. These edits were made within a 24 hr period from 21:33, 1 August 2007 to 16:43, 2 August 2007.
That is at least 5 reversions in 24 hours. Then what happens next is that Fourdee reports Muntuwandi for violating the 3RR rule Muntuwandi 3RR report. Consequently Muntuwandi is blocked for 24 hours by administrator User:Seraphimblade. If it turns out that MoritzB is a sockpuppet of Fourdee, then this is an important issue. This would mean the user is fully conscious that he is breaking the rules. Causing edit wars by using sockpuppets and then convincing administrators to get other users blocked.
There's some circumstantial evidence here. I'd like to send this to checkuser for their input: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fourdee. MastCell Talk 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Checkuser finds them unrelated. The accounts do bear further watching for tag-teaming, but without clearer circumstantial evidence, and with a negative checkuser, no action is indicated at this point. MastCell Talk 17:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
201.83.87.130 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
201.6.51.161 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Just James T/ C 07:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User talk:201.83.87.130 - [611] - 201.6.51.161 blanked the vandalism warning I left on this IP's user talk page a few days ago.
User talk:Just James - [612] - 201.6.51.161 warned me not to interfere with their own talk page. I had no recollection of editing their user page so I checked 201.6.51.161's contributions. The only two contributions made were to the two pages I have listed here as evidence. I then suspected 201.83.87.130 was using 201.6.51.161.
HarveyCarter (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
London18 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
BillRodgers (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Xiahou 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
[ [613]] edit by JohnRobertsly a confirmed sockpupper of HarveyCarter was removed and later the exact same edit was made by London18 [ [614]] it was removed then put right back by another later confirmed sockpuppet of his Rogersleigh.
as far as I can see starting here [ [615]] is when London18 which is actually looking like one of his first sock accounts started in on calling Jimmy Stewart a racist. Which just a couple edits later after it was reverted was put back in the same by another later confirmed sockpuppet Rogersleigh [ [616]]
[ [617]] this entire section in the Jimmy Stewart talk page is is populated by negative comments all by Gibsonism, Granville1 (both confirmed socks of HarveyCarter) taking up the conversation for one. Now BillRodgers joins the act saying the same things.
on the Steve McQueen talk page BillRodgers takes over and is the only one to comment on susupected sockpuppet London18 comment [ [618]] and Here [ [619]]
Also BillRodgers doesn't break the HarveyCarter character and hits his usual targets like Elvis [ [620]] making that comment as BillRodgers and plenty of similar comments by confirmed sockpuppets like [ [621]] [ [622]]
This is the 4th such case I have brought against HarveyCarter. I am reporting the London18 account as it slipped through the cracks when reporting all the other sock accounts of his earlier back. He hasn't used it since April but its unblocked. As his contributions show [ [623]] they are all similar downright the same of other confirmed HarveyCarter sockpuppets of that time and now.
BillRodgers is just another account in the same mold as ALL the others before it. [ [624]] As you can see from the diffs I showed plus plenty of others in his contributions compared to known HarveyCarter socks its obvious this is just another attempt at avoiding blocking. Can something be done to stop this?
The new accounts follow the same editing pattern as the old accounts. I've blocked them both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ciotech (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Womensconsortium (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Onerher (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Misit (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Medicaltowers (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nosexist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wilshiremedical (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.215.27.125 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bavariancream (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
STAPA (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Onorem♠ Dil 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Rockero 10:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I first noticed problems with the
Esai Morales article in mid-January. After getting a 3rd opinion about the amount of unsourced information regarding Sylvia Morales in the article in February, it appeared that
Ciotech (
talk ·
contribs) was taking a break from editing.
Misit (
talk ·
contribs) appeared a few days ago and added a
a comment similar to one Ciotech had
previously added, before eventually making
an edit which included quite a few more comments similar to, or exactly the same as, those Ciotech previously
tried to add. Exact excerpts include:
Misit also made
an edit to
Mason (surname) which fixed a formatting problem Ciotech had left on the edit just prior to it.
The next edit to the
Mason (surname) article was by
Womensconsortium (
talk ·
contribs), whose only other edits were to
Lourdes Portillo.
The
Lourdes Portillo article has also been recently edited by
Onerher (
talk ·
contribs). (I'm guessing that's supposed to be a play on my name as Ciotech had
previously
made comments about my name being similar to Honorhim or Onerhem.)
Onerher's other edits have been to
Esai Morales and
Gloria Allred. Their edits to the
Gloria Allred page
reverted
changes I had made to a version created by
Nosexist (
talk ·
contribs).
Nosexist has contributed to two articles.
Gloria Allred and, bringing us full circle,
Esai Morales.
Medicaltowers ( talk · contribs) changing the List of Mexican Americans to reflect the relationship between Esai and Sylvia, where Ciotech had just finished adding Esai Morales, Sylvia Morales, and Lourdes Portillo. Similar edit made on List of notable Chicanos where Ciotech was the last contributer. Medicaltowers also added both Esai and Sylvia to List of notable Hispanics from the United States.
Figured I'd add another in case no checking had been done yet. 63.215.27.125 ( talk · contribs) appeared at the Esai Morales article today and reverted to yesterday's version left by Onerher...when the only changes that had been made were my rearranging the information so the reference covered the new material, and the bot fixing tags.
Wilshiremedical ( talk · contribs) reverts the Gloria Allred article without comment to the previous version by Onerher.
Summarize common articles
Named accounts are pretty clearly socks, and have been blocked indefinitely, puppetmaster blocked for a week. The IP I'm not sure on, and regardless it hasn't edited in a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Asher Heimermann (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
AsherUSA (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Asher, Jr. (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
NumLee (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Resources of Sheboygan Club (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tony16 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Asher2032 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tom70 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Royalbroil 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Asher Heimermann ( talk · contribs) has been a problematic user for many reasons, and was blocked for 1 month by Yandman ( talk · contribs). He has a history of sockpuppetry, and after his block, he tried to evade it with Asher2032 ( talk · contribs), resulting in an indef block of that account and his main account. Three minutes later, Tom70 ( talk · contribs) appeared and started editing various Wisconsin- and Sheboygan-related articles. A request for checkuser was performed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Asher Heimermann, and Now AsherUSA ( talk · contribs) has appeared several months later, and the editing pattern suggests it's again Asher avoiding a block. Asher has contacted me off-line asking that I don't call him out. I can provide the email to someone, but only if it is necessary and discrete. I decided to not call him out to see if the young teen has become less disruptive, but he is again using this new account to be disruptive. He added an external link to his page on common-nation diff. It was reverted as spam by User:Justanother diff, and Asher reverted it back diff. Editing pattern to Sheboygan, Wisconsin articles has returned ( Asher USA's contributions). I call for indefinitely block for User:AsherUSA. Royalbroil 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Metros blocked User:AsherUSA, and had already blocked all but one of the other socks. I have asked him to block User:NumLee to finish the job. Shalom Hello 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SLSB talk ER 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Username is like User:partyhatunicorn who is blocked.
Both accounts indef blocked SLSB talk ER 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This user and IP are both repeatedly adding erroneous info to Billy Ray Cyrus regarding singles. See this edit, this edit, and this edit. After I reverted the middle edit, Kyle 2011 left this comment on the talk page, which has me suspicious.
Further evidence: This uer's name is virtually identical to the indefinitely blocked user User:Kyleellis2011, whose edits were pretty much the same crap.
Even further evidence: User and IP both keep blanking their user and talk pages.
Named accounts indef-blocked; IP blocked for 48 hours. I'll extend it if he keeps vandalizing and the IP appears static. MastCell Talk 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SLSB talk ER 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Both accounts already indef-blocked. MastCell Talk 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
AppleMacReporter 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
see Colchester United F.C.'s history, possibly more socks
All accounts already indef-blocked as vandalism-only. MastCell Talk 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Brianga 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All accounts already indef-blocked; checkuser has been filed to identify and block the underlying IP. MastCell Talk 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
63.3.1.1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.1.129 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.69.6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.69.133 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.69.136 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.1.1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Candy156sweet 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This person has repeatedly vandalized and blanked many articles on Wikipedia including...
Chris Perry (football), Counter-Strike: Source , Utrecht (city), Pantera, Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rift valley, Scary Movie 6, Middle name, Talk:Bow Wow, Solange Knowles, Richard Marx from IP # 63.3.1.1
Menominee, Duncan Sheik from IP # 63.3.69.6
Morrice, Michigan, Lupus erythematosus, Mitchel Musso, Girl, Freedom of religion, Spaceship, Richard Marx from IP # 63.3.1.129
Richard Marx, Candy156sweet from IP # 63.3.69.133
You can look at the talk pages from the talk pages to see the numerous complaints describing the problems that I am reporting here. I used WhoIs to check the IP addresses.
This is the first case of sockpuppetry that I have ever presented here. You can see repeated patterns from each of the IP #'s and you can also notice that there are repeated cases of blanking and blatant vandalism from each IP address. I have checked the IP #'s and I have indeed found that they are all from one source. I don't know if I am wrong for reporting this, but I really think that this is something that should be considered as a problem. Thank you very much for your time and have a great rest of your week.
Vandal with a dynamic IP. The most recently used IP's have been blocked. In the future, you may get a slightly faster response by warning (e.g. with {{bv}}) and then reporting to WP:AIV. MastCell Talk 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jason Gastrich (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Creashin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nascentatheist 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
In addition to some of the edit history [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], which is indicative of a veteran Wikipedia editor:
Bigglove (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Quaiqu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Isarig (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
csloat 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Quaiqu ( talk · contribs) is the name that replaced User:Elizmr, a contentious and abrasive user with whom I had several unpleasant interactions surrounding various Middle East related pages. Elizmr asked to "disappear" from Wikipedia, blaming me in the process, and took the name Quaiqu. A few months later, Bigglove ( talk · contribs) began editing, curiously drawn to similar obsessions as Elizmr/Quaiqu:
Such examples do not tell us much, of course, but the user showed a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and customs early on; his/her earliest edits showed an understanding of how sources are cited here, an understanding and use of the term " wikify" (an odd term to use on one's second day of editing), and his/her aggressive participation on a deletion review suggests a user with a far longer familiarity with Wikipedia than a few weeks.
I was a little taken aback when this user rather suddenly and viciously went after a page on a Muslim community newspaper, first raising a notability case that appeared incorrect to me, and then being very aggressive about pursuing an argument about notability but never actually listed the case for AfD. I did not want to waste time arguing with him/her since such a debate was useless outside of an AfD context, and I urged him/her to list the article for deletion if s/he felt it was non-notable. I should add that this user's participation on the page came after I had been attacked in talk by User:Isarig and User:Armon, two users who Quaiqu (then Elizmr) used to ally with against me in long and fruitless (and often acrimonious) arguments in talk pages and on my user talk page. Bigglove's appearance on that page seemed sudden and seemed intensely committed and vehement -- to the extent that I began to wonder why he/she was so focused only on going after me. I protested his/her actions, and made comments that were perhaps inappropriate and uncivil (for which I have apologized). But the more I thought about it, the more I saw a familiar pattern between this user's attacks and those of Elizmr. Then the user launched an RfC against me based on incivility. Again, I found the RfC completely out of line and uncalled for, and it made me wonder if this was the same user who had attacked me in the past and then "disappeared." It seems very strange for a user that has been around just over a month to already be filing a conduct RfC.
I don't know at all if this user is a sockpuppet, and I'm not sure it would be so bad if he/she were, since the Quaiqu/Elizmr account is no longer active. But I do think it is problematic if this user created a sock account just to cause trouble for me and try to get me blocked (he/she asks for a week long block in the RfC). I ask only that an admin look into it; I am not accusing this user as I honestly don't know. But my suspicions are strong enough that I think someone should look into it.
I have not reached any conclusions about this at all, but I hope someone who understands how to look into the issue can offer evidence that he or she is or is not a sockpuppet. If he/she is not, I apologize for bringing up the case, but I could not in good conscience let it go, especially after the RfC.
I ask whoever does the checkuser on this case to also compare Bigglove's IP to that of Isarig ( talk · contribs), who has also been involved in these disputes, and who is now confirmed as a sockpuppeteer. csloat 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
PEAR (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RucasHost (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mrwalkers (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TotesBoats (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hornet35 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Draken36 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ornis ( t) 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Common Interests
Timing
Edit summaries
Frequent use of the edit summary "Revert of vandalism" or variants, regardless of whether the edit was vandalism or not.
Also their pattern of edit summary use is very similar: PEAR, RucasHost, TotesBoats
"Not vandalism": [110], [111], [112]
Closing remarks
I would also point out —though purely circumstantial— their shared habit of obsessively linking dates, and drive-by tagging is suspicious.
The writing style, interests, use of edit summaries and timing make me almost certain that PEAR, RucasHost and Hornet35 are being operated by the same user. user:Mrwalkers and user:TotesBoats I think are highly probable, but mrwalkers and Draken36 have made too few edits to tell for certain, and I would like to request a check user if possible.
MarkBul seems to do very little except pop up on AfDs after Hornet35, always agreeing with this suspected sockpuppet. Suspicious? Lurker ( said · done) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is ridiculous, merely a plot to banish Christians from Wikipedia by accusing them all of being sock-puppets. -- Hornet35 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
75.10.121.55 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Traxamillion (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cheers, Je t Lover 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Me and other editors were in a dogfight with 2 or more IP vandals on the page Brenna. After the IP stops, Traxamillion comes in and takes over. Some diffs:
Suspicous much?
Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. MastCell Talk 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I've courtesy-blanked this page, so a Google or Wikipedia search on the name of the victim of the sock puppet attacks doesn't lead directly to this page, with the inappropriate user names used as part of the attack. If I'm not supposed to blank an old sock report for some reason, feel free to revert. Old version can be found here. -- barneca ( talk) 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I've courtesy-blanked this page, so a Google or Wikipedia search on the name of the victim of the sock puppet attacks doesn't lead directly to this page, with the inappropriate user names used as part of the attack. If I'm not supposed to blank an old sock report for some reason, feel free to revert. Old version can be found here. -- barneca ( talk) 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Sptx (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Startvtk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Simsvc (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
"Sptx" is the shortest name and it posted first (to pages on my watchlist), but I have no reason to suspect it to be the puppeteer, instead of just another puppet. If these socks are part of a known puppet gang, my apologies.
The timing and style of these edits - all links to the same web domain - make it clear that these accounts are from one editor whose only goal is to promote spam. I suggest an indef-block for all three accounts. Shalom Hello 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Yup. All blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
CorpsReformNetwork (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Gsorvalis (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Y4kk 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I apologise if I have made any mistakes, its my first sock puppet report Y4kk 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It is clear that these two editors are the same person, but it is not a violation of policy because the first account was blocked as a username violation. I agree with Coren. Note, however, that the only contrib by these users has been reverted as an improper external link. Shalom Hello 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Lester2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
John and James (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brendan.lloyd (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Another user and myself believe serial edit warmonger Lester2 has taken our repeated requests to find consensus too literally and has now engaged in sockpuppetry, and is using socks to "votestack" and claim consensus on the contentious article John Howard. A vote to include article content is being conducted at the John Howard talk page here [118] "John Howard's secret ancestry revealed". User:John and James has made one edit to the entire wikipedia and is included in this vote. Brendan.lloyd also loves a good edit war on the Howard article and seems to divide his wiki time with Lester2. If you check their contribution history you see that;
I think all parties concerned have made comments and discussed at length. Both Lester/Brendan have claimed they have nothing to hide and freely submit to a "checkuser". Both are posting around wikipedia demanding apologies, and decrying how humiliated they both are. I think everyone agrees that the checkuser has to take place. Due to my failure in due process I already have a Checkuser request posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lester2. The admin Lar advised waiting until this page had run it's course. I believe all parties agree this should be taken to checkuser to settle this once and for all. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
As the "other user" referred to above, I echo Prester John's evidence above. I freely confess to massive and very naughty sockpuppeteering during my long ban, [119] [120] and I gained familiarity with the techniques for hiding sockpuppets. It seemed to me that Lester2's contributions contained a good deal more wikilawyering and familiarity with procedures than a new account should, as well as being a single purpose account dedicated to adding negative material to the John Howard article and then being disruptive on the talk page. I was also suspicious of the fact that Lester2 was not continuously logged into his account, occasionally making anon edits which he later claimed. This is a common mistake amongst sockpuppet/eers logging in and out of accounts. -- Pete 00:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi everyone. I'm not a sockpuppet, so you can run all the checks as I've got nothing to hide. Did I forget to login before making a comment on a talk page? Maybe I did, but I'm not aware of it. Firefox browser automatically signs me out of Wiki after a period of inactivity. Look at this recent edit by Jimbo Wales where his comment is "duh, forgot to sign" [121], and nobody says he's a sockpuppet! Also, I would have thought that someone would have to actively use an IP address and a user-account together to be accused of misusing the system.
Just looking at that link to the talk page posted by User:Prester John. Prester mentions that I'm trying to avoid consensus on the subject "John Howard's secret ancestry revealed"' by what he calls "votestacking". I just looked through that section of the talk page and I can't find an example of where I forgot to log on, let alone using that to manipulate a "votestack". It seems to be a case that a consensus was achieved on the talk page, which is how Wiki is meant to work, but the consensus was not the verdict that 'Prester' and 'Skyring(Pete)' wanted, so they're bringing the issue here, with no other evidence except to link people who voted against Prester & Skyring(Pete)'s ideas.
To put this into context, though, User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) have a long history of listing me on every complaint board they can think of, so this one is the latest of many from those two users. It would be kind of amusing, except that it wastes the time of Wiki volunteers to follow up these fallacious complaints.
User:Prester John seems to be desperate to find a way to have me blocked, and has filed 2 erroneous 3RR reports about me in the past few weeks. One resulted in User:Prester John being blocked himself after filing the report. Another 3RR is on the list here which turned out to be 3 edits over 3 days so the case was dropped. You'd think the administrators would be getting a bit bored of this string of false complaints. So now I get to learn what a sockpuppet report is. I don't know how to defend it except to say I haven't done anything, and I hope the investigation doesn't waste too much of your valuable time. Cheers, Lester2 01:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Despite User:Skyring and User:Prester John tag-teaming to judge contributors instead of content, deny/avoid concensus, and avoid substantive relevant discussion on the Howard talkpage (re: Howard "New Guinea interests" mention & reference), I am not discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia. I am no "sock puppet" nor "puppeteer". I have never created multiple Wikipedia accounts. I have never masqueraded as another Wikipedia entity. His "evidence" concerning me is flimsy for good reason -- the inferences Pete has made about me are false. I'm happy to give my contact number to the adjudicator for private independant verification, if emailed a request by them (to my email address recorded on my Wikipedia account) to end to this farcical diversion. I eagerly await the only credible outcome of the part of the inquiry involving me, after which I expect an unreserved apology and commitment from User:Skyring and User:Prester John to participate more constructively on talkpages, in good faith, and duly acknowledge concensus when it occurs instead of overt wikilawyering. -- Bren 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Produke (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Apacheguru (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Scjessey 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Adding external links to personal site ( diff, diff) in various Apache and HTTP-related articles.
Might be the same person, but it makes no difference. Produke voluntarily stopped editing at the end of May without being blocked, and Apacheguru started in August. There is no sign of a coordinated attack by the two of them. I've warned Apache, and that should be sufficient. Shalom Hello 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree with Shalom; no violation of WP:SOCK at present. However, if the accounts begin to be used together or as a tag-team, please come back. MastCell Talk 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Disturbedrcool1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Immortal Lord (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Disturbed02 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Edit to Chaos Space Marines exactly the same as User:Disturbedrcool1 and confrmed sockpuppets here.
Obvious sockpuppets. Second chance given after Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Disturbedrcool1 but this user is apparently not interested. Pascal.Tesson 01:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
aliasd· U· T 09:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contribs
Obvious by similarity of names, editing times, and editing interests. One of them is blocked; the other is not. Shalom Hello 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Yup. Blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Green108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Lwachowski (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bksimonb 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Lwachowski appeared as a single purpose account and immediately started editing the BKWSU and related articles disruptively and trolling users talk pages [122] [123] [124]. Similarities with Green108 are shown below.
This case has already been sent to checkuser - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green108 - so I'll close this and results will depend on the outcome of checkuser. MastCell Talk 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jetwave Dave (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
65.102.180.200 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
65.102.180.200 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
65.102.184.215 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
65.102.184.215 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
71.35.158.203 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
71.35.158.203 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
168.103.149.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
168.103.149.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
168.103.148.163 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
168.103.148.163 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
168.103.147.237 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
168.103.147.237 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
63.226.202.34 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
63.226.202.34 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
70.58.66.191 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) -
70.58.66.191 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
Parsecboy 20:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The contribution logs make clear that the IPs are all related, follow similar edit patters, and are controlled by Jetwave Dave. Here is an instance of one of the IPs signing his name as Jetwave Dave. Several IPs have also stated "Jetwave Dave will kick your ass" in edit summaries.
The user Jetwave Dave was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, outright vandalism, and incivility. He has repeatedly circumvented the block by the use of sock IPs, listed above, as well as creating an impostor account User:Parasec boy, that has already been indef blocked.
Yes, these are all presumably dynamic IP's used by Jetwave Dave. I don't see any that have been active in the last day or so, meaning that a block would be pointless. The best approach is probably to report the next occurrence to WP:AIV immediately for a block, and consider requesting semi-protection if particularly heavy IP vandalism is hitting a certain article. MastCell Talk 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ohsunnysgod (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brookelittle (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
PBP 04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Brookelittle mainly vandalizes pages with information about "Slovak Director Arvin Brdarevic", as seen by his contributions, like Ohsunnysgod did in this edit. He also uses the name of one of the pages that Ohsunnysgod liked to vandalize, John Brooke-Little, as seen in his contributions.
Brooke Little is my real name, I've got nothing to do with that John Brooke-Little guy, who's page I found when I searched my name on Wikipedia. And the cinema of Australia Page doesnt have anything about the Slovak director, the ohsunnygod guy just added a movie name with the name Arvin in it. Brookelittle 06:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Indef-blocked by Blnguyen. Shalom Hello 23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SallyForth123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Francis45 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
75.37.13.69 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.204.176.109 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.204.178.62 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.203.48.190 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.14.136 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.36.174.23 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.9.91 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
Sancho 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SallyForth123
Special:Contributions/Francis45 matches pattern of Special:Contributions/Mineo3
Contributions of the IP users undid reversions to the articles that Mineo3 (a suspected sock of SallyForth123) was working on.
From Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SallyForth123
From this report
I'm just listing this here to better organize evidence and provide a location for others to add other sockpuppets of this user to. There have been many in the past few days, both IP users and registered accounts, making edits to many articles on astronauts and other NASA related topics. Sancho 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Range block covering four moderate sized ranges has been applied. The blocks cover a total of 6,144 IP addresses.
Block on SallyForth123 extended to indefinite. See block log.
THF 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Making same edits as previous sock User:Jewbaccas. E.g., [144]
Both accounts are indef-blocked (not by me). Shalom Hello 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hayden5650 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Phral (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Comment:
User:Phral is a suspected sockpuppet of indef-blocked
User:Hayden5650 (indef-blocked for sockpuppeteering)--
Ramdrake
11:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Phrallus Secondus (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Phral von Phralstadt (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Commander Phralson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sir Phrallington (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Muntuwandi 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Excessive use of the term "Negro"
Hayden5650 was claiming to edit from New Zealand, a checkuser should be able to tell whether there is a connection. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650
User:Phrallus Secondus has opened this account unde the name Phral the second and has imediately given his position in a mediation case on the Talk:White people page, a page that User:Phral was heavily involved in. This is surely a simple case? Alun 05:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There is now a Phral von Phralstadt making similarly disruptive edits - could someone please confirm that he is a sock-puppet and block him if so? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All of the accounts have already been blocked indef, not much really to be done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Zelogan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Zel999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
JasonCNJ 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
For the last few days, Zelogan has continued to add/re-create an article on the Dennis Kucinich website. After it was speedy deleted, he re-created it. After an AfD that showed a clear consensus for deletion, he re-created it. He was warned repeatedly by an Administrator to stop and was given a final warning earlier today that he was not permitted to re-create the article or he would be banned. Then, User Zel999 appeared and created "Kucinich website" (which has already been deleted) and created a link on the Dennis Kucinich site.
I suspect Zelogan and Zel999 are the same person, with Zel999 having been created to skirt a warning that was issued to Zelogan to stop recreating deleted content. Since the articles in question have been deleted, I will use their link from the subject's main page as evidence of their activities. Perhaps an admin or someone else will have access to the logs of the deleted articles.
Actions by Zelogan:
Action by Zel999:
It appears that Zel999 has only re-created the Kucinich campaign site article and posted a link to it on the main page; he appears to have no other user contributions
Looks like a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry to me. Similarity in names, same interests, recreated the article after a final warning on his main account. Block, I'd say. Melsaran ( talk) 12:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Clear enough case. Sock blocked indef, puppetmaster blocked 72 hours since (s)he was clearly warned to quit recreating that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Poop4700 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Poop4701 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Poop4702 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Poop4703 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Poop4704 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pointe LaRoche 05:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The five have been registered within the same period and active the same period and have very similar usernames.
User:Poop4700 registered on 05:04 UTC, 24 August 2007 and was blocked indefinetely six minutes later by User:Keegan. User:Poop4701 registered nineteen minutes later, on 05:29 UTC, 24 August 2007. User:Poop4701 was indefinetely blocked eight minutes later by User:Grandmasterka. Another Poop470x was registered, User:Poop4702, on 05:44 UTC, 24 August 2007, six minutes later after User:Poop4701 was indefinetely blocked. Six minutes later, this account was indefinetely blocked by User:Grandmasterka. Then, another one, User:Poop4703 was registered two minutes later. This account was indefinetely blocked two minutes later by User:Grandmasterka. Then again, another one appeared, User:Poop4704, one minute later and this account was indefinetely blocked two minutes later by User:Gogo Dodo
All accounts blocked as violations of the username policy. No further action required.-- Chaser - T 03:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DigiFilmMaker (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
James8445 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Girolamo Savonarola 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jebbrady (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
208.253.158.36 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.115.162.235 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.68.9.131 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Lisasmall 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
To save space here and your time, please glance at any of the archived or active article talk pages on Herbert W. Armstrong for examples of Jebbrady using various IP's and then manually typing in his Jebbrady name, rather than signing in. This practice means his activity is dispersed among at least three accounts and is very difficult to track in article history pages, where the manually typed "Jebbrady" does not appear. It has been explained to him by more than one editor, more than once, that the manual signature is not enough, and why. In violation of the explicit policy laid out in Sec. 2.2 of WP:SOCK, "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors," he continues to use multiple IP's and the typed sig, rather than signing in as Jebbrady and using a tilde sig. There is no question that Jebbrady and the first two IPs listed are all one person; he acknowledges it when he manually adds his signature to the IP tilde sigs.
Evidence for the third IP puppet differs. This account 72.68.9.131 may be a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet, or it may be an innocent situation in which a brand-new account on Wikipedia has an editor who knows what a barnstar is, knows how to give them out, and goes immediately to grant one to one and only one deserving individual -- and makes no other contribs at all.
Please see here for numerous WP:WQA comments from me and from other editors regarding his persistent use of sockpuppets.
Please see here for the first SOCK report July 21 and its resolution.
The July 26 intervention by MastCell is here.
The July 29 intervention by MastCell is here.
Please see here for my July 29 - July 31 messages where I followed up his violation of initial sockpuppet warning by asking a third party (MastCell) to gently intervene, rather than just file a second formal report at that time. At that point, I was still assuming GF; but see subsequent developments and current conduct.
Please see this part of MastCell's talk page for yet another editor's third-party expression of concern on August 10 re Jebbrady's puppetry, followed by a comment by me on August 17.
Please see User_talk:EdJohnston#Sockpuppet_Issue for EdJohnston's August 3 attempt to correct this behavior.
The behavior continues.
Zim2007 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Thehalo1noob (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Angrygamer (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Flnclan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.178.194.212 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.178.195.77 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- milk the cows ( Talk) 02:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
They have very similar editing styles as shown in the contributions. They were each created within weeks of each other after one got a warning message about vandalism.
I agree totally with milkthecows. I initially discovered the similarities between Zim2007, Thehalo1noob, and 69.178.194.212 and I posted a question on all three talk pages asking about this. Shortly after that, an admin blocked Zim2007 for vandalism. Almost immediately after that, the Angrygamer account was created and started making very similar edits to the earlier accounts. After I again posted a question about similarities between Zim2007/Thehalo1noob/69.178.194.212/Angrygamer, the Flnclan account was created. It seems as though this user doesn't wish to deny or verify the connection between all of these accounts. Instead, the individual is more inclined to ignore any and all questions, put his most recent account into hibernation mode, and create a new account. All of these user accounts have been warned about these suspicions of sockpuppetry, but — again — there has never been really any kind of response. -- MatthewUND( talk) 02:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Disturbedrcool1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Immortallord (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Immortal lord 00 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pak21 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Repeated editing of Chaos Space Marines to introduce incorrect edition information
Obvious.
The sock accounts are indef blocked; the main account (Disturbedrcool1) looks like there's been some attempt at productive edits in addition to vandalism, so I'll leave it unblocked in case the guy comes back. It looks like it's been abandoned, though. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
190.53.15.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cartagenagirl (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
66.161.18.212 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
LaNicoya •Talk• 10:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Dissectional (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.124.33.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
You can see from his talk page that I've tried to be as helpful as possible but circumventing discussion using IPs is very disruptive.
Seraphim Whipp 09:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The reason i was always signed on as Dissectional was because i never logged out. I must have deleted my browsing history which caused the log out, and my laziness caused me to use my IP adress instead. 74.124.33.181 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SallyForth123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
76.221.186.28 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.220.200.86 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.15.138 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.12.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.204.178.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
Sancho 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It seems that SallyForth123 was blocked, then used sockpuppet 75.36.172.192 which was blocked, and is now using 76.221.186.28. Sancho 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I think we have enough evidence to block these IPs and extend the block on SallyForth123. I'll block the IP addresses for 48 hours and add notices. Sancho 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The following have been blocked for a period of 48 hours.
76.221.186.28 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.220.200.86 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.15.138 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
75.37.12.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
76.204.178.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
Ohconfucius 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Yueyuen has been established as a sockpuppet of User:Samuel Luo, a known activitist who runs a website denouncing Falun Gong. There has been persistent vandalism on the Falun Gong article, and occasionally sister articles by different users using fairly anonymous names, mostly bearing the prefices 'G', 'US', or 'Free' followed usually by a string of numbers. The characteristic is that each "user" account is used two or three times, and then apparently abandoned so that no account ever violates WP:3RR. In actual fact, the versions of vandalised text are virtually identical. One of the user names adopted is Yueyuen3, similar to another sockpuppet account used by User:Samuel Luo. The socks appear to be active only on FG-related articles. Since before User:Samuel Luo was banned, there has been recurrent vandal activity from these socks. The table lists the vandal's attacks in chronological order.
Isn't it possible just to do some IP ban of him or something? Is it possible to vandalise these pages in this fashion with an automated process?, that is, could this go on indefinitely, or are we relying on the fact that he is mortal and will tire?-- Asdfg 12345 07:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
John Smith's (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Foula (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:John Smith's has been arguing for WP to use the BC/AD dating format (as opposed to BCE/CE) across multiple pages here on WP.
There are other pages as well, but I won't list them all here. Then along came User:Foula, who created the now-deleted Template:History of China - BC. The template was an exact duplicate of Template:History of China except that all the BCE/CE was replaced with BC/AD. The new account then inserted the template into several articles. [178] [179] [180] [181] Then John Smith's proceeded to mass insert the template into a number of other articles as minor edits. [182] John Smith's and Foula were the only two accounts that tried to insert the duplicate template into articles.
Note that Foula has so far only made edits related to this BC/AD vs. BCE/CE date format issue. Normally this is perfectly acceptable usage of a sock. However, there is possible vote fraud going on.
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Tiffelie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Soundofcourage (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Valente1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vespatiff (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.241.37.140 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Matthew_hk t c 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Creat Valente (artist), once replaced Valente page, uploader of Image:Valente.jpg (see old image deletion log)
assume bad faith, by no need to multi account to edit one article
Valente (artist) currently on AFD
These accounts come from the same person and maintain the same agenda. I'd recommend to limit this user to Vespatiff, his most recent user account, but not to impose any other sanctions on him because he has not tried to subvert process using multiple accounts. Shalom Hello 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Astrotrain (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
81.79.203.71 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
163.167.129.124 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) - if any, this would be the user's home address.
90.240.21.121 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
81.77.251.19 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
84.68.13.116 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Evil Spartan 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The three IPs are clearly all sockpuppets. They show extensive knowledge of WP and its policies (see additions by 81.79 to WP:RPP), and are being used to circumvent scrutiny and often 3RR. I believe that they are sockpuppets of User:Astrotrain, who has been around since early 2005, and accumulated something like 9 blocks in the meantime, all for edit warring (and has recently been issued another warning by User:John for edit warring). It just so happens that the IPs are adding information in accordance with Astrotrain's POV, and often step in right after Astrotrain is does editing. In particular, I would like to point out:
The only other users engaged on this side of a POV in any of the edit wars all have a much cleaner history, are edit warring less often than Astrotrain, and are willing to at least try to use the talk page to come to a consensus (Astrotrain is not); in fact, some of the said pages have only had an edit war with Astrotrain and these IPs pushing a POV, which is pretty damning evidence. To the closing admin: if you are unable to conclude that these are the same users, I would ask that you could kindly copy the information over to WP:CU, where hopefully the checkusers will look at the IP's. The Evil Spartan 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
- Alison ☺ 23:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
WHOIS - 84.68.13.116 mail iconEmail link to results Generated by www.DNSstuff.com
Location: United Kingdom [City: Stoke On Trent, England]
Using 1 day old cached answer (or, you can get fresh results).
Displaying E-mail address (use sparingly -- this will make it more likely that you will trigger our rate limiting system).
% This is the RIPE Whois query server #1. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % Rights restricted by copyright. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/copyright.html
% Information related to '84.64.0.0 - 84.71.255.255'
inetnum: 84.64.0.0 - 84.71.255.255 netname: EU-EN-20040315 country: GB org: ORG-CaWT1-RIPE descr: Cable & Wireless Telecommunication Services GmbH admin-c: GNOC4-RIPE tech-c: GNOC4-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-lower: CW-IPGNOC-MNT mnt-domains: CW-DNS-MNT mnt-domains: ENERGIS-MNT mnt-routes: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-routes: AS5378-MNT notify: ipadmin@eu.cw.net changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20040315 changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20061206 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070130 source: RIPE
organisation: ORG-CaWT1-RIPE org-name: Cable and Wireless Telecommunication Services GmbH org-type: LIR address: Landsbergerstr. 155 address: 80687 address: Muenchen address: Germany phone: +49 89 926 99 111 fax-no: +49 89 926 99 808 e-mail: ipadmin@cw.net admin-c: DS3356-RIPE admin-c: MG10145-RIPE admin-c: SM6163-RIPE admin-c: DOM12-RIPE admin-c: SA79-RIPE admin-c: RS27341-RIPE admin-c: AB14382-RIPE admin-c: TOC-RIPE admin-c: JO361-RIPE mnt-ref: CW-EUROPE-GSOC mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20040415 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20040511 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041019 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041112 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041122 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041217 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20041228 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050201 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050310 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050315 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050406 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050418 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050502 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050617 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20050623 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051014 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051014 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051117 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20051117 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060224 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060330 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060406 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060509 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060517 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060628 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060711 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20060817 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061005 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061009 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061011 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061016 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061017 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061124 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061124 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061130 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061206 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061207 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061207 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061208 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061213 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20061218 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070110 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070212 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070215 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070221 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070308 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070308 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070322 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070416 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070416 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070716 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070727 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070808 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070809 changed: bitbucket@ripe.net 20070813 source: RIPE
role: Cable and Wireless IP GNOC Munich remarks: IP Admin Department address: Landsbergerstr. 155 address: 80687 Munich address: Germany e-mail: ipadmin@cw.net admin-c: TOC-RIPE tech-c: TOC-RIPE tech-c: SM6163-RIPE tech-c: RS27341-RIPE tech-c: SA79-RIPE abuse-mailbox: abuse@cw.net nic-hdl: GNOC4-RIPE mnt-by: CW-IPGNOC-MNT changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20040203 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20040727 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20041105 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20051014 changed: annette.moll@cw.com 20051126 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20060714 changed: tcremer@de.cw.net 20060807 changed: smorhoff@cw.net 20070403 source: RIPE
% Information related to '84.64.0.0/13AS5388'
route: 84.64.0.0/13 descr: Energis UK origin: AS5388 mnt-by: ENERGIS-MNT changed: matt.mcintyre@energis.com 20020916 source: RIPE
[The following lines added by www.dnsstuff.com per requirement by RIPE]
This service is subject to the terms and conditions stated in the RIPE NCC Database Copyright Notice.
Contact dnsstuff.com's 'info2@' address to report problems regarding the functionality of the service.
This is one of the Cable and Wireless results from whois, as you can see from the bottom it links to Energis UK, the other Cable & Wireless one does as well, I am not totally convinced this is Astrotrain or him working alone I suspect someone else involved in this.-- padraig 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thedeadmanandphenom (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Lostinspace123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Johncenaiscool123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dasaniisgood (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Deep Shadow 03:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thedeadmanandphenom began a dispute with Darrenhusted on June 24 2007 at 18:04 (UTC). [188] At 18:43 (UTC) Lostinspace123's account was created and the first post was to Darrenhusted. [189] [190]
On 3 August 2007 at 21:07 (UTC) an account with the same 123 affix was created (Johncenaiscool123) and at 21:08 (UTC) they awarded Thedeadmanandphenom with a barnstar. [191] [192] They made no further contributions. [193]
On 3 August 2007 I addressed a concern I had to Thedeadmanandphenom about their edits. [194] The responses I received were totally uncalled for. [195] Darrenhusted informed me that I was reported for "vandalism". [196] On 12 August 2007 at 22:48 (UTC) Dasaniisgood's account was created and their first post was at 22:55 (UTC) to Darrenhusted, attacking both him and me. It is also similar to Lostinspace123's first post. [197] Both also claim to be from Maryland. [198]
Clear sockpuppetry, and all accounts are now indef blocked. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ghetsmith (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jbntj (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Power2708 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (admitted on
[199])
Bhlimn (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (already blocked)
Smilth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) only made edits on 5 July 2007
164.107.167.35 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.75.18.59 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
OhanaUnited Talk page 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jbntj assessed {{ environment}} as stub [200], then added {{ climate change}} [201]. I spotted the error that he assessed the article Fossil fuel power plant as stub (even though that article is long and has references), so I corrected it back to B-class. I also removed climate change template. [202] 1 day later, Ghetsmith came and add back the climate change template and reassess the article back to stub class. [203]
In Ghetsmith's contribution page and Jbntj's page, both are involved mainly on articles and talk pages related to energy, renewable & conventional energy resources.
Another editor, mbeychok, left me a message on my talk page questioning the coincidental edits the 2 users made. Mbeychok suspects that they are using Wikipedia articles as propaganda for environmental issues.
An interesting note is that Ghetsmith's editing stopped after July 9 and resumed on August 7. During this period, Jbntj edits between July 12 and August 6. It is not a concrete evidence, but this is a hint that Ghetsmith used Jbntj in mid/late July.
There is circumstantial evidence of sock puppetry, but no "smoking gun" that I can see. The incident cited above, where the two users made the same controversial edit regarding article assessment, seems to be the only blatant violation of the user account policy.
I think the correct response is to block Jbntj, the newer of the two accounts (and the currently inactive one), and to advise Ghetsmith that sock puppetry is a Bad Thing. Shalom Hello 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Potters house (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sapienz (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Daniel Case 05:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I was clearing out expired prods when I came upon Harold Warner, from which the tag had been removed [204] by Sapienz, who claimed that sources had been added as xlinks. Since he turned out to be a relatively new user, I decided that I would list the article at AfD and leave a note about removing prods on his talk page.
But as I looked at his history, [205] and the article's, I noticed that there seemed to be a focus on articles related to Potter's House Christian Fellowship. I noted also that there seemed to be an edit war between Sapienz and Darrenss ( [206], [207] and [208]) who he claimed was an ex-PHCF member biased against the group. Darrenss's userpage does seem to suggest this.
I then decided to put this on WP:AN/I. But then I decided to look into Potters house, who had originally created the article [209]. And things got interesting.
Potters house was blocked indefinitely in May for an inappropriate username. This was after two blocks, one for spam and another for 3RR, (the latter lifted after two of the 24 hours) last summer. [210]. But I noticed Potters house has a similar thing about Darrenss and his purported agenda ( [211], [212], [213]). Sapienz has been, and Potters house was, actively editing Wayman Mitchell.
It also seems to me their language is similar. Is Sapienz simply Potters house, trying to evade a ban?
Yes I can verify that this is true. The same user aka user:Potter's House, aka User:Xsxsxsxs, aka user:Sapienz, aka heaps of anon IP's. I recently placed an incident report for his behaviour under the heading user:Sapienz - Incidents on the 3rd of August outlining his various IP's that he has used to harrass me and others. I already had 2 posts I left on Sapienz talk page and he deleted them both, besides only Nick aka potters house guy knows I used to attend his church, that fact he uses against me. I tried to be civil to him to explain my edits on those talk pages and even invited him to discuss it but so far he has chosen to complain to other editors about me and has avoided any coversation regarding his favorite articles. One more thing, on the Wayman Mitchell talk page Nick explains that he runs a site http://www.waymanmitchell.com and has scanned onto his site a book he is using for reference which is copyrighted. Also Nick is the web admin for http://www.cfmau.com and http://www.pottersclub.com which he has furiously fought to get into the Potters House related articles. Darrenss 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Madsurrealist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
BenjaminPeret (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Worldeater (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Thikeboylove (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Madsurrealist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RedAnarchy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
notey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- TextureSavant 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
PRIOR EVIDENCE: This sockpuppetry is repeated vandalism by Keith Wigdor, who has been harrassing other users associated with the Surrealism article. This same individual, Madsurrealist for a long time was using the account of Classicupiter2 and is a previously proven sockpuppeteer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Classicjupiter2
The arbitration committee looked into the problem, but they didn't do anything about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/TextureSavant
RECENT EVIDENCE:
Here are some of the most recent diffs:
[214]
[215]
[216]
[217]
[218]
[219]
[220]
[221]
A checkuser analysis was recently completed, confirming that the above accounts are indeed socks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thikeboylove
This Suspected-Sockpuppet case is being filed in order to take further action in preventing this individual from causing further disruption to the
Surrealism article.
The first four user accounts in this case are all new and use the same disruptive language and mannerisms that suggest that the Classicjupiter2 sockpuppeteer has returned from a few months' reprieve in order to cause more trouble for the
Surrealism article. His usual motive is the skewing of consensus & disruption of discussion regarding the article. In particular, he has a beef with the Chicago Surrealist Group, and repeatedly attempts to remove references to them that appear in the article. Keith Wigdor is sore because he can't succeed in getting his own name and website (
http://www.surrealismnow.com) into the
Surrealism article. --
TextureSavant
14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
These various sock accounts should be blocked, so as to prevent Keith Wigdor/ User:Madsurrealist from causing more disruption to the Surrealism article.
EdwinCasadoBaez (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jimmyjones1122 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jonathanmbaez (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Memeco (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
70.177.181.129 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.119.127.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
130.245.239.126 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.118.48.94 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
24.190.180.244 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.131.205.111 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Please note two accounts listed were already blocked for disruptive behavior 70.177.181.129, 69.119.127.181 in another sockpuppet case [222] 64.131.205.111 04:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
EdwinCasadoBaez ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [223] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [224] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [225] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [226] , [227]. He has been warned numerous times [228], [229], [230] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [231] . Can be seen here. [232] . New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [233] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [234] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [235] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [236] refering to other users as idiots [237] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [238] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [239] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [240].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [241] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [242] [243] Later he was "Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grand master ka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)" ignoring the block which using his 69.119.127.181 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.177.181.129 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Just got off of block [244] and violates Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as well as Wikipedia:Civility [245] [246] . Has been noted to not be able to control his temper by an admin. [247] His previous block was lengthened because of ban-evasions [248] Also please take a look at the block log http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:EdwinCasadoBaez and an admission of using sockpuppets http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:69.119.127.181&diff=prev&oldid=140359231 Tells other users to "suck it" [249] Adding a Checkuser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Memeco reply
He stated that I was using a sockpuppet when I wasn't [250] . And was answered by Jpgordan that creating an account was perfectly alright [251] . When I did create another account it wasn't in any manner to be disruptive as EdwinCasadoBaez did. He was reported on numerous occasions to AN/I [252] , but all they did was lengthen his ban. He was given a pass the first time around b/c he seemed apologetic [253], but came back full force and was put on a week long block. His disruption of checkuser cases was unprecedented [254] . He would carry on, invite meatpuppets (i.e johnathenbaez) [255] to further disrupt articles, and more. His personal attacks were hard and hurtful. [256] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). I left numerous warnings on his page as did many other wikipedians as to his unruly behavior [257] and he would simply ignore them or attack others verbally. He would also mock his blockings [258] ; encouring the use of MEATPUPPETS [259] ; stating that people (banned users) were his family when it seems very likely that it was him as shown by checkuser [260] He has warred with many different wikipedians in articles . [261]. He also disrupted other AN/N cases [262] 64.131.205.111 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I couldn't help but noting while browsing the IP's contributions that he/she contributed to a case ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111) involving his/her account where it was confirmed that it was a sockpuppeter (confirmed socks are User:YoSoyGuapo, User: DMVGuy, User: BoriquaStar and User:Bombaplena, those are the ones on the checkuser at least, that is an awful lot of sockpuppetry in my humble opinion) how is it possible that a user that has been proven as abusing multiple accounts is still active and of all things contributing to the sock puppet board? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
You're taking soundbites and out of context. This issue carried on from "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic
"Weeeeeeepaaaa!!! 64.131.205.111 16:30, 24 May 2007 - Wepa means cool
to which he replied "Actually if you going use Dominican slang use it right...mira te di lu, tamo cloro...oh what should I use your slang okay pai. Avfnx 22:40, 24 May 2007" - which means more or less "look here, what you do in the dark, you take it in the dark" referring to "getting F**** by another male in the dark"
i replied "thats dirty but cute. do you want milk" -- meaning what he said was dirty, do you want milk -- because kids with dirty mouths talk like that
his reply " dejame dalte lu de nuevo, pork parace k te k daste en lo oscuro. ------ en tu cara? tamo cloro or is to much for you. Avfnx 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)"
meaning "listen here you dickhead, you freakin take it in the darkness in your face. take it now..is that too much for you"
my reply "Avfnx no eso fue porque tu tio te lo dijo oh cuando tu eras mas joven i despues que tu abuelo te toco el pene" which was "avfnx that wasn't me that was you and your uncle. you learned that after your grandfather touched you."
I never reported these attacks b/c they went both ways and were in spanish.
User:Avfnx has stated things in english such as "full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are", "This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR."
This though does not take away from the fact that said user EdwinCasadoBaez was using sockpuppets.
64.131.205.111
01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
If you look. I've served my ban for sockpuppetry and it lasted over a month. I was even instructed to make a new account "I probably shouldn't be telling you this: just register a new account (if you can't, then wait about a day and try again). If you contribute constructively, you will not be connected to the blocked accounts; should you vandalize pages or harass users, you will be blocked, sockpuppet or not. -" [267]. I'm not creating another account for a while. He never served anything longer than a week and continued to use sockpuppets on multiple occasions even during his ban. Bad faith no (a point to be made, yes), but point blank he used a large amount of sockpuppets. 64.131.205.111 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
PS also take a look at the commentary made by EdwinCasadoBaez and sockpuppets for their edit summaries! 64.131.205.111 02:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Also look at this checkuser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Memeco
EdwinCasadoBaez simply negates any type of information that is even perceived to be negative about DR and will not posted in regardless of the sources. Amnesty International, the UN, etc. When references such as ESPN are used as recently as his reply was "What the hell does Steroids has to be in the Dominican Republic article?!!!go put it in some other page!!!do You see steroids being mentioned in the United States Article, where atlethes use it the most?"
[270]
He stated that I was using a sockpuppet when I wasn't [271] . And was answered by Jpgordan that creating an account was perfectly alright [272] . When I did create another account it wasn't in any manner to be disruptive as EdwinCasadoBaez did. He was reported on numerous occasions to AN/I [273] , but all they did was lengthen his ban. He was given a pass the first time around b/c he seemed apologetic [274], but came back full force and was put on a week long block. His disruption of checkuser cases was unprecedented [275] . He would carry on, invite meatpuppets (i.e johnathenbaez) [276] to further disrupt articles, and more. His personal attacks were hard and hurtful. [277] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). I left numerous warnings on his page as did many other wikipedians as to his unruly behavior [278] and he would simply ignore them or attack others verbally. He would also mock his blockings [279] ; encouring the use of MEATPUPPETS [280] ; stating that people (banned users) were his family when it seems very likely that it was him as shown by checkuser [281] He has warred with many different wikipedians in articles . [282] . 64.131.205.111 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Your contributions are valued in Wikipedia and who else then Dominicans to make their related articles better. I must tell both of you that if you are going to add any information to any article, you must provide a verifiable reliable source to proof the allegations as required by Wiki policy. If not added material my be subject to deletion, however if the material added contains the proper source and is reverted by anyone, that action maybe deemed as vandalism.
Do not ask nor instigate others to join in a discussion which may turn hostile. When entering a discussion, remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. If any of you enter a dispute ask for the help of an outsider, a mediator or arbitrator. There are times when people differ in opinions and which amy require a consensus.
Therefore, I am asking both of you to accept the following agreement for the good of the image of the Dominican Republic and its people.
If you both agree, sign your user names here:
1.I Completely Accept!and thanks for giving me another Chance EdwinCasadoBaez 06:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2.
I will be watching, if either of you break the agreements or rules, you will be blocked and possibly banned. Tony the Marine 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I cannot agree that EdwinCasadoBaez goes unpunished for his actions. He was already given a pass for his unruly behavior
[283] and proceeded to simply do worse. My account was suspended and I was blocked as a sockpuppet while he continued to go along his merry way as if what he did was perfectly alright. I served my suspension and as a result of his actions am without a user account. If my account
YoSoyGuapo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) was reinstated then I would have a change of heart (as well as him serving at the very least a token suspension). At this point I think the only thing that is fair would be the loss of his account due to the overwhelming evidence that shows his poor behavior and violations of wikibehavior.
64.131.205.111
21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
My final decision is that I will not block nether of you as of now. Both of you should have asked for a mediator before your arguments got out of hand and nether of you did. I have set up rules and asked for an agreement between both parties and EdwinCasadoBaez has agreed to follow the rules plus Wikipedia policy. Regardless of wheather the parties involved agree or do not, Wikipedia policy will be enforced and whoever breaks the rules will be blocked. If any of the parties involved does not agree with my decision, then said party has the option of seeking an arbitrator. Tony the Marine 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I find it a bit disturbing that with such heavy evidence against EdwinCasadoBaez concerning his use of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and multiple accounts that no one even bothered to confirm whether or not he actually used them. Even you can see this. [284] I was actually in the gathering evidence on EdwinCasadoBaez and made numerous reports on him to AN/I to no avail. I would like this to be looked over by another administrator. 64.131.205.111 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Also why is EdiwinCasadoBaez allowed to keep his name account and mine was taken away? 64.131.205.111 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
If my account YoSoyGuapo is unblocked you won't see the ip used anymore. The checkuser was a violation of my privacy with the use of an IP. Even if it is moved to YoSoyGuapo the original page wasn't deleted. Which is what I was asking for but no one is helping me at all. I understand that you have a special relationship with him (because of his membership in the WikiCarib project). This isn't becoming old it's simply the fact that the language used was agressive and people have been blocked on wikipedia for far less. Anyway, lets see what another admin says. 64.131.205.111 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (on library IP) reply
region? http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation ? come on now. this again doesn't take away from the almost definitive use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets by edwincasadobaez. offering protection to a friend is sometimes fine. objection is typically best. 64.131.205.111 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Well lets see what other admin's have to say. I guess you're ok with the strong use of sockpuppets and meat puppets so long as they are contributing to the wiki carib project. anyway, i said i'd drop this if 1) edwincadadobaez was blocked for his use of sockpuppets or 2) we both served a punishment and my account was restored. 64.131.205.111 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONFIRMATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE SOCKPUPPETS USED BY HIM? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
64.131.205.111 (
talk) 02:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
Insanity Incarnat e 07:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Vandalizing Cassowary at the same time, while I was reverting "their" edits, similar usernames. May also be the same person as User:Arsehole11, who was another recent, similar vandal on that page.
THF 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SPA trying to "CSD" well-researched Richard Rossi article. Jacksbernstein (Rossi's press agent) created a different sock, The InnocenceProject, to try to edit article after being indef-blocked for legal threats; that account has been indef-blocked also.
Justlit (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Miley hilary (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Xxdisneyxfanxx (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
James Luftan contribs 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
First notice how both of their usernames are Disney related.
Justlit adds disney related content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justlit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laila_Richard_Sadeq According to this Miley hilary is a new user, editting on a improperly listed AfD, supporting the suspected sockpuppeteer. Notice how they both try to manipulate the time.(so far as two months back!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xxdisneyxfanxx According to that, the user lives in Florida and England.(?)
They have day old accounts, but tons of userboxes.
Both accounts were created minutes after the AfD began.
This evidence is overwhelming, and they both (sloppily) try to manipulate the system. I will request for checkuser once somebody responds. James Luftan contribs 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, James Luftan contribs 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion is User:Justlit is the sock puppeter and the other 2 are his puppets. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laila Richard Sadeq for further details 3tmx 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Added Justlit James Luftan contribs 21:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I think they may have thought it had already been nominated (when it had just been flagged for notability).Its a possibility they were trying to make it look like an archived discussion as they pasted from an archived discussion, (although this was changed) - could explain the weird thing with the dates too. I don't think whoever is responsible totally new what they were doing, but had a good go. I'm 99.9% certain that he is the puppet master. One of the suspected sock puppets was created 10 min after his changes to the AFD - enough time to get a load of userboxes and create a sock puppet. Bit of a coincidence that another person was looking at the particular page at that time, made the same mistake of thinking it had been nominated for deletion, then decided to make themselves a page and contribute 3tmx 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Also
On Justlit's very first edit to the AFD he formats his text to make it look like he's struck through a previous edit - like hes thought about the proposed deltion and changed his position from clean up to keep - what a joker. Block 'em. 3tmx 23:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Vinay412 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Never_bdsd (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Miyamw (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (added 2 August 2007)
andy 11:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User is attempting to undo revisions to two articles that were favourites of banned sockpuppeteer Vinay412
The restored revisions are sections that were heavily edited by sockpuppets of Vinay412
User's only other edit is this - there is a link to this talk page from my contributions page and my archived talk but no other obvious link that Never bdsd might have followed
Miyamw - evidence
User has recreated Human_figure which was deleted and redirected after an AfD debate which included a lot of sockpuppetry.
The user is a single-purpose account
The recreated article contains a reference to Female body shape which was jealously guarded by Vinay412, as was the original version of this article.
The style of English is very similar to that of Vinay412's previous edits.
The previous discussion on the article has been archived, without any link to the archive
andy 09:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
You say striked? I disown you, boor. What's your business in IIsc? Milching the buffaloes? 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a match. All the listed accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Florentino floro (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Juanatoledo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Shrumster 10:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am Judge Florentino V. Floro. I want to submit evidence that I am not a sock puppet. First, due to limited knowledge of the Rules, I registered Judgefloro the first account, and then the correct present florentino floro. Fisherqueen notified me of this ambiguity, so I replied in my Userpage that I will from that time use the 2nd florentino floro; so I obeyed and never edited judgefloro nor used it.
I have no idea about the whereabouts of Juanatoledo. My problem is: I had been known worldwide and I made many enemies here in the Philippines. In fact I know that some of my detractors are using my name or any similarity of Floro to make it appear that that name or username are my ALTERS. If ever, juanatoledo or melanie almera are accused to me me
the BEST EVIDENCE is to call me since I am Judge Floro here at 123 dahlia alido malolos, 3000 Bulacan, with land line (044) 662-8203 philippines;
my contributions are the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Florentino+floro
I examined juanatoledo's contributions, and they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Juanatoledo
there are lots of differences and similarities
with respect to similarities
I judge and state this user juanatoledo, is also here in the philippines, and could have used the site, place and areas, where I edited, PLUS, studied carefully my contributions, TO CONTRIBUTE AND EDIT what I did edit, thus, making it appear to harm florentino floro to make a case of socket
But it is very clear that my own contributions are in favor of WIKIPEDIA and are very good and timely contributions especially for top people like reynato puno, gregory s. ong, teresita de castro, these are big people or justices here, and I got first hand info to write about them.
What is the harm?
my own article Florentino V. Floro was incorrectly written by such melanie, and then I committed a mistake of editing it, and Fisherqueen the admin re-wrote it coz of its world-famous value
Tito Pao even encouraged me to be at Tambayan
why?
It is clear from the contributions that juanatoledo
Tito Pao, and I myself like Shrumster, I, I myself, graduated 1965 elementary at St. Mary's Academy Meycauayan Bulacan, then I graduated AB and LLB Ateneo de Manila University, 1974, 1982, so Shrumster should know me.
Based on my contributions, which are so FAVORABLE to WIKI, why should I be charged Sockpuppet?
At the very least, juanatoledo or melanie should be the ones charged not me, a JUDGE who already suffered INJUSTICE here in my own country.
Wikipedia is great, and my contributions are great. I followed the rules, why should other usernames make me a sockpuppet.
I do not advertise I never wrote on my friends, I just add and edit on great autos or events I first see on the internet to MAKE WIKI bigger.
Shrumster graduated elementary from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school from the Ateneo de Manila High School, and college from the Ateneo de Manila University. Currently pursuing a Master of Science in Marine Biology degree at the University of the Philippines' Marine Science Institute.
Just BECAUSE juanatoledo or melanie contributed in like manner is this a reason for me to be blocked.
Wiki should weigh the quality and greatness of the contributions rather than piece-meal and circumstantial evidence of sockpuppet.
I know what Shurmster is driving at, but he is unaware of the fact that I have detractors and enemies due to my predictions ... the deaths in the Philippine Judiciary and because of this, some may have read my dire death prophesies and took vengeance on me, even here....
If THERE IS HARD EVIDENCE in law, equity and under Wiki Rules, that these juanatoledo and melanie are sockpuppet, then, do not include me or accuse me of such actuations.
I had contributed many many good news and things about many big people here, to make NEUTRAL their articles and to let people know about them ...
I therefore, petition that the accusation against me, be DENIED for utter lack of basis, merit, and due to impetinence and misnomer.
-- Florentino floro 05:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
In addition to the above refutation, contradiction and traversing the accusations and allegations of
Shrumster,
I am JUXTAPOSING the critical facts and proofs, that I Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. and Shrumster -
1) are from the same town of Meycauayan City, 2) studied from same Meycauayan St. Mary's Academy and 3) graduated from the same Ateneo De Manila University,
these SAME places reveal that the
MOTIVE behind the filing of this sockpuppet case against me: I want to show that NO WIKIPEDIAN outside the Philippines, outside my SCHOOL ATENEO, outside my TOWN MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, ever accused me of such violation of Wiki Rules.
It is UNTHINKABLE in law, morals, ethics and Wiki principles that a SCHOOLMATE, TOWNMATE would accuse me of such grave violations.
MOTIVE THEREFORE is so important: What is the AGENDA or HIDDEN REASON why he accused me
despite the fact that NOTED WIKIPEDIANS honored me and NOTED my great contributions here: Tito Pao
[[User:Algabal|Algabal]
THE FOLLOWING IS MY OWN PROFILE - (PART OF)
The name of this writer is Florentino V. Floro, Jr. He hails from Calvario, Meycauayan City, Bulacan, a province where the historic Barasoain Church is located and produced notable Filipinos:
Florentino floro graduated elementary (1965) from
St. Mary's College of
Meycauayan, high school (1969) from St. Vincent's Seminary, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, and college,
Bachelor of Arts, pre-divinity and philosophy, from the
Ateneo de Manila University. He earned the [[degree] of
Bachelor of Laws (1982) at the
Ateneo School of Law, with FULL SECOND HONORS. He placed 12th in the 1983
Philippine Bar Examination, with a bar rating of 87.55% in one of the hardest examination, where only 21.3% passed. He was duly appointed Regional Trial Court Judge of Br. 73,
Malabon City, on his natal day of November 5, 1998, was placed under indefinite preventive suspension on July 20, 1999 until he was separated from service and paid 3 years back wages by the
Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 6, 2006.
THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF THE PROFILE OF Shrumster -
Shrumster graduated elementary from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school from the Ateneo de Manila High School, and college from the Ateneo de Manila University. Currently pursuing a Master of Science in Marine Biology degree at the University of the Philippines' Marine Science Institute.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY AND CONTRADICTION SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSATION:
Verily, the foregoing CLEARLY proves that the MOTIVE, that is, the accuser Shrumster is my own schoolmate and townmate who knows me and who has a HIDDEN AGENDA of SHUTTING me out to contribute to Wiki due to personal and hidden anger, hatred and baseless and utterly without merit accusations.
-- Florentino floro 05:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I want to submit evidence that aside from the fact that I and accuser Shrumster both hail from MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, and both of us are ALUMNI of ATENEO de MANILA University, Philippines, I have contributed so much to Wikipedia: I quote parts of my User profile:
Florentino V. Floro is of Filipino and Chinese ancestry.
He is currently a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines.
Florentino floro graduated elementary (1965) from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan, high school (1969) from St. Vincent's Seminary, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, and college, Bachelor of Arts, pre-divinity and philosophy, from the Ateneo de Manila University. He earned the [[degree] of Bachelor of Laws (1982) at the Ateneo School of Law, with FULL SECOND HONORS. He placed 12th in the 1983 Philippine Bar Examination, with a bar rating of 87.55% in one of the hardest examination, where only 21.3% passed. He was duly appointed Regional Trial Court Judge of Br. 73, Malabon City, on his natal day of November 5, 1998, was placed under indefinite preventive suspension on July 20, 1999 until he was separated from service and paid 3 years back wages by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 6, 2006.
This writer also contributes to the Wikipedia and expresses his views in his blog ANGEL OF DEATH, LUIS ARMAND and ANGEL. He is a practicing Roman Catholic; a mild environmentalist; and a strong advocate of healthy living.
I have an eclectic range of interests, but am primarily concerned with editing and creating well-written pages relating to my own country, specifically, concerning Law, the Philippine Judiciary and Filipino people. Contributing in Wikipedia since 2007 gives me a sense of fulfillment as I'm able to share to others what I know. I hope to expound more on articles related to Law. Florentino V. Floro is well-versed in subjects relating to Philippine politics, Law, media, society, popular culture, and entertainment.
-- Florentino floro 12:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, I request the Wikipedia administrators to DISMISS for utter lack of merit and basis, the accusation of Shrumster. Please weigh my contributions vis-a-vis his own HIDDEN AGENDA and impropriety or insult to WIKIPEDIA. Besides, of all Wikipedians, I, Judge [Florentino V. Floro]] stands out due to the fact I had been IMMORTALIZED in world judicial history (just type judge floro in google or yahoo, etc. search engines, and my world entries, reports, in forums and blogs etc. are unduplicated as far as Philippine judiciary is concerned). Wikipedia MUST BE PROUD to have a WORLD-famous and IMMORTAL Judge who suffered injustice and vindicated by international reports. Wikipedia is GREAT, and it must have GREAT and FAMOUS wikipedians too. Accuser Shrumster cannot even show PROOF that he can match just 1% of my google entries and results.
It will be a great loss to Wikipedia if I am banned. MY conscience is clear and his accusation based on technicalities must perforce be branded as SPAM and suspicious. He is unworthy to be a Wikipedian, most unworthy to be an ATENEAN who goes for TRUTH and INTEGRITY.
I accuse Shrumster of being the ALTER and sockpuppet of some justices here, who do not want me to contribute to judiciary articles to make them NEUTRAL.
It is UNTHINKABLE that this accuser will DENY not knowing me, when he wrote in HIS PROFILE that he is from my OWN TOWN MEYCAUAYAN, and from my OWN SCHOOL ATENEO. That is EVADING the ISSUE and my CONTRADICTIONS. He is not telling the TRUTH, He is LYING.
PROOF: When I edited and added Extra-juidicial killings summit plus the twin deaths of Narcisa PUno and Luzviminda Puno, the mother and wife of our Chief Justice, per verifiable links, the accuser suddenly NOTICED my ALLEGED but unproved errors or technical mistakes here. Such editing of these twin deaths for sure MADE them got angry. So, why should Shrumster instead edit and delete these? Here is the auto
Reynato Puno our Chief Justice now
-- Florentino floro 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
If you read carefully my above refutations, reply and contradictions of all your baseless and unjust accusation, when YOU SHOULD ASSUME GOOD FAITH in the editing of editors, as basic Wiki Rule, you can clearly comprehend that I utterly destroyed each and all your malicious accusations. You, yourself, never come out of the open, never identified yourself, hiding under an incognito or blank name, for hidden purposes, proving my point that you ARE verily a puppet or and alter of some ateneans or jurists in the Philippines whom I had caused pains by cleansing our corrupt judiciary by Imprecation under Psalm 109,and 53 Bible, towards 8 medical surgeries of incumbent justices, as God's will and punishment. Why don't you refute each and every contradictions that I submitted to you? Why can't your EXPLAIN my contra-accusation that as TOWNMATE and CO-ALUMNI of the ateneo, WHY in this big and prestigious Wiki world, that no other Wikipedia accused me CONSIDERING MY MANY CONTRIBUTIONS here, of being sockpuppet? Why a filipino, a bulakeno, my own town meycauayaneno, and co-atenean, and not others or WIKI foreigners or even other school wiki here should accuse me? This is a simple case of UTTER VENGEANCE to me by you, and I fervently pray that this injustice be undone. Every midnights starting your accusation I had prayed PSALM 109 and 53 including your name Shrumster in my very HOLY and BLESSED catholic and religous IMPRECATION of your and your family up to the 4th generation. This is my religous belief.
-- Florentino floro 07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I read about vadalism, and I quote:
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
I am a lawyer and judge. I read carefully the intent and literal meaning of vandalism. You accused me first of sockpuppetry and I read the rules, thus, I submitted evidence and counter-evidence against your defamatory and malicious allegations. That is the essence of protecting the intergrity of Wikipedia. For me, it clearly appears, that based on your accusations and replies, you are the sockpuppet of some ateneans or jurists here who are interferring in my legal, just, and neutral contributions to Wikipedia. Due process of law even in Wiki assures me of my right to submit not censored but full evidence to contradict your accusations. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm If you read this news today, some edit in Wiki as puppets really.
If you do not like my evidence, then you are free to delete edit or even erase your entire userpage and make a new one. I cannot accept your statement that you do not know me, since, you were not yet born when I graduated ... that is silly, if you are a good wikipedian as you claim, why did you not read my auto written by Fisherqueen Florentino V. Floro? Why did you not bother to ask from Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan who I am? Ask Dean Cesar L. Villanueva of the ateneo, my classmate who am I? You just filed this case against me without even knowing who I am. That is plain defamation and libel. In fact DOJ Gonzales filed a case of Libel against Co, now in the Courts. Read that news. I also notice that you did not even put your name in your Userpage and you have no picture. Why are you not brave enough to identify yourself? Ateneo is a school which deals with LUX IN DOMINO, integrity, justice and so on. You miserably fail to be a good ateneo alumni. I already suffered martyrdom in Filipino Justice, and I found kindness in more than 1,000 blogs and 100 forums that compassionately sided with me against the courts. If you read the news, under PERC survey our country is No. 1 in corruption. Now, even if thousands of Wiki users never accused me of such PETTY technicalities that you deal with, you, my townmate and co-atenean would file this UNJUST case? To silence me to contribute to this great encyclopedia. I do pitty you.
-- Florentino floro 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The above-responses to the accuser seemed to be legal threats. To make it clear, I am not suing or filing any case in court against the accuser, just that my reply are layman's terms. For sure, in our Philippine Jurisprudence, there is no such this as libel in the internet, since our penal code in 1932 punishes only written in the papers and published. Since there was no internet in 1932, any and all defamation or threats in the internet and here are not actionable.
I am only traversing the accusations and allegations of sockpuppet against me. A cursory perusal of my above responses cleary shows them to be mere replies or re-joinders. I never did consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. It is the accuser who makes this case more baseless. Hence, I respectfully request the admins to look deeply at my contributions compared to his contributions and the merits of my submissions, instead of techinicalities. I admit that I am a new user and not familiar so much with computer. But with my little learing, I want to learn and my GOOD FAITH shows that I never used any other username other than this and the other judgefloro that I told admin FisherQueen that I would not use anymore due to my mistakes.
-- Florentino floro 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Spigot Map 08:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
THF 21:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Identical edit style of abusive editor, Jewbaccas reverted Jewish right page to version of 74.116 after latter was blocked.
Kephera975 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Frater FiatLux (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MA'AT (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hogd2007 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mp474ret (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tatenen (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Leviathan6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Rondus (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brahman0 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS ( talk) 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Kephera975 shows a remarkable similarity in POV-pushing for the articles involved in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with User:Frater FiatLux who has already been blocked for contentiuous editing and page move vandalism.
There has been a history of short term single-purpose accounts backing up the POV of both these users. Many but not all are listed above. Some are no longer accessible because they only edited deleted article Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. A whole series of these which appeared during a short period of time have already been blocked as sock or meatpuppets, but the puppetmaster was never identified. These, who were all blocked as obvious socks by Tariqabjotu are:
Both the primary users repeatedly accuse other established editors with edits over a wide range of articles of having a conflict of interest. After Kephera975 could not intimidate me into agreeing to change the name of that article without documentation of the actual name of the organization, he nominated a whole range of articles for deletion, apparently in retaliation for my insistence on his providing sources to verify his claims. Now that it appears that the ones he really wanted deleted will survive, he has continued with false accusations that I closed an AfD at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn.2C_Inc. and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JMax555 where he bases his bizarre accusations of sockpuppetry on the "fact" that I closed an AfD "prematurely" when it was actually closed by JoshuaZ.
The most recent apparent sockpuppet Rondus has repeatedly spammed AfDs and talk pages with a bizarre accusatory rant. He apparently has knowledge of 3RR, because when he was about to break it, suddenly C00483033 appeared and continue the revert to reinclude this rant multiple times until blocked for 3RR. He also makes the same accusations of conflict of interest against me as Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux, continuing to repeat them after I have clearly stated my lack of affiliation with the person and organization they accuse me of being an "agent" of.
Both Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux's methods include frequent accusations that opposing editors are "members" or "agents" of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. I have repeated truthfully stated that I have no affiliation with any of the Golden Dawn orders, but these baseless accusations continue to be repeated, for example in the AfD for the articles.
I am at the end of my rope with these baseless accusation, and since they seem to be coming from Kephera975, User:Frater FiatLux, and now from users Rondus and C00483033, I can only assume that there is either sockpuppetry or coordinated meatpuppetry occurring here. I feel that I am now being intentionally harassed and intimidated by the repeated accusations on the AfD and the opening of a suspected sockpuppet report based on a complete falsity. Please someone look into the relation between these users. I will help in whatever way I can, but much of the evidence has been deleted along with the articles:
primarily in the first article and primarily on the talk pages.
(The following was noted by Mattisse on my talk page.) "Look at User:Frater FiatLux's contribution history. [288] It's very interesting. There is a year hiatus. Look at User:Kephera975's contribution history [289] Almost the same hiatus."
An easier way to compare is using Interiot's tool, bring up a window for each: Kephera975 vs. Frater FiatLux. Both were active June-July 2006, inactive August 2006-April 2007. Both made exactly 14 edits in May 2007! Both inactive again in June. Only in July is there a difference, with Frater FiatLux making some edits and Kephera975 remaining inactive. In August, Frater FiatLux starts editing on the 1st until he is [290] blocked on the 2nd at 22:08. Kephera975 then reappears nearly immediately. I can't tell exactly when because his first edit was to a deleted article talk page Special:Undelete/Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega.
What happened in May 2007 is especially interesting, each having so few edits. Kephera975 appears first on May 2, and is especially interested in the dab at the top of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn: [291], [292], [293], [294]. His last edit to the dab was May 3. Frater FiatLux appears on May 4, to make further edits to the dab: [295], [296], [297], [298]
Also note that all the short-term socks listed above were active at this time supporting and reverting to Kephera975's changes. They were all blocked on May 3, just before Frater FiatLux became active.
There is another open SSP case involving Rondus and C00483033 at this link.
While I can't say for sure, the actions of those editors do seem to be consistently in line with Kephera975 and the timing of their appearance to support multiple AfD's proposed by Kephera975 seems quite coincidental, to state it as fairly as I can and not imply that I know with certainty.
Aside from any other user names that may be involved, Rondus and C00483033 strongly appear to be puppets of a single user. These diffs of multiple almost-identical sequential disruptive edits on multiple articles are already listed in the SSP case I linked just above regarding User:Frater FiatLux, but they apply here as well so I will provide them for convenience:
Rondus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log):
There are more examples in the contribs -- Parsifal Hello 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Further evidence confirming that
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) is the same as indef blocked user
Frater FiatLux (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) is
this comment, which is practically identical to an argument archived from Frater FiatLux's talk page,
here (first section).
GlassFET
18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Also- for all readers- Kephera's sockpuppet filing against Ipsos was in response to Ipsos' filing one against him. [
For User:IPSOS- when users are scrapping over an article quite a few users will accuse you of being a fan of the org concerned, if you do edits they don't like. I had the same problem on Gillian McKeith- just because I removed some tripe, they thought I was a McKeith lover. As your edits are pro-Cicero and HOGD Inc, you are bound to meet these accusations. If they're untrue, simply deny them as you've been doing. This is more a matter for RfC or something than sockpuppeting. Merkinsmum 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I recently joined Wikipedia, only to be immediately persecuted by User IPSOS. My first impression at Wikipedia has been a very bad one because of him. I had not been a member here 24 hours before User IPSOS because stuck a "Suspected Sock Puppet" tag on my talk page (I have since learned that this was inappropriate behavior from him). Moreover, IPSOS has harassed me on my talk page non-stop ever since. Since the very moment that I arrived here, I have been forced to defend myself against one false accusation after the other coming from User IPSOS. He accused me of being a sock puppet after my very first contribution. He is now also accusing me of being an SPA (whatever that means). During entire time at Wikipedia I have been forced to spend hours and hours learning my way around an ocean of rules, merely to defend myself against the BULLYING tactics of user IPSOS. Along the way, I found a rule called "Be nice to newcomers." If only that rule were truly in effect, I would have had a very different experience here until now.
Upon joining Wikipedia, I immediately was given the impression that user IPSOS was using his superior knowledge of the rules here in order to manipulate discussions to fit his point of view as well as to silence any and all opposing opinions. I do not even know who user Fiat Lux or C00... are. I have never even had any contact with them. User Keph..., however, I have noticed is a frequent critic of User IPSOS tactics as well as of his biased point of view.
I would like to state clearly that I am not any of the users listed in this article. I am not a sock puppet of anyone nor do I use more than one account. I have not intended to break any other rules here either. A simple investigation of my IP address should be enough to clear me of this latest, baseless charge from User, IPSOS.
If I have broken ANY rule here, it is only due to my goofiness being new together with being forced to defend myself against bullying from the very first moment that I arrived. Unfortunately, what has happened here since I arrived has given me the distinct impression that what is really going on at Wikipedia has precious little to do with the accuracy of the Encyclopedia, but rather with the egos of the Editors and that the first and foremost rule here is: "THE BIGGEST BULLY WITH THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PREVAILS." I have also unfortunately been given the distinct impression that newcomers are most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator would ask User IPSOS to kindly quit bullying me once and for all.-- Rondus 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural Note: This report here and at the one at
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) appear to be almost identical and contain much of the same information and list of accounts. As a result, the comment above by Rhondus and my question for him have been cross-posted for clarity. It might be useful to combine the two reports, but I don't know anything about those procedures or if it should be done. --
Parsifal
Hello
20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
JMax555 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hogd120 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
GlassFET (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Parsifal (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kephera975 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:IPSOS shows a remarkable similarity in POV-pushing for the articles involved in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with User:JMax555 and User:999 who has already been banned for sockpuppetry. Since 999 worked and created these articles it would not surprise me if he has come back to defend the contemporary articles found here: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn and here: The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. . User:JMax555 is a prominent member of The Open Source and this behavior is remarkably familiar to his. The use of capitolized letters, for example, to emphasize a point is apparent in both User:IPSOS and User:JMax555: here Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 1 and here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Notice that an unknown new sigle purpose account COI driven User:Hogd120 just appears providing citations for User:IPSOS on the AfD page. This current AfD may be being disrupted by sockpuppets as was the case with User:999 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina in the first AfD nomination. Notice that User:999 was a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Baba Louis and User:Hanuman Das and others. Furthermore, User:JMax555 would understand that his editing could be discounted as he is a known member of that organization as can seen from his talk page: User:JMax555 . This would be why JMax would use socksAdditionally, it appears that User:JMax555 was somehow alerted that User:IPSOS was conversing with an administrator: User:Isotope23 without any evidence showing on his own talk page: User:JMax555 that he was alerted at all. It was my decision to put up all the contemporary Orders for AfD because they lack or lacked in verifiability but these users continue to manipulate Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP box for their own POV's. Their views are so similiar that they are almost clones of one another, and with the fact that User:999 created these articles, it would not suprpise me if he created more socks to defend them in an attempt to use Wikipedia for COI and advertisment on behalf of these two organizations. Could someone check if there is any relation between these users? Kephera975 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I forgot to sign the above. JMax555 23:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Kephera975 says: "On The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, an AfD was posted in which IPSOS removes the tag before any consensus is reached on whether the article should be deleted or not." This is demonstrably false. The Afd was closed by JoshuaZ here and the AfD tag was removed by him as well, here.
Furthermore, I've never added any pro-organization content to any of the articles. I've improved grammar, added text to bare reference links, fixed the capitalization of headings, and undone blind reverts which undid these improvements and those of other editors. I have never added any significant content to any of the articles that Kephera975 is apparently obsessed with. IPSOS ( talk) 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ausbuild (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
CanberraStudent (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
OzTruth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DicksonCollege (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
203.22.237.33 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
124.176.58.195 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
203.51.24.253 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Golden Wattle talk 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
My accusation is of meatpuppet rather than necessarily sock puppet although I am not sure. The evidence is based on a single focus on an otherwise rather obscure candidate for the forthcoming Australian general election : Troy Williams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The single focus of their edits is clear in each of their contributions history and also through the talk page comments - see current version of the page [309] and also the talk page history.-- Golden Wattle talk 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There are a number of claims to be students working on research assignments from CanberraStudent (1) and CanberraStudent (2). Also Ausbuild which contradicts his earlier assertion to User:Garion96 that he worked in Williams's office and is also contradicted in part by the article creation date of the article - September 2006 [310] which is not congruent with the Australian academic year (= calendar year) - ie not an assignment task. Three people seem conscientiously to be seeking references: Canberra Student's very first edit to wikipedia DicksonCollege has a lot of enthusiasm for referencing in his 3rd edit (all to the same talk page) and 1st day on the wikipedia and OzTruth also has been doing some googling. -- Golden Wattle talk 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Unfreeride (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
80.175.28.165 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
66.118.138.195 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.185.237.63 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Master of all Puppets (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Negrit0 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Negrit0 reply
Identical edit summary reasons http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&action=history for different edits ie (sources are in fact valid, not original research) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149779813 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149780516
The same edits with different IPs to evade edit war rules - in all three edits Soccer is changed to Football http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149780516 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149637834 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=prev&oldid=149358198
Increasing Chinese height and adding information about lactose intolerance ( a pet habit of Unfreeride ) under the name of Master of All Puppets, that account is now currently blocked > be sure to block all of Unfreerides sock puppets! http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_height&diff=150153484&oldid=150083902
pushing a POV that Unfreeride has been banned for previously, the use of sock puppets is designed to give further support to Unfreerides POV and also to evade the scrutiny of admins who have banned him previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unfreeride#Blocked_again
Unfreeride is a serial offender uses ad hom against people editing his work, uses sock puppets (to add weight to his arguements, to edit war and to evade admin scrutiny), has a racist POV and is on a soap box pushing the POV that Northern Chinese are superior in terms of height and intelligence to the rest of the world.
Unfreeride has resorted to using sock puppets to further his POV, participate in edit wars and evade scrutiny from Admins. All of the sock puppet accounts should be banned, and the favorite haunts of Unfreeride (Race and Intelligence, Human Height, Chess,Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians, etc) should be watched to ensure he does not come back with new sock puppets to push his supremacist POV.
Frater FiatLux (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brahman0 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Rondus (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS ( talk) 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Following on these two, C00483033 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is obvious.
Further evidence confirming that C00483033 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same as indef blocked user Frater FiatLux ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is this comment, which is practically identical to an argument archived from Frater FiatLux's talk page, here (first section). GlassFET 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I noticed these accounts doing multiple almost-identical sequential disruptive edits tonight on multiple articles. I came here to report them and found this report already open, so I am adding this note to confirm that I saw the problem also.
Examples of a few of the identical edits all within a half-hour or so tonight:
Rondus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):
C00483033 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log):
There are more in the contribs - those are the most recent. -- Parsifal Hello 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am not a sock puppet of anyone as can easily be verified from my IP address by Wikipedia administration. What is actually happenning here is that user IPSOS is acting as an agent of HOGD, Inc. in an inappropriate attempt to manipulate Wikipedia to gain unfair business advantage in an ongoing legal dispute. I got involved in this when it was brought to my attention what user IPSOS has been doing. This nonsensical complaint by user IPSOS is merely an atempt to inappropriately use Wikipedia rules to silence anyone who disagrees with his POV that should be barred due to conflict of interest. User IPSOS is attemptiing to use this end run around Wiki rules in order to get unlimited reversions and suppress the following and highly relevant information
I would like to point out that what is actually happening here is that Wikipedia is allowing itself to be dragged into a fifteen-year old legal dispute between two esoteric orders. One of the parties, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., is presently sending its members en masse here to Wikipedia to “edit” in a misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their order in an attempt to 1. gain an unfair business advantage, 2. misrepresent the status and results of litigation, 3. misrepresent the current status of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn trademark, and to 4. falsely portray HOGD, Inc. as the successor of the historical, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, while depriving the other party of its legitimate and legal rights.
The following is true and correct information that elilminates the HOGD, Inc. biased POV:
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega, is, through its Chief Adept, David John Griffin, the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Owner of the Golden Dawn” trademark, registration number 000063295, in the European Union (making it the registered owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in all 27 member-states of the European Union, and “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark, registration no. TMA 510,385, in Canada. On November 20, 1996, David John Griffin and Patricia A. Behman, as general partners of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (H.O.G.D.), a general partnership, as owners of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” in the European Union, and Charles Cicero, as president of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (H.O.G.D., Inc.), as owners of the same mark in the United States, entered into an Agreement to manage the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” mark on a worldwide basis whilst preventing infringement of the mark by third parties. On May 8, 1998 Behman sold her partnership interest to Griffin, at which point Griffin became sole proprietor of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Griffin, however, always differentiated his organization in trade and commerce, while primarily identifying it as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega so as to differentiate it from a plethora of identically or similarly named groups in the United States relying on no more than the published Regardie materials.
On January 28, 2005, H.O.G.D., Inc. attempted to repudiate the November 20, 1996 Agreement by filing suit against Griffin for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Griffin counter-sued for breach of contract. This litigation consisting of 169 documents filed in the public record, may be accessed by any interested party at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?609863100750398-L_835_0-1 through the Pacer system of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
On January 17, 2007, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement read into the public record by U.S. Magistrate-Judge Maria Elena James as FTR 3:44-4:07 of date 1-17-2007.The Settlement Agreement provides that: 1) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in the European Union; 2) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark in Canada; 3) Griffin recognizes H.O.G.D., Inc. as the sole and exclusive owner of the same mark in the United States; 4) the parties will not contest the ownership of each parties respective marks and mark: 5) H.O.G.D., Inc. will not contest the use, validity or ownership of the mark “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega” in the United States; 6) the January 17, 2007 Agreement supersedes the prior Agreement between the parties; 7) the parties covenanted not to interfere with the operations of each other; 8) the Agreement inures to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. On February 12, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice both H.O.G.D., Inc.’s claims and Griffin’s counter-claims while retaining in perpetuity to retain enforcement of the January 17, 2007 Agreement through motion filed by either of the parties. Over a period of several months, editor IPSOS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly (nearly 30 times) vandalized the H.O.G.D./A.O. article from the first below quotation to the deliberate misrepresentation in the second quote below. “According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 2007 settled litigation with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. guaranteeing the Alpha et Omega's right to use the name of its outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in the United States without interference.[33]” has been repeatedly vandalized to: "According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 1996 contracted with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. a mutual "right to usage" of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® worldwide while acknowledging each Order's "exclusive ownership" of their respective nationally registered trademarks. A copy of this contract was filed for recordation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office." The repeated vandalism by Cicero-associate IPSOS shows a remarkable familiarity with the above-referenced litigation by the parties. Whilst Cicero’s attorney maintained that the 1996 Agreement was a “right to use” agreement in which each party accorded to the other party a “right to use” its respective mark or marks, Griffin’s attorney never characterized the 1996 Agreement but maintained that each party acquired a vested property interest in the mark or marks of the other party by virtue of the specific language of the Agreement. The matter was never settled in that the parties settled on January 17, 2007, two weeks before they were scheduled to go to trial on January 28, 2007, and the January 17, 2007 Settlement Agreement superseded the November 20, 1996 agreement. When the knowingly inaccurate and misleading defacement of the H.O.G.D../A+O article by Cicero-associate IPSOS was repeatedly corrected, IPSOS subsequently enlisted the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its legal name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article describing the order to “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.” It is therefore requested that the H.O.G.D./A.O. article be unfrozen and returned to its appropriate legal name of “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega).” In order to avoid confusion both with the HOGD/A+O, as well as with the historical “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,” the H.O.G.D., Inc. article should be re-named “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.” or “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Florida corporation).”-- Rondus 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
← Rondus, Are you aware that the long legalistic post you entered above is exactly identical to this edit by C00483033? It doesn't make your rebuttal very strong that you show additional evidence of sockpuppetry in the text of your rebuttal. -- Parsifal Hello 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I recently joined Wikipedia, only to be immediately persecuted by User IPSOS. My first impression at Wikipedia has been a very bad one because of him. I had not been a member here 24 hours before User IPSOS because stuck a "Suspected Sock Puppet" tag on my talk page (I have since learned that this was inappropriate behavior from him). Moreover, IPSOS has harassed me on my talk page non-stop ever since. Since the very moment that I arrived here, I have been forced to defend myself against one false accusation after the other coming from User IPSOS. He accused me of being a sock puppet after my very first contribution. He is now also accusing me of being an SPA (whatever that means). During entire time at Wikipedia I have been forced to spend hours and hours learning my way around an ocean of rules, merely to defend myself against the BULLYING tactics of user IPSOS. Along the way, I found a rule called "Be nice to newcomers." If only that rule were truly in effect, I would have had a very different experience here until now.
Upon joining Wikipedia, I immediately was given the impression that user IPSOS was using his superior knowledge of the rules here in order to manipulate discussions to fit his point of view as well as to silence any and all opposing opinions. I do not even know who user Fiat Lux or C00... are. I have never even had any contact with them. User Keph..., however, I have noticed is a frequent critic of User IPSOS tactics as well as of his biased point of view.
I would like to state clearly that I am not any of the users listed in this article. I am not a sock puppet of anyone nor do I use more than one account. I have not intended to break any other rules here either. A simple investigation of my IP address should be enough to clear me of this latest, baseless charge from User, IPSOS.
If I have broken ANY rule here, it is only due to my goofiness being new together with being forced to defend myself against bullying from the very first moment that I arrived. Unfortunately, what has happened here since I arrived has given me the distinct impression that what is really going on at Wikipedia has precious little to do with the accuracy of the Encyclopedia, but rather with the egos of the Editors and that the first and foremost rule here is: "THE BIGGEST BULLY WITH THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PREVAILS." I have also unfortunately been given the distinct impression that newcomers are most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator would ask User IPSOS to kindly quit bullying me once and for all.-- Rondus 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural Note: This report here and at the one at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 appear to be almost identical and contain much of the same information and list of accounts. As a result, the comment above by Rhondus and my question for him have been cross-posted for clarity. It might be useful to combine the two reports, but I don't know anything about those procedures or if it should be done. -- Parsifal Hello 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fioranoweb (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
202.142.98.7 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
61.95.199.88 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Fiorano Software (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Fiorano123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Itpl fiorano (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanjaya fiorano (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanjaya123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanjayakumarsahu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Webteam fiorano (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A. B. (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fiorano Software has been waging an ongoing PR effort on Wikipedia for over 18 months, spamming links and articles
Links:
Accounts:
Spam articles created as blatant advertising and deleted by Wikipedia administrators:
Articles vandalized:
References:
I made mistakes in reporting this case, somehow creating an empty first case. This report is in fact the first real case, not the 2nd. Sorry. -- A. B. (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Hariharan91 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maddy20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Chelsea123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Universal Hero 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Users have very similar edit history and see edit history of Trisha Krishnan and Chelsea FC which all seem to own.
All seem to claim to support Chelsea, similiar edit patterns.
Universal Hero
12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Notes: The article interests of the three accounts are similar. I did not check any diffs to compare editing styles. Universal Hero, the user who reported this case, is himself suspected of sock puppetry below on this page (I have not yet examined that case, and I have no opinion). Chelsea123 has been inactive since Jan. 2007. Shalom Hello 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
M12390 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
They are meatpuppets, pushing their collective agenda at MQM, Altaf Hussain and related pages.
Spartaz: Please refer to Shehzadashiq's suspected sock puppets page. If you need further detials, then you can see their mutual communication on their and my talk pages. You can also see how they have buddied up by alternatively reverting my posts to avoid the 3RR rule. M12390 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Green108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Faithinhumanity (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TalkAbout (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS ( talk) 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Green108 has been editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) disruptively for some time. After a 20 July 2007 block for 3RR, there began a pattern that after Green108 has reverted three times, suddenly Faithinhumanity would appear to do the next revert.
Recently Green108 has been blocked for a week for using two sockpuppets, Bkangel ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Shortskirtlonglegs ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). After these blocks, the regular editors (I am not one, simply have been monitoring the situation) were proceeding to clean up the biases which had been introduced into the article by Green108. Shortly thereafter, Faithinhumanity ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows up and begins to reinsert the same biases.
While I am not certain that this is a case of sockpuppetry, I am sure that it is either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I will continue to research and add evidence to try to determine which it is. In any case, it is Wikipedia policy to treat meatpuppetry as if it were sockpuppetry when they cannot be distinguish, so I believe there is a cause for investigation and possible action here.
With respect to TalkAbout ( talk · contribs):
Reply by TalkAbout to False allegations :
I am current blocked from editing while logged in but can still edit when not logged in.....I am trying to respond to this matter alone , it seems mad someone can be tried without being allowed to defend themself
I'd like to ask for evidence to support all this allegations being made against me ,(+diffs) not just for this case but also the previous one . I understand that as the one accused , I can ask for this
I really have no interesting in all this trickery , for me it is clear...the BKWSU Internet PR team are out to block , ban, revert or otherwise any informed independent voice with experience of the Bkwsu, see; [344] . The two Bkwsu followers are Bksimonb ( talk · contribs) and Riveros11 ( talk · contribs). I am not the sort to sit down making up accusation but if these two are not working a "team" who is!!!!!
I stand by my edits on the article which have included the addition of 30 plus references and the tidying up off them all.....once shown how. the issue is not about me , the issue is that the Bkwsu members have been resisting full exposure for months and months making just such accusations User:Green108
The pasting a 'this user is a suspected sockpuppet of' on someone's userpage is quite rude too and I would advise people that they are well within their rights to simply remove it. (I've heard of other suspected sockpuppet reports being filed and this template has never been used. Particularly mean as it seems to be only User:IPSOS who's suspecting any of these people. Merkinsmum 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Any judicial system that does not allow for the accused person to defend themselves, or further accuses and punishes the individual for attempting to defend themselves, is very highly flawed and suspect. Especially one without imperial evidence. This is as much about Wikipedia standards and ethics as the topic in question and I ask IPSOS to withdraw the prejudicial and pejorative tone to his accusations.
I have been advise to sit this out but I wont for the reason above. I would like it noted that I have not attempted to edit any topic and I have instead attempted to answer this accusation, ask for advice and communicate with the admins involved to ask for their evidence.
I have not "switched" identity as I am accused nor attempted to hide my identity by sockpuppetry. I have signed each comment clearly with my user name. I have clearly document the reasons for this and the circumstances of my responding. Puppetry involves an intent to deceive. (And, no, I am not TalkAbout either, even Simon knows that !!! IPSOS lacks a history with this article).
I would not want the goodwill of the Wikipedian admins to be abused nor their time wasted. Just to clarify, the "Team" I have referred to is known as "The Internet PR Core Team" that writes "on behalf of the RCOs" (Regional Coordinators) within the BKWSU; and not the general IT team of which Simon was or is also engaged in doing server support.
The BK members working as a 'team' on the BKWSU article, which is quite different, are Bksimonb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Appledell ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and others. Actually, in most cases we can or they have put specific names to them. Simon is engaged not just in actions such as the Wikipedia but also setting policy. He no doubt remembers that this was discussed at the the NCO (National Coordinators) meeting in February 2007 at the BKWSU headquarters in India.
As it is BKSimonb's stated intent to have me or any other informed contributor banned, he and Riveros11 continuing to work in tandem which I have therefore to interpret as an "official" policy of the BKWSU, I would ask that this is taken in consideration with these continued broad distortions and accusations; and especially remove any other user that might agree with any point I make from their firing line. User:Green108
Universal Hero ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Prin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Prince Godfather (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Blegend (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
GameKeeper 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User has very similar edit history and style to blocked user's Prin ( talk · contribs) and Prince Godfather ( talk · contribs) which are both banned. see edit history of R. Madhavan edit history. He seems to have a particular WP:OWN issue with this article.
He started editing on a large scale after Prince Godfather was banned (prince godfather banned on [13:04, 5 March 2007]], Universal Hero's edits start in earnest on 2nd of April [346]. He has used a similar "wait and use another ID" technique before when he created his 1st sockpuppets.
He has uploaded an image which looks like a copy vio which was the original reason he was banned, before he engaged in sock puppetry. Sadly he looks like he is getting better at faking the copyright of these. The image in question is here Image:AVMstudios.jpg and it appears to have come from here. I have asked the user to explain this on his user page.
user Blegend appears to have been reverting to Universal Hero, edits in an unusual way. If this user is Prin then he has used this trick before.
For reference: the case that got Prince Godfather banned is detailed here [347]
Gscshoyru 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
JJonz and CrystalB4 joined within 3 days of each other, whereas Kbmann joined about a half-month later. All three of them have made the same kinds of edits to various comic book pages, usually making superman-favoring edits. I've suspected JJonz and CrystalB4 to be socks for quite a while, but when Kbmann suddenly started reverting all my edits yesterday, I took a look at his contribs, saw that his edits were the same as the other two, and figured it was JJonz getting revenge.
Added an ip address, edits are the same as JJonz and other socks.
The ip, today, just now, went about reverting edits to these articles, in order to get around JJonz's month-long block. Gscshoyru 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Added JJonz2, whose edits were the same as the other socks during his short stint before he was blocked. His username and contribs speak for themselves. Gscshoyru 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
CrystalB4 has now just been indef blocked, the user went on a trolling spree, making non-controversial edits, but his edit summaries were trolling directed at me and others. I reverted the changes as vandalism originally, but realized my mistake, and stopped, waiting for an admin to block. Others reverted his changes, however. Please note that both JJonz2 and CrystalB4 refer to me as Gaashooru for some unknown reason. Gscshoyru 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe that these are all socks, based on the timing and style of the contribs, including articles of common interest to all three accounts. Kbmann has been indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account by Persian Poet Gal. The other two accounts have been blocked a combined four times for edit warring and personal attacks. Given the new information that this person has been using sock puppets to disrupt other editors, I would endorse an indefinite block. Shalom Hello 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Edwardsville (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.230.142.124 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
146.163.162.184 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Just David (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jakew 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Avi 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Edwardsville has, for some time, been focused upon making a particular change to the circumcision article (eg. [348] [349] [350] [351] [352]). Recently, User:74.230.142.124 has made the same reverts (see [353] [354]), including on his first edit (an extraordinary coincidence). The talk page contributions are likewise remarkably similar in language and style of argument, both referring to 'truth' and 'censorship' (eg [355] and [356]), and neither acknowledging the 3-4 other editors other than myself who object to the changes.
If 74.230.142.124 is indeed a sockpuppet, there is a 3RR violation (Edwardsville has been warned on two occasions about 3RR). Edwardsville denies that he made 74.230.142.124's edits, [357] so I am unable to assume that he accidentally logged out.
I believe this is a match. Checking the contrib log, the IP edited at 20:00 on Aug. 7 and at 1:00 on Aug. 8, sandwiched around edits at 23:00 on Aug. 7 by the logged-in user. Since this is a case of 3RR violation, you might consider taking it to WP:AN3RR. Shalom Hello 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I do hope that this case is pursued to its conclusion and exposed for the false charge that it is and when my innocence is proved, I would like a public apology from the people who accused me. I happen to know now who made that revision and it is a man in Florida. The ISP address for my posts will be from Illinois and his will be from Florida, demonstrating that we are different people. If that is not enough, I am more than happy to identify myself by whatever means are acceptable to Wikipedia. I suggest you ask the other guy to do the same thing.
If a lot of our points are in agreement, that will be because I have been emailing poeple with my concerns and encouraging them to get involved with the Wikipedia article. I only hope that more people respond by posting on the article, instead of writing back to tell me that it is hopeless to try to get truth into Wikipedia.
Edwardsville 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
And yeah, I do know Just David who is local to me. I am happy to ask the two people in question if I can publish their identities and email addresses, and/or to ask them if they can be telephoned to establish their identity. If I can get any more people, local or distant, to contribute the article, I assure you that I will do so.
Edwardsville 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Edwardsville [359] and Just David [360] both use the same misspelling of "definately". -- Coppertwig 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Both Edwardsville [361] [362] and Just David [363] have expressed clear opinions that a letter should not be cited, and both of them have failed to specify ( Edw J.D.) what letter they're talking about when asked for bibiographic details of the letter. -- Coppertwig 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
IguanarayD: (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
As noted above, the first four IPs are from the same ISP, in the same geographic area. The fifth is from a different part of the planet, but shows signs of puppetry, be it proxy or meat.
IguanarayD: first uploads an image intended to attack the creator of Ctrl+Alt+Del by sarcastically implying that he has no creativity, due to the similarity of their facial expressions in the selected frames. He adds it to the article, making another sarcastic note about the facial expressions. I remove it as a violation of WP:NPOV (based on the comments about the art being amazing, before I realized it was a thinly veiled insult), and it is added again by Sockpuppet#1 here, in a different part of the article. I remove it as an attack, having realized that, and tag the image.
Sock#2 adds a giant BLP violation in accusing the creator of the comic to be homosexual. A "rumours" section is added again by Sockpuppet#1, again violating BLP by accusing him of lewd acts with a minor. Sock#5 (Who seems to attend the same high school as Chultu and Rice Krispies...) agrees, and reinforces the "truth" of it.
Iguanaray has shown their tendancy to edit via IPs, by making this comment on Sock#4 and then immediately logging in to sign it. In addition, the only other edit on their user page is from Sock#1.
Sock#3 vandalizes my user page, again attacking web comic art (for those who do not know, Tycho and Gabe are the main characters in the Penny Arcade webcomic strip) in the same manor that the sockpuppeteer and sock#1 have. Again, it also resolves to the same ISP, in the same location.
Starting loads of proxy accounts for the sole purpose of making a few mock edits on CAD's page is just silly. I only posted a thread about my initial edit on a forum that might or might not be associated with Ebaumsworld.com, so I assume other, equally bored people thought adding more fake edits would be funny. It sounds a bit more rational if you ask me. - User:IguanarayD:
For what it is worth, these IP-addresses are not all in the same geographic area. They are certainly not assigned to RIPE NCC. Two of the addresses are assigned to a LIR in Romania, one is in Finland and one in the UK. I recomend using a whois tool which is able to resolve assignments that are not done by ARIN. Havardk 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
CenturyRain (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Payapichit (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cool Blue talk to me 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
One piece of strong evidence is reviewing the contributions of Payapichit and those of CenturyRain. Payapichit repeatedly adds the photo Image:Srirasmi.JPG to the page Srirasmi, in which CenturyRain has made revisions to. They both also have made revisions to Srirasmi and Ploypailin Mahidol Jensen. CenturyRain has also loaded Image:Ploy Jensen.JPG in which CenturyRain added the picture, but Payapichit re-added it when it was removed. Payapichit and CenturyRain have both been adding information to pages about Thai royalty. Both accounts were created within] a few days of eachother. Cool Blue talk to me 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Both CenturyRain and Payapachit appear to be the same user as MKPluto ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FlamingSpear ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Compare these edit summaries:
Proabivouac 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Per Luna Santin, both FlamingSpear and MKPluto claim to have taken Image:Prem.JPG. [370] [371] Proabivouac 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I think CenturyRain and MKPluto are the same since they uploaded the same photo Image:Srirasmi.JPG and claimed the ownership. CenturyRain uploaded on 13 July 2007, then it was deleted. MKPluto uploaded again on 26 July 2007; already mentioned above. You might be able to find more info at Admin noticeboard -- Manop - TH 06:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It's likely that CenturyRain and Payapichit are sockpuppets of MKPluto/Flaming Spear. There's a Checkuser case on this that's been pending forever, I guess it never got listed. Anyway, all of these accounts are serial violators of image policy, presenting copyrighted work as their own, and then supposedly releasing it into the public domain. I can't see the images they uploaded, but some of their uploads have been considered vandalism. I'm going to indef block all of the accounts. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Toddy Ball 2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kerry Perry (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.251.25 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Short pat (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Yancyfry 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
These 3 accounts have been having an arugment about the Iraq War on Talk:Iraq War and Talk:Chili pepper. The accounts have responded to each other with a two-word insult.
Short pat has been a recent addition to the sockpuppets.
The first three accounts are single-purpose accounts focused on the Iraq War, so they appear to be sock puppets. It's harder to tell about Short pat. Shalom Hello 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I was searching through other reports, and found another page with same socks. I added these socks to that report. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.29.240.115.
All the accounts listed here have received blocks of various lengths, let's see if this solves the issue. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
86.29.240.115 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.25.50.222 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.246.148 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.248.245 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.244.175 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.251.25 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.255.64 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.255.39 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.247.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.241.244 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.241.253 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.241.114 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.25.52.233 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.246.193 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.56.232.180 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.29.240.115 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
86.25.51.217 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
VegitaU 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is one of the most annoying things I've come by…a real mess. I can't tell whether the above clowns are sock puppets, meat puppets, straw puppets or just a bunch of separate clowns all hailing from Great Britain. They've all descended upon the Iraq War talk page and just wreaked havoc. It all began innocently enough: some unregistered user ( User:86.25.50.222) trying to voice his opinion. Soon, however, it began to unravel. User:86.29.246.148 added this offtopic nonsense. Some time later, User:86.29.248.245 added this personal attack, reverted it, and added it again. Next day, User:86.29.244.175 added this garbage. Later the same day, User:86.29.251.25 added all this nonsense over the course of several edits. Other users decided to embroil themselves and soon added further piles of trash. After a few minutes, User:86.29.255.64 added unnecessary tags. I promptly reverted all the nonsense. Things went well for a couple days…didn't receive any vandalism for a while. Then, they came back with a post about Iraqi feminists, veterans, and a picture of a dead Iraqi. For a few days, nothing happened, but yesterday they came back. At this time, we had begun a discussion dealing with what picture we wanted to have as our lead on the Iraq War article. I had hoped this would be a dignified discussion to lead to an agreement. A few posts by User:86.29.247.13 and User:86.25.54.26 began to come in. Then, User:86.29.241.244 posted this nonsense which I promptly reverted. He added this which I also reverted out of a bad faith suspicion. User:86.29.241.253 added this, and User:86.29.241.114 all this and this. User:86.25.52.233 came in, making more edits. User:86.25.52.233 added his subjective remarks, followed by User:86.29.246.193 with this and this garbage. User:86.29.240.56 decided it would be nice to blank the entire talk page (reverted). Then, User:83.56.232.180 walked in on his soapbox. Finally, User:86.29.240.115 finished up with and edit agreeing to another unregistered user's comments. I've used him as "puppeteer" because, unfortunately, I haven't seen any centralized puppet master. This just looks like a multitude of nonsense that fell on the talk page. Maybe a semi-protect would solve the problem, but I don't have an issue with the comments so much as all the IP addresses looking the same and all adding to a childish and misspelled bickering on the site. Looking at the talk pages of some of these users, you see the insults they like to throw at each other. If you can help me with this, I appreciate it. Thanks.
Update: User:86.25.51.217 just recently added vandalism to the page again. Interestingly found that User:86.29.253.55 is suspected of being User:Elspeth Monro's sock puppet. Though not a party to this issue, the question emerges: is this a related case? -- VegitaU 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe User:Freetown may be the scokpuppeteer. The problems continue on the Iraq War talk page. -- VegitaU 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
86.29.251.25 is on this list. This same IP has been making arguments on some of the same pages as these other sockpuppets. Such as the talk page on Iraq War. My report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Toddy Ball 2 is merged into this report.
216.163.40.100 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Temp cleanup3 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
77.232.80.10 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kekeke9181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Chunky Rice 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User Temp cleanup3 is an SPA which was created with the sole purpose of listing the article GameTZ.com for deletion [372]. 216.163.40.100, other than one edit, has existed solely for the purpose of advocating this deletion. At the AFD, 216.164.40.100 made unfounded accusations of incivility towards those who argue for keeping the article, including Seicer and myself, Chunky Rice [373] [374].
Subsequently, Kekeke9181 is created and places civility warnings on my user page [375] and Seicer's talk page [376]. 216.164.40.100 adds the same template to Nihonjoe's talk page [377]. In all cases, the template was placed at the very top of the page. Kekeke9181, then uploads an obscene image, which 77.232.80.10 then places on Seicer's user page [378].
I'm fairly certain that there is a puppetmaster that I'm not aware of, since these are all single purpose accounts. I suspect that the same puppet master is responsible for the previous AfDs of GameTZ.com, as well, since they are littered with SPAs.
These may also be connected ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I guess I just wanted some kind of human contact, even if it has to be like this. I won't bother you anymore. 216.163.40.100 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
SalvNaut (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MarkCentury (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Immediately after User:MarkCentury was blocked for WP:3RR in Steven E. Jones, User:SalvNaut made the same edit.
The evidence is very strong that these are sock puppets. Aside from the revert warring - the alleged evasion of 3RR occurred less than an hour after MarkCentury was blocked - an examination of SalvNaut's contribs shows a concentrated interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is not beyond the scruples of some POV editors to use sock puppets to win an argument, and I suspect that's what happened here. Shalom Hello 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
71.249.40.182 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.249.32.191 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.92.249 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.135.141 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.249.32.58 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.87.48 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.140.54 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.247.142.169 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kariteh 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
[380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387]
Keeps on re-adding a list or bits of a list of films in the post-credits scene article, even though this list was deleted as an article. Has been directed to that deletion page and warned for vandalism several times across his/her different IPs, but keeps on stubbornly re-adding the list.
Komdori (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nightshadow28 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Watermint (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Endroit (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kusunose (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Komdori (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kokiri (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
[388] [389] [390] [391] [392] [393] [394] [395] [396] [397] [398] [399]
Please see Liancourt Rocks, 2005 in Japan, Korea, Usan-do. This user has engaged in seriously edit war.also, also, he is not a korean. but he said he is a korean in his page. [400] Bason0 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, looks completely bogus to me. John Smith's 23:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Campbells56 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Campbells59 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
EEBZ1414 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The sunder king 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All of these accounts have been used to create a nonsense page called Frogloshean, which is being recreated and deleted slowly over the months, and I have relised this by looking on "What links here", on the page itself, linking to the talk pages of these users where warnings of creating the page are included. The sunder king 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It has absolutely no google hits, the word itself does not exsist, whilst the users have also added nonsense and WP:BLP violations in articles about people being in this religion. The sunder king 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
main suspect:
G-Dett (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
secondary suspects:
PalestineRemembered (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
CJCurrie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
88.25.6.27 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jaakobou Chalk Talk 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User G-Dett has made 6 edits in 24hrs and a 3RR notice was placed, by me, on his page (without a pursue of a block). [419] after the notice was made, a new anon. editor [420] appeared on the article and made the "Reverting to NPOV version by G-Dett" [421] and a "This version is unnacceptable" [422] commentary which reminds of language used by G-Dett before about "red lines; anything crossing them will be reverted" [423]. also, the timing of the edits, at 22:59 and 23:13 revols closely to 23:10, the time in which G-Dett issued his apology to the 3RR note.
note: if PR is unrelated to this issue, i plan on issuing an apology for the suggestion of his possible involvement.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
note: perhaps i'm over streaching the number of possible seconary suspects without real evidence, but this article has been a disaster to work on and i believe that a simple checkuser can find the culprit anon. abuser. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Gutocomplicated (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Davizim (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
WebHamster 02:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Both seem to show an interest in reviving articles on Marc!o Mathers and his "works". User talk:Davizim seems to have appeared after User talk:Gutocomplicated was blocked for a month in March of this year.
Both the same person doing their level best to promote Marc!o Mathers.
83.131.24.159 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.131.30.87 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Spring Rubber 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The original IP was blocked for 24 hours by RockMFR. One of the edits made with this IP was a comment on User talk:RockMFR. Shortly after the IP was blocked, further edits were made to the aforementioned user talk page by the suspected sockpuppet IP in a style similar to those made by the suspected puppetmaster.
NORDKAPP (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A Rotor Smote Marinaded Nun (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A Naiad Floored Oms (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The range of ip's: 80.102.220.xxx and 80.102.248.xxx ( 80.102.220.4, 80.102.220.19, 80.102.220.9, 80.102.220.33, 80.102.220.11, 80.102.248.35, 80.102.248.43, 80.102.248.32, ...)
Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The page Barcelona has become vandalized since begining of June, when Heliodore ( talk · contribs) introduced unbalanced content with a strong POV against the city. Since then, many different anonymous users and newbies have been introducing more and more non sourced false information with an extremely pejorative and sensationalist point of view. Most of them contributed only in this article or just in another one. Most of them had an empty User Page and most of them were writting some sentences in Catalan in the Edit summary [426], [427], [428]. Also all of them are making reversions without mantaining the corrections made . In the worst case, NORDKAPP, has even deleted the categories, the interwikis with other languages, (s)he has truncated the article, and he continues reverting to this terrible version of the article (also without the "protected" template) [429].
During the time the users (sock puppets?) changed, and the dynamic ips changed also. So, in the suspected sockpuppet list I just report the last possible sock puppets, but, along the time, the users who have been introducing this information and therefore perhaps also sock puppets but with a different ip because of the dynamic condition of the ips and the time, are:
It started Heliodore ( talk · contribs) (June 17th) introducing some non discussed controversial stuff and it was reverted. Then some vandalism was introduced and Notthebarcelonatouristboard ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reverted to last version of Heliodore... mantaining the vandalism.
From June 19th till June 25, SERRALONGA ( talk · contribs) introduces againg the controversial data until the page is blocked. It expires on July 2nd. Serrallonga ( talk · contribs) adds again the controversial material from July 4th until July 9th, when (s)he is blocked by 3RR. The anonymous 88.25.242.192 adds again the info with a edit summary in catalan [430]. Another ip (81.32.134.180) adds again the info also with a comment in Catalan [431]. Some hours later, a symilar range anonymous (81.32.135.116) adds it again. The same anonymous adds the information twice again the same day ( 81.32.135.116).
On July 12th, an anonynous of the range 83.33.xxx.xxx (83.33.34.172) attacks again. Now 83.40.74.135 adds again more controversial info. After finishing the block, Serrallonga attacks again on July 13th. This day, the ips 80.102.xxx.xxx start adding again the information and... copying it TWICE the article: ( 80.102.248.12). 80.25.3.93 help reverting the "normal version", this is, copying twice again the article. Some more contributions of 80.102.248.xxx copy twice again the controversial info (80.102.248.46, 80.102.248.60, 80.102.248.11). On July 15th, the other range (80.102.220.xxx) start (80.102.220.35).
Then, some more ip reversions (some 81.32.xxx.xxx, 83.33.xxx.xxx and 83.34.xxx.xxx)(specially interesting this one, with a summary edit in Catalan which says "more info on Gaudi work", and (s)he adds the controversial part again) and then Maitedebarcelona ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) adds again the same controversial info. 83.33.xxx.xxx adds again. Then some more 81.32.xxx.xxx and 83.33.xxx.xxx again. On July 24th, 80.102.xxx.xxx again.
On July 25th Barcelona is blocked again because of the anonymous disruptive behaviour. Some tranquility and on August 14th, 80.25.3.93 starts again. The new users A Naiad Floored Oms ( talk · contribs), A Rotor Smote Marinaded Nun ( talk · contribs) together with the ips 80.102.220.xxx and 80.102.248.xxx start the battle again. I ask to administrators to block the page for newbies, and they recomend me to report in to WP:SSP (here). I think it's quite hard to accuse someone of sock puppeting and I preffer still not to do it. Then, comes an "old registerd newbie" NORDKAPP ( talk · contribs) vandalizing again.
There is some sockpuppeting, but it's difficult/not possible to identify the sock puppet master. Perhaps has never contributed directly with this article. Some users (administrators will decide after reading my evidences) should be brought to Checkusers and, if it is the case, be blocked.-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
24.168.46.238 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.38.198.61 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.38.198.53 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.38.198.54 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.38.198.55 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Edward321
13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
CyberGhostface
16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
After 24.168.46.238 was blocked for harassment and legal threats, 64.38.198.61 posted, admitting to be 24.168.46.238 and asking for the ban to be overturned [432] While the edits as 64.38.198.61 were civil, they were also obviously false to anyone who had followed 24.168.46.238's edit history.
Now 64.38.198.53 has posted [433]. Edit summariers show they are continuing 24.168.46.238's personal attacks on Spirot [434] and Cyberghostface [435] and is signing themself as ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you!
Also, User:64.38.198.54 (again in the same IP) has reverted CyberGhostface's removal of the previous vandals.
This user also went as much as going through my talk page and harassing people who I was having unrelated discussions with, as with the case of User:Famguy3 here. He also signed my talk page with "CyberGhostface, you are an antagonistic scumbag and a cowardly faggot!"-- CyberGhostface 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All of the last three IP's are editing around a block, yet none are banned for anything near the puppetmaster's block lenght. Edward321 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Majoreditor (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.220.146.66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Peter cohen 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
(Please note At the time I started this report, I had miscounted the number of reverts by a second editor User:Anietor. I have now noticed this editor too had reached three reverts. Therefore please regard this user as a candidate for puppeteer. I shall leave the material building the case against Majoreditor unchaged before moving on to Anietor.)
The sockpuppet has only edited one page but by using reverts shows the behaviour of an experienced user. [436]
The sockpuppet appeared after the alleged puppeteer had already made three reverts to the article [437], [438], [439].
There is a shared pattern of misleadingly named edits. [440]includes a revert which is not implied in the title. [441] is not explained in the talk as claimed. [442] refers to a non-existent consensus as evidenced both by the talk page and the edit-warring in the article itself.
The puppet's three reverts [443] [444] [445] were in support of User:Anietor, (who had posted [446]) an ally of the alleged puppeteer as evidenced by posts to the talk pages with titles stating agreement [447] [448] and by posts about the article on each other's talk pages [449] [450]. (They also discuss other articles together.)
User:Anietor must also be considered as a candidate for sockpuppeteer having also made three reverts when the puppet appeared. [451] [452] [453]
Whichever is the true puppetteer, the three ids form a tag team. I believe that the motivation is a combination of WP:OWN and a strongly held WP:POV motivated by religious belief. WP:OWN is demonstrated by Majoreditor's immediate reversion of my first ever edit to the page [454], the same editor's subsequent indiscriminate rollback [455], which removed multiple edits of mine this reinsting typos and a cite tag which I had addressed, and Antienor's [456] which does not WP:AGF but instead accuses me of trolling for having a different opinion form the WP:OWNERS. It is further demonstrated by the previously cited claims that there is a consensus which can only be claimed by someone who reflexively discounts the view of the non-WP:OWNERS.
Apart from the general issue of edit-warring, the sockpuppet's and its allies' activities have also contributed to the appearance of blank entries in the citation list (notes number 53 and 57 in this version of the file [457])
No, I don't use sockpuppets. A simple ARIN lookup shows that 72.220.146.66 is a Cox IP; I edit from Comcast and AT&T. User Peter cohen has been engaged in edit wars and has become unnerved. Thanks, Majoreditor 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Since the person who filed this case can't even decide who the sockpuppeteer is, this looks to me as if this is not a bona fide sockpuppet report, but an extension of an editing dispute. Please pursue discussion on the article's talk page instead of scattershot accusations of editing abuse. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Anietor (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.220.146.66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Peter cohen 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I have named Anietor as an alternative candidate for puppeteer at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Majoreditor.
The following text is copied form there:
The puppet's three reverts [8] [9] [10] were in support of User:Anietor, (who had posted [11]) an ally of the alleged puppeteer as evidenced by posts to the talk pages with titles stating agreement [12] [13] and by posts about the article on each other's talk pages [14] [15]. (They also discuss other articles together.)
User:Anietor must also be considered as a candidate for sockpuppeteer having also made three reverts when the puppet appeared. [16] [17] [18]
Whichever is the true puppetteer, the three ids form a tag team. I believe that the motivation is a combination of WP:OWN and a strongly held WP:POV motivated by religious belief. WP:OWN is demonstrated by Majoreditor's immediate reversion of my first ever edit to the page [19], the same editor's subsequent indiscriminate rollback [20], which removed multiple edits of mine this reinsting typos and a cite tag which I had addressed, and Antienor's [458] which does not WP:AGF but instead accuses me of trolling for having a different opinion form the WP:OWNERS. It is further demonstrated by the previously cited claims that there is a consensus which can only be claimed by someone who reflexively discounts the view of the non-WP:OWNERS.
Apart from the general issue of edit-warring, the sockpuppet's and its allies' activities have also contributed to the appearance of blank entries in the citation list (notes number 53 and 57 in this version of the file [21])
I suggest that it is best to discuss the two alleged puppeteers together under the older case.
Yeah, don't really know what more to say beyond what Majoreditor said here. It's hard to prove a negative. I am among several editors who have been dealing with some borderline vandalisms in the Mother Teresa page. A small but aggressive group is trying to delist it as a GA (failing twice recently). I think they are just frustrated that editors like Majoreditor and me, and several others, have been keeping them in check and dealing with edits that violate various WP policies. I'll let my edit history speak for itself. Thanks! --Anietor 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the person who filed this case can't even decide who the sockpuppeteer is, this looks to me as if this is not a bona fide sockpuppet report, but an extension of an editing dispute. Please pursue discussion on the article's talk page instead of scattershot accusations of editing abuse. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
— Coren (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Repeat vandal posting disrupting rants to my talk page. Pupeteer and one other sock already blocked for that vandalism.
Case in point: [461] [462] vs [463] and [464].
Also, other pages similarly vandalized: [465], [466]
Neoballmon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Neoballmon II (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nyttend 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Robert599 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Fadix (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Artaxiad (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Azizbekov ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Atabek 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Azizbekov was established for yet another campaign smear against Azerbaijan. Using this unsourced image [467], which he inserted here [468] and was one of short of 3RR, inserting it here [469], [470], [471], created page and inserted some OR here Azeri_Waffen_SS_Volunteer_Formations. The users aggressive OR seems to be of the same nature as the one at Ziya Bunyadov previously and this is clearly an experienced user, too much so for only couple of days of registration.
Yes, I agree that this looks like another incarnation of Robert599 ( talk · contribs), who was engaged in similar POV editing. -- Grandmaster 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
83.26.34.139 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.26.37.187 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.26.45.184 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.26.46.65 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
– sebi 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Pioneercourthouse (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
70.58.51.131 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Powhome (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nationalpioneer (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Washingtonfan2007 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nationaly (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Oasis07 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneerusa (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Usworld05 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Americadude34 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dudoman (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ilovepioneercourthouse (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pdxdude20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneerfan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneersquare1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneeramerica1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pioneeramerica (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cacophony 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Continuned inclusion of unsourced POV at Pioneer Courthouse Square. The user was apparently permanently banned by User:Jayjg, but that has not stopped the edits of the article. There was a related Mediation Cabal case opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Pioneer Courthouse Square, but nothing seemed to have come of it (or maybe that was the start of the ban?). The page was semi-protected for a while, but it is a shame to do that to a page based on one bad-faith editor. In any case, the editor has shown a blatant disregard for Wikipedia guidelines including, but not limited to, WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR and WP:3RR.
Don't forget WP:SPA. It seems pretty clear to me that this editor either thinks this edit war is amusing, or is feeding his/her ego off the attention. I don't think there's a coherent or malicious POV pushing here, more just button-pushing. The longer the sock puppet issue goes unaddressed, the longer the page - which is not generally a target for vandalism - will have to remain protected, which is very unfortunate. - Pete 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Cz mike (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tewfikisrael (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Moshe 230 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Isacc3go (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dayan1967 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Isarig 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Cz Mike was blocked for 24h for edit warring & breaking 3RR on several related pages - Dalal Mughrabi, Coastal Road massacre, Wafa Idris and Baruch Goldstein. he was reported by me & by User:Tewfik, who also reverted him on those pages. New user User:Tewfikisrael then appeared, and proceeded to make the same edits as User:Cz mike on all the above pages. After User:Tewfikisrael was indef-blocked as a sock, User:Isacc3go appeared with same pattern, and after he was indef-blocked as a sock, User:Moshe 230 appeared, with same pattern of edits.
User:Dayan1967 has reverted edits by an administrator who removed edits by the other socks, and like User:Cz mike, has uploaded images with false copyright notices
The first three SSPs are indefblocked. Dayan1967 seems like a match also. I'd extend the block on Cz mike to a week, but not being an admin, I can't. Shalom Hello 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All four sockpuppets have been indef-blocked. As the admin who blocked all the sockpuppets, and extended Cz Mike's block to 31hrs for sockpuppetry, I have not extended Cz Mike's block any further. Cz Mike has not edited with that account since. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thefunk42 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hip Hop Jin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
76.83.4.147 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thefunk42 created an article called L.S., which is being considered for deletion. Mr. Jin, shown here and here deletes the AfD template and edits the article. He uploads an image for the article as well. The IP also does a similar thing here here and POV pushes here Jin is also an alternate account of CraftyKid™ who was blocked because of his username. It is suspicous that an account would be made and immediatey edit an article like that.
UPDATE: The article was deleted, but what they were doing is removing the deletion templates and editing the article in a similar way.
I don't even know who those people are, my guess is that they are fans of Jin and LS and decided to try and upload/edit the information on the pages. The only reason I've made mistakes with the articles I've created/edited so far is because I'm still new to creating Wikipedia articles and still learning from my mistakes.
All I know is that thefunk42 is the only account that I've created on wikipedia. If anyone has any suggestions on other ways to prove this, please let me know, thanks.
-- thefunk42 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll checkuser request, see how that goes. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This too difficult. I'm making an RFCU request. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hdayejr (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hd3576 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Orange Mike 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Aside from the name itself (I believe the human behind it is probably named H. Daye, Jr.), the only two edits this account has made so far were to blank a discussion from the blocked puppetmaster's talk page; and to remove a cleanup tag from an article the blocked puppetmaster guards, with an incivil summary abusing me by name (puppetmaster is angry with me).
Confirmed and blocked by Finlay McWalter. Shalom Hello 16:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jj1010 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.141.201.178 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.140.166.5 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.140.163.111 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.126.177.132 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Banazir 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Suspected puppetmaster has been given repeated warnings for blanking the Controversy section of iTalkBB, the only page that Jj1010 and the above suspected meatpuppets have ever edited, and the only section and edit action that they have committed. Warnings for Jj1010 culminated in a brief (31-hour) temporary block on 20 May 2007.
None of these users has ever responded to requests to desist from blanking, nor edited the talk page to provide any sort of justification. At least three editors (Banazir, AndroidMouse, and Chetblong) have rolled back the page a total of about 20 times to date, to undo the section blanking. Since January, 2007, the Controversy section has contained negative allegations - one of them with a cited reference - of bad business practices by the company described in the article.
The discussion page for iTalkBB contains a calendar of section blankings, showing that the suspected meatpuppets are carrying out blankings in alternation that are cumulatively frequent. It is evident from this alternation that the meatpuppets are working in tandem to avert frequent vandalism blocks. In a recent case, one of the suspects, 216.141.201.178, committed two blankings in a three-day period, four in a one-month period, and six total within about three and a half months, but did not incur a block due to the individual frequency of vandalism being too low.
Circumstantial diff link evidence is provided in the section below.
For Jj1010
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=131037479&oldid=128639074
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=125944267&oldid=125943713
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=119761028&oldid=119226718
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=118527792&oldid=118494064
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=109835972&oldid=108293231
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=105005184&oldid=104980260
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=104866372&oldid=104866031
For 216.141.201.178
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=147246406&oldid=146860933
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=146810550&oldid=145446660
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=140599773&oldid=136894117
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=136894050&oldid=133397741
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=122502626&oldid=121885200
All of the suspected meatpuppets are anonymous, and their IPs differ significantly, but the timing is suspiciously regular, and the blanking edit is identical in almost every case. I submit that the rotation is deliberately intended to subvert Wikipedia anti-vandalism policies by "slipping under the radar".
None of the suspected meatpuppets have ever even written an edit summary, but the puppeteer, Jj1010, once tagged a blanking edit as "delete unverifiable content". (Considering that the content in question is cited with a verifiable source, this rationale is invalid.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735
The frequency of vandalism is not high by absolute measures, but blanking and restoration constitutes almost all of the edits to this page at present, creating an extreme nuisance for its maintainers.
In one of the only cases where Jj1010 made any edits in addition to blanking the Controversy section, he or she demonstrated what I believe to be a vested interest in the company, adopting a defensive POV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ITalkBB&diff=prev&oldid=104866372
I have collected the above evidence in the hopes that the apparent collusion among the users who are blanking this one page will be identified and discouraged.
Crate321 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wallyjack (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pax6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kl4m 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contributions should be evidence enough.
Wallyjack removes {{prod}} from admin DGG.
My opinion : this user creates and edits a single article under 3 different user names.
Admins : decide if it's the same person.
I agree. These editors are singularly focused on Anti-procreation movement, which was created a few days ago by User:Crate321. It cannot be a coincidence that three separate accounts suddenly edit the same new article at the same time. The socks need to be blocked, and Crate321 must be limited to one account. Shalom Hello 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hearsayheresy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mrkilgoretrout (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
KP Botany 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User contributions puppet master: [473] User contributions sock puppet: [474]
This appears to be a sleep account (the puppetmaster), or seldom used account, just reinvigorated to creat an attack article Martin Chretien. The puppetmaster's only recent edits are to this ariticle, and the sock puppet's only edits are to this same article. I believe both accounts should be permanently blocked. KP Botany 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) And the edits were removed because they were attacks, meanwhile I failed to follow the reams of densely worded instructions after spending ages just trying to find this page, who knows what else isn't correct. KP Botany 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Repda206 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Daoutcastofrenton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Datboireppinrenton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Already known)
Papa November 09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks like a match to me, based on the pattern in the deletion log of the respective articles. I'll ask User talk:Irishguy to render a decision. Shalom Hello 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Obvious sock. Blocked. IrishGuy talk 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Godzilla1138 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
67.166.28.214 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ThuranX 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
[475] and [476] show a ridiculous amount of overlap. At [477] the IP defends killing homosexuals, stating a list of nations that permit is intolerant of the cultures permitting such actions, [478] here, Godzilla also trolls the homosexuality page. Here, the IP trolls Captain America as a NAMBLA puppet, [479], only to see godzilla reverting it, [480], an hour later. Both also have hit the Global Warming page, as seen from the contribs, and both almost exclusively hit the talk pages to troll. I posted most of this text at WP:AIV as well, but thought bringing it to both would ensure a full examination. ThuranX 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Bremskraft (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Urgeback (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ladeda76 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RebelAcademics (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sliat 1981 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Following Bremskraft's 3RR [481] block RebelAcademics and Ladeda76 weighed in on his behalf and got autoblocked. [482] & [483]. Ladeda76 claims they are living together. Sliat1981 gets himself blocked for image abuse [484] and Bremskraft & Urgeback get caught in that autoblock and all 3 use the same malformed unblock request. [485]. Bremskraft doesn't know the others by this stage but Urgeback does [486].
Given the correlation between these users, similarities of unblock requests, conflicting admissons of who knows who when and the suggestion that 5 people share one computer in one household; I'd say that the case of meat/sockpuppetry is fairly conclusive.
I have blocked all accounts indef until more credible explanations arise. I have raised this SSP for information and review. Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It's obvious that Ladeda76 and RebelAcademics are throwaway socks of Bremskraft (the accounts were created just after that 3rr warning). The other three are unclear. First, Bremskraft doesn't appear to have any editing in common with Urgeback and Sliat1981. Tracing Bremskraft back to his/her first edit indicates what his/her IP address was [487], but it's not static, as there's a similar IP now [488], but this one strangely traces back to Louisiana. In any case, they aren't the same IP as that claimed by Sliat in unblock requests here. In fact, that IP traces back to California, not Nevada. What's more, Bremskraft's auto-unblock request had the wrong block reason for him to have gotten caught in Sliat's block [489].
I think there are perhaps two groups here. Bremskraft and the two obvious meatpuppets are one group. Urgeback and Sliat are the other group. Urgeback and Sliat share an interest in Australian football and may be the same person. Urgeback's light edit history is at least consistent with an alternate account and these two edits are similar [490] [491].-- Chaser - T 01:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I've ran some checks on this, and there are indeed two batches, Sliat and Urgeback are different from the others. Voice-of-All 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you VOA, I'm unblocking Urgeback now and reviewing the block of Bremskraft. Spartaz Humbug! 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Dblock4 life (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Gblock4 life (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nucleusboy 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Dblock4 life vandalised Sand and American Bison with remarks questioning the sexuality of someone named Elwood, among other things ( diff). Gblock4 life has done the same thing, also on American Bison ( diff).
They are w/o question sockpuppets. Patterns, edits match and they share almost the exact same username. James Luftan contribs 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DJvac (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DJVaccar (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Same M.O. as User:DJvac who was blocked for vandalism ...
As evidenced by his contributions, User:DJVaccar is adding the same dead links that got him blocked from Wikipedia under DJVac.
Yep. Already blocked (main = 1 week; sockpuppet = indef). MER-C 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Eep² (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Eeky (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Piet Delport 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
(Background on Eep²'s ban: request for comment · community sanction notice · admin incident notice)
As User talk:Eep² is protected, an admin might want to place the notification of this case there. — Piet Delport 2007-08-07 12:13
I've run across Eep² in the past, and while it does look like this editor has had previous experience with Wikipedia, I don't see the same style of additions to disambiguations as Eep² made. I don't see any objectionable edits, actually, so if it is Eep², s/he may have reformed. If the editing become problematic in the future, I will be happy to review again, but my opinion at this time is that there is no problem here so no solution is needed. IPSOS ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Mushrambo 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe the users are one and the same due to the new IP adding "a douche nozzle" to the Andy Borowitz page, which the old IP also did frequently
Practically, it might be justified to extend the 31-hour block on the ...212.33 IP because the ...117.27 IP evaded the block, vandalizing within an hour after the original IP was blocked. However, since he stopped after one edit, I think the simplest thing is to ignore the problem and let the block run its course (which it already has). Shalom Hello 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
67.98.206.2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
146.115.58.152 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Cerejota 04:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Multiple reverts with same argument, but different users. [506]
Admits being sock puppet and taunts for a checkuser: [507] In fact a checkuser should be performed to insure no further sock puppets exist, including registered accounts.
Raised related ArbCom enforcement here: [508]
I understand the situation, but this is an editor that popped out of nowhere I do not want to do a RfCU myself, but do ask you (Newyorkbrad) or some other uninvolved admin did it. He *taunted* me to perform a Checkuser in my talk page, and admited the multiple IPs. And it is not based on a few edits, the editor is now editing in the RfAr for Allegations of apartheid, and for being a relatively recent editor, has an in depth knowledge of policy as obscure as WP:ASR. This is all highly suspicious.
In fact, when I started this, I was hoping that it would be a simple anon troll. Now I worry about actual sockpuppetry by a registered user...
Based on these things, I must state a suspicion that these might be sockpuppets of a registered user. Hence, my asking for mediated RfCU. If I am out of line, please let me know. Thanks!-- Cerejota 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Under category "G" for the reasons I have already stated and possibly a modified "B" and "F" (I mean, what are the chances of an recent anon user knowing the intricacies of
WP:ASR???). To be clear, I initially thought it was a troll/vandal attack, but when you started to engage that suspicion disappeared, then you taunted me with checkuser and changed your tone from a
WP:ASR-based objection to more classic edit conflict in terms only an editor with a year+ of experience in these articles could have. I mean, it was your own writting that made me suspicisious.
If you quack, people are naturally going to think you are a duck.
I got a proposal: reveal your possible registered accounts to Newyorkbrad, and he sends a message to the community that you are not a puppet/master for active registered accounts, or banned accounts or in any other way are anyone other than an anon editor of these IPs. I have no interest in knowing your identity, I do have an interest in making sure you are not a sock of a registered account, in particular one active the articles in question.
Lastly, I again request guidance, should I pursue RfCU or should a third party neutral admin do it?-- Cerejota 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
If all that is involved here is the same individual editing anonymously from two different locations, then the anon is right that in and of itself there is no policy violation, particularly since the relationship is acknowledged.
Theoretically, checkuser could establish whether any registered users edit from either of these IP's, but I doubt that an RfCU would be entertained based on just a couple of edits. Of course, if this anon is the same individual as a registered user who has edited on the same articles, he or she should kindly say so.
Absent further evidence, I am inclined to close this case, but will await any further responses or input first. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Kurt Shaped Box 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-identifies as User:Ram four ever - a sockpuppet of banned User:Eir Witt.
Already blocked indef. MER-C 12:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jddphd 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous contribs suggest similar pattern
User:Daniel Case has already blocked Bob Lee Swagger indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MadeinFinland. Based on the obsessive editing to Romani people by both accounts, I endorse the block. Shalom Hello 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Will ( talk) 09:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Self admission. Will ( talk) 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Clear and self-admitted sock of a banned user, blocked indefinitely, Fadix's one-year ban has been reset. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
TurkmenstanSSR (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bobabobabo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TurkmenstanSSR (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Clawed One 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The user has stated right here User talk:WarthogDemon#Ryulong that they are Bobabobabo and have made similar edits to him, including edits to the pages of Bobabobabo's talk pages and the talk pages of his confirmed puppets.
Like all of B5's sockpuppets before him, please ban him right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Clawed One ( talk • contribs)
User:TurkmenstanSSR has been indefinitely blocked by User:Persian Poet Gal - I will ask him to action/close this report. John Smith's 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Richard Deagon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
209.212.28.50 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
At Choke (film), 209.212.28.50 attempted to add an unverifiable photo of a piece of paper that purportedly lists the production schedule for the film. Edit warring took place, at which I stopped at my 3RR limit and the anonymous IP exceeded his (he was warned after his third revert of the 3RR violation). I filed a 3RR violation report, seen here, which went through, and the anonymous IP was blocked for 24 hours. The article was left at the last revision by that editor, since I had exceeded my limit and the article receives no apparent traffic. Shortly after, Richard Deagon, not having edited since July 25, 2007, began editing the article. This evidenced sockpuppetry allowed the user, initially editing on his IP, to sign onto his registered handle, to continue editing on Wikipedia despite the 3RR block.
The evidence is compelling: both the user and the IP have focused on the articles Choke (film) and Choke (novel) on July 25 and again yesterday and today. An appropriate punishment, in my opinion, would be a long but not indefinite block for Richard Deagon - maybe one week. Shalom Hello 12:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Sir Nicholas has already blocked the IP for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Shalom Hello 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The editing patterns strongly suggest the named account and the IP are used by the same person, but this activity is now stale, and a block would serve no purpose at this point. If any further problems occur, blocks would certainly be appropriate. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
98E (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
PitOfBristol1973 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cheers, Lig hts 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Before banned user 98E ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned, he made undiscussed changes to templates and reverted it back whenever his edits were reverted (see [512]). PitOfBristol1973 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account. He has reverted to the old version of {{ SockpuppetCheckuser}} ( history) and {{ SockpuppetProven}} ( history) without discussion, and was reverted because his changes were undiscussed. Every time he was reverted, he reverted it back. He is currently blocked for violating 3RR at the time this case was created.
SLSB talk 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
*Same userpage
I have a hunch that they arent related, that "Woooooooooly" is User:Ockenbock, who tends to always create socks to troll User:The Hybrid, User:Metros, and my talk pages. I strongly suggest a checkuser.There appears to be two users with very similar names. User:--Wooooooooly da Woog and User:Wooooooooly da Woog.-- User:Atomic Religione
I don't beleve in Sock Puppets!!!!And I Definately WOULD NOT USE ONE!!!! Wolly da wanderer 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) On a another note I didn't create my page on the 6/08/07 I created mine on the 5/08/07 Wolly da wanderer 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ideogram (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. [516]
Ideogram also admits operating other socks, but we don't know for sure which ones those are. [517]
Jehochman Talk 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
You Are Okay ( talk · contribs)
Yes, it's my sockpuppet. My understanding was that sockpuppets are tolerated as long as no policy is violated, and I don't see any policy violation cited here. -- Ideogram 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Woah. You think I was edit-warring with myself? I suggest you not waste time on this. -- Ideogram 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See here. There are only three edits by Galindo ( talk · contribs) and the first is not a revert. -- Ideogram 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Outside opinion: The contribs of User:You Are Okay are completely explainable without an sock relationship; his first three contribs were sort of spammy ext links (the first one using the "cite web" template copied from the link in the line above his), and DreamGuy reverted them all; when he went to complain at DreamGuy's talk page he noticed the AN/I controversy and piled on against DreamGuy. Just a newbie, not a sock. Dicklyon 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The idea that I'm a sock of Ideogram is laughable, unless evidence is presented, I'm going to ignore this. Addhoc 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Referred to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for further discussion. Jehochman Talk 05:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Elvisandhismagicpelvis (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tomasthetankengine (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dibo T | C 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Elvisandhismagicpelvis is an editor who has a fondness for rugby league that crosses over to POV pushing and disruptive editing. For the latter he was blocked for a week for 'WP:EW|edit warring]] on multiple articles, despite being warned to stop. This is utterly disruptive behaviour.'.
The block period has now expired, but a new user, Tomasthetankengine, has arrived and is apparently going through recent edits of mine and another user, Tancred and editing in a similarly disruptive way.
For example, the insistence on referring to rugby league as rugby league football is characteristic.
See Tomasthetankengine's edit of Sydney Football Stadium and Elvisandhismagicpelvis's edit of Sport in Australia.
Essentially all other edits have been to disrupt pages that either Tancred or I work on from time to time with the aim of pushing a pro rugby league POV.
I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to suspect that this user is also User:Rugby_666, User:Ehinger222, User:Licinius, User:J is me and User:NSWelshman - all of which have engaged in the same sort of disruptive POV pushing. Some of the sockpuppets go about making constructive edits for a time but the common thread is wilfuland repetitive POV pushing and incivility.
Each time an account gets knocked off, even for a short time, the user goes and creates a new one essentially to bring the warning processes back to the start. It's not fun or funny to have edit wars crop up time and time again because one person can't stop repeating the same destructive behaviour. This person has been blocked countless times and returns constantly. It makes a mockery of WP's structure of sanctions and bans. It needs to be stopped.
There's a decent chance that you're right about all this. The similarity of adding "football" after "rugby league" is solid circumstantial evidence, to go along with the logic that this editor may have wished to start over with a clean block log.
I recommend that you file a request for checkuser (code F) because you allege that these two accounts are socks of a banned user. Shalom Hello 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All accounts have been blocked as well as the following:
subsequent to checkuser and as per this comment on jpgordon's talk page:
Hi You asked me if I felt Elvisandhismagicpelvis ( talk · contribs) is the same person as Rugby666/Ehinger222. I am very sure they are the same person. They both push the same narrow POV, ignore talk pages, and when blocked he/she simply creates a new account and keeps going. Within the first few edits the new accounts will accuse others of "wikistalking" "trolling" etc, showing the user is notsuch a new wikiperson afterall. There is also an interesting list of single use accounts such as
- Moretimefor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Serendipitouscontributor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Grooveyyoutuber ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tosserandmasterdebater ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Russellthelovemussell ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Senibleconext ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
At the moment Elvisandhismagicpelvis ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is blocked and I believe the new account is Tomasthetankengine ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tancred ( talk • contribs) 14:45, August 8, 2007
and this comment on my talk page:
- Hey, there, you may remember we discussed this, the other night. Sorry I wasn't more helpful, at the time, and also that AN/I proved less fruitful than it usually does, for these situations. In any case, I've had a look over things, and I've blocked all accounts mentioned at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Elvisandhismagicpelvis, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine, and User talk:Jpgordon#Elvisandhismagicpelvis. I believe that covers everything, for now, yes? – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dibo T | C 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Msukach (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
M321s (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ms012 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ms198 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ms789 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Msxone (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ivansanchez 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User_talk:Irishguy/Archive_18#Deletion_question_-_thank_you
Suspiciously similar user names.
Contribs from the sockpuppets were spam for the "xplusone" website, the same as Msukach's contribs.
Msukach may have been using sockpuppets to avoid being blocked, as he was given a last warning for spamming.
These are obvious spam accounts, but since there's no recent activity, there's not much point in handing out blocks right now. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
JForget 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Same person targeting Canadian Liberal politicans with vandalism. The same person (possibly during work shifts) has kept on vandalism several articles on Canadian politicians (some would-be polticians also) such as Stephane Dion, Justin Trudeau, Bob Rae, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau and several others including Olivia Chow, Jack Layton and Peter Kormos as well as the Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party. He also made attacks against Liberal members on other articles, one of them included Tiny. In addition, when editors included me, warn the user, he often made personnal attacks or vandalism to the user pages or talk pages. The person used about hundreds of the computers from the AOL headquarters in Virginia for several months. The IP range looking at the WHOIS is ranging from 172.128.0.0 to 172.191.255.255 and has used hundreds of account whiten this range (an example is 172.165.129.102 and 172.130.95.37 used immediately after 172.130.221.247). The vast majority of the IP's were clean prior to the rampage by the small person. A user also mentionned a few months back at the AIV talk page that a User:aolworker existed and that some the 172.xxx have used this for vandalism which may suspect that the user name was used by him as well. However, after an IP was block or made several edits (vandalistic in nature), he changed IP and this happened several times, but it's difficult to pinpoint the initial AOL IP account that started the strings of socks.
We need something more specific to go on than IPs in the 172.0.0.0/8 range and "Canadian Liberal politicians." Please give more detailed info including specific examples of IPs and articles. Raymond Arritt 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This report is too vague. In any case, the problem described is not sockpuppetry, but vandalism from the AOL range, which is best addressed through reversion, and judicious semi-protection, if necessary. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Brianga 08:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See userpages for those in question.
Doesn't matter: both accounts are stale for many months. Shalom Hello 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This seems very suspicious to me.
Sorry about that, when I first created an account with Wikipedia, I didn't know that my user name would be so public, once I learned that it was I thought I should create a new name that does not give off as much information about me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pl2010XC ( talk • contribs) 19:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
No violation. I've seen a case like this before. Creating a second user account is not a violation; there can only be a problem if there are coordinated edits between two accounts. Shalom Hello 13:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Creepy Crawler (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RealityTelevisionFan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
EndlessDesign (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ThuranX 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
RealityTelevisionFan has recreated categories formerly generated by Creepy Crawler, creating categories of the nature "Actors by superhero movie franchise", [554], [555], [556], [557]. EndlessDesign follows behind removing other, similar categories, then alphabetizing the list [558], or instead, simply continuing the process of adding the categories [559].
Further, Creepy Crawler [560] and RTF [561] both maintain user pages full of movie charts. Both have also used their user pages for dreamcasting Spiderman:CC [562], and RTV [563].
Doczilla linked me to his lengthy Previous analysis of EJBanks/CreepyCrawler Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/EJBanks. He compiled extensive evidence there. ThuranX 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Further, I am not the only user to notice this. User:Doczilla also commented User_talk:RealityTelevisionFan#Civil_socks here on the similarities.
59.144.165.88 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nalini_sharma1984 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dibo T | C 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
59.144.165.88 was blocked for the 4th time (this time for 6 mths) on August 3 for persistent linkspamming. Nalini_sharma1984 started making same edits, i.e. [564] and [565]. All other edits are linkspam.
I agree with the finding. The edits are all linkspam to mapsofworld.com and similar sites. Block the new account indefinitely. Shalom Hello 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Blocked. See WT:WPSPAM#http://spam.mapsofworld.com. MER-C 12:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ockenbock (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
hail and Snow (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
D A V I D C A T 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Hail and Snow's first edit was to admit on user talk:Metros that he is User:Ockenbock, who has created many ban evading socks
Blocked by User:Metros. Shalom Hello 20:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Djmckee1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Djminisite (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Plm209( talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It seems as though this might be a clear case of good hand ( User:Djmckee1), bad hand ( User:Djminisite). The one makes poor edits then the other goes and fixes them. Then, after the good hand criticizes the way that the bad hand edits, they turn around and invite them into a Wikiproject or offer to make them a userpage. Seems too similar to me.
No match. The recent talk page conversations are ordinary, with two users writing in two different styles, like normal people would do. They seem to be friends on-wiki, and that's great! Both accounts are well-established (March 2007 and December 2006, respectively) and they both welcome users, but they never use the same welcome template. Furthermore, in the extremely unlikely event that they are the same person, no argument has been put forward to suggest any violation of the relevant policy. Shalom Hello 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Watchdogb (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sinhala freedom (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Evidence I am NOT Sinhala freedom
MY Contrib : 22:45, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/3RR (New report on 3rr violation)
MY Contibs: 22:46, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:watchdogb (result))
Sinhala Freedom's contrib: 22:46, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (→Regarding the proposed section about external support)
Seems like I can be at 2 different places at same time. Or mabe I can travel closer to the speed of sound and get from one spot to another (more than 10-15 km away) and contribute less than a minut later. Watchdogb 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Almost no connection has been demonstrated between the two accounts. The complaints of trolling, harassment, etc. by Sinhala freedom may be valid, but there's not enough evidence to conclude that he is abusing sockpuppets. - Amarkov moo! 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
TiconderogaCCB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TiconderogaCCB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.26.182 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.158.125.4 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Comments Removed link to Wikipedia article that was asked to be placed on by the talk page [607] of St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 . Deletion of sourced material [608]. Using the same IP range as he did before. Most likely in avoidance of WP:3rr. UnclePaco ( talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
TiconderogaCCB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TiconderogaCCB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
208.40.192.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.15.84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.107.202 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.98.157 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.253.39.211 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.25.243 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.240.25.243 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.158.125.217 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.253.55.133 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.158.115.99 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.151.137.191 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Utilizing multiple IP address to circumvent edit wars and 3rr blocks. Has been blocked previous to this for 3rr violations. [609] Has engaged in personal attacks against various users and has same editing patterns.
Is it just a bit weird that the person making the report is a new account whose 10th edit was to insert a series of fact tags and whose 14th edit was to create a SSP case? There's fast learning, but that's a bit odd... Dibo T | C 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Goes to show it's probably a bad idea to come to the sockpuppet board if you're a sock yourself, SuchAGoodGuy is indeed YoSoyGuapo, and is blocked indef as such. However, regardless of the merits of the reporter, it's pretty clear that TiconderogaCCB was behind the use of the IPs to aggressively revert war at St. John's University, and has been blocked for a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kephera975 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IPSOS ( talk) 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Kephera975 ( talk · contribs) posted a comment on my talk page signed as banned user 999. He immediately realized his mistake and replaced it with another message.
The date of signing of the first post is curious. Its 9 June 2006 (UTC). This looks like a cut and paste job from a comment on Kephera975 talk page. [610] -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Kephera's edit using the dated signature of 999 was bizarre, but it does not prove sock puppetry. He copied the source code verbatim from the first nontrivial comment that someone else left on his talk page, namely, this pair of comments by 999. I have no idea why he did that, but it doesn't mean he has secret access to 999's offline identity. It just means he was copying something from his talk page archives. I'll assume good faith until further evidence comes to light. Shalom Hello 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Aqua Teen 53 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Aqua Teen 52 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bongwarrior 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Aqua Teen 53 has claimed to be blocked user Aqua Teen 52 here and here and has vandalized several articles.
Extremely obvious. I'll take it to WP:AIV. Shalom Hello 08:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Blocked by "Can't sleep...". Shalom Hello 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
AgentA (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.96.72.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) According to him "asswipe" reply
I recently tagged the agent's user sub-pages, then this damn IP comes out of nowhere and vandalizes my userpages putting "Wikipedia is communism" which was AgentA's slogan. Then he's all vandalizing my page calling me "asswipe" and such, in the same kind of "punk-ass language" AgentA used. Pretty obvious sock.
Tenofalltrades has indef-blocked AgentA. Newyorkbrad has blocked the IP for 72 hours. Shalom Hello 07:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DearPrudence 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
203.109.162.87 vandalised Pewter (see edit here. Grimkn1ght was created soon after, and one minute after creation, vandalised Pewter using almost the exact same text (see edit here).
I've just realised that it's supposed to be the other way around - 203.109.162.87 is the sockpuppeteer, and Grimkn1ght is the sockpuppet. As I'm not sure I know how to change that completely, could someone else fix it if they know how? -- DearPrudence 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Named account indefinitely blocked. IP warned. MastCell Talk 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DearPrudence 06:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Both users have vandalised Killara High School a number of times today; after 58.172.8.87 had been given a final warning, 211.30.215.222 started. In addition, 58.172.8.87 vandalised Ben Stiller (by adding an image of Spongebob Squarepants, seen here); 211.30.215.222 soon after vandalised the Zoolander article (Zoolander is a Stiller film).
One IP already blocked for vandalism, the other I've warned. I've semi-protected the high school page temporarily to slow things down. In the future, just warn the vandals (see WP:VANDAL for instructions), and if they vandalize after that, just report them at WP:AIV for a faster response. MastCell Talk 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Jeremyb 07:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
example of Ferrariman5's vandalism:
diff
example of Ferrariman6's vandalism:
diff
diff between the 2 revisions just mentioned:
diff
Also similarity of names and timing of activity in relation to blocks.
Sockpuppetry is obvious. Don't see a need to file a SSP report, if all socks are already blocked. -- DarkFalls talk 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Closing; both accounts already blocked. MastCell Talk 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Pretty clear-cut case of sockpuppetry. No need for a case here. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
67.55.159.44 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Stephen C. Sillett (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DrVarkey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
David Eppstein 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The two users DrVarkey and Stephen C. Sillett, taking the names of two faculty at Humboldt State Univ., appeared here simultaneously and immediately started editing the same articles and attacking each other, particularly in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Jacob_Varkey, where their comments also have a very similar textual style as each other. The public and personal nature of their attacking comments against each other seem unlikely for the senior academics they claim to be. 67.55.159.44 has been commenting in the same AfD claiming to be a student at the same university who has taken their classes, and again has no edit history longer than the last couple of days. It all looks to me very much what one would expect to see from a single sockpuppeteer trying to stir up controversy, and it also raises WP:BLP issues if they are impersonating and attacking real people.
I have not attempted to do so, but it should be possible to contact the real Drs. Sillett and Varkey by the contact information they list on their faculty web pages: Sillett, Varkey.
Thank you for doing so much legwork. I've indefinitely blocked both named accounts. The IP is wireless and likely dynamic, and hasn't edited since August 2nd, so blocking it would probably not accomplish much at this point. MastCell Talk 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fourdee (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MoritzB (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Muntuwandi 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
What policies would you suggest a government adopt? Ship them back to africa? Exterminate them? diff However after the 2nd of July his edits to the talk page abruptly end. A day later on the 3rd of July 2007 a new user is created called User:MoritzB. This is large a single purpose account editing mostly the race and intelligence article. In the first few weeks almost entirely. The tone is similar to Fourdee in that it is promoting xenophobic topics. For example diff
While a single purpose account in itself is not a violation, using one for sockpuppetry is. I therefore suspect the Fourdee is using a sockpuppet to circumvent the 3RR rule. These edits were made within a 24 hr period from 21:33, 1 August 2007 to 16:43, 2 August 2007.
That is at least 5 reversions in 24 hours. Then what happens next is that Fourdee reports Muntuwandi for violating the 3RR rule Muntuwandi 3RR report. Consequently Muntuwandi is blocked for 24 hours by administrator User:Seraphimblade. If it turns out that MoritzB is a sockpuppet of Fourdee, then this is an important issue. This would mean the user is fully conscious that he is breaking the rules. Causing edit wars by using sockpuppets and then convincing administrators to get other users blocked.
There's some circumstantial evidence here. I'd like to send this to checkuser for their input: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fourdee. MastCell Talk 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Checkuser finds them unrelated. The accounts do bear further watching for tag-teaming, but without clearer circumstantial evidence, and with a negative checkuser, no action is indicated at this point. MastCell Talk 17:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
201.83.87.130 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
201.6.51.161 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Just James T/ C 07:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User talk:201.83.87.130 - [611] - 201.6.51.161 blanked the vandalism warning I left on this IP's user talk page a few days ago.
User talk:Just James - [612] - 201.6.51.161 warned me not to interfere with their own talk page. I had no recollection of editing their user page so I checked 201.6.51.161's contributions. The only two contributions made were to the two pages I have listed here as evidence. I then suspected 201.83.87.130 was using 201.6.51.161.
HarveyCarter (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
London18 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
BillRodgers (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Xiahou 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
[ [613]] edit by JohnRobertsly a confirmed sockpupper of HarveyCarter was removed and later the exact same edit was made by London18 [ [614]] it was removed then put right back by another later confirmed sockpuppet of his Rogersleigh.
as far as I can see starting here [ [615]] is when London18 which is actually looking like one of his first sock accounts started in on calling Jimmy Stewart a racist. Which just a couple edits later after it was reverted was put back in the same by another later confirmed sockpuppet Rogersleigh [ [616]]
[ [617]] this entire section in the Jimmy Stewart talk page is is populated by negative comments all by Gibsonism, Granville1 (both confirmed socks of HarveyCarter) taking up the conversation for one. Now BillRodgers joins the act saying the same things.
on the Steve McQueen talk page BillRodgers takes over and is the only one to comment on susupected sockpuppet London18 comment [ [618]] and Here [ [619]]
Also BillRodgers doesn't break the HarveyCarter character and hits his usual targets like Elvis [ [620]] making that comment as BillRodgers and plenty of similar comments by confirmed sockpuppets like [ [621]] [ [622]]
This is the 4th such case I have brought against HarveyCarter. I am reporting the London18 account as it slipped through the cracks when reporting all the other sock accounts of his earlier back. He hasn't used it since April but its unblocked. As his contributions show [ [623]] they are all similar downright the same of other confirmed HarveyCarter sockpuppets of that time and now.
BillRodgers is just another account in the same mold as ALL the others before it. [ [624]] As you can see from the diffs I showed plus plenty of others in his contributions compared to known HarveyCarter socks its obvious this is just another attempt at avoiding blocking. Can something be done to stop this?
The new accounts follow the same editing pattern as the old accounts. I've blocked them both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ciotech (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Womensconsortium (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Onerher (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Misit (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Medicaltowers (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nosexist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wilshiremedical (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.215.27.125 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bavariancream (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
STAPA (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Onorem♠ Dil 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Rockero 10:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I first noticed problems with the
Esai Morales article in mid-January. After getting a 3rd opinion about the amount of unsourced information regarding Sylvia Morales in the article in February, it appeared that
Ciotech (
talk ·
contribs) was taking a break from editing.
Misit (
talk ·
contribs) appeared a few days ago and added a
a comment similar to one Ciotech had
previously added, before eventually making
an edit which included quite a few more comments similar to, or exactly the same as, those Ciotech previously
tried to add. Exact excerpts include:
Misit also made
an edit to
Mason (surname) which fixed a formatting problem Ciotech had left on the edit just prior to it.
The next edit to the
Mason (surname) article was by
Womensconsortium (
talk ·
contribs), whose only other edits were to
Lourdes Portillo.
The
Lourdes Portillo article has also been recently edited by
Onerher (
talk ·
contribs). (I'm guessing that's supposed to be a play on my name as Ciotech had
previously
made comments about my name being similar to Honorhim or Onerhem.)
Onerher's other edits have been to
Esai Morales and
Gloria Allred. Their edits to the
Gloria Allred page
reverted
changes I had made to a version created by
Nosexist (
talk ·
contribs).
Nosexist has contributed to two articles.
Gloria Allred and, bringing us full circle,
Esai Morales.
Medicaltowers ( talk · contribs) changing the List of Mexican Americans to reflect the relationship between Esai and Sylvia, where Ciotech had just finished adding Esai Morales, Sylvia Morales, and Lourdes Portillo. Similar edit made on List of notable Chicanos where Ciotech was the last contributer. Medicaltowers also added both Esai and Sylvia to List of notable Hispanics from the United States.
Figured I'd add another in case no checking had been done yet. 63.215.27.125 ( talk · contribs) appeared at the Esai Morales article today and reverted to yesterday's version left by Onerher...when the only changes that had been made were my rearranging the information so the reference covered the new material, and the bot fixing tags.
Wilshiremedical ( talk · contribs) reverts the Gloria Allred article without comment to the previous version by Onerher.
Summarize common articles
Named accounts are pretty clearly socks, and have been blocked indefinitely, puppetmaster blocked for a week. The IP I'm not sure on, and regardless it hasn't edited in a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Asher Heimermann (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
AsherUSA (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Asher, Jr. (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
NumLee (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Resources of Sheboygan Club (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tony16 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Asher2032 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tom70 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Royalbroil 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Asher Heimermann ( talk · contribs) has been a problematic user for many reasons, and was blocked for 1 month by Yandman ( talk · contribs). He has a history of sockpuppetry, and after his block, he tried to evade it with Asher2032 ( talk · contribs), resulting in an indef block of that account and his main account. Three minutes later, Tom70 ( talk · contribs) appeared and started editing various Wisconsin- and Sheboygan-related articles. A request for checkuser was performed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Asher Heimermann, and Now AsherUSA ( talk · contribs) has appeared several months later, and the editing pattern suggests it's again Asher avoiding a block. Asher has contacted me off-line asking that I don't call him out. I can provide the email to someone, but only if it is necessary and discrete. I decided to not call him out to see if the young teen has become less disruptive, but he is again using this new account to be disruptive. He added an external link to his page on common-nation diff. It was reverted as spam by User:Justanother diff, and Asher reverted it back diff. Editing pattern to Sheboygan, Wisconsin articles has returned ( Asher USA's contributions). I call for indefinitely block for User:AsherUSA. Royalbroil 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Metros blocked User:AsherUSA, and had already blocked all but one of the other socks. I have asked him to block User:NumLee to finish the job. Shalom Hello 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SLSB talk ER 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Username is like User:partyhatunicorn who is blocked.
Both accounts indef blocked SLSB talk ER 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This user and IP are both repeatedly adding erroneous info to Billy Ray Cyrus regarding singles. See this edit, this edit, and this edit. After I reverted the middle edit, Kyle 2011 left this comment on the talk page, which has me suspicious.
Further evidence: This uer's name is virtually identical to the indefinitely blocked user User:Kyleellis2011, whose edits were pretty much the same crap.
Even further evidence: User and IP both keep blanking their user and talk pages.
Named accounts indef-blocked; IP blocked for 48 hours. I'll extend it if he keeps vandalizing and the IP appears static. MastCell Talk 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
SLSB talk ER 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Both accounts already indef-blocked. MastCell Talk 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
AppleMacReporter 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
see Colchester United F.C.'s history, possibly more socks
All accounts already indef-blocked as vandalism-only. MastCell Talk 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Brianga 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All accounts already indef-blocked; checkuser has been filed to identify and block the underlying IP. MastCell Talk 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
63.3.1.1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.1.129 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.69.6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.69.133 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.69.136 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.3.1.1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Candy156sweet 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This person has repeatedly vandalized and blanked many articles on Wikipedia including...
Chris Perry (football), Counter-Strike: Source , Utrecht (city), Pantera, Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rift valley, Scary Movie 6, Middle name, Talk:Bow Wow, Solange Knowles, Richard Marx from IP # 63.3.1.1
Menominee, Duncan Sheik from IP # 63.3.69.6
Morrice, Michigan, Lupus erythematosus, Mitchel Musso, Girl, Freedom of religion, Spaceship, Richard Marx from IP # 63.3.1.129
Richard Marx, Candy156sweet from IP # 63.3.69.133
You can look at the talk pages from the talk pages to see the numerous complaints describing the problems that I am reporting here. I used WhoIs to check the IP addresses.
This is the first case of sockpuppetry that I have ever presented here. You can see repeated patterns from each of the IP #'s and you can also notice that there are repeated cases of blanking and blatant vandalism from each IP address. I have checked the IP #'s and I have indeed found that they are all from one source. I don't know if I am wrong for reporting this, but I really think that this is something that should be considered as a problem. Thank you very much for your time and have a great rest of your week.
Vandal with a dynamic IP. The most recently used IP's have been blocked. In the future, you may get a slightly faster response by warning (e.g. with {{bv}}) and then reporting to WP:AIV. MastCell Talk 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply