![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
WikiLoco (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
WikiLoco (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
WikiManiac64 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.225.207.125 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Malomeat (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Note, while I think Malomeat is unlikely, it's still possible, and I'd rather be complete.
McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Naruto: Ninja Council 3 is coming out soon in the US. There has been some disagreement as to whether that is Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 4 or Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 3. The battle took place as an edit war, and comments, mostly without substance, were being thrown around on both sides in edit summaries. Enter WikiLoco
At about this time, a message was posted about him at WP:AN#User Talk:WikiLoco. The outcome is basically "reform with someone's mentoring or a community ban is possible".
The edits made this day by WikiLoco, were the last edits made by him. The next day, WikiManiac64 comes back from a 4 month break. WikiLoco has only been active during that break, but only during part of that time. Are there other potential sockpuppets missed?
Between Loco and Maniac's edits is an edit by an IP
One of the first items on WikiManiac64's agenda is
McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I should be up front, and say that I don't particularly like many of the edits that WikiLoco is making. They are rarely sourced, and though some of his edits are good, I can't trust them anymore. I personally believe that he's a good intentioned editor who lacks structure, and is unwilling to listen to advice given him by those who know the rules. Because his "vandalisms" are infrequent, WP:AIV is ineffective, and posts to the Administrator's boards have on occasion garnered no response from the community. Because I suspect sockpuppetry, I also don't trust edits of WikiManiac64 McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, note that during the suspected WikiLoco->WikiManiac64 changeover, the IP was blocked from acccount creation. Could that be why he went back to an old one? McKay 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
One of my complaints with WikiLoco, is that he never really responds to replies on his talk page. Surprisingly enough, all three named users here have yet to say anything in their defense, and have edited since the SSP came up. McKay 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have examined the "evidence" and find it unlikely that Malomeat is a sockpuppet. I saw no evidence of vandalism, disruption, or multiple voting. Accusing someone is a very serious matter. I take offense that someone made a charge of sockpuppetry "for completeness". If done on a municipal level, this could mean that YOU were arrested for burglary, along with a bunch of other "suspects" with all of you having to prove your innocence. I prefer to assume good faith and discuss things with the other person. Being disruptive is a very bad problem in wikipedia so being accused of it is a very serious matter. Don't accuse unless you are certain of it! I suggest that the complaint be amended to delete Malomeat. My examination of the evidence leads me to believe that the two users with the name that starts with wiki should be advised on good wikipedia manners at the very least. Dereks1x 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Malomeat as unlikely. Please don't just throw an accusation at anyone marginally possible when filing these cases. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiLoco and WikiManiac64 are a pretty clear case of good hand/bad hand puppetry (or in this case, maybe bad hand/worse hand). WikiLoco was already blocked indefinitely for his previous behavior, WikiManiac64 is blocked as a block-evading sock. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Epbr123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Evergreens78 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
LaMenta3 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppeteer User:Epbr123 began nominating or participating in large numbers of AfD discussions on 14 March 2007 and appeared to be getting little support for most of them. On 15 March 2007, an account for User:Evergreens78 was created. The majority of this user's edits are AfD creations of discussions, and many are ones that were either created or participated in by the suspected Sockpuppeteer. Votes by suspected Sockpuppet and Puppeteer are invariably the same. Below is as complete of a list as possible of the AfD discussions in question, along with relevant diffs:
I didn't need anyone to back me up in the David Howell discussion. Evergreens78's support wasn't particularly useful in the Liz Stewart discussion.
I'm not a sock-puppet. Check out IPs, I doubt we're even in the same subnet.
-- Evergreens78 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Evergreens78 blocked already for disruption, but I don't see conclusive proof here that he was a sock of Epbr123. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
DrParkes (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kentkent (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kbenton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jamesthorburn (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
80.34.17.209 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
FlowWTG 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[
user in one of 4 directly subsequent removals of AfD tag and {fact} tags
[
removing AfD, npov, tone, self-published tags
[
[16]
[
on Barry Ley article
[
user acting similarly a while before
[
supporting DrParkes and encouraging ban evasion in an odd tone
[
displaying the capitalization trait
[
user Jamesthorburn displaying the capitalization trait
[
Kbenton displaying the same capitalization trait and hero-worship of DrParkers
[
more or less admitting to hiding identity using IP-concealers
[
hero-worshipping DrParkes and encouraging ban evasion
There is too many diffs of the same pattern to list here in a feasible fashion. Please take note of the deleted article
Blaggers's discussion page, the
Barry Ley page and its discussion, and the identical writing styles between all the named parties and the suspected puppetmaster, who is banned for circumventing a three-day ban (displaying this user's history in these matters) for edit-warring, without sources, the
Brazilian Jiu-jitsu article. The named users all seem to have the banned user's exact views in that matter. They all seem to have paranoid delusions that a "Judo Gang" is hounding DrParkes's unsourced revelations on the nature of BJJ from wikipedia. The named suspected sockpuppets notably share a tendency to capitalize the names of editors "they" have problems with. They share a tendency to remove tags requesting citations or information. When they do provide citations they are invariably faulty.
If you spend some time (unfortunately, all the named users also share a tendency to make many tiny edits in sequence) reading the histories of Barry Ley, its talk, and its article for deletion page, I believe it is obvious that they are one user, most likely banned user DrParkes; at the least they are meatpuppets.
Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk is another new user following similar pattens, but with random, often reverted, edits to other pages. -- Nate 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
IP has not edited in some time, all named accounts have been blocked as obvious disruptive socks by Guy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Mrlob (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Blowland (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dariush4444 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Darius20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kashwialariski (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kermanshahi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ayatollah Rhobijnie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
El Alamajin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.196.164.190 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
88.232.44.42 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
82.73.140.151 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
84.87.138.105 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A list of diffs that indicate this instance of sockpuppetry would be enormous. It would be sufficient to view any or all of these users' respective user pages to see that they are all the same person. Evidence includes the format of the user pages, the uniquely strange syntax and literary style, the interesting "nationalities" and hobbies attested to, the proclivity to awarding numerous barnstars to one another, the fact that most of the accounts were opened at around the same period of time, etc. etc. etc.
You need strong evidence supported by diffs for your claims. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets. Vassyana 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the sockpuppets have not really banded together for some kind of massive campaign of vandalism - in fact, some of the edits actually consist of legitimate information. However, most of the collective editing just amounts to mischief and a nice sum of blatant vandalism (e.g. here, for instance).
No evidence provided to investigate other than vague claims. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
*
Ksyrie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- stricken by
Nlu (
talk ·
contribs) after review of contributions and block log of
Assault11 (
talk ·
contribs)
Yeahsoo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Time of flight (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wikimachine 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
All the best, ( Wikimachine 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
( Wikimachine 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
( Wikimachine 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
It's non-sense.I know nothing about the other two users.They reason why Wikimachine attacked me is just I and him hold the differnet view in the article of Goguryeo.I will let him to play.LOL-- Ksyrie 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha, glad to meet you here, Ksyrie. See, someone think if others are thinking different than him, then they must be guilty. I am amazed that that guy spend so much time to invest our speech, hope he could learn the valuable thing in it.-- Yeahsoo 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to lose. Assault11 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've happened to step on an unknown IP address user's edit that seemed highly related to this case, so I began intensely on all of you users' IP addresses. There's nothing to hide. Just tell the truth. What's your IP address? ( Wikimachine 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC))
The problematic part of your comment was this:
This is inappropriate, because this constitutes taunting, and is a less-than-implied demand for IP address. It comes close to, if it is not, a personal attack, and is certainly uncivil. It's therefore a violation of policy. -- Nlu ( talk) 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, you should specify where in the laws Wikipedia bans demand for IP address b/c I think that's very unlikely. I could ask my fellow Wikipedians for their IP address, & they could either tell me or they could not. (
Wikimachine 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
At the same time, I'd like all others -Ksyrie, Yeahsoo, Time of flight, and Assault11, to reply to my request. (
Wikimachine 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)) Stricken as improper; do it again and a block will result. --
Nlu (
talk)
00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'm tired of this accusation-defend thingie. So, here are the offenses.
Your arguments are flawed for the following reasons:
Again, my suggestion was "if-clause" & also procedural as in proving whether somebody is a sock puppet or not. However, getting their IP address is not the end to a means but a means to an end. Within that context, it is not a threat. ( Wikimachine 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
In any case, see WP:RCU's policies on why asking people for their IPs is improper. As the checkuser admins often put, checkuser is not a fishing expedition. -- Nlu ( talk) 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It was filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Assault11. ( Wikimachine 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Closing this one up as unlikely. There's a lot of mudslinging, but very little hard evidence, and Checkuser has already confirmed that the users are not IP-related. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Jonawiki (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Magonaritus (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
66.208.54.226 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
12.20.13.2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (adding ip used to edit this report)
Nardman1
10:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
71.167.229.158 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Roguegeek ( talk) 23:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also:
Also:
Also:
Also:
|
---|
The following is a very long repsonse by an IP address 12.20.13.2 to reply to the evidence. It has been shrunken for your viewing pleasure. |
As Roguegeek above stated: "For clarification, this is a report for User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226. It would be much appreciated if we could stay on the subject." As such, here are the counterarguments to the sockpuppet charges against User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226 which Roguegeek erased as a means to hide any flaws in the analysis that he and G2bambino put together. Deleting the defense against a sockpuppet accusation is outrageous. And it's contemptible, biased and irresponsible behavior for admins like Irishguy to have chosen to stay silent in the face of such an abomination of simple BALANCED justice. Please note, this is not the first time that Roguegeek has deleted :talk discussions as a means of making disagreement with his ideas go away. He did so at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114985651&oldid=114980298 and his deletion was reverted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114986562&oldid=114986318.
There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets. The classic sockpuppet TENDS to have the following characteristics: (a) they always edit only the exact same articles, (b) they start doing so as soon as they are created, (c) they never disagree with each other and (d) degrade the quality of the article with no new content that complies with WP:ATT. Please find below 9 weaknesses in the sockpuppet accusation.
Now let's put this accusation of sockpuppetry in a social context. An important consideration is that the sockpuppet accusation is merely a revenge tactic by a disruptive Wiki user (G2bambino) in order to silence a POV that G2bambino wants to repress. As such, the sockpuppet accusation needs to be taken with a grain of salt as the intentions of the plaintiff are suspect. Also, this type of tactic is a waste of admin time. (A) G2bambino admits that he does not believe Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets which is outrageous given that he is the one who originally launched the accusation. He states just yesterday on March 22nd "Though I never really believed Wormwood and Blunders to be socks of each other, or Jonawiki or Magonaritus for that matter" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki&diff=117053183&oldid=117030150). Now he is backpedalling on his clear wording, giving it a completely separate meaning. How convenient that he asks for deference and clemency for his miswordings but none for those who are accused or anyone who tries to support the accused.... (B) G2bambino has proved to be disruptive in his historical behavior. As noted below, I easily found 25 incidents of violations in WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, vandalism, edit war and sockpuppetry violations involving 18 different Wiki users.
(C) There is a concern that G2bambino is engaging in wikistalking and this accusation of sockpuppetry is just another way to game the system in order to intimidate his victim.
I'll add a complaint of wikistalking against G2bambino to WP:ANI sometime within the next 24 hours.
In comparison to other sockpuppet cases in the archives, the one advocated by Roguegeek and G2bambino contains flawed reasoning, factual errors, very weak evidence (for such a serious charge) and the taint of political retribution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 ( talk • contribs).
They weren't "dealt with" -- they were "responded to" ( weasel words here, of all places?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.212.198 ( talk • contribs). |
The preceeding has been a very long response by an 12.20.13.2. |
|
---|
The following is a very long conversation on a report filed by 12.20.13.2 for wikistalking. It has been shrunken for your viewing pleasure. |
|
The preceeding has been a very long conversation. |
Obvious sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. Jonawiki et. al., consider yourself cautioned to edit productively. Try mentorship to get a better feel for how we handle things here. Any editor who reads this is welcome to follow up at my user talk page if problems continue and I will handle the request using sysop tools if necessary. Durova Charge! 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Artaxerex (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Yima (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Faranbazu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Napht (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Melca (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Arteban1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
140.80.199.91 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mehrshad123 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The user and his/her sockpuppets appear at the same periods of times usually doing bursts of edits.
In each case the sockpuppets re-edit the Reza Shah (and more recently also the Mohammad Reza Shah) article with (almost) identical information (in a style which can be called Vandalism) slightly changed to apparently look like it's from a different person. Each user appears immediately after the other in an apparent attempt to also circumvent policies on editing. The user and sockpuppets do not appear to be interested in anything other than editing the Reza Shah (and more recently also the Mohammad Reza Shah) article exclusively.
The user and suspected sockpuppets also exhibit an identical pattern of attacking ALL editors involved with Reza Shah article with accusations of "Vandalism" and highly provocative Personal Attacks in addition to false accusations against the victims in Talk pages and Discussion pages.
"Artaxerex" [20]
Here he comments that "Yima" (the suspected sockpuppet account that had just been created on the same day) "has done a lot of research on this".
"Faranbazu" [25]
(Reversion of sockpuppet tag) [29]
"Yima" (this user seems to have been created solely for very specific sockpuppetry on March 15, 2007)
"Napht" Created on 19 March, apparently with the only aim of participating in the discussion on Reza Shah, with a pattern very similar to the user Yima. Artaxerex again commends him on the quality of his research [32] [33]. The number of user id's created for the specific purpose of supporting Artaxerex/Faranbazu's case in this discussion is suspicious.
"Arteban1"
The user Arteban1 has joined the discussion on Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi right after User Artaxerex (and his sockpuppet Faranbazu) were banned for sockpuppetry and violation of 3RR on this page, supporting the arguments presented by Faranbazu. Arteban1 has also immediately filed (albeit on an incorrect page) a request for checkuser directed at all those opposing the arguments of Artaxerex/Faranbazu, presenting practically no evidence for his claim. It therefore seems likely that Arteban1 is just another sockpuppet introduced to evade the ban on Artaxerex. It would be good if this could be checked.
Link to previous discussion and decision on the ban: [34].
Link to Arteban1's edit in support of the sockpuppets and accusation of sockpuppetry directed at many editors opposing his opinion: [35] [36].
"Melca"
The invalid edits and personal attacks by this person have been going on for several weeks. His/Her POV additions are rejected by at least seven(7) other editors.
Examples of personal attacks quotes by user+sockpuppets:
This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race. (Note: User continually uses the word "Aryan" and "Aryan glorification" in article -- all references to Aryan were added by him/her.)
In reference to several editors' clean up of invalid edits, user/sockpuppet responds: This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race, and all those paraphernalia of undemocratic and absurd titles like “King of Kings”, “Light of Aryans”, etc
Similar attacks have been on-going for weeks.
I can not speak for others, but My aim is to have balanced articles on Reza Shah.
Faranbazu 22:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why i am listed here. The only apparent reason for me being suspected, appears to be that i cited an official wikipedia policy to Mehrshad123 [41] and asked him to act civil [42]. I did not engage in a revert war, in fact i haven't edited the mentioned articles for some time now. Mehrshad123 hasnt even provided any evidence against me, other than "User Melca appears to exhibit the same behavior", so i could just remove the tag from my userpage, however, i choose not to. Can someone therefore please do the sock puppet check asap, so the tag can be removed from my userpage.. thanks. --- Melca 09:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Napht is a clear sockpuppet and has been blocked. Melca and Yima do not appear to be socks, IP is stale and may have changed hands. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Marlon.sahetapy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dr.Sauerkraut (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brasileiro1969 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Le Professeur70 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
PanteraNegro (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Stu ’Bout ye! 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Identical editing patterns to the same few articles. Using different accounts to evade 3RR and, I presume, to make it appear that there is broader consensus for inserting/removing "greatest" claims into footballer articles. See conversation at WP:AN/I
See:
Stu ’Bout ye! 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Marlon.sahetapy ( talk · contribs) deleted this SSP entry at 12:56, March 15, 2007 and again at 13:19, March 15, 2007 (UTC). It was reverted and he was warned. Flyguy649 talk contribs 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious socks per above. I would have already indefblocked all if I weren't marginally involved (Brasileiro1969 reverted one of my edits). —
Quarl (
talk) 2007-03-22 05:57Z
Stubacca, Stubacca.. I am not vandalising your homepage, but am just making my feelings known on your discussion page. Where you have removed comments of both myself and the person you accuse of being my puppetmaster. Now if you were a sport and have nothing to hide, you would leave the comments as they were. Reacted to them; potentially calmed us down (nobody likes being falsely accused, but everyone hates being accused behind their backs - I only found out by looking at your tracks. So why dont you shape up your own behaviour first instead of cloaking your poor editing with policies you half-read and consensus that isnt there. No again, Stubacca -> be a sport and respect my comments on your behaviour. Thank you. I would like to devote one ore two lines to Stubacca. An individual who has an axe to grind because he could not push his comments and views on some Wiki articles. - + - + As a result he now accuses me of being a puppet of someone else. How sad. Rather than starting a proper dialogue supported by facts along proper Wiki etiquette lines, why my views differ from his; he prefers to accuse others of policy violations and ultimately puppeteering - what a frustrated civil servant this guy must be (Pot v. Kettle Policy, I know) - + Please note: that Stubacca already received a warning for his vandalism on the Cruyff page and those of other footballing greats. He justified his actions based on inconclusive evidence. His personal discussion page is littered with 'conflict' with others, although I leave it up to others to decide whether this is a trend in his online behaviour.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasileiro1969 ( talk • contribs)
Just want it to be known that I have nothing to with this and that I am highly surprised by all this. But I a bit of surfing uncovered this for me... Have read Stubacca's allegation accusing someone else to be my puppetteer. I also read his threads and reponses on his discussion page (incl. the ones Stubacca's deleted in response to your false allegations, all in an attempt to make your discussion page look clean), football project, and those on the football pages Stubacca has been editing on his little crudade. The one commonality I see is his frustration in losing the consensus on his favorite footballer followed ny his relentless efforts to then trying to get some form of satisfaction. First by vandalizing pages of true football greats, for which Stubacca received an official caution (Johan Cruijff) after a discussion you initiated on football project backfired on you. And secondly by falsely accusing other members who do not share your opinion of puppeteering. Am sure this one will backfire on you as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanteraNegro ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Below his caution on Cruyff plus an excerpt of the discussion
3 already blocked by Quarl, and his reasoning looks fine to me, so the fourth is now blocked as well, and the puppetmaster for 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Vartan84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Insincerecovedwellerskibachatd (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
153.104.75.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tieran11 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Similar votes/edits/comments RE: articles he nominated for deletion.
See:
If you can't be bothered to provide any evidence, I can't be bothered to go look for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Griot (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Griot (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.139.27.85 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Otheus 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I find the possibility extremely remote that these users are not the same person, barring an exceptional explanation.
Note 1: Timestamps are in GMT. Both users known to be from San Francisco area, so subtract 9 hours pre DST.
Note co-incidents of edit-times: non-overlapping, highly correlated. Note span of articles is quite great, but often cover similar arenas, and on average once every other day, the same articles. This could be two persons using the same computer, and Griot simply logs off, letting another log on and use the computer for a while. Given that these are presumably roommates or workmates, and share a computer, it is unsurprising that they would have similar interests. However, these editing trail indicates there is rarely independent usage -- when one posts, nearly always within an hour or less, the other posts. And while contra-cases can be found, it was generally not the rule.
But again note, Griot started using wikipedia in 2005. The new IP user began using it on Feb 1 2007. Beginning-of-the-month date is important, but doesn't lend support either way (it could be a new roommate, or it could be a new ISP).
Event | 71.139.27.85 | Griot |
1st post | 18:57, 1 February 2007 | 2005 |
Feb 1 ( Aaron Peskin) | 18:57 to 19:41 | 01:30 to 01:39 |
Feb 2 ( Michael X) | 22:27 to 22:33 | 17:54 to 21:50 |
Feb 4 | 03:32 to 03:33 ( Democrat Party (phrase)) | 03:36 ( Democratic Party (United States)) |
Feb 4 | 21:54 to 22:14 | 21:38 to 21:52 and 22:54 to 23:30 |
Feb 5 | (none) | 04:15 to 04:58 |
Feb 6 | 01:55 to 01:58 | 02:03 to 02:05 |
many more examples | ||
Feb 10 | 16:52 | 16:56 to 20:53 |
Feb 11 ( Gavin Newsome) | 05:32 | 21:03 to 21:30 |
Feb 14 ( Gavin Newsome) | 03:59 to 04:01 | 05:29 to 05:56 |
And so on.
The level of coincidence here is amazing. Either these are the same people, or there is one computer and two people who have identical schedules and highly overlapping interests. Note, both users are highly active and cover many more articles. It's very difficult "by hand" to see if there is a strong overlap in article incidence.
Now starting with the Ralph Nader article wars, we have:
Event | 71.139.27.85 | [53] |
1st Ralph Nader post | Mar 8 16:26 | Feb 27 or before |
Mar 7 | 22:52 - 23:46 (variety of posts, not Nader related) | 19:16 - rv 19:18 posts on 76.166.123.129 talk page |
Mar 8 | 16:26 - 16:32 2 edits to Nader article | 16:06 - 16:17 one rv, plus 2 posts to RN Talk page, plus 2 posts to 76.166 talk page and |
Mar 9 | 06:26 to 06:28 1 each to RN, RN:Talk | 02:05 to 02:12 several posts to RN:Talk, 1 to RN |
Mar 11 | 00:00 to 00:11 2 rv RN, 2 edits total and 22:36 to 22:53 rv RN, RN:Talk |
15:26 to 18:00 and 20:16 ( Aaron Peskin) |
Mar 12 | 05:06 to 05:18 rv RN, 4 edits total | 01:48 to 02:22 rv RN, 2 edits total, 1 RN:Talk |
So, clearly on March 11 and 12, there were 3RR violations. However, it is possible these were "good faith" reverts and not tendentious.
My prior filing against Telogen was in response to one of the suspected puppets complaint about User:Griot. Initially, I saw that Griot and suspected puppet (71.139.27.85) edited quite a wide range of articles, and that Griot's editing went back to 2005. So my initial suspicion was that Griot was acting in good faith. Further, before I filed against Telogen, Griot began deleting (his) User page material and announced he was leaving, so I decided the point was moot. But then, after I filed against Telogen, this diff appeared on Telogen's talk page (and other alleged puppets talk pages), prompting me to look into this further.
If these prove to be puppeteers, I suggest that, since Griot has allegedly left, block that user. Further more, ban the IP user from editing the Ralph Nader article.
Submitted respectfully and in good faith,
Inconclusive but possible both as to whether these are the same editor, and whether WP:SOCK was broken if so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Myriam Tobias (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Crop circle: Martinphi makes three reverts: 18:53, 11 March 2007 20:59, 11 March 2007 21:41, 11 March 2007. Seven minutes after Martin's third revert (and Myriam's first edit in hours), Myriam arrives, first edit ever to the article 21:49, 11 March 2007, removes text 21:52, 11 March 2007 that had been previously fact tagged by Martin 17:02, 7 February 2007, then after a few intermediate edits, made an edit to a wording similar to the version Martinphi had previously reverting to 00:14, 12 March 2007, inserting both "many" and an attribution for the second part of the sentence.
Remote viewing: Martinphi edits the intro 01:12, 6 March 2007, twice reverts to that version 16:47, 10 March 2007 19:10, 10 March 2007 (which had been reverted by two different editors). Myriam does the next revert to Martinphi's version 15:23, 11 March 2007 and later removes "purported" 21:47, 11 March 2007, as Martinphi has done a number of times at Psychic for similar reasons 16:33, 9 March 2007 16:51, 10 March 2007.
Psychic: Martinphi has made many edits taking out phrases such as "purported", "profess to be" etc for example 20:30, 2 March 2007 with the edit summary (" 'psychic' doesn't mean people who say they are psychic- it only means people who are psychic. If they aren't when they claim to be, they aren't psychic.") also 15:36, 3 March 2007, 20:50, 3 March 2007. Then, Martinphi reverted the inclusion of the disputed nature in the definition 15:28, 4 March 2007, edit summary: "(Let's leave the sentence concerning the use of the word as a noun seperate from whether or not the phenomena exists. One topic per sentence)"
Similar patterns at Electronic Voice Phenomenon and talk page, I can add diffs if there is interest.
Here's the diffs only version of potential 3RR reverts (from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi)
Crop circle: Martinphi reverts:
Myriam Tobias revert: 00:14, 12 March 2007
Myriam Tobias has edited a total of ten pages by my count (plus talk pages for those articles) since the account was created on March 5, and every single one is a page Martinphi has also edited. Many of these are pages on which Martinphi is involved in content disputes and has approached or exceeded 3RR. His edits and talk page comments consistently agree with Martinphi's, and he often appears within minutes of Martin's edits to back him up, often only when Martin has made three reverts or when it is pointed out that a majority of editors disagree with him. The editing patterns and online appearances are just too improbable to be coincidence (particularly when those ten pages include obscure ones like Ganzfeld experiment and Odic force). The use of edit summaries and reversions seems to indicate an experienced wiki user as opposed to a new editor who has only been here about a week.
It appears that this sockpuppet is being used to bolster "consensus" and avoid 3RR. While it's possible that it isn't a sockpuppet, if it isn't it seems almost certainly to be a meatpuppet, which should also be looked into by admins. -- Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser confirmed relation of accounts, Myriam Tobias blocked. Martinphi is warned that if a (roommate/girlfriend/etc.) also wishes to edit, the two of them should refrain from agreeing with one another or reverting on the same articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Benjiwolf (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
129.132.239.8 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.134.170 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.136.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.144.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.160.112 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.169.134 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.181.214 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.187.33 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.133.133 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.136.221 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.168.184 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.178.42 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
85.1.212.140 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
CrystalizedAngels (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.165.54 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.189.31 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.136.182 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.181.65 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.165.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
85.0.212.81 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MnemosynesMusings (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ttguy 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Benjiwolf is almost certainly back as 83.79.168.184 contributions of 83.79.168.184 .
in this [54] edit on Talk 3AMethylenedioxymethamphetamine 83.79.168.184 takes over one part of a conversation previously being conducted by Benjiwolf. It is very obvious from the style that 83.79.168.184 is Benjiwolf.
Benjiwolf loses his edit war on Glyphosate while he is banned but this [55] edit on the page by 83.79.168.184 is edit summarised "we have to be honest about what happened to this page, it can stay like this, yet needs a tag for accuracy sake". How does newbie 83.79.168.184 know the history of the glyphosate page.
Benjiwolf is also posting as 83.78.169.134. contributions of 83.78.169.134 This edit again carrying on a dialog started by Benjiwolf [ [56]] and mentioning that he/she is "a former american citizen living in switzerland" justl like Benjiwolf states on his user page. Ttguy 08:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
83.78.169.134 is anoying Travb on CIA Ttguy 13:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And as 83.78.187.33 contributions of 83.78.187.33. See this[ [57]] Where the conversation started by Benjiwolf continues.
And as 83.78.160.112 contributions of 83.78.160.112 where this [ [58]] edit shows 83.78.160.112 editing 83.78.187.33s posting.
83.78.144.13. No totaly definitive evidence that this is Benjiwolf except his interest in Roundup and Glyphosate pages. And the style of his ranting talk page entries of which this is prime example [59] Ttguy 12:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 83.78.144.13 is anoying Tbeatty as shown on 83.78.144.13 talk page
83.79.136.221 This address edits the same pages as Benjiwolf. He is upsetting Irishguy - see this [60] posting on 83.79.136.221 talk page.
83.79.133.133 This [61] edit carries on a discussion started by 83.78.144.13 Ttguy 13:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
83.78.181.214 - usual pages. Usual style.
83.79.189.31 - usual pages. Usual style.
83.78.136.182 - usual pages. Usual style.
83.78.181.65 - USER TALK:Blaxthos, distinct benjiwolf style.
83.78.165.13 Posting personal attacks to my talk page [62] Ttguy 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
85.0.212.81 usual pages.usual style
MnemosynesMusings - reinserting Benjiwolf's edits ( [63] [64]). Identical setup for userpage of previous puppet CrystalizedAngels. auburnpilot talk 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Benjiwolf reports that MnemosynesMusings is from same geographic area as Benjiwolf. Ttguy 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
IP addressses begining 83.78. and 83.79 belong to BLUEWINNET. IP addresses in the range 85.0.0.0 - 85.1.255.255 are also BLUEWINNET. Bluewin is an internet service provider in Zurich Switzerland. IPs 129.132.0.0 - 129.132.255.255 are Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland [65]. Benjiwolf is in Switzerland.
I am not sure about CrystalizedAngels. However the first thing this newly created user does is go right into an edit war on Rudi Giulani and revert an edit back to 129.132.239.8s version [66]. CrystalizedAngels certainly has a similar style to Benjiwolf.
checkuser on CrystalizedAngels confirms she is Benjiwolf Ttguy 08:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious from his comments and his edit history that Benjiwolf has no regard for the rules of Wikipedia, nor has he any intent of stopping disruptive behavior. I have personally seen him claim to create "characters" to edit wikipedia, often taking up adversarial positions on issues. This is wildly inappropriate conduct on Wikipedia, and his continued disregard for helpful suggestions and warnings shows that the disruptive behavior will continue until an indefinite block is applied (which I fully support). No need to entertain such trollish behavior. / Blaxthos 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Gruezi Voll!!!...How Slimey! Two of the editors talking about the block were both involved in edit wars with benjiwolf, and are trying to block an editor that had a different position than them!...editors Ttguy and AuburnPilot- 129.132.239.8 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
anyways...you can't block benjiwolf, its not possible, all you could possibly do is block the university at the ETH in switzerland, the swiss federal library computer system in zurich, things like that...and what are you going to do, block hundreds of IPs??? I'll just keep getting new ones!...yet read benjiwolf user page, the block was unjustified, rules were flaunted and so benjiwolf flaunts the rules...yet go ahead and block other peoples computers, you simply cant block benjiwolf though. In any case, I'll rack up hundreds of IPs quite soon! Anyways I have added a large amount of info to many many pages, all factual, all usually backed by reputable references, and on a large variety of issues, many with no controversy and that are not subject to warring political editing blocks... the block was unfair, plus user Ttguy is a straight up lobbiest editor, has used vulgar profanities and personal insults on wikipedia, only edits on pesticide/herbicide GM food articles, uses unjustified blankings of fully referenced factual material to try and eliminate all critical comments of herbicides, and is the one that has also initiated this little war with benjiwolf in another move to eliminate and blank critical comment on herbicides, he has tried several moves to eliminate fully referenced material from the glyphosate and roundup pages, this is his latest attempt so he has full reign on the roundup/glyphosate pages and other herbicide/pesticide pages, I have not engaged him on the GM food pages, as I actually am supportive of some GM crops depending on the nature of the particular traits that have been bionegineered in, yet I will state that TTguy has made edits harmful to wikipedia in that area too, as his style is simply to blank and erase anything not flattering of the technology, a style which I fully disagree with even though I am for some GE tech, yet as I say I have let him run amok on those pages and havent engaged...in fact while i have edited on many pages subject to editing blocks warring with eachother, usually on politician pages, I have never encountered a user on wikipedia that I have such loathing for as Ttguy, it is really disgraceful some of his edits, if there was one editor on wikipedia i would vote for a block of, it would be him as many of his edits are harmful to the sites accuracy, and all this sockpuppet war is...is a battle between user Ttguy and Benjiwolf, its all it ever was, yet he has a few good edits too, and I really wouldnt try and block most any editor unless its random vandalism and jokes/profanities etc...and PS: only some of the edits on this particular IP are mine, a large portion are from other editors, if you block this IP, you dont block me at all, yet you block a bunch of other people...en schone mitenand!- 129.132.239.8 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
for accuracy sake you really need to change the label tag on this IP to say: this user is sometimes suspected of being a benjiwolf sockpuppet, yet many many editors use this IP, it could never be determined to 100% certainty that an edit from this IP was or was not a benjiwolf edit!...is this edit even a benjiwolf edit??? impossible to determine, its easy to copy anothers style or language or frequent spelling mistakes, only the NSA would have a reasonable certainty of benjiwolf edits on wikipedia, only they will have a reasonable list of all benjiwolf sockpuppets, yet even they could be fooled, if the person behind "benjiwolf" didnt sign in to typical sites and used a different keystroke pattern, even they could be fooled possibly, and someone other than benjiwolf could easily make it seem their edits were actually his, all you really can do is look to see if particular edits contribute to wikipedia or are harmful to it, and address the specific edits 129.132.239.8 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ja ja...its only a partial benjiwolf sockpuppet list y'all have...ring up the NSA to ask for a more complete version...tschuuuuuuuss- 129.132.239.8 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
El chulito (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
O'Donoghue (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
New identity (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Inthegloaming (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.194.0.99 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
65.88.88.214 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.194.3.132 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.194.2.214 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hope Springs Eternal (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Veronica Mars fanatic (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jill Teed (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.194.4.3 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- SameBatTime 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Each of these users have displayed identical characteristics from from their initial setting up of the accounts, to their quick burst of initial activity on subjects such as Polish, Czech, English nobility and Yugoslavian and New Yorkers biographies - then a long dormant period and then when "needed" in a AfD !vote or other RfC situation etc they appear again with a lot of editing especially on anti- Irish republican issues and then go dormant again.
He has used the computers of a New York University library and another computer in Brooklyn, NY.
He also used these IP's which I picked up when he sometimes signed over an edit he made when he wasnt signed in -
He edits for one day only on a number of pages mostly bios such as [75], [76], [77]. Then the account goes dormant but again reappears 11:43, 1 March 2007 and has been attacking me since them despite the fact I have never come across him before and he made this trademark edit to the Kieran Flemming which he made two days ago. He made this edit which he left an IP almost identical to the above IP's here.
He states he is Polish living in NYC and going to a NYC uni which ties in with the IP's above. First edits his user page with info boxes and alighed to the right, only once ever edits this page and then some Polish pages then nobility such as Isabel Maria Hamilton-Gordon, Marchioness of Aberdeen and Temair Stewart Gore-Browne Dame Diana Keppel Countess of Albemarle and then moves on to a number of pages on Irish republicanism including AfD's here, here, [78], [79] - please note that some these AfD's where not formed correctly and could not be found on the daily register but El chulito, Inthegloaming and Conrad Falk all voted on them.
Similar interests in some cases, but I don't see anything conclusive. New Identity appears likely to be someone's sock, but I'm not sure who, and regardless it wasn't used to vote/consensus-stack or for any other prohibited use that I can see. The IP's are possible socks but again I don't see abuse, and what I can see on the remaining user accounts ranges from inconclusive to unlikely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
74.195.3.199 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Boukenger (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.195.5.83 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
199.80.117.24 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
70.185.125.101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.195.3.11 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DanielEng 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A check of the above users' Talk Pages, [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] shows identical language, conduct warnings from other editors, incivility from the user, and arguments about the same issues in the same articles.
User has a long history of disruptive edits, personal attacks on Talk Pages, and incivility. The writing style, pages edited, and general tone of each of these IP's comments is identical. When editing for one IP stops (or is blocked), another on this list begins. In addition, the user has already freely admitted that he owns the Boukenger account, and that he used it to circumvent a block.
Likely the same user, but the account has stopped editing and the IPs may have changed hands. Please report any further disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
John Wallace Rich (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Gladius (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Scott Wilson 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) I have removed the accusation box from my user page because I did not see the evidence page. Moreover, the links did not work for accusations or confirmations in the box and were in red, and project instructions I saw later instruct about putting the box on a user-talk page besides, not on the user page. Otherwise, I would have restored the box. John Wallace Rich 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (UPDATED)
(2) How come my more important complaint against User:PocklingtonDan has all but disappeared? It used to be at [99]. It occurred during an election [100] and isn't even accessible in the page histories.
(3) Scott Wilson has a lot of different users editing his user page. Why does he complain about it hypocritically? John Wallace Rich 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sock blocked indefinitely, puppetmaster has been blocked for 3 weeks as a reset of the block the puppet was used to evade. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
195.82.106.244 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Shortskirtlonglegs (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
I suspect that this is another incarnation of a persistent banned editor [101]. The user has created the account with the first edit comment saying, "Welcome to well hung wikipedians!", waiting from 1st of March till the till now to edit the semi-protected page, Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University then posting a message entitled, "Hello boys!" and making the usual taunts about article ownership and portraying the subject, the Brahma Kumaris, as a crazy and dangerous cult, except this time from a mock-3rd-party perspective.
Previous incarnations were dealt with recently by Thatcher131 [102]. The user has recently actually posted on Thatcher131's page admitting to the sockpuppetry and expressing his disagreement of the ban [103].
Previous incarnations always end up attempting a revert-war of the article. Even though this user has so far only trolled on the Talk page, experience suggests this will escalate in the same manner.
Normally, I post on the arbcom enforcement board or directly to Thatcher131 (and this is getting quite a routine!), but since he/she has just taken a Wiki-break. I am posting through the sockpuppet-reporting channels.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I found this on my users page, what am I meant to to with it?. I said 'no person attacks' on my user site and what I said was nothing the same as what he is saying I did. here is it after this.
hi there!
I read about this business going on from a website. I had a mate that was in the Raja yogis, he was gay but stopped all that and cut off from his old friends and so on. I dont no what happened to him as he kind of disappeared from everyone. he might stil be in there. So what are the rules here and issues here? The BKS seem to be controlling this article and u seem to have had a big fight over things. I have some old books and things he used to give us. So what can I do?
Yeah, for sure they used to tell him that the world was going to end back in the 90s but it didnt. That is what he told us. SO whats the big deal? Ta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shortskirtlonglegs ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I don't see what is worng. There is a whole load of adult material on the Wiki that is much worse than I can imagine, so I do not see what his problem is with me. I think he is going too far erasing my stuff off the talk page before I have even edited anything..
Shortskirtlonglegs
this boy keeps removing my stuff off the wikipedia, lol!!! i never said they were a crazy cult but he made it look like i did. There is a problem its not like they believe in Hinduism and there is a lot to discussion.they only got few beliefs and so anyone editing them are going to look they are the same. I would tell him to get off my back but he would probably just accuse me of being naughty if I did. Shortskirtlonglegs
10 days were up. I removed the notice from my page. This chap just want to control the article. IMHO Shortskirtlonglegs
Already handled at arbcom enforcement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Mroc31792 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bobby41792 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.86.94.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント ( talk) 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
User has been repeatedly adding the same vanity content to March 17 and removing content from Matthew J. Willman Jr under different names. After receiving warnings on the IP and the original account, a new account (Bobby41792) appeared and continued editing in the same fashion as the original IP and account.
Edits to March 17:
Edits to Matthew J. Willman Jr:
Pretty obvious sockpuppetry, but all accounts involved have stopped, and I'm not sure the sockpuppetry rises to the level of abusive. Any further disruption of this type will lead to blocks on the accounts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
VirtualEye (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jesus Fan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Checkmeout101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
60.52.92.234 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
60.52.18.34 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
60.52.46.24 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
60.52.87.230 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hojimachong talk 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
VirtualEye ( talk · contribs) has been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks. At least one of the suspected socks was created during the third block of VirtualEye. The socks came straight to the mediation at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Perhaps the most incriminating bit is the edit summary; For a while, VirtualEye ( talk · contribs) filled every edit summary with the letter "a". When Jesus Fan ( talk · contribs) began to edit, he also filled edit summary fields with the letter "a". The ensuing "discussion" can be found on Jesus Fan ( talk · contribs)'s talk page. It may also be noted that JesusFan ( talk · contribs) stated one position at Talk:Muhammad, but voted in a completely different manner at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. This was most likely a straw-man argument.
User accounts are obvious socks and have been blocked, the IP addresses have not edited in some time and may have changed hands. The puppetmaster has already been blocked for disruption since then. At the age of this, that block won't be reset, but next time it will be a long one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
AndyCanada (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Prolancet (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Firstocean (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
67.150.244.101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Yankees76 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Between November 7, 2006 and November 13, 2006, a biological value table was mediated on the Talk:Soy protein page by admin Messedrocker, and the result was a table that was placed in the soy protein article.
A key argument for the non-inclusion of this table by the 67.150 IPs (AndyCanada) was the supposed "outdated" information the table was drawing from. See quote below take from the Talk:Soy protein page:
Amusing. The table is also confusing. It is quite funny too. The studies the anon 24 has provided dates back over 50 years. Interesting. Oh by the way. Not only are the studies outdated the book is as well. Even more interesting is the updated book may have the updated BV. Hmmm. Updated 1997 Edition!!! We should go with the latest 1997 edition available not outdated studies and outdated books!
and
Also, above in the table claims the book copyrighted 1972 but the studies in the book date back to the 1940s? Don't forget there is a newer 1997 edition of the book.
and
If this is a joke, nice joke. The table is a strawman's arguement. The studies date back to the 1940s.
The argument was refuted and table was placed in the article by the administator.
On March 4, a new editor's first edit was to remove the table. See diff. [105] Since that time the user has claimed that the table is dubious and contains unreliable, outdated references. [106] and stated that I simply removed references that are over 50 years old and improved other sentences. [107]
And again here, where the invididual again protests the table because of studies from the 40's - the same argument as AndyCanada (and his IP address) from November.: [108] "The studies are in the 1940s and 50's. First, where did that PDF file come from. Did it come from an anon or an editor you can trust. Did someone make it up on their computor. Hint. I wonder when this guy will figure it out. I want to make headlines about this. Are fake studies in a PDF file made by a nut allowed on Wikipedia. Did you actually verifiy the text of that PDF file. Take a second look at the PDF file. Every time I click and look at the PDF file I am laughing. I can't stop laughing. This is a joke. This is beyond funny. I got a big smile on my face. Your move. Cheers"
On a smaller scale, even the user's User page is similar.
The "new" material [113] submitted for inclusion in place of the table was also submitted [114] to another article by Firstocean ( talk · contribs), another "new" editor who is restoring POV material first implemented by AndyCanada before being indef. blocked.
And lastly is the tone of writing an use of common words like "Hint" in certain situations.
I have searched numerous talk pages and user talk pages, and have not come across usage of the word "Hint" in this fashion by any other Wikipedia editors.
When reviewing, please note that AndyCanada is a confirmed sockpuppet of Messenger2010 ( talk · contribs), established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely, and Messenger2010 is the puppet master of one or more abusive or block / ban-evading sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messenger2010 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010
(Links: WP:RFCU page on "Messenger2010"; WP:SSP page on "Messenger2010" confirmed socks suspected socks. — Ben TALK/ HIST 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
IP is stale and has probably changed hands by now, both user accounts listed blocked as obvious socks of User:Messenger2010. Puppetmaster is already blocked indef. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
BoaTeeth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Snidleysnide (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User:BoaTeeth has been uploading various non-permissible images for use in the Bruce Hornsby (which I have been watching now due to the users edits), which have all been tagged by myself, User:Angr and User:Nv8200p. See here for the upload log. The user then stated at 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Talk:Bruce Hornsby the best of luck to others in finding images for upload for use on Bruce Hornsby [117] and was the users last edit to this date. User:Snidleysnide then appeared at 10:42, 1 March 2007 and has uploaded 4 images with questionable status for use at Bruce Hornsby and his/her edits are confined to Bruce Hornsby with the first edit made by the user being a statement at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... [118] I thereby think that this user was created to Avoid(ing) scrutiny from other editors as outlined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors.
While I am not sure of the sockpupptering, but the user has expressed concern and has reached out for help concerning images, as evidenced at User talk:Moeron#Regarding images on Bruce Hornsby. I have advised the user as best I could and commented on their talk page that I would watch the images until they were confirmed through permission. If they weren't in a week, I was going to look into further steps. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a sock puppet, but I'm not an experienced image uploader. I had been watching the ongoing discussion on Bruce Hornsby and other musicians' pages regarding image uploading, and I contacted the owner and operator of http://www.bruuuce.com, a fan website for Hornsby. Please see my talk page for a discussion regarding my reasoning for tagging the images on the Hornsby page the way that they've been tagged. I've been in touch with User:Moeron regarding my image contributions ever since User:Moeron first made me aware that I had committed an error in image tagging. I'm waiting for an answer from someone more experienced than myself in terms of the tagging, then I will send copies of my request and Si Twining's confirmations to Wikipedia for review. I don't want to submit the request/confirmation for review until the images have been properly tagged. I do not know and am not in any way affiliated with User:BoaTeeth, and, in fact, from the talk page on the Bruce Hornsby article, I have the impression that User:BoaTeeth, after making a number of substantive additions to the text of the Bruce Hornsby article has ceased attempting to upload images. I do not know if this will continue to be the case, but based upon this assumption, I took it upon myself to try to add images to the article. I can understand, based upon the lengthy exchanges between User:Grcampbell and User:BoaTeeth, the cause for suspicion and for frustration, but I must also say that I am disappointed, having set up an account to attempt to upload images for the first time and having previously been an anonymous user of Wikipedia, that the community has not been more inviting and more assuming of good faith with my efforts. In disappointment, Snidleysnide 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it is worth, permissions have been sent to the m:OTRS system for all of the images that I have uploaded, further distancing my actions from those of any other inexperienced image uploaders, in this case User:BoaTeeth. Additional evidence of my good faith can be observed by my conversations seeking help from other, more experienced users, both on the Help Desk and from User:Cremepuff222. I'd appreciate the removal of the sock puppet tag from my user page. Snidleysnide 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the high level of protest surrounding the image uploads to the Bruce Hornsby article, I've also followed up upon my initial request at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... [119], corresponding on talk pages with User:Mecu. As a result of these correspondences, I've independently reconfirmed the use of the images as well as the copyright owner's approval of the tagging of the images (as released to Public Domain) and the copyright owner's approval of the phrasing of the "reason given" passage of the Public Domain tagging. Although, as I mentioned before, I am a relatively inexperienced image uploader, I have been a frequent editor of Wikipedia via anonymous IP address. The creation of my account, corresponding so closely to the uploading of images, IS due to the fact that I created this account EXPRESSLY to upload images (something that cannot be done from an anonymous IP address). I can understand the suspicion that this has caused; however, given the fact that, other than the initial mistagging (which was an honest mistake), I have striven to very completely, very ethically, and very politely document the uploading of these images, always seeking advice from more experienced editors, I do not appreciate being mislabelled as a sock puppet. The images have, as of now, been properly documented, and two separate notices have been sent to m:OTRS. (I have also improved the documentation for other images used in the Bruce Hornsby article). Whatever issues Bob has with BoaTeeth, or whatever issues Bob has with the presence of images in the Bruce Hornsby article, I would appreciate being left out of these continued personal disputes as they do not concern me. Snidleysnide 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea who User:Snidelysnide is. I have given up on uploading images to Bruce Hornsby because I am unable to find usable images. If User:Snidelysnide has been able to find images, that is great. I plan to continue monitoring the text of the article, as I have made a number of edits. BoaTeeth 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As of 13 March 2007, I have removed the sockpuppetry accusation from my user page due to the fact that 10 days have passed without Bob posting checkuser to the page. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with any users/administrators and encourage anyone interested in such dialogues to contact me via my talk page. Otherwise, it's best that we put the issue behind us and proceed with more productive editing. Snidleysnide 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Similar interests, but not conclusive. I hope everyone involved has gotten a better idea of the image copyright policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Scubster (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Somethinghadtodie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
EliminatorJR Talk 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
See this AfD for Blessed by a broken heart
it's been more than ten days and nothing has happened with this. so i took it off my page. Somethinghadtodie 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Suspicious but inconclusive, possible case for checkuser. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sheep nuts (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Johnny the third (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pedro the second (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Sheep nuts was blocked on Feb 15, 2007 for disruptive edits. An edit on that date by Sheep nuts to John (name) added "Johnny will rule the world!!!" [120]. Today (March 2, 2007) at 18:30 UTC, User:Pedro the second edited John (name) and at 18:35 UTC, User:Johnny the third edited the same page. In both cases the accounts were only just created. The vandalism was identical in both cases [121] and [122], and included the phase, "Johnny will rule the world!!!" in addition to an anti-Wal-mart statement.
Pretty clear sockpuppetry, but I can't find how long Sheep nuts was blocked for, to know how to deal with the socks. Adam Cuerden talk 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious vandal socks, blocked indef. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wptfe (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nrh15 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The suspected master account was blocked indefinitely for vandalizing Claudette Colbert. Has been warned for previous sockpuppetry (editing under e.g. Wbrz ( talk · contribs) and 218.217.208.122 ( talk · contribs)). The suspected sockpuppet account is being used in the same manner. The user often seems to edit under different IPs before logging in. – mysid ☎ 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sock blocked, page semiprotected to prevent further disruption by the IP accounts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
216.83.121.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A2007 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Doctor35 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Doctor39 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
UNK222 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
oakster TALK 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The user has continued to create new accounts and vandalising articles the same manner as before. A previous report was made by myself before (at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194) displaying the type of edits the user does.
Socks all blocked. The IP appears to have been making constructive edits recently, hopefully it's changed hands. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rbaish (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.112.7.212 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hmm. This doesn't seem to have any evidence of "sockpuppetry", it's just futurebird's criticism of Rbaish's editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 ( talk • contribs).
Rbaish has already been blocked for disruption, as has the IP. I'm relatively certain it's the same editor, but we shall hope he's learned the lesson. Regardless of that, disruptive editing can and will lead to a block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
LOTkid (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.200.166.120 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
— Elipongo ( Talk| contribs) 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I first interacted with this user because of two edits to the Glastonbury, Connecticut article. The first edit [132] was posted by 72.200.166.120 ( talk · contribs), and I reverted it myself. The second edit [133] was posted by LOTkid ( talk · contribs) and was reverted by another user. After that second reversion, LOTkid vandalized my user page [134]. I posted a user warning template to his account, then politely asked him about sources for his assertions about Glastonbury schools. He was civil enough in return, but his answers were odd (he couldn't check one school because he didn't drop his kids off there anymore).
As I had the page on my watchlist, I noticed another editor's reversion of what he/she thought was vandalism [135]. Having seen similar edits from the two accounts and with the fact that one was editing the other, I figured that LOTkid had forgotten to log in before modifying his user page and thus I reverted the reversion.
Tonight, LOTkid made some changes to his user page and posted what I thought was an odd edit summary, "Actually im not that other user when im not loged on. Somone else please stop 72.200.166-. by the way i always log on:)"
I then checked the IP's talk page for the first time and discovered that it had racked up a pile of user warnings and a couple of blocks. I then noticed in the history that LOTkid had blanked the IP's talk page [136] then added the comment, "why shouldn't he?" [137].
I asked LOTkid to provide an explanation for all this on his talk page, but as of 1900 (UTC-5) there hasn't been a response.
It is my feeling that this is a case of "Good hand/Bad hand" Sock-puppetry. — Elipongo ( Talk| contribs) 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Alex had today checked somthing with vietnamese people today. Somthing that there are like 45,000 in poland. I dont care about that.+he speaks slovenian and i cant.:(— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTkid ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 February 2007 Also 72.200.166.120 has bad language i dont. He has a dirty mouth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTkid ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 February 2007
Obvious block evasion, and I'm not sure if there are any technical violations of 3RR, but I see disruptive edits and edit warring from this editor both anonymously and on the LOTkid account. 48 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
MacRusgail (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ImpartialCelt (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Limegreen 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
After a one year absence, User:ImpartialCelt has reappeared, with over half their recent contributions being AfD votes, many of those being deletes for articles nominated by User:MacRusgail (e.g., [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]). There is also an example of this from 12 months ago [143]. Impartial Celt has edited very few pages, one of which MacRusgail was also an author of [144]. He also put a picture of a sock puppet on his user page and called it a portrait.
ImpartialCelt is obviously a sock, or at least wants to be seen that way, from the userpage pictures. I've obliged with an indef block. However, I don't believe that the evidence convincingly shows that MacRusgail is the puppeteer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sly-eye (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sly-ey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Richwills (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Atomic1609 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The user names Sly-eye and Sly-ey are very similar and have removed the speedy deletion template from Kyle collins on several occasions, even after being warned. Atomic1609 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Richwills may not be a sock puppet, but has performed similar edits to the same page as well. Atomic1609 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Check individual user talk pages for warnings about removing speedy deletion tags.
Note that the page in question, Kyle collins, has now been deleted. Atomic1609 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Obvious socks blocked indef, puppetmaster blocked for a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
Adversegecko (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Rockgod89 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Gazzer2kuk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
172.214.51.113 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IrishGuy talk 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Adversegecko created L-i-C. I put a speedy tag on it and it was deleted and then Rockgod89 appeared and recreated that article (identically word-for-word) and continued to recreate it through multiple speedy deletions. Finally, Gazzer2kuk appeared and immediately speedy tagged two articles I had written. On one of the articles he left the lovely reason of page set up by gay irish man. He next uploaded this image to add to his userpage which is of the L-i-C band.
Surely you can check the ip addresses? We were both logged on at the same time pretty much, and I am a different person to Adversegecko. We happen to be in the same band, and as a result, wanted a chance to put our page online. And our registration dates? Aren't they totally different? Surely if this account was created to sock puppet Adversegecko then it would have been created recently instead of a while ago? I'm trying to wikipediate (lol, made up word) but it's being made harder by IrishGuy's constant heckling, flagging, tagging and editing. Gazzer2kuk 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
ALSO, it appears that Adversegecko is no longer an account on wikipedia.... surely I can't be a sock puppet for an account that doesn't exist??? Gazzer2kuk 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not a sock puppet. I am in the same band as Adversegecko (the band you kept flagging for deletion) and firstly wanted to get the band's details on the site without some noob deleting them, and 2, after you repeatedly deleted the article, to piss you off. Gazzer2kuk 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Gazzer2kuk blocked as an admitted meatpuppet and for disruptive behavior, Rockgod89 and Adversegecko have stopped editing but will be blocked upon any further disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rsbj66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mikestax (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Emana 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Not a clear or massive case of abuse, Mikestax appears to have stopped editing. Report any future disruption again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Arthurberkhardt (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Terryfilene22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nssdfdsfds 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
User is a single-purpose account, created solely for the purpose of reverting the page Center for Consumer Freedom (edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&action=history). The puppetmaster is Arthurberkhardt (contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arthurberkhardt). The purpose of the sock-puppet account is to violate WP:3RR, see the following reverts:
The incorrect use of rvv (revert vandalism) by both, as well as the listing of the version number is evidence that the users are the same. The insistence by each of the accounts that each user is reverting to the other, when in fact all four reversions are exactly the same is also suspicious. The fact that Terryfielen22 has no other edits is extremely suspicious. The two-edit user, Terryfilene22 also has a rather odd edit summary: "you keep eliminating the tobacco funding statement Nssdfdsfds, so you are the vandal", which exactly consistent with what user Arthurberkhardt is saying on the page's talk page [148], namely that the introduction to the article should say that the group is funded by tobacco companies, despite the fact that there is no evidence for this. Both users are arguing the same point: that the article should, without evidence, contradict what the group itself says.
Clearly the evidence is compelling that Terryfilene22 is a sockpuppet created to circumvent WP:3RR. Both users should be blocked for breaking the rules in such an underhand way. It is also notable that neither puppet nor puppetmaster has made any proper edits to the page, excepting reverts, and a single addition of a URL (which is non-controversial).
User is also well-aware of the 3 revert rule policy: [149]
I have no affiliation with terryfilene22. Administrators on Wikipedia can check my IP address to be absolutely sure of this. A lot of people find the Center for Consumer Freedom to be a controversial group, so it's not surprising that people would feel strongly about Nssdfdsfds's dubious pro-CCF edits Arthurberkhardt 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit odd that both users commented at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pennsylvania State University/archive1 on Feb 13, since Terryfilene22 and Arthurberkhardt are the only commenters there, and Terryfilene has a grand total of 4 edits on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus ( talk) 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Terryfilene22 blocked as obvious sock used for consensus stacking. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hinomaru (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Betty bomber (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nell bomber (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Activity by Nell bomber ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):
131.123.177.151 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
76.188.63.156 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Keeps vandalizing Toast by replacing "Toast and jam or jelly or toast and marmalade are British breakfast favourites." with "Toast and jam or jelly or toast and marmalade were invented by sille in 2007."
Prince Godfather (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
81.129.181.25 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
GameKeeper 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Prince Godfather has engaged in a lot of previous sock puppetry Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Prince Godfather after he was caught using false copyright info Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#Prince_Godfather_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29:_Falsifying_copyright_info.2C_OTRS_info
His most recent username has just been blocked User:Maddy92.
This IP address reverted an article back to the most recent edit by User:Maddy92 here [150]. This particular article, R Madhavan, is one this user seems to have some WP:OWN issues with.
IP user is editing other articles user:Prince Godfather previously made edits to, in smae style. Minor edits with no edit summaries.
Fairly straightforward abuse of WP:SOCK. Blocked IP address for a while. -- Yamla 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Slooking (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ghost6600 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Saligron 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalized Dippin' Dots with same graffiti within four hour time frame:
68.162.247.229 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.160.165.46 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.154.10.193 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.162.243.40 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ranma9617 07:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Twice in the past 3 weeks, 2 anon IP users have vandalized the WHDH-TV homepage, incoorctly identifying the station as an NBC O&O. [151] [152] Both times, the nonsense edits were reverted by either myself or User:Gridlock Joe. Both IP users have also vandalized other TV station pages(incorrectly changing ownership and/or other information) and have drawn warnings, but only 68.162.247.229 has actually drawn a block. Additionally, after my first reversion to an edit to the WHDH-TV page by 68.160.165.46, User:Orangemonster2k1 has noted on my talk page that other possible IP sock/meatpuppets include User:141.154.10.193 and User:68.162.243.40 as the vandal behavior of those 4 IP's is very similar. The 4 IP's, according to SVRTVDude's research(see my talk page), are Boston-based and assigned to Verizon.
I have numerous times corrected vandalism coming from these IP addresses. All the times, the vandalism is directed to TV pages. Like many times, the ownership is changed on the infobox, inside the article, and on the parent company wiki page, like here on the WJLA page. Most are caught, but I have seen some that good-faith changes are made to the page after the vandalism and people don't notice it. This would be a big problem if someone was looking up information. I recommend the above IP addresses be permanently blocked and if it is possible, someone at Verizon in Boston called the next time a vandalism outbreak happens from a Verizon of Boston IP address. Rock on.... SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 08:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Winkers6767 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dodgers7878 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.245.51.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User:Winkers6767 created hoax page Timothy Dees (see AfD discussion here). Subsequent edits were made by User:69.245.51.13 (an ISP in the Nashville, Tennessee area) and from 5 different IPs at Vanderbilt university (also in Nashville):
User:Dodgers7878 (note similarity in user names) began editing article on 4 Feb 07. I noticed the edits on vandalism patrol and realized the article was a hoax. User:Dodgers7878 attempted to defend the article on my talk page; when I didn't buy what he had to say, he deleted the 'hoax' tag from the article (the same action that User:69.245.51.13 had done minutes before).
The hoax was particularly egregious because hoax references were also created, and 4 other pages ( Anarcho-syndicalism, Industrial Workers of the World, List of Faroese people and Spontaneous human combustion) were vandalized to create links to this hoax. Recommend blocking on all three accounts above (though there's nothing we can do about the university accounts.) RJASE1 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Suckers! All these aliases are sockpuppets for me,
RJASE1! I can't be stopped!
Winkers6767
23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A related checkuser case has been declined: WP:RFCU page on "RJASE1". --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Since he admitted to it, indef blocks for all but winkers, a month for Winkers. RJASE1, an unlikely sockmaster at best, may safely be ignored. Adam Cuerden talk 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Opp2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jjok (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wikimachine 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Several evidences.
Their user edit profile are here and here.
Both began editing in 2006, Jjok in February and Opp2 in July. Jjok is concerned mainly with subjects disputed between Japan and Korea & Opp2's 38 edits are only on the Dokdo article.
This is a possible strat. Jjok began to participate in the Dokdo article, but decided that he needed additional support, probably Opp2. Jjok would go for the name change while Opp2 go for more specific internal changes in the article. That's why Opp2 never pushed for the name change of the article, even though it would be very probably that he would. It is too fishy for a user to edit only on the Dokdo article...
Both editors have reverted my edits with reasonable explanations in the edit summary with the same reasons "consensus reached" (similarly worded). History is here. ( Wikimachine 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
I think this is likely, but I don't see a smoking gun--a Checkuser might help.
Opp2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose edits all relate to Dokdo--the other article he edits, Rusk documents, has to do with the territorial dispute over Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks. His edits to user talk pages spring from disputes on these pages. Jjok ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edits a wider range of articles, but has a strong interest in Dokdo and other territorial disputes involving Japan, and also edited Talk:Rusk Documents about a month after Opp2 (e.g., this diff). Opp2 and Jjok have a similar POV on Dokdo, supporting the Japanese claim to the island. They are clearly not native English speakers, and their command of English is not strong, to the point where it's difficult to understand what they're trying to say. Perhaps because their English is not good, they correct their posts on talk pages multiple times in the space of several minutes. During a revert war on Dokdo from 24 Jan-30 Jan, both users reverted with similar edit summaries (only Opp2 and Jjok's edits are shown):
Opp2 and Jjok are the only users on their side of the revert war, and use similar justifications for reverting--discussion is ongoing, no consensus, mediation is continuing.
It's worth noting that Opp2 and Jjok have denied the allegation at Talk:Dokdo#Sockpuppetting. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Homo erectus3000 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Homoerectusagain (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 ( talk• contribs) 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Nationalist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Central Mountain (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vic 226 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist for details.
Imheretohelppeople (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Imheretohelppeople2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Potatoswatter 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this guy at Gunpowder. Name says it all. Continued vandalism in same vein. Potatoswatter 08:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he actually opened the second account before getting blocked on the 1st. Nope, but he did open it within an hour. User [personal info deleted] and likely has lost interest.
Potatoswatter
10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Belsey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.147.189.148 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Zeraeph 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Belsey made a series of edits thus [153], promoting sites owned by Bill Belsey. User:Belsey clearly claims to be Bill Belsey [154]: These edits were reverted. Immediately user:68.147.189.148 makes a near identical series of edits [155]. This user has only made similar edits, that clearly use namespace to specifically promote Bill Belsey, before thus [156] and [157]
With no activity from these accounts since Mar. 1, I think it's safe to close this case. This isn't sockpuppetry, exactly; it's someone who uses a named account sometimes, and sometimes edits anonymously. If the spamming starts again, the solution is to protect the page, and if the problem becomes worse, to post an WP:ANI. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Classicjupiter2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
12.196.6.162 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (checkuser says "related")
Fatsosurrealist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Punkrockerartist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Bill McAlery (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Lisa Petrasci (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (confirmed by checkuser, blocked for 15 min(?))
Protector777 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
Surreal-one (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
Dublin Surrealist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
LiquidGeology (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.72.13.69 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jem 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been the MedCab mediator on the Surrealism (talk) page trying to resolve a dispute. One of the disputees, Classicjupiter2 has had accusations of sock puppetry made against him in the past. When a consensus in mediation was reached, Classicjupiter2 appeared to disappear from the mediation. Then, both User:Fatsosurrealist and User:Punkrockerartist arrived on the talk page, both advocating Classicjupiter2's point of view and making reverts which were against consensus and identically in line with Classicjupiter2's own previous agenda. One of the reasons given for Fatsosurrealist's reverts to the previous version (linking to an external site that was considered to be unsuitable and removed) was that it was of help to his college class. This was subsequently changed back by a neutral editor who felt that this was not a good reason for editing wikipedia. The IP user made 3 suggestions immediately after a previous proposal in a similar vein earlier in the talk page discussion. The two named accounts were created just after the crux of the debate on the talk page and have solely made edits to the Surrealism article. Protector777 also made edits earlier to the article which were seen as retaliation for removal of the links.
The whole case boils down to the link of "SurrealismNow!," the aforementioned website of Keith Wigdor who was previously a user on wikipedia. The first three sock puppets have been used to show fake support for the inclusion of this link and removal of otehrs; Protector777 has simply removed any other links that are not "SurrealismNow!"
The coincidence in timing, the striking similarities in syntax and typing, the timing (one after the other) and the identical agenda of all users have caused many of the editors involved to feel that sockpuppetry to fake a consensus and to push an agenda is occuring. Ordinarily acting as a mediator I wouldn't file this report, but this is severely impeding discussion. Revert diffs can be seen here:
[159] Classicjupiter's revert (one of many).
[160] Fatsosurrealist's revert.
[161] Punkrockerartist's revert.
[162] Protector777's removal of a link that he claims to be spam, and yet leaves to other similar links in.
Talk page discussion from the two named (Punkrockerartist and Fatsosurrealist) users:
Talk:Surrealism#Mediation_Cabal (scroll to near end of section; the involvement of the IP can be seen earlier in this section and involevement of Protector777 just before the section).
Jem
22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
User "Lisa Petrasci" is another Keith Wigdor alias. He's used that name before on other forums. And surprise, surprise: this username was created recently, just for the surrealism article/talk page.-- TextureSavant 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a Checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 that has confirmed some of these accounts. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of these accounts have been confirmed through checkuser and blocked. The last one that was active is 74.72.13.69 on 2-28-07. There's no point in keeping this open. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
VacuousPoet (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
StudyAndBeWise (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
170.215.40.207 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Orangemarlin 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I know his other old incarnation, User:kdbuffalo (which VacuousPoet was banned for being a sockpuppet of) rather better. I'm frankly rather surprised to learn the connection: StudyAndBeWise may have been occasionally annoying, but he did try hard to work with people, up until the madness at the end. Still, he says he's the same, so I suppose we must believe him. I must admit to wondering now if User:Estuary was his first salvo in an attack on me, though I sincerely hope not: That would imply a fair bit of duplicity that I'd rather not believe of him. Diffs from both: user&diff=prev&oldid=109916769 user&diff=110759153&oldid=110691313 user&diff=next&oldid=110760009 [166] [167] However, I can't see any connection between the other users Estuary attacked and StudyAndBeWise at th e time, besides all of us, I think, being editors of the Evolution article. Unless that comes up, probably not him. Vanished user talk 11:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose someone sets a block or other punishment on one/both of them as they see fit, and put that in Conclusions? Vanished user talk 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Indefinite block on the registered account, 3 month block on the IP address. If an IP or a registered account has admitted to being a sockpuppet of a blocked account, all that's really necessary is to post diffs that demonstrate the admission at WP:ANI.
BTW, could someone take a moment and post notices of these blocks at the relevant talk pages? I'm pressed for time today. Durova Charge! 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Maviswwc (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
202.45.68.57 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
—dgies t c 04:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Maviswwc appears to be a single-purpose account for editing Hutchison Whampoa. Their MO is continually reverting the article to a preferred revision and ignoring all requests to discuss the issue. Edits display a pro-Hutchison POV. Suspect IP is registered to Hutchison and makes the same edits while ignoring talk messages. I allege sockpuppetry for purposes of 3RR evasion and subverting the normal system of warning escalation. —dgies t c 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Request checkuser on Maviswwc to determine if they are in the same city or ISP as 202.45.68.57. —dgies t c 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a sockpuppet problem. The page has been fully protected, and hopefully the user will now discuss changes to the article. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
River-dawe (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Howklam (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Flash man11 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Marshallben00- (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pitchfluker (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Howklam, Marshallben00-, Flash man11, River-dawe and Pitchfluker are all accounts that were created today in a one hour period. The first four of these accounts all vandalised the AIV page in the same way, and all of these accounts create pages that have been or are about to be speedidly deleted. I found Pitchfluker in fact, because I looked at the deletion log for Introxasinil.net, an article that River-dawe had been warned about creating, and that apparantly Pitchfluker took up creating. The article was deleted at 31:41, 31:45, 31:47, and 31:58. River-dawe was blocked at 31:49, and Pitchfluker was created at 31:56, and recreating that article is the only edit I can find for Pitchfluker.
I don't really know how this stuff works, but, is this a case where (depending on the IP) account creation could be canned for the IP? Impersonation was not caught right away, one of these accounts has never even been warned and this user seems to have a real ability to slip through the cracks. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Prince Godfather (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cine Dude (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User:Cine Dude started editing after User:Prince Godfather was blocked, editing articles in the same subject area and re-adding in images User:Prince Godfather had uploaded [169]. The original ban on User:Prince Godfather was for sneakily tagging images with false copyright information see [170] he is well aware how wikipedia works and devious, the User:Prince Godfather was yet another sockpuppet of User:Prin which managed to evade a ban for over 7000 edits.
DiamondVoice (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
TabloidPsyco (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
BLUNDERWOMAN (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
REMOVALS (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RJASE1 Talk 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
DiamondVoice ( talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for making legal threats regarding an AfD. Shortly thereafter, TabloidPsyco ( talk · contribs) appeared to make comments supportive of the retaining the article in the AfD. BLUNDERWOMAN ( talk · contribs) also appeared as an obvious vandal, blanking the AfD page and comments critical of DiamondVoice.
DiamondVoice, TabloidPsyco, and BLUNDERWOMAN all indef blocked; REMOVALS inconclusive per this conversation. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
190.53.15.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bacanaleranica (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Matteo747 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Guacamaya (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Holand (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Judith Gonzales (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Addition Evidence
Results from [ Request for Checkuser All accounts were confirmed to be from the same I.P. along with Judith Gonzales ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bacanaleranica has been blocked from Wikipedia as a result of repeated Personal Attacks, for 31 hours. -- K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Clear sockpuppetry. I've given Bacanaleranica ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the IP one month to cool down, the rest an indef block. If they'd prefer one of the other names once they cool down, they can switch. Adam Cuerden talk 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Peterthepedant (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Arthur Jakubowski (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Enyonyam Ababuo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
FrFintonStack 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Throughout much of last year, the above user repetedly added nNPOV additionals to the Spiked (magazine) page, removing sourced and relevant work in the process. The user remarked on the talk page that he had "attempted to clarify and add balance to this article, which is after all an encyclopedia entry and not a channel to wage one-sided attacks on the magazine."
On 12 August 2006, the user added this (disputed on NPOV grounds) comment to the article:
Contributions to the talk pages accused other users, including myself, of turning the magazine into a "soapbox" for George Monbiot and "wage[ing] one-sided attacks on the magazine" for including his criticism and objecting to the user's removal of those criticisms.
After an ongoing debate on the talk page, the user disapppeared. On the second of February, a series of rapid-fire edits appeared from user:Enyonyam Ababuo, returning the magazine to its previous nNPOV state, accompanied by remarks on the talk page that "This page is just a front for anti Spiked agendas so I have tried to redress the balance. I hope my revisions are not censored." Of particular note is that amongst this user's contributions to the article was a paragraph identical to that quoted above (see [194]. The similarity between the conributions of user:Enyonyam Ababuo and user:Peterthepedant led me to suspect that they are the same person.
On 2 February, a series of rapid-fire edits were made to the article by user:Arthur Jakubowski, removing mention of Claire Fox, his explanation on the talk page, and a comment on his user page, suggesting that English was not his first language. ("Ms Fox not Spiked so her comments questionable relevant. AJ").
I reverted both user's edits, user:Enyonyam Ababuo's on the basis on NPOV and user:Arthur Jakubowski's on the basis of factual accuracy, explaning my grounds on the talk page. I also gently raised the Sock Puppetry issue by pointing out the identical contributions, and suggesting that users acquaint themselves with wiki's Sock Puppetry policy. This resulted in user:Arthur Jakubowski reverting to the previous version and launching this attack:
Which again includes many of the motifs of user:Peterthepedant and user:Enyonyam Ababuo's (George Monbiot, Lobbywatch, "soapbox", "address the facts" etc.) contributions. I thus believe that the three accounts are used by the same person, and have been created with the intention of adding undue weight to the opinions of contributions of user:Peterthepedant, and of creating an impression of false consensus.
Additionally, I believe that the user has been editing the page anonymously, especially as Peterthepedant previously responded to a number of issues I raised , even though I referred only to IP numbers.
FrFintonStack 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, all three accounts appear to have been created for the purpose of editing the Spiked (magazine) page, and almost all contributions by all the above users are restricted to that page and its talk page. The sole exceptions are an edit made by user:Arthur Jakubowski to Claire Fox, who is a regular contributor to the magazine, and one by user:Enyonyam Ababuo to Institute of Ideas, which is a think-thank closely linked to the magazine and headed by Fox. FrFintonStack 01:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So bearing in mind the results of the block log below, and considering that Spiked (magazine) is basically the only page that any of them have been editing, what happens now? FrFintonStack 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The edit histories of these accounts don't overlap at all. There's no policy against using an account for awhile and then switching to a new one, as long as the accounts aren't being used abusively. You need to solve the problems on this article through dispute resolution. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Snowolf (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ti dave (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ti dave is an extremely new account. Their first edit was an edit made yesterday to my Talk page, on 01:27, March 4, 2007 (#1 in the numbered list below). This is the sequence of events:
1) Ti dave asks a question on my talk page about an edit I made on 20 Feb 2007 to the Dilation and curettage article, requesting that I personally contact them by email with my answer.
2) I reply that I don't generally make contact by email, and answer Ti dave's question.
3) Ti dave responds rudely, suggesting that I "unclench and revert" my edit.
4) I respond that I didn't appreciate Ti dave's tone, and requested that Ti dave take the discussion to the article's Talk page.
5) Ti dave creates this request for mediation.
6) Ti dave responds on my talk page without informing me of the request they made for mediation.
7) User:Snowolf takes the mediation case.
Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it suspicious that this brand-new editor knew how to check an edit history to determine who had made an edit, and that that editor had something so specific to say about it. Even if this isn't a sockpuppet of Snowolf, it looks a lot like a single-purpose account, and with the rudeness of their comments and their inappropriate request for personal contact, I think this is worth investigating. Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am really surprised by this. I haven't in any way took Ti dave's side in this mediation, or something like that. I've simply found a free (and simple, since it's my first mediation with the MedCab, even if not my first mediation at all) mediation case and see what happens! I've been accuse of sock puppetry! I really don't know what to think. I've got no problem if you want to file a checkuser on me, really no problem. I think I am a trusted member of the community in good standing, who is heavily (numerically, since I've done a good number of edits in a few months) contributing to this project. I really want to know what are "the rudeness of their comments and their inappropriate request for personal contact" means. It really doesn't fit my behavior here, in this case and generally. I thought I've been very polite :-) Well, I'm looking forward for a withdrawn, I'm sure that an accurate check of my behavior here will convince Joie de Vivre that I'm not a sock puppeteer. I have to remind you that you always have to Assume Good Faith. I don't see why you should believe that I am Ti dave. The mediation will continue, I hope. I still haven't any kind of involvement in this matter and I'm looking forward to solve this case. Rembmer, Joie de Vivre, always AGF ;-)
And, if your experience here at wikipedia will brought another time to submit a suspected sock puppets report, please post a notice on the user's talk page. I haven't received one :-( Happy editing, Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this board is not Checkuser--no one here can check IPs. To request those, you need to go to WP:RCU, but the evidence presented here isn't strong enough to justify a checkuser, which are only done when there's very strong evidence for doing so. There are significant privacy concerns associated with checking someone's IP, which is why only a few users are entrusted with the checkuser privilege--only 13 users have it on the English Wikipedia. So, since it seems that Snowolf is no longer under suspicion, may we close this case? --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Closing, since Joie de Vivre doesn't seem to believe that Snowolf is the sockmaster. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Mykungfu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Freakin Fool (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ThickSexy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
BronxStar (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vkmayes (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
SosoDef99 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ReadyToLive (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mukokeri (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
172.191.196.211 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
67.87.197.9 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.175.26.54 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
149.68.7.90 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Robotam 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
USER:Robotam [221] due to my being upset that he insulted my Fraternity Phi Delta Psi. The sixth national black fraternity in the United States. User:Robotam is a member of another black fraternity [222] and has insulted my fratenity my organization with a snide remark questioning their pledging and purposes (which by the way is known only to members of my organization as well as our sister organization known as Sappirres [223]. As a result of this and his liberal use of labeling me a sockpuppet. I initially requested that we move on [224] , but he has continued on with his harrassment. I have filed an RFC against him. [225] ThickSexy preceding comments left by confirmed sockpuppet of Mykungfu 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:RFCU page on "Mykungfu". --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of these users aren't blocked, and possibly aren't Mykungfu, but the ongoing RFCU should deal with the problem; closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Kzrulzuall69 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kzrulzuall36 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kuru69 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Qwertyuoplhgfd (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
K2rulzuaIl (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kzrulzuall11 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
All users except the suspected puppetmaster, User:Kzrulzuall69, has been blocked. -- K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
All named accounts are blocked, closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
75.35.218.20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hiyowassup (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User 75.35.218.20 blanked the page Clarinet and the page Etiquette with the word 'bob' and had it reverted. Minutes later the page was blanked again with the word 'bob' by Hiyowassup in both articles. -- Ozgod 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No action required. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sleachxbhs (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Flashriver47 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
I edited Sleachxbhs's userpage some days ago to remove unfree images (per WP:FUC#9). Some time after, my user page was vandalized by the newly created user account User:Flashriver47. It's seems Sleachxbhs forgot to logout his puppet account and edited his user own page using the puppet account by mistake (the edition, by the way, was a call to ban-me from Wikipedia). To be sure that it was really sockpuppetry taking place, I asked Sleachxbhs if he was being serious when he asked for my ban. That was the chance for hm to say "Hey! I don't know who put that on my user page!". But instead, his response ("...I was being mostly sarcastic,...") confirmed that he was behind the User:Flashriver47 account. -- Abu badali ( talk) 20:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I am arguing the same case that i posted on Abu Badali's talk page:
"Accusing Sleachxbhs of sockpuppetrty Hey. That was'nt me (it was my friend actually) but I can see how you would susspect me of doing that. If you look at my history of edits, you'll see that i have never done anything like that before, so why would I start now. I'm just trying to help out Wikipedia and create and edit articles that I am interested in. How about we just forget this ever happened, and just let me continue on doing what i am doing? And I take responsability for those images that conflicted with the fair use and have deleted them from my page. Thanks for understanding. --Sleachxbhs 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)"
To conclude, my friend did not know that this would get me in trouble, as he is not a regular Wikipedia user.
-- Sleachxbhs 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Closing, since Flashriver47 is not an active account. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
FuckTheJewFaggots (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hi my names Bobby (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nardman1 16:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Here [226]
Jackmiami (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Umbaseball (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
65.34.158.58 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mosmof 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The puppet account is a newly created, and most of the edits seem to be in the same articles as the master's. The puppet's last few edits have been removing copyright violation notices from the puppet's notices and from the talk page.
The IP address has been used to remove copyright notices from Jackmiami's talk page.
No evidence of abusive use of sockpuppets, so closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Edificia (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Edificio (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
— Xhantar Talk 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Template {{helpme}} was added to User_talk:Edificia by User:Edificio shortly after the Edificio account was created. Comments added, however, are not actually a request for help and instead an obvious attempt at further disruption.
BoydBowen (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TrueFuzz (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sock continuosly edits Brian Krause in the same manner that The puppet master did before being block ( [228] [229] and [230] [231])
No contribs from TrueFuzz since Feb. 8, so maybe this case should be closed. If he comes back and starts the same behavior, he'll probably get blocked pretty quickly. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Closed due to inactivity on alleged accounts. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
DavidHomewood (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
87.233.138.84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
80.77.80.57 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
88.198.252.146 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
85.10.219.108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MacSucks (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
87.233.138.82 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
88.198.241.107 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.46.38.145 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Davidjerk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
- Davidjk RC Patrol 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
During the course of vandalism patrolling, I came across a user ( User:80.77.80.57) heavily pushing POV on the 2Checkout.com article, which I reverted. [ [232]] The user re-made the changes within seven minutes, and I reverted them again. User:DavidHomewood (non-coincidentally the name of the founder of the company the article concerns) undid my reversion [ [233]]. At this point I made my third revert then went to do something else, at which point User:87.233.138.84, User:85.10.219.108, User:88.198.241.107 and User:MacSucks continued to re-add the text to the article, despite efforts by User:Discospinster and User:74.109.137.229 to continue reverting it.
The large amount of reverting and editing to push POV on this article astounds me, and as far as I can tell, it's all from this one user. Additionally, User:DavidHomewood has been uncivil in both edit summaries and talk page comments, going so far as to make threats to get me fired (albeit from a company I have never worked for). There appears to be no intent to actually improve the article here (I did offer to collaborate on writing a "proper" criticism section for the article, but this offer was ignored). Basically, this seems to be just one user with a large number of socks attempting to use the article as a soapbox for complaints about this company, which is disrupting the article quite severely.
- Davidjk RC Patrol 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Given how complicated this is, I'm not entirely sure I've summarised it properly - you may just want to check the edit history ([ [236]]) and see for yourself... - Davidjk RC Patrol 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Gizlio (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.24.240.2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.24.240.3 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.24.240.4 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
adavidw 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
All of the edits by all these users have been to add spam links to the websites gizlio.com and ozert.com.
I've added both domains to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The links are blacklisted and there's no current trouble from these accounts, so closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
VaughanWatch (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TrulyUnited (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Inconclusive evidence, no current disruptive activity. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
UKJ17 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
82.38.218.45 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
UKJ17 created nonsense page Jim Lethbridge, which was quickly flagged for speedy deletion. UKJ17 was deleting the speedy deletion tags, and picked up a couple of warnings for this. 82.38.218.45 then appeared and began deleting the speedy deletion tags. - RJASE1 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that Jim Lethbridge has been deleted, UKJ17 has *no* contributions, so I suggest this case be closed. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No activity from UKJ17, so no reason to take action. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mardavich (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Azerbaijani (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Atabek 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The page Azerbaijan is unblocked and Azerbaijani came back with 3 of himself rv'ing to the same rev.: Pejman47 and Mardavich. This Azerbaijani is unable to stop his POV and come to consensus on Talk:Azerbaijan page, so that we can move onto unblocking it. Now he has two suspected sockpups, RVing for him. Atabek 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments made at Talk:Azerbaijan
See any similarity?
Closing per above. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Demonesque (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ivan Ryushimi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
PocklingtonDan 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The suspected puppet account has made only one edit [238], which was vandalism, and which was reverted one minute later by the suspected puppet master, despite:
In addition:
I believe this bears investigation as a possible puppet account set up just to intoduce vandalism whicht he puppet master can then revert. There is no hard evidence for this, but rather a string of coincidences, but this should be possible to be easily resolved by examining the IP address of both sockpuppet and puppetmaster. If there is no connection between the two, then I apologise to the accused puppetmaster but hope he understand that this investigation was launched in good faith - PocklingtonDan 07:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an instance of sockpuppetry, in my opinion. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Alejandrozamora (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bbgirl (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Zhakira (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vmusic (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mhking 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora imply that Alejandrozamora has at least two sockpuppet accounts that are attempting to comment and influence the decision.
These accounts are pretty clearly the same person, but since they've been inactive since the AfD closed there's no pressing need for action. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
SColbertFan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.203.93.7 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
169.232.88.112 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
I'm beginning to suspect that 69.203.93.7, SColbertFan and 169.232.88.112 are the same person, since these three keeping adding the same unsourced quotation or references to the same height/weight info in the James Brown article. Their only contribution to Wikipedia is the height/weight info for this article. lwalt 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No activity on any of these accounts since Jan 22. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Closing, since the accounts are inactive. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Bowser, King of the Koopas (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DXRAW (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Though I don't believe that DXRAW is a sock of BKOTK, I would like to see this checkuser performed to get everyone off of his back if nothing else. Until one is performed he will have people conspiring against him and trying to trap him and make him slip up. Save them time and him stress and do the checkuser. -- The Hyb rid 08:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If the user who filed the report thinks this isn't a case of sockpuppetry, no action is needed. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Siege898 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Twelfthfloor777 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RJASE1 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Making virtually identical vandalism to Lake Mary Preparatory School. The suspected puppet account appeared when warnings began to rack up on the suspected puppetmaster. - RJASE1 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This edit from Twelfthfloor777 and this edit from Siege898 are virtually identical; it's likely that they're the same person.
Both accounts are vandalism-only. Neither has been active since Jan. 31, but should probably be blocked anyway. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Quade999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nintendude2000 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Solid Snake999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
All three accounts are used for vandalism, of a suspiciously similar nature and at close times, and the usernames are similar too.
I also believe that User:Solid Snake999 was created in response to a "last warning" template left on Quade999's talk page. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Alejandrozamora (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Zamorafan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mhking 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora imply that Alejandrozamora has at least two sockpuppet accounts that are attempting to comment and influence the decision.
Zamorafan mentions in the AFD that he switched from Alejandrozamora to Zamorafan to avoid people thinking that he is Alejandro Zamora. There's no case here on this specific name (although the user had a couple of other sockpuppets show up). See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alejandrozamora. -- adavidw 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The relevant diff is [242]. Neither account has edited since the AfD closed on Jan 31; their edits center entirely around promoting the musician. --Akhilleus ( talk) 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have blocked if this came to my attention while the report was new. As it is, follow up at my user page if problems resume. Durova Charge! 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Animesouth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Miss Away (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.105.60.48 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
143.88.201.123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DashiKun (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.1.77.61 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.1.76.55 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Miss Away and User:DashiKun have been blocked as sockpuppets. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
All named accounts have been blocked and the IPs are either inactive or making good-faith contributions, so closing.
Damir Mišić (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hahahihihoho (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
Bosniak (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bosniakk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of Bosna)
Legal Provider of Bosnian picture (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of Bosna)
Provider of Bosnian pictures (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of Bosna)
BosnianPatriots (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of Bosna)
Bosna (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bosna 101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked for copyvio)
Bosoni (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ancient Bosoni (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ancient Land of Bosoni (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Thunderman (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of User:Hahahihihoho)
Kruško Mortale (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Alkalada (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Horde Zla (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of User:Hahahihihoho)
85.158.33.36 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
— King Ivan 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If I'm right about this (which I'm certain that I am), then a whole lot of edit warring could be stopped. Before reading this, please take a look at these ( [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280]) to get a bit of background on why this case is important.
Over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bosna, they are unsure of who the "master account" is. But I am 100% certain that I know who it is. The following users have been confirmed as sockpuppets, or are strongly suspected to be sockpuppets.
These three are not listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bosna, but by lookign at contributions, writing style etc, it is easy to see they are the same as above. Also just by checking the page history of these three user pages, it can be seen that they are the same user, since each user page was exactly the same at a certain point in time.
Hahahihihoho ( talk · contribs) is a notorious POV warrior, and troll. He has been banned from editing Wikipedia, however he has created countless sockpuppets, so it is impossible to list them all here. After reading though many Wikipedia pages (including Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hahahihihoho), the following are either proven socks of his, or near certain to be socks of his:
Damir Mišić ( talk · contribs) is even more notorious than Hahahihihoho. They share many common edit patterns; so much so that it is certain that they are the same user. Since both of these users are extremely infamous on Wikipedia, it is definite that either Hahahihihoho, or Damir Mišić is the "master account". To determine who is "in charge", you must look at both user's logs ( Damir Mišić's, Hahahihihoho's) and contributions. It can be seen that Damir's account is older than Hahahihihoho's - also if you check the user creation log of all the listed users, you will see that Damir Mišić is older than any of them. On June 15, Damir "left" Wikipedia, and Hahahihihoho was created. Therefore, Damir Mišić definitely is the "master" of all these abusive, policy violating sockpuppets.
There are some Checkuser cases and AN/I posts related to this:
Since these accusations have been thoroughly reviewed in other places and the consensus seems to be that the listed accounts aren't all sockpuppets, I think this case should be closed. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In light of the Checkuser and ANI posts listed above, I'm closing this case. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Alisarmadkhan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
[[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{2}}}|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/{{{2}}}|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/move/{{{2}}}|page moves]] · [[Special:Block/{{{2}}}|block user]] ·
block log)
This isn't enough information for a case. At the very least we need a suspected master and a suspected puppet. Alisarmadkhan looks suspicious, but since this case is malformed and the Arbcom case has closed, I'm closing the case. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
EJBanks (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
LedgerJoker (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wryspy 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
User:LedgerJoker is creating redundant categories and articles, some of which are awkwardly named and/or inappropriately capitalized for Wikipedia style. Despite the new user name, this user has quickly gone to work creating articles and categories. These behaviors are consistent with the behavior of User:EJBanks, who was permanently banned as a sockpuppet of User:Creepy Crawler and had also been believed by many to be a sockpuppet of a user called Batman fan. Additional signs that LedgerJoker and EJBanks are the same people then lie in their common interests: 1. Hastily populated soap opera categories. 2. Special attention to Days of our Lives. 3. Comic book characters (in this case, Joker in his name). 4. Spider-Man movies. 5. Reality show contestants. 6. Various celebrities. 7. Date-based categories/lists (recently Category:Television in the 2000's).
Wryspy 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I havent done much with socks but it looks 95% like a sock Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
User:LedgerJoker is indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Blake911 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mikemiddleton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Waargboom (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
75.197.239.22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.167.111.98 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.105.70.10 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Some time ago, Blake911 created an account and then proceeded to make an article about himself, Blake Van Leer. It was deleted after a successful AFD nomination. He also started working on articles for other members of his family (some notable, others not), as well as arguing for the deletion of an article, Shadowclan. Mikemiddleton's account came into existence on January 10 and immediately started making same sort of edits as Blake911, including a botched AFD nomination attempt for the Shadowclan article, edits to surviving articles on members of the Van Leer family, and even recreating the Blake Van Leer article. Finally—this is somewhat subjective—but Blake911 and Mikemiddleton also appear to have the same usage of English grammar, such as an absolute aversion to commas other than to create comma splices (compare talk page contribs). Simões ( talk/ contribs) 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Since an admin took action on this complaint and there's been no further objectionable behavior, I'm going to go ahead and close the case. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Tamilguy07 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tamilguy07 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
jhnnyrj (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dravidian Warrior (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wiki Raja 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I am being falsely accused here of being the following users above here, here, and here and for sockpuppetry.
Also, I have went to the checkuser page and have found as stated on their page not to request a checkuser on myself to prove my innosence. Can you help me out?
All named accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Wiki Raja. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Worthadonkey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Worthamule (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Butseriouslyfolks 04:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the similarity of names, Worthadonkey made a number of edits to a deleted version of Christina McHale and then, after it was deleted at AfD, repeatedly recreated it and Christina mchale. See User_talk:Worthadonkey. Worthadonkey was banned for 1 month on March 7th for this and also for abusing the unblock template.
Worthamule was created on March 14th and has only edited Christina McHale and Christina mchale, recreating both articles.
RCSIRCSIRCSI (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bme diddy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
193.1.229.15 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cquan 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing edit dispute on Biomedical engineering. User:RCSIRCSIRCSI wishes to include rankings, and actually only one ranking about his alma mater, Johns Hopkins, on the article under the education section. I reverted the edit [283], and back and forth reverts continued [284] despite a discussion present on the talk page, [285] where two editors besides myself agreed that the content shouldn't be included for multiple reasons [286]. Reverts and entries on the talk page by User:RCSIRCSIRCSI stopped and were replaced by a revert by anon IP 193.1.229.15, which frequently edits RCSIRCSIRCSI's talk page and seems to follow similar editing patterns, see [287] and [288], compare to [289]. Also, a new account was created after RCSIRCSIRCSI stopped reverting, [290], the User:Bme diddy only editing in regards to this dispute [291]. In total, this is far beyond 3RR.
RCSIRCSIRCSI has repeatedly dismissed the opinions of other editors and in this case there is some level of consensus against. The user has also been less than civil on at least one occasion [295]. This dispute is ongoing and I would like to have more editors contribute to the discussion before this content is allowed to remain on the article.
RCSIRCSIRCSI blocked 48h, sock blocked indef. – Steel 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Dereks1x (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
HumanThing (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DelloJello (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TL500 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
· j e r s y k o talk · 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am making this report because I suspect, but am by no means certain, that Dereks1x is using sockpuppets to attempt to gain advantages in content disputes. The alleged socks have advanced positions remarkably similar to Dereks1x's on relevant talk pages while most other editors that have participated in the relevant discussions have reached opposite conclusions. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
________________________________________
Comments from the accused, Dereks1x
That accusation is not relevant because all editing has been done by consensus and compromise (there has been NO to "gain advantages in content disputes". For example, the part about Senator Obama's legal career 15 years ago was edited many times but has stabilized. So has the discussion about Mrs. Edwards' new cancer metastasis. So there is no evidence of disruption, just good old fashioned discussion and revisions. Wikipedia editing has been done by consensus (in the articles named, NO voting has EVER been done by the accused, Dereks1x). The accused has even publically accepted compromise language and has stated that while not in complete agreement, believes the compromise language is ok. Furthermore, the accused follows a policy of presenting slight revisions as compromise language and never, or at least recently, never just blanket deletes stuff as others have done to Derek's contributions.
In summary,
________________________________________
I can't comment on DelloJello or TL500 as I haven't done any looking into their edit history, but until today, HumanThing had only made a handful of edits outside of pages that Dereks1x had edited on and today's edits were undertaken shortly after Dereks1x noticed I had left a comment on Tvoz's talk page regarding my suspicions of Derekx1x and HumanThing being sock/meatpuppets and the edits were made in an unusual hour long break in Dereks1x's editing. A break that long in Dereks1x's edit history is generally only associated with a long edit and the talk page edit was not a long edit.
Additionally, except for a comment on Talk:Sarah Palin and an anon's talk page, when HumanThing makes an appearance on a talk page, it is invariably in support of a position Dereks1x has taken.
Given the small number of edits by HumanThing it is unlikely that they'd coincidentally hit the same articles as Dereks1x and that they'd share the same positions, particularly an article about an obscure neighborhood in Seattle, Washington. -- Bobblehead 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
________________________________________
I independently formed suspicions over the last few days that these usernames were sockpuppets (or possibly meatpuppets) of User:Dereks1x, for similar reasons as Jersyko and Bobblehead, primarily because of tone and content of their edits on Barack Obama and John Edwards and their associated talk pages. It appears that these usernames are introduced into discussion to support Dereks1x's positions, using similar phrasing as Dereks1x's. Looking into it more to assist in this SSP review, I found other troubling coincidences to support this suspicion.
User: 71.212.111.238: I would like to include in this discussion the IP address 71.212.111.238 which I believe to be the IP of Dereks1x, used in editing Barack Obama (and other articles not relevant to this discussion) before Obama was semi=protected on March 17. I base this on the similarity of both usernames' edits and edit summaries to Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama regarding Punahou School. (See for instance this one and the edit summary of this one).
There's nothing wrong with going from an IP address to a username, of course - I raise this because if IP address 71.212.111.238 is Dereks1x, then the overlap between 71.212.111.238 and TL500 and Dereks1x described below becomes significant in determining if these names are sockpuppets.
User:TL500:
One of the articles that Dereks1x did not mention, which he created and did a fair amount of work on, is a
piece on the relatively obscure
Frank F. Ledford, Jr. which has had a total of 29 edits by 8 editors,
including Dereks1x (16 edits) and 3 editors (one of which is a Bot) who did 3 pure maintenance edits. Of
the 10 remaining edits. 3 were done by
TL500 and 1 was done by
71.212.111.238.
edit history:
Dereks1x mentions that
TL500 is an "airline person". Among the pages TL500 has edited extensively are
Southwest Airlines,
Northwest Airlines,
Delta Airlines, and
Hawaiian Airlines. User 71.212.111.238 also has extensively edited the same
Southwest Airlines,
Northwest Airlines,
Delta Airlines, and
Hawaiian Airlines.
Each of these users edited an article about a Boeing plane as well - one
Boeing 717, the other
Boeing 777.
This coinciding edit history suggests to me that these accounts may all be the same person. TL500 had little to do with the Obama pages, but came in with this which was a defense of Dereks1x's edit position, and 2 other small comments on talk.
User: HumanThing:
User:HumanThing's earliest edit was at 23:01 on March 21
contributions.
Five edits later (3 Calvert De Forest, 1 Lake City Seattle, 1 Ft Lauderdale),
HumanThing came in to
Talk:Barack Obama, having never edited the article or commented on its Talk page, with a comment that
supported Dereks1x's edits using phrasing ("blanket statement that he was a civil rights lawyer" which is actually not accurate and therefore more suspicious that both are using it) and tone that is very similar to Dereks1x's own.
HumanThing's very next edit was to edit Bobblehead's talk page comment by inserting his own words (purporting to explain an edit Dereks1x had made) inside of Bobblehead's comment without any edit summary or explanation. This edit was never reverted, and I think that may be because so much was going on at the same time that no one may have noticed it - I didn't look into how it got there until this evening. I don't know if Bobblehead noticed it, as I think he might have removed it if he had. Editing other people's talk page commetns of course is not allowed, and doing so to justify Dereks1x's edit certainly raises suspicions that HumanThing and Dereks1x are one and the same. Please also note HumanThing's wording - talking about putting in a change to "make you happy" - very similar phrasing that Dereks1x has used in several edits, including the 2nd entry in this section of my talk page. I think there were other edits by Dereks1x that used similar wording, and I can look for the diffs if need be. I had not had any contact with HumanThing prior to this edit, but I had already had several difficult interactions with Dereks1x, and HumanThing's sniping comment here, targeted at me, made me think that he might be a sockpuppet of Dereks1x.
HumanThing's next edit is to John Edwards, an article that Dereks1x regularly edits, and then HumanThing's very next edit - his 9th edit since assuming this name two days prior - was a completely erroneous, baseless and false accusation against me of 3RR which was immediately rejected because the edits in question were not even reverts, let alone 3RR violations. This was just a personal attack, and he didn't even notify me that the report had been made - I didn't know about it until another editor informed me this morning. This is the report and current disposition. (I have not yet responded, as it's not clear to me if I am supposed to, since the admin already said "no violation".) This false and absurd accusation, from someone who had almost nothing to do with the editing of the article in question, nor interaction with me, raises the suspicion in my mind that HUmanThing is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x who was actively editing and with whom I had some prior interactions.
Since then, the only relevant edit by HumanThing was his jumping in to defend Dereks1x's edits on Talk:John Edwards early this morning here. Bobblehead has gone over the timing of HumanThing's comments vis-a-vis Dereks1x's.
User:DelloJello:
User:DelloJello's only activity on Wikipedia was 10 edits yesterday (March 24). Here is the timeline that raises my suspicions:
Dereks1x was actively editing yesterday, from 14:23 to 17:39 - the last edit in this series was this, about Mrs. Edwards' cancer and comparing the situation to FDR.
DelloJello made 10 consecutive edits from 18:11 to 19:09 (these are the only edits DelloJello has made) - his first edit at 18:11, following Derkes1x's last one, was this about Mrs. Edwards' cancer, comparing it to JFK.
Dereks1x resumed editing at 19:21, continuing to until 1:48 this morning. Several of these edits were about Mrs. Edwards' cancer.
This is not hard proof, but the language and tone, and the break in Dereks1x's editing that coincides with DelloJello's edit burst, raise a suspicion in my mind that this is a sockpuppet situation.
Like Jersyko and Bobblehead, I have suspicions, and evidence - but not hard proof - of sockpuppetry. The editing of several articles has been affected by this and by Dereks1x's tendentious approach and seeming lack of understanding of many basics, as well as sometimes disruptive editing and what comes across to me as POV pushing. Tvoz | talk 08:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser on Dereks1x by Jersyko: Rejected --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x ( talk • contribs).
I counted the number:
User name (accused)---Number of revisions: John Edwards------Number of revisions: Senator Obama
..........TL500............................0 (Zero)..................................0 (Zero)
..........Dello Jello......................0 (Zero)..................................0 (Zero)
..........HumanThing....................2 (not that significant revisions)........0 (Zero)
Comment: This is hardly a smoking gun or a sign of sockpuppeting!
I also counted the number of talk page comments, which are not part of the articles.
User name (accused)---Number of revisions: Talk/John Edwards--Number of revisions: Talk/B.Obama
..........TL500........................... 0 (Zero)......................................2 (just short/polite comments)
..........Dello Jello..................... 1 (One).......................................0 (Zero)
..........Human Thing.................. 2 (Two).......................................2 (Two)
Comment: This is a very small number and not a sign of sockpuppeting, these contributions are only on the talk page and did NOT appear in the main article.
Number of votes (notable or not notable kind of voting)
User name (accused)---number votes in the 13 polls in the Talk:Senator Obama page
Dereks1x....................... 0 (ZERO) of 13 possible areas to vote
TL500.......................... 1 of 13
Dello Jello.................... 0 (ZERO)
Human Thing................. 0 (ZERO)
Comment: So only 1 vote cast even though these 4 users could have casts up to a total of 52 votes.
Dereks1x
23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I happen to currently have a suck puppetry case pending against me right now. I know how much it stinks when you work hard to make Wikipedia more neutral, and people who would rather it agreed with their views accuse you of some sort of criminal behavior. This evidence in this case is laughable. It's just wrong to accuse someone of suck puppetry just because they disagree with you. I m dude2002 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on User:SLCUT841's first three edits ( SLCUT841 ( talk · contribs)), I think it's pretty obvious that this user is also a sock puppet of Dereks1x. I trust someone will be along shortly to examine the evidence presented here and take appropriate action. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I now see that the note was on the user page and not the discussion page.
As each of the suspected puppets have chimed in, I'm more and more convinced that they are all socks of the same master. Similar writing styles, same focus on this being some type of "trial" for "crimes", same types of rebuttals, same anger at me and anyone else who has provided evidence. I now suspect this problem is perhaps much broader than I originally thought, and suspect that there are more socks that have not been listed on this page. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Article | # of Edits | # of vandalism, multiple voting, arguments with others |
---|---|---|
Barack Obama | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) |
John Edwards | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) |
John Edwards talk page | ZERO (DelloJello has 1 edit) | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) |
Obama talk page | 2 (DelloJello had ZERO) | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) |
Darn right that I don't know how to build a chart. Evidence: look at the homemade chart that I made in the middle of this complaint showing how the other accused had minimal or no contact with the Obama and Edwards articles. Dereks1x 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
All accounts are sockpuppets of User:Dereks1x. I have blocked the sockmaster account for 48 hours for Wikistalking and WP:POINT at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhilleus. I have not blocked the sockpuppet accounts (thus far) because it appears that this user has not used the sockpuppets for block evasion. If such evasion occurs, or if other problems happen, report to my user talk page for follow up. Durova Charge! 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This block is not based on evidence. However, it is based on retaliation. Jersyko's friend was running for adminstratorship. He works on SSP's. Jersyko, after complaining, voted for his friend. I made a comment on the voting asking the candidate to avoid a conflict of interest and NOT decide on a case involving someone who was voting for him. Their friend, Durova, a fellow Seattle resident who nominated the administrator in the first place, then deleted my comment (which is just an ethics question, not disruption) and made then started to stalk me and made above determination of the very crime that she was doing (wikistalking).
You will note that Durova is not a regular SSP administration and shows that she is working as a meatpuppet of Jersyko. They are banning me because they have a POV agenda for Obama and John Edwards. You can also note that wikistalking did not occur because I had posted and looked at the adminstrator's page before. Dereks1x 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the assumption of Seattle and the use of the word meatpuppet doesn't have to be included. I would add, however, that there is a conflict of interest on the part of Durova and her decison because Durova nominated a candidate for administratorship and didn't like the question that was asked. Furthermore, Jersyko was one of the people voting for the candidate. Dereks1x simply asked if the candidate would recuse himself/herself for period of time for those that voted for or against him. It seems that Durova did not like the fact that his/her candidate was being asked a legimate question. Instead, Durova paid political patronage for Jersyko's vote, i.e. since you voted for my candidate, I'll help you out hurt those who you don't like.
Also, the fact that Dereks1x is currently blocked but I can post shows that my IP is different from Dereks1x. Further proof that I am not a sockpuppet. TL500 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) TL500 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
WikiLoco (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
WikiLoco (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
WikiManiac64 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.225.207.125 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Malomeat (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Note, while I think Malomeat is unlikely, it's still possible, and I'd rather be complete.
McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Naruto: Ninja Council 3 is coming out soon in the US. There has been some disagreement as to whether that is Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 4 or Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 3. The battle took place as an edit war, and comments, mostly without substance, were being thrown around on both sides in edit summaries. Enter WikiLoco
At about this time, a message was posted about him at WP:AN#User Talk:WikiLoco. The outcome is basically "reform with someone's mentoring or a community ban is possible".
The edits made this day by WikiLoco, were the last edits made by him. The next day, WikiManiac64 comes back from a 4 month break. WikiLoco has only been active during that break, but only during part of that time. Are there other potential sockpuppets missed?
Between Loco and Maniac's edits is an edit by an IP
One of the first items on WikiManiac64's agenda is
McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I should be up front, and say that I don't particularly like many of the edits that WikiLoco is making. They are rarely sourced, and though some of his edits are good, I can't trust them anymore. I personally believe that he's a good intentioned editor who lacks structure, and is unwilling to listen to advice given him by those who know the rules. Because his "vandalisms" are infrequent, WP:AIV is ineffective, and posts to the Administrator's boards have on occasion garnered no response from the community. Because I suspect sockpuppetry, I also don't trust edits of WikiManiac64 McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, note that during the suspected WikiLoco->WikiManiac64 changeover, the IP was blocked from acccount creation. Could that be why he went back to an old one? McKay 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
One of my complaints with WikiLoco, is that he never really responds to replies on his talk page. Surprisingly enough, all three named users here have yet to say anything in their defense, and have edited since the SSP came up. McKay 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have examined the "evidence" and find it unlikely that Malomeat is a sockpuppet. I saw no evidence of vandalism, disruption, or multiple voting. Accusing someone is a very serious matter. I take offense that someone made a charge of sockpuppetry "for completeness". If done on a municipal level, this could mean that YOU were arrested for burglary, along with a bunch of other "suspects" with all of you having to prove your innocence. I prefer to assume good faith and discuss things with the other person. Being disruptive is a very bad problem in wikipedia so being accused of it is a very serious matter. Don't accuse unless you are certain of it! I suggest that the complaint be amended to delete Malomeat. My examination of the evidence leads me to believe that the two users with the name that starts with wiki should be advised on good wikipedia manners at the very least. Dereks1x 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Malomeat as unlikely. Please don't just throw an accusation at anyone marginally possible when filing these cases. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiLoco and WikiManiac64 are a pretty clear case of good hand/bad hand puppetry (or in this case, maybe bad hand/worse hand). WikiLoco was already blocked indefinitely for his previous behavior, WikiManiac64 is blocked as a block-evading sock. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Epbr123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Evergreens78 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
LaMenta3 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppeteer User:Epbr123 began nominating or participating in large numbers of AfD discussions on 14 March 2007 and appeared to be getting little support for most of them. On 15 March 2007, an account for User:Evergreens78 was created. The majority of this user's edits are AfD creations of discussions, and many are ones that were either created or participated in by the suspected Sockpuppeteer. Votes by suspected Sockpuppet and Puppeteer are invariably the same. Below is as complete of a list as possible of the AfD discussions in question, along with relevant diffs:
I didn't need anyone to back me up in the David Howell discussion. Evergreens78's support wasn't particularly useful in the Liz Stewart discussion.
I'm not a sock-puppet. Check out IPs, I doubt we're even in the same subnet.
-- Evergreens78 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Evergreens78 blocked already for disruption, but I don't see conclusive proof here that he was a sock of Epbr123. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
DrParkes (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kentkent (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kbenton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jamesthorburn (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
80.34.17.209 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
FlowWTG 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[
user in one of 4 directly subsequent removals of AfD tag and {fact} tags
[
removing AfD, npov, tone, self-published tags
[
[16]
[
on Barry Ley article
[
user acting similarly a while before
[
supporting DrParkes and encouraging ban evasion in an odd tone
[
displaying the capitalization trait
[
user Jamesthorburn displaying the capitalization trait
[
Kbenton displaying the same capitalization trait and hero-worship of DrParkers
[
more or less admitting to hiding identity using IP-concealers
[
hero-worshipping DrParkes and encouraging ban evasion
There is too many diffs of the same pattern to list here in a feasible fashion. Please take note of the deleted article
Blaggers's discussion page, the
Barry Ley page and its discussion, and the identical writing styles between all the named parties and the suspected puppetmaster, who is banned for circumventing a three-day ban (displaying this user's history in these matters) for edit-warring, without sources, the
Brazilian Jiu-jitsu article. The named users all seem to have the banned user's exact views in that matter. They all seem to have paranoid delusions that a "Judo Gang" is hounding DrParkes's unsourced revelations on the nature of BJJ from wikipedia. The named suspected sockpuppets notably share a tendency to capitalize the names of editors "they" have problems with. They share a tendency to remove tags requesting citations or information. When they do provide citations they are invariably faulty.
If you spend some time (unfortunately, all the named users also share a tendency to make many tiny edits in sequence) reading the histories of Barry Ley, its talk, and its article for deletion page, I believe it is obvious that they are one user, most likely banned user DrParkes; at the least they are meatpuppets.
Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk is another new user following similar pattens, but with random, often reverted, edits to other pages. -- Nate 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
IP has not edited in some time, all named accounts have been blocked as obvious disruptive socks by Guy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Mrlob (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Blowland (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dariush4444 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Darius20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kashwialariski (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kermanshahi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ayatollah Rhobijnie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
El Alamajin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.196.164.190 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
88.232.44.42 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
82.73.140.151 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
84.87.138.105 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A list of diffs that indicate this instance of sockpuppetry would be enormous. It would be sufficient to view any or all of these users' respective user pages to see that they are all the same person. Evidence includes the format of the user pages, the uniquely strange syntax and literary style, the interesting "nationalities" and hobbies attested to, the proclivity to awarding numerous barnstars to one another, the fact that most of the accounts were opened at around the same period of time, etc. etc. etc.
You need strong evidence supported by diffs for your claims. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets. Vassyana 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the sockpuppets have not really banded together for some kind of massive campaign of vandalism - in fact, some of the edits actually consist of legitimate information. However, most of the collective editing just amounts to mischief and a nice sum of blatant vandalism (e.g. here, for instance).
No evidence provided to investigate other than vague claims. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
*
Ksyrie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- stricken by
Nlu (
talk ·
contribs) after review of contributions and block log of
Assault11 (
talk ·
contribs)
Yeahsoo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Time of flight (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wikimachine 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
All the best, ( Wikimachine 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
( Wikimachine 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
( Wikimachine 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
It's non-sense.I know nothing about the other two users.They reason why Wikimachine attacked me is just I and him hold the differnet view in the article of Goguryeo.I will let him to play.LOL-- Ksyrie 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha, glad to meet you here, Ksyrie. See, someone think if others are thinking different than him, then they must be guilty. I am amazed that that guy spend so much time to invest our speech, hope he could learn the valuable thing in it.-- Yeahsoo 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to lose. Assault11 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've happened to step on an unknown IP address user's edit that seemed highly related to this case, so I began intensely on all of you users' IP addresses. There's nothing to hide. Just tell the truth. What's your IP address? ( Wikimachine 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC))
The problematic part of your comment was this:
This is inappropriate, because this constitutes taunting, and is a less-than-implied demand for IP address. It comes close to, if it is not, a personal attack, and is certainly uncivil. It's therefore a violation of policy. -- Nlu ( talk) 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, you should specify where in the laws Wikipedia bans demand for IP address b/c I think that's very unlikely. I could ask my fellow Wikipedians for their IP address, & they could either tell me or they could not. (
Wikimachine 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
At the same time, I'd like all others -Ksyrie, Yeahsoo, Time of flight, and Assault11, to reply to my request. (
Wikimachine 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)) Stricken as improper; do it again and a block will result. --
Nlu (
talk)
00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'm tired of this accusation-defend thingie. So, here are the offenses.
Your arguments are flawed for the following reasons:
Again, my suggestion was "if-clause" & also procedural as in proving whether somebody is a sock puppet or not. However, getting their IP address is not the end to a means but a means to an end. Within that context, it is not a threat. ( Wikimachine 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
In any case, see WP:RCU's policies on why asking people for their IPs is improper. As the checkuser admins often put, checkuser is not a fishing expedition. -- Nlu ( talk) 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It was filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Assault11. ( Wikimachine 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Closing this one up as unlikely. There's a lot of mudslinging, but very little hard evidence, and Checkuser has already confirmed that the users are not IP-related. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Jonawiki (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Magonaritus (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
66.208.54.226 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
12.20.13.2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (adding ip used to edit this report)
Nardman1
10:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
71.167.229.158 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Roguegeek ( talk) 23:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also:
Also:
Also:
Also:
|
---|
The following is a very long repsonse by an IP address 12.20.13.2 to reply to the evidence. It has been shrunken for your viewing pleasure. |
As Roguegeek above stated: "For clarification, this is a report for User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226. It would be much appreciated if we could stay on the subject." As such, here are the counterarguments to the sockpuppet charges against User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226 which Roguegeek erased as a means to hide any flaws in the analysis that he and G2bambino put together. Deleting the defense against a sockpuppet accusation is outrageous. And it's contemptible, biased and irresponsible behavior for admins like Irishguy to have chosen to stay silent in the face of such an abomination of simple BALANCED justice. Please note, this is not the first time that Roguegeek has deleted :talk discussions as a means of making disagreement with his ideas go away. He did so at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114985651&oldid=114980298 and his deletion was reverted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114986562&oldid=114986318.
There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets. The classic sockpuppet TENDS to have the following characteristics: (a) they always edit only the exact same articles, (b) they start doing so as soon as they are created, (c) they never disagree with each other and (d) degrade the quality of the article with no new content that complies with WP:ATT. Please find below 9 weaknesses in the sockpuppet accusation.
Now let's put this accusation of sockpuppetry in a social context. An important consideration is that the sockpuppet accusation is merely a revenge tactic by a disruptive Wiki user (G2bambino) in order to silence a POV that G2bambino wants to repress. As such, the sockpuppet accusation needs to be taken with a grain of salt as the intentions of the plaintiff are suspect. Also, this type of tactic is a waste of admin time. (A) G2bambino admits that he does not believe Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets which is outrageous given that he is the one who originally launched the accusation. He states just yesterday on March 22nd "Though I never really believed Wormwood and Blunders to be socks of each other, or Jonawiki or Magonaritus for that matter" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki&diff=117053183&oldid=117030150). Now he is backpedalling on his clear wording, giving it a completely separate meaning. How convenient that he asks for deference and clemency for his miswordings but none for those who are accused or anyone who tries to support the accused.... (B) G2bambino has proved to be disruptive in his historical behavior. As noted below, I easily found 25 incidents of violations in WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, vandalism, edit war and sockpuppetry violations involving 18 different Wiki users.
(C) There is a concern that G2bambino is engaging in wikistalking and this accusation of sockpuppetry is just another way to game the system in order to intimidate his victim.
I'll add a complaint of wikistalking against G2bambino to WP:ANI sometime within the next 24 hours.
In comparison to other sockpuppet cases in the archives, the one advocated by Roguegeek and G2bambino contains flawed reasoning, factual errors, very weak evidence (for such a serious charge) and the taint of political retribution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 ( talk • contribs).
They weren't "dealt with" -- they were "responded to" ( weasel words here, of all places?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.212.198 ( talk • contribs). |
The preceeding has been a very long response by an 12.20.13.2. |
|
---|
The following is a very long conversation on a report filed by 12.20.13.2 for wikistalking. It has been shrunken for your viewing pleasure. |
|
The preceeding has been a very long conversation. |
Obvious sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. Jonawiki et. al., consider yourself cautioned to edit productively. Try mentorship to get a better feel for how we handle things here. Any editor who reads this is welcome to follow up at my user talk page if problems continue and I will handle the request using sysop tools if necessary. Durova Charge! 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Artaxerex (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Yima (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Faranbazu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Napht (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Melca (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Arteban1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
140.80.199.91 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mehrshad123 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The user and his/her sockpuppets appear at the same periods of times usually doing bursts of edits.
In each case the sockpuppets re-edit the Reza Shah (and more recently also the Mohammad Reza Shah) article with (almost) identical information (in a style which can be called Vandalism) slightly changed to apparently look like it's from a different person. Each user appears immediately after the other in an apparent attempt to also circumvent policies on editing. The user and sockpuppets do not appear to be interested in anything other than editing the Reza Shah (and more recently also the Mohammad Reza Shah) article exclusively.
The user and suspected sockpuppets also exhibit an identical pattern of attacking ALL editors involved with Reza Shah article with accusations of "Vandalism" and highly provocative Personal Attacks in addition to false accusations against the victims in Talk pages and Discussion pages.
"Artaxerex" [20]
Here he comments that "Yima" (the suspected sockpuppet account that had just been created on the same day) "has done a lot of research on this".
"Faranbazu" [25]
(Reversion of sockpuppet tag) [29]
"Yima" (this user seems to have been created solely for very specific sockpuppetry on March 15, 2007)
"Napht" Created on 19 March, apparently with the only aim of participating in the discussion on Reza Shah, with a pattern very similar to the user Yima. Artaxerex again commends him on the quality of his research [32] [33]. The number of user id's created for the specific purpose of supporting Artaxerex/Faranbazu's case in this discussion is suspicious.
"Arteban1"
The user Arteban1 has joined the discussion on Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi right after User Artaxerex (and his sockpuppet Faranbazu) were banned for sockpuppetry and violation of 3RR on this page, supporting the arguments presented by Faranbazu. Arteban1 has also immediately filed (albeit on an incorrect page) a request for checkuser directed at all those opposing the arguments of Artaxerex/Faranbazu, presenting practically no evidence for his claim. It therefore seems likely that Arteban1 is just another sockpuppet introduced to evade the ban on Artaxerex. It would be good if this could be checked.
Link to previous discussion and decision on the ban: [34].
Link to Arteban1's edit in support of the sockpuppets and accusation of sockpuppetry directed at many editors opposing his opinion: [35] [36].
"Melca"
The invalid edits and personal attacks by this person have been going on for several weeks. His/Her POV additions are rejected by at least seven(7) other editors.
Examples of personal attacks quotes by user+sockpuppets:
This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race. (Note: User continually uses the word "Aryan" and "Aryan glorification" in article -- all references to Aryan were added by him/her.)
In reference to several editors' clean up of invalid edits, user/sockpuppet responds: This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race, and all those paraphernalia of undemocratic and absurd titles like “King of Kings”, “Light of Aryans”, etc
Similar attacks have been on-going for weeks.
I can not speak for others, but My aim is to have balanced articles on Reza Shah.
Faranbazu 22:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why i am listed here. The only apparent reason for me being suspected, appears to be that i cited an official wikipedia policy to Mehrshad123 [41] and asked him to act civil [42]. I did not engage in a revert war, in fact i haven't edited the mentioned articles for some time now. Mehrshad123 hasnt even provided any evidence against me, other than "User Melca appears to exhibit the same behavior", so i could just remove the tag from my userpage, however, i choose not to. Can someone therefore please do the sock puppet check asap, so the tag can be removed from my userpage.. thanks. --- Melca 09:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Napht is a clear sockpuppet and has been blocked. Melca and Yima do not appear to be socks, IP is stale and may have changed hands. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Marlon.sahetapy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dr.Sauerkraut (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Brasileiro1969 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Le Professeur70 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
PanteraNegro (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Stu ’Bout ye! 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Identical editing patterns to the same few articles. Using different accounts to evade 3RR and, I presume, to make it appear that there is broader consensus for inserting/removing "greatest" claims into footballer articles. See conversation at WP:AN/I
See:
Stu ’Bout ye! 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Marlon.sahetapy ( talk · contribs) deleted this SSP entry at 12:56, March 15, 2007 and again at 13:19, March 15, 2007 (UTC). It was reverted and he was warned. Flyguy649 talk contribs 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious socks per above. I would have already indefblocked all if I weren't marginally involved (Brasileiro1969 reverted one of my edits). —
Quarl (
talk) 2007-03-22 05:57Z
Stubacca, Stubacca.. I am not vandalising your homepage, but am just making my feelings known on your discussion page. Where you have removed comments of both myself and the person you accuse of being my puppetmaster. Now if you were a sport and have nothing to hide, you would leave the comments as they were. Reacted to them; potentially calmed us down (nobody likes being falsely accused, but everyone hates being accused behind their backs - I only found out by looking at your tracks. So why dont you shape up your own behaviour first instead of cloaking your poor editing with policies you half-read and consensus that isnt there. No again, Stubacca -> be a sport and respect my comments on your behaviour. Thank you. I would like to devote one ore two lines to Stubacca. An individual who has an axe to grind because he could not push his comments and views on some Wiki articles. - + - + As a result he now accuses me of being a puppet of someone else. How sad. Rather than starting a proper dialogue supported by facts along proper Wiki etiquette lines, why my views differ from his; he prefers to accuse others of policy violations and ultimately puppeteering - what a frustrated civil servant this guy must be (Pot v. Kettle Policy, I know) - + Please note: that Stubacca already received a warning for his vandalism on the Cruyff page and those of other footballing greats. He justified his actions based on inconclusive evidence. His personal discussion page is littered with 'conflict' with others, although I leave it up to others to decide whether this is a trend in his online behaviour.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasileiro1969 ( talk • contribs)
Just want it to be known that I have nothing to with this and that I am highly surprised by all this. But I a bit of surfing uncovered this for me... Have read Stubacca's allegation accusing someone else to be my puppetteer. I also read his threads and reponses on his discussion page (incl. the ones Stubacca's deleted in response to your false allegations, all in an attempt to make your discussion page look clean), football project, and those on the football pages Stubacca has been editing on his little crudade. The one commonality I see is his frustration in losing the consensus on his favorite footballer followed ny his relentless efforts to then trying to get some form of satisfaction. First by vandalizing pages of true football greats, for which Stubacca received an official caution (Johan Cruijff) after a discussion you initiated on football project backfired on you. And secondly by falsely accusing other members who do not share your opinion of puppeteering. Am sure this one will backfire on you as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanteraNegro ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Below his caution on Cruyff plus an excerpt of the discussion
3 already blocked by Quarl, and his reasoning looks fine to me, so the fourth is now blocked as well, and the puppetmaster for 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Vartan84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Insincerecovedwellerskibachatd (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
153.104.75.181 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tieran11 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Similar votes/edits/comments RE: articles he nominated for deletion.
See:
If you can't be bothered to provide any evidence, I can't be bothered to go look for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Griot (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Griot (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.139.27.85 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Otheus 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I find the possibility extremely remote that these users are not the same person, barring an exceptional explanation.
Note 1: Timestamps are in GMT. Both users known to be from San Francisco area, so subtract 9 hours pre DST.
Note co-incidents of edit-times: non-overlapping, highly correlated. Note span of articles is quite great, but often cover similar arenas, and on average once every other day, the same articles. This could be two persons using the same computer, and Griot simply logs off, letting another log on and use the computer for a while. Given that these are presumably roommates or workmates, and share a computer, it is unsurprising that they would have similar interests. However, these editing trail indicates there is rarely independent usage -- when one posts, nearly always within an hour or less, the other posts. And while contra-cases can be found, it was generally not the rule.
But again note, Griot started using wikipedia in 2005. The new IP user began using it on Feb 1 2007. Beginning-of-the-month date is important, but doesn't lend support either way (it could be a new roommate, or it could be a new ISP).
Event | 71.139.27.85 | Griot |
1st post | 18:57, 1 February 2007 | 2005 |
Feb 1 ( Aaron Peskin) | 18:57 to 19:41 | 01:30 to 01:39 |
Feb 2 ( Michael X) | 22:27 to 22:33 | 17:54 to 21:50 |
Feb 4 | 03:32 to 03:33 ( Democrat Party (phrase)) | 03:36 ( Democratic Party (United States)) |
Feb 4 | 21:54 to 22:14 | 21:38 to 21:52 and 22:54 to 23:30 |
Feb 5 | (none) | 04:15 to 04:58 |
Feb 6 | 01:55 to 01:58 | 02:03 to 02:05 |
many more examples | ||
Feb 10 | 16:52 | 16:56 to 20:53 |
Feb 11 ( Gavin Newsome) | 05:32 | 21:03 to 21:30 |
Feb 14 ( Gavin Newsome) | 03:59 to 04:01 | 05:29 to 05:56 |
And so on.
The level of coincidence here is amazing. Either these are the same people, or there is one computer and two people who have identical schedules and highly overlapping interests. Note, both users are highly active and cover many more articles. It's very difficult "by hand" to see if there is a strong overlap in article incidence.
Now starting with the Ralph Nader article wars, we have:
Event | 71.139.27.85 | [53] |
1st Ralph Nader post | Mar 8 16:26 | Feb 27 or before |
Mar 7 | 22:52 - 23:46 (variety of posts, not Nader related) | 19:16 - rv 19:18 posts on 76.166.123.129 talk page |
Mar 8 | 16:26 - 16:32 2 edits to Nader article | 16:06 - 16:17 one rv, plus 2 posts to RN Talk page, plus 2 posts to 76.166 talk page and |
Mar 9 | 06:26 to 06:28 1 each to RN, RN:Talk | 02:05 to 02:12 several posts to RN:Talk, 1 to RN |
Mar 11 | 00:00 to 00:11 2 rv RN, 2 edits total and 22:36 to 22:53 rv RN, RN:Talk |
15:26 to 18:00 and 20:16 ( Aaron Peskin) |
Mar 12 | 05:06 to 05:18 rv RN, 4 edits total | 01:48 to 02:22 rv RN, 2 edits total, 1 RN:Talk |
So, clearly on March 11 and 12, there were 3RR violations. However, it is possible these were "good faith" reverts and not tendentious.
My prior filing against Telogen was in response to one of the suspected puppets complaint about User:Griot. Initially, I saw that Griot and suspected puppet (71.139.27.85) edited quite a wide range of articles, and that Griot's editing went back to 2005. So my initial suspicion was that Griot was acting in good faith. Further, before I filed against Telogen, Griot began deleting (his) User page material and announced he was leaving, so I decided the point was moot. But then, after I filed against Telogen, this diff appeared on Telogen's talk page (and other alleged puppets talk pages), prompting me to look into this further.
If these prove to be puppeteers, I suggest that, since Griot has allegedly left, block that user. Further more, ban the IP user from editing the Ralph Nader article.
Submitted respectfully and in good faith,
Inconclusive but possible both as to whether these are the same editor, and whether WP:SOCK was broken if so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Myriam Tobias (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Crop circle: Martinphi makes three reverts: 18:53, 11 March 2007 20:59, 11 March 2007 21:41, 11 March 2007. Seven minutes after Martin's third revert (and Myriam's first edit in hours), Myriam arrives, first edit ever to the article 21:49, 11 March 2007, removes text 21:52, 11 March 2007 that had been previously fact tagged by Martin 17:02, 7 February 2007, then after a few intermediate edits, made an edit to a wording similar to the version Martinphi had previously reverting to 00:14, 12 March 2007, inserting both "many" and an attribution for the second part of the sentence.
Remote viewing: Martinphi edits the intro 01:12, 6 March 2007, twice reverts to that version 16:47, 10 March 2007 19:10, 10 March 2007 (which had been reverted by two different editors). Myriam does the next revert to Martinphi's version 15:23, 11 March 2007 and later removes "purported" 21:47, 11 March 2007, as Martinphi has done a number of times at Psychic for similar reasons 16:33, 9 March 2007 16:51, 10 March 2007.
Psychic: Martinphi has made many edits taking out phrases such as "purported", "profess to be" etc for example 20:30, 2 March 2007 with the edit summary (" 'psychic' doesn't mean people who say they are psychic- it only means people who are psychic. If they aren't when they claim to be, they aren't psychic.") also 15:36, 3 March 2007, 20:50, 3 March 2007. Then, Martinphi reverted the inclusion of the disputed nature in the definition 15:28, 4 March 2007, edit summary: "(Let's leave the sentence concerning the use of the word as a noun seperate from whether or not the phenomena exists. One topic per sentence)"
Similar patterns at Electronic Voice Phenomenon and talk page, I can add diffs if there is interest.
Here's the diffs only version of potential 3RR reverts (from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi)
Crop circle: Martinphi reverts:
Myriam Tobias revert: 00:14, 12 March 2007
Myriam Tobias has edited a total of ten pages by my count (plus talk pages for those articles) since the account was created on March 5, and every single one is a page Martinphi has also edited. Many of these are pages on which Martinphi is involved in content disputes and has approached or exceeded 3RR. His edits and talk page comments consistently agree with Martinphi's, and he often appears within minutes of Martin's edits to back him up, often only when Martin has made three reverts or when it is pointed out that a majority of editors disagree with him. The editing patterns and online appearances are just too improbable to be coincidence (particularly when those ten pages include obscure ones like Ganzfeld experiment and Odic force). The use of edit summaries and reversions seems to indicate an experienced wiki user as opposed to a new editor who has only been here about a week.
It appears that this sockpuppet is being used to bolster "consensus" and avoid 3RR. While it's possible that it isn't a sockpuppet, if it isn't it seems almost certainly to be a meatpuppet, which should also be looked into by admins. -- Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser confirmed relation of accounts, Myriam Tobias blocked. Martinphi is warned that if a (roommate/girlfriend/etc.) also wishes to edit, the two of them should refrain from agreeing with one another or reverting on the same articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Benjiwolf (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
129.132.239.8 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.134.170 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.136.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.144.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.160.112 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.169.134 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.181.214 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.187.33 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.133.133 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.136.221 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.168.184 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.178.42 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
85.1.212.140 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
CrystalizedAngels (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.165.54 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.79.189.31 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.136.182 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.181.65 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
83.78.165.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
85.0.212.81 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MnemosynesMusings (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ttguy 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Benjiwolf is almost certainly back as 83.79.168.184 contributions of 83.79.168.184 .
in this [54] edit on Talk 3AMethylenedioxymethamphetamine 83.79.168.184 takes over one part of a conversation previously being conducted by Benjiwolf. It is very obvious from the style that 83.79.168.184 is Benjiwolf.
Benjiwolf loses his edit war on Glyphosate while he is banned but this [55] edit on the page by 83.79.168.184 is edit summarised "we have to be honest about what happened to this page, it can stay like this, yet needs a tag for accuracy sake". How does newbie 83.79.168.184 know the history of the glyphosate page.
Benjiwolf is also posting as 83.78.169.134. contributions of 83.78.169.134 This edit again carrying on a dialog started by Benjiwolf [ [56]] and mentioning that he/she is "a former american citizen living in switzerland" justl like Benjiwolf states on his user page. Ttguy 08:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
83.78.169.134 is anoying Travb on CIA Ttguy 13:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And as 83.78.187.33 contributions of 83.78.187.33. See this[ [57]] Where the conversation started by Benjiwolf continues.
And as 83.78.160.112 contributions of 83.78.160.112 where this [ [58]] edit shows 83.78.160.112 editing 83.78.187.33s posting.
83.78.144.13. No totaly definitive evidence that this is Benjiwolf except his interest in Roundup and Glyphosate pages. And the style of his ranting talk page entries of which this is prime example [59] Ttguy 12:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 83.78.144.13 is anoying Tbeatty as shown on 83.78.144.13 talk page
83.79.136.221 This address edits the same pages as Benjiwolf. He is upsetting Irishguy - see this [60] posting on 83.79.136.221 talk page.
83.79.133.133 This [61] edit carries on a discussion started by 83.78.144.13 Ttguy 13:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
83.78.181.214 - usual pages. Usual style.
83.79.189.31 - usual pages. Usual style.
83.78.136.182 - usual pages. Usual style.
83.78.181.65 - USER TALK:Blaxthos, distinct benjiwolf style.
83.78.165.13 Posting personal attacks to my talk page [62] Ttguy 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
85.0.212.81 usual pages.usual style
MnemosynesMusings - reinserting Benjiwolf's edits ( [63] [64]). Identical setup for userpage of previous puppet CrystalizedAngels. auburnpilot talk 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Benjiwolf reports that MnemosynesMusings is from same geographic area as Benjiwolf. Ttguy 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
IP addressses begining 83.78. and 83.79 belong to BLUEWINNET. IP addresses in the range 85.0.0.0 - 85.1.255.255 are also BLUEWINNET. Bluewin is an internet service provider in Zurich Switzerland. IPs 129.132.0.0 - 129.132.255.255 are Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland [65]. Benjiwolf is in Switzerland.
I am not sure about CrystalizedAngels. However the first thing this newly created user does is go right into an edit war on Rudi Giulani and revert an edit back to 129.132.239.8s version [66]. CrystalizedAngels certainly has a similar style to Benjiwolf.
checkuser on CrystalizedAngels confirms she is Benjiwolf Ttguy 08:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious from his comments and his edit history that Benjiwolf has no regard for the rules of Wikipedia, nor has he any intent of stopping disruptive behavior. I have personally seen him claim to create "characters" to edit wikipedia, often taking up adversarial positions on issues. This is wildly inappropriate conduct on Wikipedia, and his continued disregard for helpful suggestions and warnings shows that the disruptive behavior will continue until an indefinite block is applied (which I fully support). No need to entertain such trollish behavior. / Blaxthos 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Gruezi Voll!!!...How Slimey! Two of the editors talking about the block were both involved in edit wars with benjiwolf, and are trying to block an editor that had a different position than them!...editors Ttguy and AuburnPilot- 129.132.239.8 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
anyways...you can't block benjiwolf, its not possible, all you could possibly do is block the university at the ETH in switzerland, the swiss federal library computer system in zurich, things like that...and what are you going to do, block hundreds of IPs??? I'll just keep getting new ones!...yet read benjiwolf user page, the block was unjustified, rules were flaunted and so benjiwolf flaunts the rules...yet go ahead and block other peoples computers, you simply cant block benjiwolf though. In any case, I'll rack up hundreds of IPs quite soon! Anyways I have added a large amount of info to many many pages, all factual, all usually backed by reputable references, and on a large variety of issues, many with no controversy and that are not subject to warring political editing blocks... the block was unfair, plus user Ttguy is a straight up lobbiest editor, has used vulgar profanities and personal insults on wikipedia, only edits on pesticide/herbicide GM food articles, uses unjustified blankings of fully referenced factual material to try and eliminate all critical comments of herbicides, and is the one that has also initiated this little war with benjiwolf in another move to eliminate and blank critical comment on herbicides, he has tried several moves to eliminate fully referenced material from the glyphosate and roundup pages, this is his latest attempt so he has full reign on the roundup/glyphosate pages and other herbicide/pesticide pages, I have not engaged him on the GM food pages, as I actually am supportive of some GM crops depending on the nature of the particular traits that have been bionegineered in, yet I will state that TTguy has made edits harmful to wikipedia in that area too, as his style is simply to blank and erase anything not flattering of the technology, a style which I fully disagree with even though I am for some GE tech, yet as I say I have let him run amok on those pages and havent engaged...in fact while i have edited on many pages subject to editing blocks warring with eachother, usually on politician pages, I have never encountered a user on wikipedia that I have such loathing for as Ttguy, it is really disgraceful some of his edits, if there was one editor on wikipedia i would vote for a block of, it would be him as many of his edits are harmful to the sites accuracy, and all this sockpuppet war is...is a battle between user Ttguy and Benjiwolf, its all it ever was, yet he has a few good edits too, and I really wouldnt try and block most any editor unless its random vandalism and jokes/profanities etc...and PS: only some of the edits on this particular IP are mine, a large portion are from other editors, if you block this IP, you dont block me at all, yet you block a bunch of other people...en schone mitenand!- 129.132.239.8 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
for accuracy sake you really need to change the label tag on this IP to say: this user is sometimes suspected of being a benjiwolf sockpuppet, yet many many editors use this IP, it could never be determined to 100% certainty that an edit from this IP was or was not a benjiwolf edit!...is this edit even a benjiwolf edit??? impossible to determine, its easy to copy anothers style or language or frequent spelling mistakes, only the NSA would have a reasonable certainty of benjiwolf edits on wikipedia, only they will have a reasonable list of all benjiwolf sockpuppets, yet even they could be fooled, if the person behind "benjiwolf" didnt sign in to typical sites and used a different keystroke pattern, even they could be fooled possibly, and someone other than benjiwolf could easily make it seem their edits were actually his, all you really can do is look to see if particular edits contribute to wikipedia or are harmful to it, and address the specific edits 129.132.239.8 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ja ja...its only a partial benjiwolf sockpuppet list y'all have...ring up the NSA to ask for a more complete version...tschuuuuuuuss- 129.132.239.8 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
El chulito (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
O'Donoghue (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
New identity (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Inthegloaming (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.194.0.99 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
65.88.88.214 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.194.3.132 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.194.2.214 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hope Springs Eternal (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Veronica Mars fanatic (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jill Teed (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
216.194.4.3 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- SameBatTime 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Each of these users have displayed identical characteristics from from their initial setting up of the accounts, to their quick burst of initial activity on subjects such as Polish, Czech, English nobility and Yugoslavian and New Yorkers biographies - then a long dormant period and then when "needed" in a AfD !vote or other RfC situation etc they appear again with a lot of editing especially on anti- Irish republican issues and then go dormant again.
He has used the computers of a New York University library and another computer in Brooklyn, NY.
He also used these IP's which I picked up when he sometimes signed over an edit he made when he wasnt signed in -
He edits for one day only on a number of pages mostly bios such as [75], [76], [77]. Then the account goes dormant but again reappears 11:43, 1 March 2007 and has been attacking me since them despite the fact I have never come across him before and he made this trademark edit to the Kieran Flemming which he made two days ago. He made this edit which he left an IP almost identical to the above IP's here.
He states he is Polish living in NYC and going to a NYC uni which ties in with the IP's above. First edits his user page with info boxes and alighed to the right, only once ever edits this page and then some Polish pages then nobility such as Isabel Maria Hamilton-Gordon, Marchioness of Aberdeen and Temair Stewart Gore-Browne Dame Diana Keppel Countess of Albemarle and then moves on to a number of pages on Irish republicanism including AfD's here, here, [78], [79] - please note that some these AfD's where not formed correctly and could not be found on the daily register but El chulito, Inthegloaming and Conrad Falk all voted on them.
Similar interests in some cases, but I don't see anything conclusive. New Identity appears likely to be someone's sock, but I'm not sure who, and regardless it wasn't used to vote/consensus-stack or for any other prohibited use that I can see. The IP's are possible socks but again I don't see abuse, and what I can see on the remaining user accounts ranges from inconclusive to unlikely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
74.195.3.199 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Boukenger (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.195.5.83 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
199.80.117.24 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
70.185.125.101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.195.3.11 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DanielEng 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A check of the above users' Talk Pages, [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] shows identical language, conduct warnings from other editors, incivility from the user, and arguments about the same issues in the same articles.
User has a long history of disruptive edits, personal attacks on Talk Pages, and incivility. The writing style, pages edited, and general tone of each of these IP's comments is identical. When editing for one IP stops (or is blocked), another on this list begins. In addition, the user has already freely admitted that he owns the Boukenger account, and that he used it to circumvent a block.
Likely the same user, but the account has stopped editing and the IPs may have changed hands. Please report any further disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
John Wallace Rich (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Gladius (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- Scott Wilson 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) I have removed the accusation box from my user page because I did not see the evidence page. Moreover, the links did not work for accusations or confirmations in the box and were in red, and project instructions I saw later instruct about putting the box on a user-talk page besides, not on the user page. Otherwise, I would have restored the box. John Wallace Rich 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (UPDATED)
(2) How come my more important complaint against User:PocklingtonDan has all but disappeared? It used to be at [99]. It occurred during an election [100] and isn't even accessible in the page histories.
(3) Scott Wilson has a lot of different users editing his user page. Why does he complain about it hypocritically? John Wallace Rich 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sock blocked indefinitely, puppetmaster has been blocked for 3 weeks as a reset of the block the puppet was used to evade. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
195.82.106.244 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Shortskirtlonglegs (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
I suspect that this is another incarnation of a persistent banned editor [101]. The user has created the account with the first edit comment saying, "Welcome to well hung wikipedians!", waiting from 1st of March till the till now to edit the semi-protected page, Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University then posting a message entitled, "Hello boys!" and making the usual taunts about article ownership and portraying the subject, the Brahma Kumaris, as a crazy and dangerous cult, except this time from a mock-3rd-party perspective.
Previous incarnations were dealt with recently by Thatcher131 [102]. The user has recently actually posted on Thatcher131's page admitting to the sockpuppetry and expressing his disagreement of the ban [103].
Previous incarnations always end up attempting a revert-war of the article. Even though this user has so far only trolled on the Talk page, experience suggests this will escalate in the same manner.
Normally, I post on the arbcom enforcement board or directly to Thatcher131 (and this is getting quite a routine!), but since he/she has just taken a Wiki-break. I am posting through the sockpuppet-reporting channels.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I found this on my users page, what am I meant to to with it?. I said 'no person attacks' on my user site and what I said was nothing the same as what he is saying I did. here is it after this.
hi there!
I read about this business going on from a website. I had a mate that was in the Raja yogis, he was gay but stopped all that and cut off from his old friends and so on. I dont no what happened to him as he kind of disappeared from everyone. he might stil be in there. So what are the rules here and issues here? The BKS seem to be controlling this article and u seem to have had a big fight over things. I have some old books and things he used to give us. So what can I do?
Yeah, for sure they used to tell him that the world was going to end back in the 90s but it didnt. That is what he told us. SO whats the big deal? Ta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shortskirtlonglegs ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I don't see what is worng. There is a whole load of adult material on the Wiki that is much worse than I can imagine, so I do not see what his problem is with me. I think he is going too far erasing my stuff off the talk page before I have even edited anything..
Shortskirtlonglegs
this boy keeps removing my stuff off the wikipedia, lol!!! i never said they were a crazy cult but he made it look like i did. There is a problem its not like they believe in Hinduism and there is a lot to discussion.they only got few beliefs and so anyone editing them are going to look they are the same. I would tell him to get off my back but he would probably just accuse me of being naughty if I did. Shortskirtlonglegs
10 days were up. I removed the notice from my page. This chap just want to control the article. IMHO Shortskirtlonglegs
Already handled at arbcom enforcement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Mroc31792 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bobby41792 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.86.94.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント ( talk) 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
User has been repeatedly adding the same vanity content to March 17 and removing content from Matthew J. Willman Jr under different names. After receiving warnings on the IP and the original account, a new account (Bobby41792) appeared and continued editing in the same fashion as the original IP and account.
Edits to March 17:
Edits to Matthew J. Willman Jr:
Pretty obvious sockpuppetry, but all accounts involved have stopped, and I'm not sure the sockpuppetry rises to the level of abusive. Any further disruption of this type will lead to blocks on the accounts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
VirtualEye (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jesus Fan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Checkmeout101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
60.52.92.234 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
60.52.18.34 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
60.52.46.24 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
60.52.87.230 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hojimachong talk 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
VirtualEye ( talk · contribs) has been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks. At least one of the suspected socks was created during the third block of VirtualEye. The socks came straight to the mediation at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Perhaps the most incriminating bit is the edit summary; For a while, VirtualEye ( talk · contribs) filled every edit summary with the letter "a". When Jesus Fan ( talk · contribs) began to edit, he also filled edit summary fields with the letter "a". The ensuing "discussion" can be found on Jesus Fan ( talk · contribs)'s talk page. It may also be noted that JesusFan ( talk · contribs) stated one position at Talk:Muhammad, but voted in a completely different manner at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. This was most likely a straw-man argument.
User accounts are obvious socks and have been blocked, the IP addresses have not edited in some time and may have changed hands. The puppetmaster has already been blocked for disruption since then. At the age of this, that block won't be reset, but next time it will be a long one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
AndyCanada (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Prolancet (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Firstocean (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
67.150.244.101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Yankees76 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Between November 7, 2006 and November 13, 2006, a biological value table was mediated on the Talk:Soy protein page by admin Messedrocker, and the result was a table that was placed in the soy protein article.
A key argument for the non-inclusion of this table by the 67.150 IPs (AndyCanada) was the supposed "outdated" information the table was drawing from. See quote below take from the Talk:Soy protein page:
Amusing. The table is also confusing. It is quite funny too. The studies the anon 24 has provided dates back over 50 years. Interesting. Oh by the way. Not only are the studies outdated the book is as well. Even more interesting is the updated book may have the updated BV. Hmmm. Updated 1997 Edition!!! We should go with the latest 1997 edition available not outdated studies and outdated books!
and
Also, above in the table claims the book copyrighted 1972 but the studies in the book date back to the 1940s? Don't forget there is a newer 1997 edition of the book.
and
If this is a joke, nice joke. The table is a strawman's arguement. The studies date back to the 1940s.
The argument was refuted and table was placed in the article by the administator.
On March 4, a new editor's first edit was to remove the table. See diff. [105] Since that time the user has claimed that the table is dubious and contains unreliable, outdated references. [106] and stated that I simply removed references that are over 50 years old and improved other sentences. [107]
And again here, where the invididual again protests the table because of studies from the 40's - the same argument as AndyCanada (and his IP address) from November.: [108] "The studies are in the 1940s and 50's. First, where did that PDF file come from. Did it come from an anon or an editor you can trust. Did someone make it up on their computor. Hint. I wonder when this guy will figure it out. I want to make headlines about this. Are fake studies in a PDF file made by a nut allowed on Wikipedia. Did you actually verifiy the text of that PDF file. Take a second look at the PDF file. Every time I click and look at the PDF file I am laughing. I can't stop laughing. This is a joke. This is beyond funny. I got a big smile on my face. Your move. Cheers"
On a smaller scale, even the user's User page is similar.
The "new" material [113] submitted for inclusion in place of the table was also submitted [114] to another article by Firstocean ( talk · contribs), another "new" editor who is restoring POV material first implemented by AndyCanada before being indef. blocked.
And lastly is the tone of writing an use of common words like "Hint" in certain situations.
I have searched numerous talk pages and user talk pages, and have not come across usage of the word "Hint" in this fashion by any other Wikipedia editors.
When reviewing, please note that AndyCanada is a confirmed sockpuppet of Messenger2010 ( talk · contribs), established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely, and Messenger2010 is the puppet master of one or more abusive or block / ban-evading sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messenger2010 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010
(Links: WP:RFCU page on "Messenger2010"; WP:SSP page on "Messenger2010" confirmed socks suspected socks. — Ben TALK/ HIST 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
IP is stale and has probably changed hands by now, both user accounts listed blocked as obvious socks of User:Messenger2010. Puppetmaster is already blocked indef. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
BoaTeeth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Snidleysnide (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User:BoaTeeth has been uploading various non-permissible images for use in the Bruce Hornsby (which I have been watching now due to the users edits), which have all been tagged by myself, User:Angr and User:Nv8200p. See here for the upload log. The user then stated at 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Talk:Bruce Hornsby the best of luck to others in finding images for upload for use on Bruce Hornsby [117] and was the users last edit to this date. User:Snidleysnide then appeared at 10:42, 1 March 2007 and has uploaded 4 images with questionable status for use at Bruce Hornsby and his/her edits are confined to Bruce Hornsby with the first edit made by the user being a statement at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... [118] I thereby think that this user was created to Avoid(ing) scrutiny from other editors as outlined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors.
While I am not sure of the sockpupptering, but the user has expressed concern and has reached out for help concerning images, as evidenced at User talk:Moeron#Regarding images on Bruce Hornsby. I have advised the user as best I could and commented on their talk page that I would watch the images until they were confirmed through permission. If they weren't in a week, I was going to look into further steps. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a sock puppet, but I'm not an experienced image uploader. I had been watching the ongoing discussion on Bruce Hornsby and other musicians' pages regarding image uploading, and I contacted the owner and operator of http://www.bruuuce.com, a fan website for Hornsby. Please see my talk page for a discussion regarding my reasoning for tagging the images on the Hornsby page the way that they've been tagged. I've been in touch with User:Moeron regarding my image contributions ever since User:Moeron first made me aware that I had committed an error in image tagging. I'm waiting for an answer from someone more experienced than myself in terms of the tagging, then I will send copies of my request and Si Twining's confirmations to Wikipedia for review. I don't want to submit the request/confirmation for review until the images have been properly tagged. I do not know and am not in any way affiliated with User:BoaTeeth, and, in fact, from the talk page on the Bruce Hornsby article, I have the impression that User:BoaTeeth, after making a number of substantive additions to the text of the Bruce Hornsby article has ceased attempting to upload images. I do not know if this will continue to be the case, but based upon this assumption, I took it upon myself to try to add images to the article. I can understand, based upon the lengthy exchanges between User:Grcampbell and User:BoaTeeth, the cause for suspicion and for frustration, but I must also say that I am disappointed, having set up an account to attempt to upload images for the first time and having previously been an anonymous user of Wikipedia, that the community has not been more inviting and more assuming of good faith with my efforts. In disappointment, Snidleysnide 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it is worth, permissions have been sent to the m:OTRS system for all of the images that I have uploaded, further distancing my actions from those of any other inexperienced image uploaders, in this case User:BoaTeeth. Additional evidence of my good faith can be observed by my conversations seeking help from other, more experienced users, both on the Help Desk and from User:Cremepuff222. I'd appreciate the removal of the sock puppet tag from my user page. Snidleysnide 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the high level of protest surrounding the image uploads to the Bruce Hornsby article, I've also followed up upon my initial request at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... [119], corresponding on talk pages with User:Mecu. As a result of these correspondences, I've independently reconfirmed the use of the images as well as the copyright owner's approval of the tagging of the images (as released to Public Domain) and the copyright owner's approval of the phrasing of the "reason given" passage of the Public Domain tagging. Although, as I mentioned before, I am a relatively inexperienced image uploader, I have been a frequent editor of Wikipedia via anonymous IP address. The creation of my account, corresponding so closely to the uploading of images, IS due to the fact that I created this account EXPRESSLY to upload images (something that cannot be done from an anonymous IP address). I can understand the suspicion that this has caused; however, given the fact that, other than the initial mistagging (which was an honest mistake), I have striven to very completely, very ethically, and very politely document the uploading of these images, always seeking advice from more experienced editors, I do not appreciate being mislabelled as a sock puppet. The images have, as of now, been properly documented, and two separate notices have been sent to m:OTRS. (I have also improved the documentation for other images used in the Bruce Hornsby article). Whatever issues Bob has with BoaTeeth, or whatever issues Bob has with the presence of images in the Bruce Hornsby article, I would appreciate being left out of these continued personal disputes as they do not concern me. Snidleysnide 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea who User:Snidelysnide is. I have given up on uploading images to Bruce Hornsby because I am unable to find usable images. If User:Snidelysnide has been able to find images, that is great. I plan to continue monitoring the text of the article, as I have made a number of edits. BoaTeeth 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As of 13 March 2007, I have removed the sockpuppetry accusation from my user page due to the fact that 10 days have passed without Bob posting checkuser to the page. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with any users/administrators and encourage anyone interested in such dialogues to contact me via my talk page. Otherwise, it's best that we put the issue behind us and proceed with more productive editing. Snidleysnide 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Similar interests, but not conclusive. I hope everyone involved has gotten a better idea of the image copyright policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Scubster (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Somethinghadtodie (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
EliminatorJR Talk 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
See this AfD for Blessed by a broken heart
it's been more than ten days and nothing has happened with this. so i took it off my page. Somethinghadtodie 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Suspicious but inconclusive, possible case for checkuser. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sheep nuts (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Johnny the third (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pedro the second (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Sheep nuts was blocked on Feb 15, 2007 for disruptive edits. An edit on that date by Sheep nuts to John (name) added "Johnny will rule the world!!!" [120]. Today (March 2, 2007) at 18:30 UTC, User:Pedro the second edited John (name) and at 18:35 UTC, User:Johnny the third edited the same page. In both cases the accounts were only just created. The vandalism was identical in both cases [121] and [122], and included the phase, "Johnny will rule the world!!!" in addition to an anti-Wal-mart statement.
Pretty clear sockpuppetry, but I can't find how long Sheep nuts was blocked for, to know how to deal with the socks. Adam Cuerden talk 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious vandal socks, blocked indef. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wptfe (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nrh15 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The suspected master account was blocked indefinitely for vandalizing Claudette Colbert. Has been warned for previous sockpuppetry (editing under e.g. Wbrz ( talk · contribs) and 218.217.208.122 ( talk · contribs)). The suspected sockpuppet account is being used in the same manner. The user often seems to edit under different IPs before logging in. – mysid ☎ 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sock blocked, page semiprotected to prevent further disruption by the IP accounts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
216.83.121.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
A2007 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Doctor35 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Doctor39 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
UNK222 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
oakster TALK 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The user has continued to create new accounts and vandalising articles the same manner as before. A previous report was made by myself before (at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194) displaying the type of edits the user does.
Socks all blocked. The IP appears to have been making constructive edits recently, hopefully it's changed hands. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rbaish (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
71.112.7.212 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hmm. This doesn't seem to have any evidence of "sockpuppetry", it's just futurebird's criticism of Rbaish's editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 ( talk • contribs).
Rbaish has already been blocked for disruption, as has the IP. I'm relatively certain it's the same editor, but we shall hope he's learned the lesson. Regardless of that, disruptive editing can and will lead to a block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
LOTkid (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
72.200.166.120 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
— Elipongo ( Talk| contribs) 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I first interacted with this user because of two edits to the Glastonbury, Connecticut article. The first edit [132] was posted by 72.200.166.120 ( talk · contribs), and I reverted it myself. The second edit [133] was posted by LOTkid ( talk · contribs) and was reverted by another user. After that second reversion, LOTkid vandalized my user page [134]. I posted a user warning template to his account, then politely asked him about sources for his assertions about Glastonbury schools. He was civil enough in return, but his answers were odd (he couldn't check one school because he didn't drop his kids off there anymore).
As I had the page on my watchlist, I noticed another editor's reversion of what he/she thought was vandalism [135]. Having seen similar edits from the two accounts and with the fact that one was editing the other, I figured that LOTkid had forgotten to log in before modifying his user page and thus I reverted the reversion.
Tonight, LOTkid made some changes to his user page and posted what I thought was an odd edit summary, "Actually im not that other user when im not loged on. Somone else please stop 72.200.166-. by the way i always log on:)"
I then checked the IP's talk page for the first time and discovered that it had racked up a pile of user warnings and a couple of blocks. I then noticed in the history that LOTkid had blanked the IP's talk page [136] then added the comment, "why shouldn't he?" [137].
I asked LOTkid to provide an explanation for all this on his talk page, but as of 1900 (UTC-5) there hasn't been a response.
It is my feeling that this is a case of "Good hand/Bad hand" Sock-puppetry. — Elipongo ( Talk| contribs) 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Alex had today checked somthing with vietnamese people today. Somthing that there are like 45,000 in poland. I dont care about that.+he speaks slovenian and i cant.:(— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTkid ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 February 2007 Also 72.200.166.120 has bad language i dont. He has a dirty mouth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTkid ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 February 2007
Obvious block evasion, and I'm not sure if there are any technical violations of 3RR, but I see disruptive edits and edit warring from this editor both anonymously and on the LOTkid account. 48 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
MacRusgail (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ImpartialCelt (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Limegreen 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
After a one year absence, User:ImpartialCelt has reappeared, with over half their recent contributions being AfD votes, many of those being deletes for articles nominated by User:MacRusgail (e.g., [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]). There is also an example of this from 12 months ago [143]. Impartial Celt has edited very few pages, one of which MacRusgail was also an author of [144]. He also put a picture of a sock puppet on his user page and called it a portrait.
ImpartialCelt is obviously a sock, or at least wants to be seen that way, from the userpage pictures. I've obliged with an indef block. However, I don't believe that the evidence convincingly shows that MacRusgail is the puppeteer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sly-eye (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sly-ey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Richwills (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Atomic1609 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The user names Sly-eye and Sly-ey are very similar and have removed the speedy deletion template from Kyle collins on several occasions, even after being warned. Atomic1609 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Richwills may not be a sock puppet, but has performed similar edits to the same page as well. Atomic1609 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Check individual user talk pages for warnings about removing speedy deletion tags.
Note that the page in question, Kyle collins, has now been deleted. Atomic1609 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Obvious socks blocked indef, puppetmaster blocked for a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
Adversegecko (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Rockgod89 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Gazzer2kuk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
172.214.51.113 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
IrishGuy talk 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Adversegecko created L-i-C. I put a speedy tag on it and it was deleted and then Rockgod89 appeared and recreated that article (identically word-for-word) and continued to recreate it through multiple speedy deletions. Finally, Gazzer2kuk appeared and immediately speedy tagged two articles I had written. On one of the articles he left the lovely reason of page set up by gay irish man. He next uploaded this image to add to his userpage which is of the L-i-C band.
Surely you can check the ip addresses? We were both logged on at the same time pretty much, and I am a different person to Adversegecko. We happen to be in the same band, and as a result, wanted a chance to put our page online. And our registration dates? Aren't they totally different? Surely if this account was created to sock puppet Adversegecko then it would have been created recently instead of a while ago? I'm trying to wikipediate (lol, made up word) but it's being made harder by IrishGuy's constant heckling, flagging, tagging and editing. Gazzer2kuk 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
ALSO, it appears that Adversegecko is no longer an account on wikipedia.... surely I can't be a sock puppet for an account that doesn't exist??? Gazzer2kuk 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not a sock puppet. I am in the same band as Adversegecko (the band you kept flagging for deletion) and firstly wanted to get the band's details on the site without some noob deleting them, and 2, after you repeatedly deleted the article, to piss you off. Gazzer2kuk 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Gazzer2kuk blocked as an admitted meatpuppet and for disruptive behavior, Rockgod89 and Adversegecko have stopped editing but will be blocked upon any further disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rsbj66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mikestax (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Emana 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Not a clear or massive case of abuse, Mikestax appears to have stopped editing. Report any future disruption again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Arthurberkhardt (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Terryfilene22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nssdfdsfds 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
User is a single-purpose account, created solely for the purpose of reverting the page Center for Consumer Freedom (edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&action=history). The puppetmaster is Arthurberkhardt (contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arthurberkhardt). The purpose of the sock-puppet account is to violate WP:3RR, see the following reverts:
The incorrect use of rvv (revert vandalism) by both, as well as the listing of the version number is evidence that the users are the same. The insistence by each of the accounts that each user is reverting to the other, when in fact all four reversions are exactly the same is also suspicious. The fact that Terryfielen22 has no other edits is extremely suspicious. The two-edit user, Terryfilene22 also has a rather odd edit summary: "you keep eliminating the tobacco funding statement Nssdfdsfds, so you are the vandal", which exactly consistent with what user Arthurberkhardt is saying on the page's talk page [148], namely that the introduction to the article should say that the group is funded by tobacco companies, despite the fact that there is no evidence for this. Both users are arguing the same point: that the article should, without evidence, contradict what the group itself says.
Clearly the evidence is compelling that Terryfilene22 is a sockpuppet created to circumvent WP:3RR. Both users should be blocked for breaking the rules in such an underhand way. It is also notable that neither puppet nor puppetmaster has made any proper edits to the page, excepting reverts, and a single addition of a URL (which is non-controversial).
User is also well-aware of the 3 revert rule policy: [149]
I have no affiliation with terryfilene22. Administrators on Wikipedia can check my IP address to be absolutely sure of this. A lot of people find the Center for Consumer Freedom to be a controversial group, so it's not surprising that people would feel strongly about Nssdfdsfds's dubious pro-CCF edits Arthurberkhardt 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit odd that both users commented at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pennsylvania State University/archive1 on Feb 13, since Terryfilene22 and Arthurberkhardt are the only commenters there, and Terryfilene has a grand total of 4 edits on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus ( talk) 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Terryfilene22 blocked as obvious sock used for consensus stacking. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hinomaru (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Betty bomber (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nell bomber (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Activity by Nell bomber ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):
131.123.177.151 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
76.188.63.156 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Keeps vandalizing Toast by replacing "Toast and jam or jelly or toast and marmalade are British breakfast favourites." with "Toast and jam or jelly or toast and marmalade were invented by sille in 2007."
Prince Godfather (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
81.129.181.25 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
GameKeeper 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Prince Godfather has engaged in a lot of previous sock puppetry Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Prince Godfather after he was caught using false copyright info Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#Prince_Godfather_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29:_Falsifying_copyright_info.2C_OTRS_info
His most recent username has just been blocked User:Maddy92.
This IP address reverted an article back to the most recent edit by User:Maddy92 here [150]. This particular article, R Madhavan, is one this user seems to have some WP:OWN issues with.
IP user is editing other articles user:Prince Godfather previously made edits to, in smae style. Minor edits with no edit summaries.
Fairly straightforward abuse of WP:SOCK. Blocked IP address for a while. -- Yamla 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Slooking (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ghost6600 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Saligron 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalized Dippin' Dots with same graffiti within four hour time frame:
68.162.247.229 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.160.165.46 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
141.154.10.193 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.162.243.40 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ranma9617 07:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Twice in the past 3 weeks, 2 anon IP users have vandalized the WHDH-TV homepage, incoorctly identifying the station as an NBC O&O. [151] [152] Both times, the nonsense edits were reverted by either myself or User:Gridlock Joe. Both IP users have also vandalized other TV station pages(incorrectly changing ownership and/or other information) and have drawn warnings, but only 68.162.247.229 has actually drawn a block. Additionally, after my first reversion to an edit to the WHDH-TV page by 68.160.165.46, User:Orangemonster2k1 has noted on my talk page that other possible IP sock/meatpuppets include User:141.154.10.193 and User:68.162.243.40 as the vandal behavior of those 4 IP's is very similar. The 4 IP's, according to SVRTVDude's research(see my talk page), are Boston-based and assigned to Verizon.
I have numerous times corrected vandalism coming from these IP addresses. All the times, the vandalism is directed to TV pages. Like many times, the ownership is changed on the infobox, inside the article, and on the parent company wiki page, like here on the WJLA page. Most are caught, but I have seen some that good-faith changes are made to the page after the vandalism and people don't notice it. This would be a big problem if someone was looking up information. I recommend the above IP addresses be permanently blocked and if it is possible, someone at Verizon in Boston called the next time a vandalism outbreak happens from a Verizon of Boston IP address. Rock on.... SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 08:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Winkers6767 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dodgers7878 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.245.51.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User:Winkers6767 created hoax page Timothy Dees (see AfD discussion here). Subsequent edits were made by User:69.245.51.13 (an ISP in the Nashville, Tennessee area) and from 5 different IPs at Vanderbilt university (also in Nashville):
User:Dodgers7878 (note similarity in user names) began editing article on 4 Feb 07. I noticed the edits on vandalism patrol and realized the article was a hoax. User:Dodgers7878 attempted to defend the article on my talk page; when I didn't buy what he had to say, he deleted the 'hoax' tag from the article (the same action that User:69.245.51.13 had done minutes before).
The hoax was particularly egregious because hoax references were also created, and 4 other pages ( Anarcho-syndicalism, Industrial Workers of the World, List of Faroese people and Spontaneous human combustion) were vandalized to create links to this hoax. Recommend blocking on all three accounts above (though there's nothing we can do about the university accounts.) RJASE1 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Suckers! All these aliases are sockpuppets for me,
RJASE1! I can't be stopped!
Winkers6767
23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A related checkuser case has been declined: WP:RFCU page on "RJASE1". --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Since he admitted to it, indef blocks for all but winkers, a month for Winkers. RJASE1, an unlikely sockmaster at best, may safely be ignored. Adam Cuerden talk 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Opp2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jjok (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wikimachine 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Several evidences.
Their user edit profile are here and here.
Both began editing in 2006, Jjok in February and Opp2 in July. Jjok is concerned mainly with subjects disputed between Japan and Korea & Opp2's 38 edits are only on the Dokdo article.
This is a possible strat. Jjok began to participate in the Dokdo article, but decided that he needed additional support, probably Opp2. Jjok would go for the name change while Opp2 go for more specific internal changes in the article. That's why Opp2 never pushed for the name change of the article, even though it would be very probably that he would. It is too fishy for a user to edit only on the Dokdo article...
Both editors have reverted my edits with reasonable explanations in the edit summary with the same reasons "consensus reached" (similarly worded). History is here. ( Wikimachine 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
I think this is likely, but I don't see a smoking gun--a Checkuser might help.
Opp2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose edits all relate to Dokdo--the other article he edits, Rusk documents, has to do with the territorial dispute over Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks. His edits to user talk pages spring from disputes on these pages. Jjok ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edits a wider range of articles, but has a strong interest in Dokdo and other territorial disputes involving Japan, and also edited Talk:Rusk Documents about a month after Opp2 (e.g., this diff). Opp2 and Jjok have a similar POV on Dokdo, supporting the Japanese claim to the island. They are clearly not native English speakers, and their command of English is not strong, to the point where it's difficult to understand what they're trying to say. Perhaps because their English is not good, they correct their posts on talk pages multiple times in the space of several minutes. During a revert war on Dokdo from 24 Jan-30 Jan, both users reverted with similar edit summaries (only Opp2 and Jjok's edits are shown):
Opp2 and Jjok are the only users on their side of the revert war, and use similar justifications for reverting--discussion is ongoing, no consensus, mediation is continuing.
It's worth noting that Opp2 and Jjok have denied the allegation at Talk:Dokdo#Sockpuppetting. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Homo erectus3000 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Homoerectusagain (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 ( talk• contribs) 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Nationalist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Central Mountain (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vic 226 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist for details.
Imheretohelppeople (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Imheretohelppeople2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Potatoswatter 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this guy at Gunpowder. Name says it all. Continued vandalism in same vein. Potatoswatter 08:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he actually opened the second account before getting blocked on the 1st. Nope, but he did open it within an hour. User [personal info deleted] and likely has lost interest.
Potatoswatter
10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Belsey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.147.189.148 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Zeraeph 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Belsey made a series of edits thus [153], promoting sites owned by Bill Belsey. User:Belsey clearly claims to be Bill Belsey [154]: These edits were reverted. Immediately user:68.147.189.148 makes a near identical series of edits [155]. This user has only made similar edits, that clearly use namespace to specifically promote Bill Belsey, before thus [156] and [157]
With no activity from these accounts since Mar. 1, I think it's safe to close this case. This isn't sockpuppetry, exactly; it's someone who uses a named account sometimes, and sometimes edits anonymously. If the spamming starts again, the solution is to protect the page, and if the problem becomes worse, to post an WP:ANI. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Classicjupiter2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
12.196.6.162 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (checkuser says "related")
Fatsosurrealist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Punkrockerartist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Bill McAlery (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Lisa Petrasci (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (confirmed by checkuser, blocked for 15 min(?))
Protector777 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
Surreal-one (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
Dublin Surrealist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
LiquidGeology (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
74.72.13.69 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Jem 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been the MedCab mediator on the Surrealism (talk) page trying to resolve a dispute. One of the disputees, Classicjupiter2 has had accusations of sock puppetry made against him in the past. When a consensus in mediation was reached, Classicjupiter2 appeared to disappear from the mediation. Then, both User:Fatsosurrealist and User:Punkrockerartist arrived on the talk page, both advocating Classicjupiter2's point of view and making reverts which were against consensus and identically in line with Classicjupiter2's own previous agenda. One of the reasons given for Fatsosurrealist's reverts to the previous version (linking to an external site that was considered to be unsuitable and removed) was that it was of help to his college class. This was subsequently changed back by a neutral editor who felt that this was not a good reason for editing wikipedia. The IP user made 3 suggestions immediately after a previous proposal in a similar vein earlier in the talk page discussion. The two named accounts were created just after the crux of the debate on the talk page and have solely made edits to the Surrealism article. Protector777 also made edits earlier to the article which were seen as retaliation for removal of the links.
The whole case boils down to the link of "SurrealismNow!," the aforementioned website of Keith Wigdor who was previously a user on wikipedia. The first three sock puppets have been used to show fake support for the inclusion of this link and removal of otehrs; Protector777 has simply removed any other links that are not "SurrealismNow!"
The coincidence in timing, the striking similarities in syntax and typing, the timing (one after the other) and the identical agenda of all users have caused many of the editors involved to feel that sockpuppetry to fake a consensus and to push an agenda is occuring. Ordinarily acting as a mediator I wouldn't file this report, but this is severely impeding discussion. Revert diffs can be seen here:
[159] Classicjupiter's revert (one of many).
[160] Fatsosurrealist's revert.
[161] Punkrockerartist's revert.
[162] Protector777's removal of a link that he claims to be spam, and yet leaves to other similar links in.
Talk page discussion from the two named (Punkrockerartist and Fatsosurrealist) users:
Talk:Surrealism#Mediation_Cabal (scroll to near end of section; the involvement of the IP can be seen earlier in this section and involevement of Protector777 just before the section).
Jem
22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
User "Lisa Petrasci" is another Keith Wigdor alias. He's used that name before on other forums. And surprise, surprise: this username was created recently, just for the surrealism article/talk page.-- TextureSavant 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a Checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 that has confirmed some of these accounts. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of these accounts have been confirmed through checkuser and blocked. The last one that was active is 74.72.13.69 on 2-28-07. There's no point in keeping this open. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
VacuousPoet (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
StudyAndBeWise (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
170.215.40.207 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Orangemarlin 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I know his other old incarnation, User:kdbuffalo (which VacuousPoet was banned for being a sockpuppet of) rather better. I'm frankly rather surprised to learn the connection: StudyAndBeWise may have been occasionally annoying, but he did try hard to work with people, up until the madness at the end. Still, he says he's the same, so I suppose we must believe him. I must admit to wondering now if User:Estuary was his first salvo in an attack on me, though I sincerely hope not: That would imply a fair bit of duplicity that I'd rather not believe of him. Diffs from both: user&diff=prev&oldid=109916769 user&diff=110759153&oldid=110691313 user&diff=next&oldid=110760009 [166] [167] However, I can't see any connection between the other users Estuary attacked and StudyAndBeWise at th e time, besides all of us, I think, being editors of the Evolution article. Unless that comes up, probably not him. Vanished user talk 11:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose someone sets a block or other punishment on one/both of them as they see fit, and put that in Conclusions? Vanished user talk 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Indefinite block on the registered account, 3 month block on the IP address. If an IP or a registered account has admitted to being a sockpuppet of a blocked account, all that's really necessary is to post diffs that demonstrate the admission at WP:ANI.
BTW, could someone take a moment and post notices of these blocks at the relevant talk pages? I'm pressed for time today. Durova Charge! 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Maviswwc (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
202.45.68.57 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
—dgies t c 04:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Maviswwc appears to be a single-purpose account for editing Hutchison Whampoa. Their MO is continually reverting the article to a preferred revision and ignoring all requests to discuss the issue. Edits display a pro-Hutchison POV. Suspect IP is registered to Hutchison and makes the same edits while ignoring talk messages. I allege sockpuppetry for purposes of 3RR evasion and subverting the normal system of warning escalation. —dgies t c 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Request checkuser on Maviswwc to determine if they are in the same city or ISP as 202.45.68.57. —dgies t c 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a sockpuppet problem. The page has been fully protected, and hopefully the user will now discuss changes to the article. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
River-dawe (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Howklam (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Flash man11 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Marshallben00- (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Pitchfluker (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Howklam, Marshallben00-, Flash man11, River-dawe and Pitchfluker are all accounts that were created today in a one hour period. The first four of these accounts all vandalised the AIV page in the same way, and all of these accounts create pages that have been or are about to be speedidly deleted. I found Pitchfluker in fact, because I looked at the deletion log for Introxasinil.net, an article that River-dawe had been warned about creating, and that apparantly Pitchfluker took up creating. The article was deleted at 31:41, 31:45, 31:47, and 31:58. River-dawe was blocked at 31:49, and Pitchfluker was created at 31:56, and recreating that article is the only edit I can find for Pitchfluker.
I don't really know how this stuff works, but, is this a case where (depending on the IP) account creation could be canned for the IP? Impersonation was not caught right away, one of these accounts has never even been warned and this user seems to have a real ability to slip through the cracks. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Prince Godfather (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cine Dude (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User:Cine Dude started editing after User:Prince Godfather was blocked, editing articles in the same subject area and re-adding in images User:Prince Godfather had uploaded [169]. The original ban on User:Prince Godfather was for sneakily tagging images with false copyright information see [170] he is well aware how wikipedia works and devious, the User:Prince Godfather was yet another sockpuppet of User:Prin which managed to evade a ban for over 7000 edits.
DiamondVoice (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
TabloidPsyco (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
BLUNDERWOMAN (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
REMOVALS (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RJASE1 Talk 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
DiamondVoice ( talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for making legal threats regarding an AfD. Shortly thereafter, TabloidPsyco ( talk · contribs) appeared to make comments supportive of the retaining the article in the AfD. BLUNDERWOMAN ( talk · contribs) also appeared as an obvious vandal, blanking the AfD page and comments critical of DiamondVoice.
DiamondVoice, TabloidPsyco, and BLUNDERWOMAN all indef blocked; REMOVALS inconclusive per this conversation. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
190.53.15.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bacanaleranica (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Matteo747 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Guacamaya (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Holand (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Judith Gonzales (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Addition Evidence
Results from [ Request for Checkuser All accounts were confirmed to be from the same I.P. along with Judith Gonzales ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bacanaleranica has been blocked from Wikipedia as a result of repeated Personal Attacks, for 31 hours. -- K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Clear sockpuppetry. I've given Bacanaleranica ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the IP one month to cool down, the rest an indef block. If they'd prefer one of the other names once they cool down, they can switch. Adam Cuerden talk 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Peterthepedant (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Arthur Jakubowski (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Enyonyam Ababuo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
FrFintonStack 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Throughout much of last year, the above user repetedly added nNPOV additionals to the Spiked (magazine) page, removing sourced and relevant work in the process. The user remarked on the talk page that he had "attempted to clarify and add balance to this article, which is after all an encyclopedia entry and not a channel to wage one-sided attacks on the magazine."
On 12 August 2006, the user added this (disputed on NPOV grounds) comment to the article:
Contributions to the talk pages accused other users, including myself, of turning the magazine into a "soapbox" for George Monbiot and "wage[ing] one-sided attacks on the magazine" for including his criticism and objecting to the user's removal of those criticisms.
After an ongoing debate on the talk page, the user disapppeared. On the second of February, a series of rapid-fire edits appeared from user:Enyonyam Ababuo, returning the magazine to its previous nNPOV state, accompanied by remarks on the talk page that "This page is just a front for anti Spiked agendas so I have tried to redress the balance. I hope my revisions are not censored." Of particular note is that amongst this user's contributions to the article was a paragraph identical to that quoted above (see [194]. The similarity between the conributions of user:Enyonyam Ababuo and user:Peterthepedant led me to suspect that they are the same person.
On 2 February, a series of rapid-fire edits were made to the article by user:Arthur Jakubowski, removing mention of Claire Fox, his explanation on the talk page, and a comment on his user page, suggesting that English was not his first language. ("Ms Fox not Spiked so her comments questionable relevant. AJ").
I reverted both user's edits, user:Enyonyam Ababuo's on the basis on NPOV and user:Arthur Jakubowski's on the basis of factual accuracy, explaning my grounds on the talk page. I also gently raised the Sock Puppetry issue by pointing out the identical contributions, and suggesting that users acquaint themselves with wiki's Sock Puppetry policy. This resulted in user:Arthur Jakubowski reverting to the previous version and launching this attack:
Which again includes many of the motifs of user:Peterthepedant and user:Enyonyam Ababuo's (George Monbiot, Lobbywatch, "soapbox", "address the facts" etc.) contributions. I thus believe that the three accounts are used by the same person, and have been created with the intention of adding undue weight to the opinions of contributions of user:Peterthepedant, and of creating an impression of false consensus.
Additionally, I believe that the user has been editing the page anonymously, especially as Peterthepedant previously responded to a number of issues I raised , even though I referred only to IP numbers.
FrFintonStack 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, all three accounts appear to have been created for the purpose of editing the Spiked (magazine) page, and almost all contributions by all the above users are restricted to that page and its talk page. The sole exceptions are an edit made by user:Arthur Jakubowski to Claire Fox, who is a regular contributor to the magazine, and one by user:Enyonyam Ababuo to Institute of Ideas, which is a think-thank closely linked to the magazine and headed by Fox. FrFintonStack 01:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So bearing in mind the results of the block log below, and considering that Spiked (magazine) is basically the only page that any of them have been editing, what happens now? FrFintonStack 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The edit histories of these accounts don't overlap at all. There's no policy against using an account for awhile and then switching to a new one, as long as the accounts aren't being used abusively. You need to solve the problems on this article through dispute resolution. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Snowolf (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ti dave (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ti dave is an extremely new account. Their first edit was an edit made yesterday to my Talk page, on 01:27, March 4, 2007 (#1 in the numbered list below). This is the sequence of events:
1) Ti dave asks a question on my talk page about an edit I made on 20 Feb 2007 to the Dilation and curettage article, requesting that I personally contact them by email with my answer.
2) I reply that I don't generally make contact by email, and answer Ti dave's question.
3) Ti dave responds rudely, suggesting that I "unclench and revert" my edit.
4) I respond that I didn't appreciate Ti dave's tone, and requested that Ti dave take the discussion to the article's Talk page.
5) Ti dave creates this request for mediation.
6) Ti dave responds on my talk page without informing me of the request they made for mediation.
7) User:Snowolf takes the mediation case.
Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it suspicious that this brand-new editor knew how to check an edit history to determine who had made an edit, and that that editor had something so specific to say about it. Even if this isn't a sockpuppet of Snowolf, it looks a lot like a single-purpose account, and with the rudeness of their comments and their inappropriate request for personal contact, I think this is worth investigating. Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am really surprised by this. I haven't in any way took Ti dave's side in this mediation, or something like that. I've simply found a free (and simple, since it's my first mediation with the MedCab, even if not my first mediation at all) mediation case and see what happens! I've been accuse of sock puppetry! I really don't know what to think. I've got no problem if you want to file a checkuser on me, really no problem. I think I am a trusted member of the community in good standing, who is heavily (numerically, since I've done a good number of edits in a few months) contributing to this project. I really want to know what are "the rudeness of their comments and their inappropriate request for personal contact" means. It really doesn't fit my behavior here, in this case and generally. I thought I've been very polite :-) Well, I'm looking forward for a withdrawn, I'm sure that an accurate check of my behavior here will convince Joie de Vivre that I'm not a sock puppeteer. I have to remind you that you always have to Assume Good Faith. I don't see why you should believe that I am Ti dave. The mediation will continue, I hope. I still haven't any kind of involvement in this matter and I'm looking forward to solve this case. Rembmer, Joie de Vivre, always AGF ;-)
And, if your experience here at wikipedia will brought another time to submit a suspected sock puppets report, please post a notice on the user's talk page. I haven't received one :-( Happy editing, Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this board is not Checkuser--no one here can check IPs. To request those, you need to go to WP:RCU, but the evidence presented here isn't strong enough to justify a checkuser, which are only done when there's very strong evidence for doing so. There are significant privacy concerns associated with checking someone's IP, which is why only a few users are entrusted with the checkuser privilege--only 13 users have it on the English Wikipedia. So, since it seems that Snowolf is no longer under suspicion, may we close this case? --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Closing, since Joie de Vivre doesn't seem to believe that Snowolf is the sockmaster. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Mykungfu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Freakin Fool (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ThickSexy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
BronxStar (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vkmayes (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
SosoDef99 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ReadyToLive (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mukokeri (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
172.191.196.211 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
67.87.197.9 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.175.26.54 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
149.68.7.90 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Robotam 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
USER:Robotam [221] due to my being upset that he insulted my Fraternity Phi Delta Psi. The sixth national black fraternity in the United States. User:Robotam is a member of another black fraternity [222] and has insulted my fratenity my organization with a snide remark questioning their pledging and purposes (which by the way is known only to members of my organization as well as our sister organization known as Sappirres [223]. As a result of this and his liberal use of labeling me a sockpuppet. I initially requested that we move on [224] , but he has continued on with his harrassment. I have filed an RFC against him. [225] ThickSexy preceding comments left by confirmed sockpuppet of Mykungfu 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:RFCU page on "Mykungfu". --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of these users aren't blocked, and possibly aren't Mykungfu, but the ongoing RFCU should deal with the problem; closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Kzrulzuall69 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kzrulzuall36 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kuru69 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Qwertyuoplhgfd (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
K2rulzuaIl (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Kzrulzuall11 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
-- K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
All users except the suspected puppetmaster, User:Kzrulzuall69, has been blocked. -- K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
All named accounts are blocked, closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
75.35.218.20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hiyowassup (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User 75.35.218.20 blanked the page Clarinet and the page Etiquette with the word 'bob' and had it reverted. Minutes later the page was blanked again with the word 'bob' by Hiyowassup in both articles. -- Ozgod 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No action required. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sleachxbhs (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Flashriver47 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
I edited Sleachxbhs's userpage some days ago to remove unfree images (per WP:FUC#9). Some time after, my user page was vandalized by the newly created user account User:Flashriver47. It's seems Sleachxbhs forgot to logout his puppet account and edited his user own page using the puppet account by mistake (the edition, by the way, was a call to ban-me from Wikipedia). To be sure that it was really sockpuppetry taking place, I asked Sleachxbhs if he was being serious when he asked for my ban. That was the chance for hm to say "Hey! I don't know who put that on my user page!". But instead, his response ("...I was being mostly sarcastic,...") confirmed that he was behind the User:Flashriver47 account. -- Abu badali ( talk) 20:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I am arguing the same case that i posted on Abu Badali's talk page:
"Accusing Sleachxbhs of sockpuppetrty Hey. That was'nt me (it was my friend actually) but I can see how you would susspect me of doing that. If you look at my history of edits, you'll see that i have never done anything like that before, so why would I start now. I'm just trying to help out Wikipedia and create and edit articles that I am interested in. How about we just forget this ever happened, and just let me continue on doing what i am doing? And I take responsability for those images that conflicted with the fair use and have deleted them from my page. Thanks for understanding. --Sleachxbhs 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)"
To conclude, my friend did not know that this would get me in trouble, as he is not a regular Wikipedia user.
-- Sleachxbhs 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Closing, since Flashriver47 is not an active account. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
FuckTheJewFaggots (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hi my names Bobby (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nardman1 16:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Here [226]
Jackmiami (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Umbaseball (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
65.34.158.58 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mosmof 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The puppet account is a newly created, and most of the edits seem to be in the same articles as the master's. The puppet's last few edits have been removing copyright violation notices from the puppet's notices and from the talk page.
The IP address has been used to remove copyright notices from Jackmiami's talk page.
No evidence of abusive use of sockpuppets, so closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Edificia (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Edificio (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
— Xhantar Talk 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Template {{helpme}} was added to User_talk:Edificia by User:Edificio shortly after the Edificio account was created. Comments added, however, are not actually a request for help and instead an obvious attempt at further disruption.
BoydBowen (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TrueFuzz (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sock continuosly edits Brian Krause in the same manner that The puppet master did before being block ( [228] [229] and [230] [231])
No contribs from TrueFuzz since Feb. 8, so maybe this case should be closed. If he comes back and starts the same behavior, he'll probably get blocked pretty quickly. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Closed due to inactivity on alleged accounts. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
DavidHomewood (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
87.233.138.84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
80.77.80.57 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
88.198.252.146 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
85.10.219.108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
MacSucks (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
87.233.138.82 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
88.198.241.107 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.46.38.145 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Davidjerk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
- Davidjk RC Patrol 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
During the course of vandalism patrolling, I came across a user ( User:80.77.80.57) heavily pushing POV on the 2Checkout.com article, which I reverted. [ [232]] The user re-made the changes within seven minutes, and I reverted them again. User:DavidHomewood (non-coincidentally the name of the founder of the company the article concerns) undid my reversion [ [233]]. At this point I made my third revert then went to do something else, at which point User:87.233.138.84, User:85.10.219.108, User:88.198.241.107 and User:MacSucks continued to re-add the text to the article, despite efforts by User:Discospinster and User:74.109.137.229 to continue reverting it.
The large amount of reverting and editing to push POV on this article astounds me, and as far as I can tell, it's all from this one user. Additionally, User:DavidHomewood has been uncivil in both edit summaries and talk page comments, going so far as to make threats to get me fired (albeit from a company I have never worked for). There appears to be no intent to actually improve the article here (I did offer to collaborate on writing a "proper" criticism section for the article, but this offer was ignored). Basically, this seems to be just one user with a large number of socks attempting to use the article as a soapbox for complaints about this company, which is disrupting the article quite severely.
- Davidjk RC Patrol 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Given how complicated this is, I'm not entirely sure I've summarised it properly - you may just want to check the edit history ([ [236]]) and see for yourself... - Davidjk RC Patrol 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Gizlio (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.24.240.2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.24.240.3 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
64.24.240.4 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
adavidw 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
All of the edits by all these users have been to add spam links to the websites gizlio.com and ozert.com.
I've added both domains to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The links are blacklisted and there's no current trouble from these accounts, so closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
VaughanWatch (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TrulyUnited (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Inconclusive evidence, no current disruptive activity. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
UKJ17 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
82.38.218.45 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
UKJ17 created nonsense page Jim Lethbridge, which was quickly flagged for speedy deletion. UKJ17 was deleting the speedy deletion tags, and picked up a couple of warnings for this. 82.38.218.45 then appeared and began deleting the speedy deletion tags. - RJASE1 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that Jim Lethbridge has been deleted, UKJ17 has *no* contributions, so I suggest this case be closed. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No activity from UKJ17, so no reason to take action. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mardavich (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Azerbaijani (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Atabek 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The page Azerbaijan is unblocked and Azerbaijani came back with 3 of himself rv'ing to the same rev.: Pejman47 and Mardavich. This Azerbaijani is unable to stop his POV and come to consensus on Talk:Azerbaijan page, so that we can move onto unblocking it. Now he has two suspected sockpups, RVing for him. Atabek 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments made at Talk:Azerbaijan
See any similarity?
Closing per above. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Demonesque (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ivan Ryushimi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
PocklingtonDan 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The suspected puppet account has made only one edit [238], which was vandalism, and which was reverted one minute later by the suspected puppet master, despite:
In addition:
I believe this bears investigation as a possible puppet account set up just to intoduce vandalism whicht he puppet master can then revert. There is no hard evidence for this, but rather a string of coincidences, but this should be possible to be easily resolved by examining the IP address of both sockpuppet and puppetmaster. If there is no connection between the two, then I apologise to the accused puppetmaster but hope he understand that this investigation was launched in good faith - PocklingtonDan 07:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an instance of sockpuppetry, in my opinion. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Alejandrozamora (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bbgirl (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Zhakira (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vmusic (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mhking 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora imply that Alejandrozamora has at least two sockpuppet accounts that are attempting to comment and influence the decision.
These accounts are pretty clearly the same person, but since they've been inactive since the AfD closed there's no pressing need for action. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
SColbertFan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
69.203.93.7 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
169.232.88.112 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
I'm beginning to suspect that 69.203.93.7, SColbertFan and 169.232.88.112 are the same person, since these three keeping adding the same unsourced quotation or references to the same height/weight info in the James Brown article. Their only contribution to Wikipedia is the height/weight info for this article. lwalt 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No activity on any of these accounts since Jan 22. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Closing, since the accounts are inactive. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Bowser, King of the Koopas (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DXRAW (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Though I don't believe that DXRAW is a sock of BKOTK, I would like to see this checkuser performed to get everyone off of his back if nothing else. Until one is performed he will have people conspiring against him and trying to trap him and make him slip up. Save them time and him stress and do the checkuser. -- The Hyb rid 08:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If the user who filed the report thinks this isn't a case of sockpuppetry, no action is needed. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Siege898 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Twelfthfloor777 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
RJASE1 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Making virtually identical vandalism to Lake Mary Preparatory School. The suspected puppet account appeared when warnings began to rack up on the suspected puppetmaster. - RJASE1 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This edit from Twelfthfloor777 and this edit from Siege898 are virtually identical; it's likely that they're the same person.
Both accounts are vandalism-only. Neither has been active since Jan. 31, but should probably be blocked anyway. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Quade999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Nintendude2000 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Solid Snake999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
All three accounts are used for vandalism, of a suspiciously similar nature and at close times, and the usernames are similar too.
I also believe that User:Solid Snake999 was created in response to a "last warning" template left on Quade999's talk page. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Alejandrozamora (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Zamorafan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mhking 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora imply that Alejandrozamora has at least two sockpuppet accounts that are attempting to comment and influence the decision.
Zamorafan mentions in the AFD that he switched from Alejandrozamora to Zamorafan to avoid people thinking that he is Alejandro Zamora. There's no case here on this specific name (although the user had a couple of other sockpuppets show up). See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alejandrozamora. -- adavidw 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The relevant diff is [242]. Neither account has edited since the AfD closed on Jan 31; their edits center entirely around promoting the musician. --Akhilleus ( talk) 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have blocked if this came to my attention while the report was new. As it is, follow up at my user page if problems resume. Durova Charge! 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Animesouth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Miss Away (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.105.60.48 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
143.88.201.123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DashiKun (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.1.77.61 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.1.76.55 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Miss Away and User:DashiKun have been blocked as sockpuppets. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
All named accounts have been blocked and the IPs are either inactive or making good-faith contributions, so closing.
Damir Mišić (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Hahahihihoho (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked)
Bosniak (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bosniakk (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of Bosna)
Legal Provider of Bosnian picture (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of Bosna)
Provider of Bosnian pictures (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of Bosna)
BosnianPatriots (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of Bosna)
Bosna (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bosna 101 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked for copyvio)
Bosoni (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ancient Bosoni (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Ancient Land of Bosoni (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Thunderman (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of User:Hahahihihoho)
Kruško Mortale (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Alkalada (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Horde Zla (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef blocked as sock of User:Hahahihihoho)
85.158.33.36 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
— King Ivan 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If I'm right about this (which I'm certain that I am), then a whole lot of edit warring could be stopped. Before reading this, please take a look at these ( [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280]) to get a bit of background on why this case is important.
Over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bosna, they are unsure of who the "master account" is. But I am 100% certain that I know who it is. The following users have been confirmed as sockpuppets, or are strongly suspected to be sockpuppets.
These three are not listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bosna, but by lookign at contributions, writing style etc, it is easy to see they are the same as above. Also just by checking the page history of these three user pages, it can be seen that they are the same user, since each user page was exactly the same at a certain point in time.
Hahahihihoho ( talk · contribs) is a notorious POV warrior, and troll. He has been banned from editing Wikipedia, however he has created countless sockpuppets, so it is impossible to list them all here. After reading though many Wikipedia pages (including Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hahahihihoho), the following are either proven socks of his, or near certain to be socks of his:
Damir Mišić ( talk · contribs) is even more notorious than Hahahihihoho. They share many common edit patterns; so much so that it is certain that they are the same user. Since both of these users are extremely infamous on Wikipedia, it is definite that either Hahahihihoho, or Damir Mišić is the "master account". To determine who is "in charge", you must look at both user's logs ( Damir Mišić's, Hahahihihoho's) and contributions. It can be seen that Damir's account is older than Hahahihihoho's - also if you check the user creation log of all the listed users, you will see that Damir Mišić is older than any of them. On June 15, Damir "left" Wikipedia, and Hahahihihoho was created. Therefore, Damir Mišić definitely is the "master" of all these abusive, policy violating sockpuppets.
There are some Checkuser cases and AN/I posts related to this:
Since these accusations have been thoroughly reviewed in other places and the consensus seems to be that the listed accounts aren't all sockpuppets, I think this case should be closed. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In light of the Checkuser and ANI posts listed above, I'm closing this case. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Alisarmadkhan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
[[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{2}}}|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/{{{2}}}|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/move/{{{2}}}|page moves]] · [[Special:Block/{{{2}}}|block user]] ·
block log)
This isn't enough information for a case. At the very least we need a suspected master and a suspected puppet. Alisarmadkhan looks suspicious, but since this case is malformed and the Arbcom case has closed, I'm closing the case. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
EJBanks (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
LedgerJoker (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wryspy 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
User:LedgerJoker is creating redundant categories and articles, some of which are awkwardly named and/or inappropriately capitalized for Wikipedia style. Despite the new user name, this user has quickly gone to work creating articles and categories. These behaviors are consistent with the behavior of User:EJBanks, who was permanently banned as a sockpuppet of User:Creepy Crawler and had also been believed by many to be a sockpuppet of a user called Batman fan. Additional signs that LedgerJoker and EJBanks are the same people then lie in their common interests: 1. Hastily populated soap opera categories. 2. Special attention to Days of our Lives. 3. Comic book characters (in this case, Joker in his name). 4. Spider-Man movies. 5. Reality show contestants. 6. Various celebrities. 7. Date-based categories/lists (recently Category:Television in the 2000's).
Wryspy 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I havent done much with socks but it looks 95% like a sock Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
User:LedgerJoker is indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Closing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Blake911 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Mikemiddleton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Waargboom (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
75.197.239.22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
68.167.111.98 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
63.105.70.10 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Some time ago, Blake911 created an account and then proceeded to make an article about himself, Blake Van Leer. It was deleted after a successful AFD nomination. He also started working on articles for other members of his family (some notable, others not), as well as arguing for the deletion of an article, Shadowclan. Mikemiddleton's account came into existence on January 10 and immediately started making same sort of edits as Blake911, including a botched AFD nomination attempt for the Shadowclan article, edits to surviving articles on members of the Van Leer family, and even recreating the Blake Van Leer article. Finally—this is somewhat subjective—but Blake911 and Mikemiddleton also appear to have the same usage of English grammar, such as an absolute aversion to commas other than to create comma splices (compare talk page contribs). Simões ( talk/ contribs) 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Since an admin took action on this complaint and there's been no further objectionable behavior, I'm going to go ahead and close the case. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Tamilguy07 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tamilguy07 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
jhnnyrj (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Dravidian Warrior (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wiki Raja 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I am being falsely accused here of being the following users above here, here, and here and for sockpuppetry.
Also, I have went to the checkuser page and have found as stated on their page not to request a checkuser on myself to prove my innosence. Can you help me out?
All named accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Wiki Raja. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Worthadonkey (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Worthamule (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Butseriouslyfolks 04:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the similarity of names, Worthadonkey made a number of edits to a deleted version of Christina McHale and then, after it was deleted at AfD, repeatedly recreated it and Christina mchale. See User_talk:Worthadonkey. Worthadonkey was banned for 1 month on March 7th for this and also for abusing the unblock template.
Worthamule was created on March 14th and has only edited Christina McHale and Christina mchale, recreating both articles.
RCSIRCSIRCSI (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bme diddy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
193.1.229.15 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cquan 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing edit dispute on Biomedical engineering. User:RCSIRCSIRCSI wishes to include rankings, and actually only one ranking about his alma mater, Johns Hopkins, on the article under the education section. I reverted the edit [283], and back and forth reverts continued [284] despite a discussion present on the talk page, [285] where two editors besides myself agreed that the content shouldn't be included for multiple reasons [286]. Reverts and entries on the talk page by User:RCSIRCSIRCSI stopped and were replaced by a revert by anon IP 193.1.229.15, which frequently edits RCSIRCSIRCSI's talk page and seems to follow similar editing patterns, see [287] and [288], compare to [289]. Also, a new account was created after RCSIRCSIRCSI stopped reverting, [290], the User:Bme diddy only editing in regards to this dispute [291]. In total, this is far beyond 3RR.
RCSIRCSIRCSI has repeatedly dismissed the opinions of other editors and in this case there is some level of consensus against. The user has also been less than civil on at least one occasion [295]. This dispute is ongoing and I would like to have more editors contribute to the discussion before this content is allowed to remain on the article.
RCSIRCSIRCSI blocked 48h, sock blocked indef. – Steel 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Dereks1x (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
HumanThing (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
DelloJello (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TL500 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
· j e r s y k o talk · 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am making this report because I suspect, but am by no means certain, that Dereks1x is using sockpuppets to attempt to gain advantages in content disputes. The alleged socks have advanced positions remarkably similar to Dereks1x's on relevant talk pages while most other editors that have participated in the relevant discussions have reached opposite conclusions. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
________________________________________
Comments from the accused, Dereks1x
That accusation is not relevant because all editing has been done by consensus and compromise (there has been NO to "gain advantages in content disputes". For example, the part about Senator Obama's legal career 15 years ago was edited many times but has stabilized. So has the discussion about Mrs. Edwards' new cancer metastasis. So there is no evidence of disruption, just good old fashioned discussion and revisions. Wikipedia editing has been done by consensus (in the articles named, NO voting has EVER been done by the accused, Dereks1x). The accused has even publically accepted compromise language and has stated that while not in complete agreement, believes the compromise language is ok. Furthermore, the accused follows a policy of presenting slight revisions as compromise language and never, or at least recently, never just blanket deletes stuff as others have done to Derek's contributions.
In summary,
________________________________________
I can't comment on DelloJello or TL500 as I haven't done any looking into their edit history, but until today, HumanThing had only made a handful of edits outside of pages that Dereks1x had edited on and today's edits were undertaken shortly after Dereks1x noticed I had left a comment on Tvoz's talk page regarding my suspicions of Derekx1x and HumanThing being sock/meatpuppets and the edits were made in an unusual hour long break in Dereks1x's editing. A break that long in Dereks1x's edit history is generally only associated with a long edit and the talk page edit was not a long edit.
Additionally, except for a comment on Talk:Sarah Palin and an anon's talk page, when HumanThing makes an appearance on a talk page, it is invariably in support of a position Dereks1x has taken.
Given the small number of edits by HumanThing it is unlikely that they'd coincidentally hit the same articles as Dereks1x and that they'd share the same positions, particularly an article about an obscure neighborhood in Seattle, Washington. -- Bobblehead 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
________________________________________
I independently formed suspicions over the last few days that these usernames were sockpuppets (or possibly meatpuppets) of User:Dereks1x, for similar reasons as Jersyko and Bobblehead, primarily because of tone and content of their edits on Barack Obama and John Edwards and their associated talk pages. It appears that these usernames are introduced into discussion to support Dereks1x's positions, using similar phrasing as Dereks1x's. Looking into it more to assist in this SSP review, I found other troubling coincidences to support this suspicion.
User: 71.212.111.238: I would like to include in this discussion the IP address 71.212.111.238 which I believe to be the IP of Dereks1x, used in editing Barack Obama (and other articles not relevant to this discussion) before Obama was semi=protected on March 17. I base this on the similarity of both usernames' edits and edit summaries to Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama regarding Punahou School. (See for instance this one and the edit summary of this one).
There's nothing wrong with going from an IP address to a username, of course - I raise this because if IP address 71.212.111.238 is Dereks1x, then the overlap between 71.212.111.238 and TL500 and Dereks1x described below becomes significant in determining if these names are sockpuppets.
User:TL500:
One of the articles that Dereks1x did not mention, which he created and did a fair amount of work on, is a
piece on the relatively obscure
Frank F. Ledford, Jr. which has had a total of 29 edits by 8 editors,
including Dereks1x (16 edits) and 3 editors (one of which is a Bot) who did 3 pure maintenance edits. Of
the 10 remaining edits. 3 were done by
TL500 and 1 was done by
71.212.111.238.
edit history:
Dereks1x mentions that
TL500 is an "airline person". Among the pages TL500 has edited extensively are
Southwest Airlines,
Northwest Airlines,
Delta Airlines, and
Hawaiian Airlines. User 71.212.111.238 also has extensively edited the same
Southwest Airlines,
Northwest Airlines,
Delta Airlines, and
Hawaiian Airlines.
Each of these users edited an article about a Boeing plane as well - one
Boeing 717, the other
Boeing 777.
This coinciding edit history suggests to me that these accounts may all be the same person. TL500 had little to do with the Obama pages, but came in with this which was a defense of Dereks1x's edit position, and 2 other small comments on talk.
User: HumanThing:
User:HumanThing's earliest edit was at 23:01 on March 21
contributions.
Five edits later (3 Calvert De Forest, 1 Lake City Seattle, 1 Ft Lauderdale),
HumanThing came in to
Talk:Barack Obama, having never edited the article or commented on its Talk page, with a comment that
supported Dereks1x's edits using phrasing ("blanket statement that he was a civil rights lawyer" which is actually not accurate and therefore more suspicious that both are using it) and tone that is very similar to Dereks1x's own.
HumanThing's very next edit was to edit Bobblehead's talk page comment by inserting his own words (purporting to explain an edit Dereks1x had made) inside of Bobblehead's comment without any edit summary or explanation. This edit was never reverted, and I think that may be because so much was going on at the same time that no one may have noticed it - I didn't look into how it got there until this evening. I don't know if Bobblehead noticed it, as I think he might have removed it if he had. Editing other people's talk page commetns of course is not allowed, and doing so to justify Dereks1x's edit certainly raises suspicions that HumanThing and Dereks1x are one and the same. Please also note HumanThing's wording - talking about putting in a change to "make you happy" - very similar phrasing that Dereks1x has used in several edits, including the 2nd entry in this section of my talk page. I think there were other edits by Dereks1x that used similar wording, and I can look for the diffs if need be. I had not had any contact with HumanThing prior to this edit, but I had already had several difficult interactions with Dereks1x, and HumanThing's sniping comment here, targeted at me, made me think that he might be a sockpuppet of Dereks1x.
HumanThing's next edit is to John Edwards, an article that Dereks1x regularly edits, and then HumanThing's very next edit - his 9th edit since assuming this name two days prior - was a completely erroneous, baseless and false accusation against me of 3RR which was immediately rejected because the edits in question were not even reverts, let alone 3RR violations. This was just a personal attack, and he didn't even notify me that the report had been made - I didn't know about it until another editor informed me this morning. This is the report and current disposition. (I have not yet responded, as it's not clear to me if I am supposed to, since the admin already said "no violation".) This false and absurd accusation, from someone who had almost nothing to do with the editing of the article in question, nor interaction with me, raises the suspicion in my mind that HUmanThing is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x who was actively editing and with whom I had some prior interactions.
Since then, the only relevant edit by HumanThing was his jumping in to defend Dereks1x's edits on Talk:John Edwards early this morning here. Bobblehead has gone over the timing of HumanThing's comments vis-a-vis Dereks1x's.
User:DelloJello:
User:DelloJello's only activity on Wikipedia was 10 edits yesterday (March 24). Here is the timeline that raises my suspicions:
Dereks1x was actively editing yesterday, from 14:23 to 17:39 - the last edit in this series was this, about Mrs. Edwards' cancer and comparing the situation to FDR.
DelloJello made 10 consecutive edits from 18:11 to 19:09 (these are the only edits DelloJello has made) - his first edit at 18:11, following Derkes1x's last one, was this about Mrs. Edwards' cancer, comparing it to JFK.
Dereks1x resumed editing at 19:21, continuing to until 1:48 this morning. Several of these edits were about Mrs. Edwards' cancer.
This is not hard proof, but the language and tone, and the break in Dereks1x's editing that coincides with DelloJello's edit burst, raise a suspicion in my mind that this is a sockpuppet situation.
Like Jersyko and Bobblehead, I have suspicions, and evidence - but not hard proof - of sockpuppetry. The editing of several articles has been affected by this and by Dereks1x's tendentious approach and seeming lack of understanding of many basics, as well as sometimes disruptive editing and what comes across to me as POV pushing. Tvoz | talk 08:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser on Dereks1x by Jersyko: Rejected --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x ( talk • contribs).
I counted the number:
User name (accused)---Number of revisions: John Edwards------Number of revisions: Senator Obama
..........TL500............................0 (Zero)..................................0 (Zero)
..........Dello Jello......................0 (Zero)..................................0 (Zero)
..........HumanThing....................2 (not that significant revisions)........0 (Zero)
Comment: This is hardly a smoking gun or a sign of sockpuppeting!
I also counted the number of talk page comments, which are not part of the articles.
User name (accused)---Number of revisions: Talk/John Edwards--Number of revisions: Talk/B.Obama
..........TL500........................... 0 (Zero)......................................2 (just short/polite comments)
..........Dello Jello..................... 1 (One).......................................0 (Zero)
..........Human Thing.................. 2 (Two).......................................2 (Two)
Comment: This is a very small number and not a sign of sockpuppeting, these contributions are only on the talk page and did NOT appear in the main article.
Number of votes (notable or not notable kind of voting)
User name (accused)---number votes in the 13 polls in the Talk:Senator Obama page
Dereks1x....................... 0 (ZERO) of 13 possible areas to vote
TL500.......................... 1 of 13
Dello Jello.................... 0 (ZERO)
Human Thing................. 0 (ZERO)
Comment: So only 1 vote cast even though these 4 users could have casts up to a total of 52 votes.
Dereks1x
23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I happen to currently have a suck puppetry case pending against me right now. I know how much it stinks when you work hard to make Wikipedia more neutral, and people who would rather it agreed with their views accuse you of some sort of criminal behavior. This evidence in this case is laughable. It's just wrong to accuse someone of suck puppetry just because they disagree with you. I m dude2002 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on User:SLCUT841's first three edits ( SLCUT841 ( talk · contribs)), I think it's pretty obvious that this user is also a sock puppet of Dereks1x. I trust someone will be along shortly to examine the evidence presented here and take appropriate action. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I now see that the note was on the user page and not the discussion page.
As each of the suspected puppets have chimed in, I'm more and more convinced that they are all socks of the same master. Similar writing styles, same focus on this being some type of "trial" for "crimes", same types of rebuttals, same anger at me and anyone else who has provided evidence. I now suspect this problem is perhaps much broader than I originally thought, and suspect that there are more socks that have not been listed on this page. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Article | # of Edits | # of vandalism, multiple voting, arguments with others |
---|---|---|
Barack Obama | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) |
John Edwards | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) |
John Edwards talk page | ZERO (DelloJello has 1 edit) | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) |
Obama talk page | 2 (DelloJello had ZERO) | ZERO (same number as DelloJello) |
Darn right that I don't know how to build a chart. Evidence: look at the homemade chart that I made in the middle of this complaint showing how the other accused had minimal or no contact with the Obama and Edwards articles. Dereks1x 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
All accounts are sockpuppets of User:Dereks1x. I have blocked the sockmaster account for 48 hours for Wikistalking and WP:POINT at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhilleus. I have not blocked the sockpuppet accounts (thus far) because it appears that this user has not used the sockpuppets for block evasion. If such evasion occurs, or if other problems happen, report to my user talk page for follow up. Durova Charge! 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This block is not based on evidence. However, it is based on retaliation. Jersyko's friend was running for adminstratorship. He works on SSP's. Jersyko, after complaining, voted for his friend. I made a comment on the voting asking the candidate to avoid a conflict of interest and NOT decide on a case involving someone who was voting for him. Their friend, Durova, a fellow Seattle resident who nominated the administrator in the first place, then deleted my comment (which is just an ethics question, not disruption) and made then started to stalk me and made above determination of the very crime that she was doing (wikistalking).
You will note that Durova is not a regular SSP administration and shows that she is working as a meatpuppet of Jersyko. They are banning me because they have a POV agenda for Obama and John Edwards. You can also note that wikistalking did not occur because I had posted and looked at the adminstrator's page before. Dereks1x 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the assumption of Seattle and the use of the word meatpuppet doesn't have to be included. I would add, however, that there is a conflict of interest on the part of Durova and her decison because Durova nominated a candidate for administratorship and didn't like the question that was asked. Furthermore, Jersyko was one of the people voting for the candidate. Dereks1x simply asked if the candidate would recuse himself/herself for period of time for those that voted for or against him. It seems that Durova did not like the fact that his/her candidate was being asked a legimate question. Instead, Durova paid political patronage for Jersyko's vote, i.e. since you voted for my candidate, I'll help you out hurt those who you don't like.
Also, the fact that Dereks1x is currently blocked but I can post shows that my IP is different from Dereks1x. Further proof that I am not a sockpuppet. TL500 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) TL500 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)