![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Rgulerdem (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef banned user)
Bismihi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Articles involved:
Fethullah Gülen (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
User:Bismihi is suspect of being another sockpuppet of indef bannded user User:Rgulerdem Old cases here: [1] [2]. Basically the same arguments as in the old case apply: Same spelling mistakes, same defensive fixation on Fethullah Gülen, single pupose account, goes into edit war mode immediately after establishing account, exhibits an extremely uncanny familiarity with the history of the Fethullah Gülen article and its contributors at the talk page [3] and in his edit summaries [4], Azate 00:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked. Iola k ana• T 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Nodekeeper (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Proabivouac (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
the user account (Proabivouac) may be new, but it is certainly not new to wikipedia. the first few edits point to previous experience on WP, although obviously not quite enough to know how to raise concerns about GAC in the right manner, which is notable as User:Nodekeeper too is still relatively new. his style of posting is reminiscent of Nodekeeper's entertaining voluminous blocks of discussion, per Talk:Muhammad. he is also noted as going to the talk pages of Aiden [5] and Opiner [6], both of whom involved in the Muhammad article dispute (as was Nodekeeper), and indirectly requesting assistance of them for the article Muhammad as a diplomat. the new account knows pretty much what he is doing most of the time, and along with almost the exact same approach in style and psychology as User:Nodekeeper, it has led myself and other users to suspect that the link may be more than just common interests. it is also noteworthy that both users tend to accuse Muslim editors in general of inherently working against the rules of wikipedia. User:Nodekeeper has a long history of these kinds of accusations( [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and more), and User:Proabivouac repeated such with his very first edit [12]. the reason why i believe that this is blameworthy sockpuppetry is that the sock is portraying themselves as an independant user, without seemingly any justifiable reason to be using a sock (seemingly a SPA) looking at his current contributions, when the account of the suspected sockpuppeteer is already in use. the user is definitely a sock as can be seen from their contribs, and i believe there is evidence to suggest it may be User:Nodekeeper. ITAQALLAH 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Evidences that Proabivouac is a sockpuppet I think Proabivouac is definitely a sockpuppet.
Evidences that the sockpuppeteer is Nodekeeper
-- Aminz 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no connection whatsoever between myself and User:Nodekeeper, nor do I operate in contravention of WP:SOCK. The preceding comments suggest that I have been dragged into an existing dispute between User:Itaqallah, User:Aminz and User:Nodekeeper which would be better addressed in another forum. Proabivouac 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Only insinuated. Please take this to WP:RFCU. Iola k ana• T 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
64.14.194.26 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Joesatisgod (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Both users added the same vandalism text, "RJ Pasaporte", multiple times to the article PCU Dolphins within a couple of hours of each other. Joesatisgod had also added the same text to the same article on Sept 14.
64.14.194.26 was recently blocked for vandalism to now-deleted article Rachell Ann Loresto on Sept 19, and has been warned again on Sept 25, presumably after the block was lifted. Multiple prior warnings for vandalism. Using suspected sockpuppet Joesatisgod to evade block and vandalism detection? No block notice appears on Joesatisgod's talk page. Rrburke 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No violation of sockpuppet policy. Iola k ana• T 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Finsj (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cpacifico (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Several links to essay by the apparent owner of Finsj and a coworker of his had been added by Finsj ( [15] [16] [17] [18] ; I deleted them in accordance with WP:EL, and explained that course of action, after stumbling across a link to an essay that contained many factual inaccuracies.
Cpacifico appears to be a new account that readded some of those links ( [19] [20] [21] [22])
No other policy violations (regardless of whether this is one or not) are known to me; however, it seems impossible to contact the contributor off Wikipedia (a comment on his essay was removed without reply).
It seems clear to me that the purpose of the new account is to add external links to Finsj's work while hiding that it is actually him that is adding the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RandomP ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Articles involved:
Serialization (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
String functions (programming) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Regular expression (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Script.aculo.us (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Looking at the history, Finsj added the external link to the Serialization article at 14:56 on 9/25, RandomP reverted the change at 16:08 on 9/25, the Cpacificio user was created at 20:31 on 9/25 and his first edit was two minutes later to re-add the external link. Combined with the rest of the two users' edit history, it seems pretty cut-and-dry. Neil916 ( Talk) 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. Iola k ana• T 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Zoso2005 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 18:08 9/18/06)
Franklin999999999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 18:09 9/18/06)
129.93.196.226 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Elvis 1950 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 21:29 9/23/06)
Dormir 2777 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 01:13 9/24/06)
Lindy3930 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 03:13 9/24/06)
Tier1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 14:24 9/24/06)
Flea1999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 14:30 9/24/06)
Memphisjack (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 17:33 9/24/06)
Sockpuppetry and Vandalism issues surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The RCP (Red Car Posse) During this Afd yesterday, a series of vandalisms occurred to all the people who voted to delete and some of their article creations by a series of new user accounts. The following is my account of it. (also, it appears to be still alive diff)
User(s) suspected of sockpuppetry (my guess is that there are two distinct users, possibly three, but no more.):
Affected users (in other words, users who voted to delete the article):
User:Dormir 2777 did not participate in the Afd, instead, made four edits total as described below:
Possibly related acts by other single purpose accounts:
The vandalism to User:Dina was reverted by User:DVD R W, who also placed a warning on User:Dormir 2777 's talk page. User:DVD R W was then vandalized by User: Dvd R W (sole edit) diff
I don't understand how this pertains to me at all. Apparently it's not enough to condemn a factual article but now I get to be blamed for something I have no knowledge of. The "evidence" seems inconclusive and appears to be something Dina has against me, an intense vendetta. I apologize for anything these particular users have done, but I have no ties to this is any way. Wikipedia leaves itself open for such vandalism by not at least requiring all new accounts to have an email address. And, why is that even though some new users have nothing against the article in question, every one of them immediately must be a "sockpuppet"? -- Zoso 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Note This matter appears to be resolved as the editor in question db-authored his article and so far as I can tell, the relevant user pages, articles etc. haven't been vandalized since. Since I'm relatively sure I can't personally close a sock puppet case, I'm just going to leave this note here until someone else does. If I'm mistaken in that assumption, please let me know. Thanks. Dina 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Complaint withdrawn. Iola k ana• T 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Cretanpride (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
GreekEconomist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Checkuser has already shown that User:GreekEconomist has an IP similar to an IP that Cretanpride has used in the past. It was felt that since GreekEconomist was not following Cretanpride's pattern of behavior, s/he might be a different person, and his/her account was left unblocked. However, GreekEconomist has today made contributions to Talk:Alexander the Great that reflect Cretanpride's interests (see this diff. Furthermore, this post to my talk page directs us to a discussion in a MySpace forum, started by Cretanpride. I still believe that GreekEconomist is a sockpuppet, and would appreciate it if an administrator takes another look. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I have an interest in Alexander the Great. I originally named myself after him. If you look at my edit I suggested more info on his relationships with women and more info on his military campaigns. Adding info in these categories would improve the article. User Apro posted and I responded. That is what you do on wikipedia. Regarding my edit to Akhilleus' talk page, he had accused me of not telling the truth about the whole myspace thing and I was trying to show him otherwise. I have not supported Cretanpride's argument. This is a case of bad faith against me. I feel as if I can't express my opinion now, or else I'll get blocked, and that is not right. GreekEconomist 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely. I would say more, but do not wish to violate WP:BEANS. Iola k ana• T 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
12.182.70.131 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
YassirLaCama (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Johnbrownsbody said this might be the same user who operates from 12.182.70.131. I agree with because both of them have made the same style of edits. The vandalism also occured today a few minutes apart after each edit. Then YaSirCaLama registered a few minutes late and his edits were all vandalism in the same style. His account got blocked for one week because of vandalism. Hmrox 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the same computer, since timestamps indicate on the seven article indicate simultaneous edits. They seem to be cooperating on childish vandalism at the same time, though, so both are probably at the same location. And by the way, logged-in users are not sockpuppets of anonymous (not logged in) users. Wikipedia does not require its editors to log in. -- Neil916 ( Talk) 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Not blocked. Iola k ana• T 16:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Dhammafriend (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bodhidhamma (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Truthlover (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
All accounts are new. All accounts have similar names of similar etymologies. They have been editing the same articles Indian Buddhist Movement, Indian Caste System, Hindu, History of Hinduism, as well as their respective talk pages. The aggressive and insulting tone used by the accounts are 100% identical as you can see here, here and here.As far as User:Truthlover,while he pretended to "calm things down" between his fellow socks (as a facade) he then went on to push the same anti-Hindu POV by moving Indian Caste System to Hindu's Caste System(fork article speedily deleted), which is part of the agenda of users like User:Dhammafriend, which is why I suspect him to be a sockpuppet also. Hkelkar 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
All three socks have rabidly anti-Hindu views (see edit summaries of their edits in history page) and my talk page here, and here, as well as on the talk pages of the socks and sockmaster, all of which are the same wording used by new users with very similar names (as an aside, the word "Dhamma" and various other Neo-Buddhist concepts are used or alluded to in all three of the user names) Hkelkar 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Bodhidhamma 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dhammafriend is Truthlover Dhammafriend (and Truthlover) has completely reverted [Indian Buddhist Movement[|this page]] to how it was prior to his/their ban. He/They did not only remove the navayana concept, which he/they question but also all the citations that cleared up citation neccessity's. I have reverted the page to how it was prior. Thegreyanomaly 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It is also important to note that "they" reverted the 'official-style' referencing back to their informal previous citations, they also removed claims of dubious assertions and etc. the proof is [ [23]], [ [24]], [ [25]]
Interestingly. TL reverted it to just DF left it before his ban. -- Thegreyanomaly 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please take this to WP:RFCU. Iola k ana• T 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
65.143.104.102 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
65.142.204.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Microchip (comics): After I removed two paragraphs of uncited POV at 03:18, 19 September 2006, describing that rationale in the edit summary, they were reverted by User:65.143.104.102 the next day — this IP's only day on Wikipedia, per Special:Contributions/65.143.104.102.
I again removed the POV paragraphs, and left a note at User:65.143.104.102 asking that he not revert this again since the paragraphs "violate the Wikipedia policies regarding original research and neutral point-of-view". Today, the exact same two paragraphs reappeared, inserted this time by User:65.142.204.13 — who similarly has never been on Wikipedia before today.
I'm not sure if anything can be done with evidently the same person using different computers, but this seemed the logical place to report someone apparently using multiple identities. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 20:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's almost definitely the same person using a dynamic IP via Qwest as an internet provider, apparently based in Kansas City, or near Columbus OH, depending on who you ask. It was probably the same computer. They weren't logged in to Wikipedia, and their IP address changed, either because it was a dial-up account or their ISP rotated their address. See the IP Address article for a more detailed explanation of this. These types of users are also referred to by Wikipedians as "anonymous users", or "anon's". Neil916 ( Talk) 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No violation of the sockpuppet policy. Neil916 ( Talk) 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Not blocked. Iola k ana• T 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Cretanpride (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
John1111111111 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Posted a message on User talk:Apro asking for help in an edit war on Homosexuality in ancient Greece. The edit war was carried on by User:Steve88 and User:James577, already blocked as probable socks of Cretanpride.
Already confirmed by Checkuser, but not yet blocked. (I am not an admin.) --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Mattisse (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Timmy12 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Suspect is tagging the same set of articles previously tagged by Mattisse and her other sockpuppets, continuing the pattern of tagging and/or vandalising articles on pagan writers and musicians, vis:
On most of these articles, the same tags are being placed as were placed by Mattisse and her sockpuppets.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hanuman Das ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Neil916 ( Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Neil916 ( Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not blocked. Iola k ana• T 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Randallrobinstine (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vrrayman2004 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User continues to create bogus pages such as
FOX 70s as with previous incarnations of his/her sockpuppets.
Wildthing61476
20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Article creations. Iola k ana• T 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Randallrobinstine (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vrrayman1998 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Same MO and similar name to Vrrayman1987
Blocked. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
is suspect of being another sockpuppet of indef bannded user User:Rgulerdem Old cases here: [46] [47]. Basically the same arguments as in the old case apply: Same spelling mistakes, same defensive fixation on Fethullah Gülen (but this time in a different article), single pupose account, goes into edit war mode immediately after establishinmg account, conceals major reverts as "minor" edits Azate 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Qabbalah (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TonySReed (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
HisNameIsAlive (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sockpuppet User:TonySReed ? User:Qabbalah created an article Tony Reed, with massive self-promotion by spamming and vandalising multiple music genre articles (see Special:Contributions/Qabbalah. The article Tony Reed was put up for an AfD, and see: what a coincidence: by accident the "real" tony reed just found out this page at this very moment ( User:TonySReed , registers, knows his way around in WP and goes voting for a "keep"... very suspicious at least. (If it's not sock puppetry, Qabbalah has had enough warnings for this ugly spamming of dozens of articles, so a block may be a good idea as well....)
User:HisNameIsAlive appears to be another sock, evidence same as above. Oh, and User:TonySReed has "authenticated" himself to User:HisNameIsAlive on his talk page, which is quite amusing. Leibniz 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I need to make this clear. I am NOT the person going by the handle "Qabbalah". I have been a regular visitor to wikipedia for a couple years now, but never bothered to get a membership until this debacle reached my attention. I have figured out what little I know because I use computers regularly and, aside from formatting, wikipedia is pretty easy to navigate. If you want the article on me to cite sources and show notability, I'm happy to oblige.
The user "Qabbalah" has impersonated me before I suspect. I am "Qabbalah" on myspace due to the fact that "Qabala" was already taken by this same user. Go look for yourself!
I appreciate Qabbalahs efforts to promote me, but not the posting of my personal information and the half-truths and omissions present in the article. If you wish to remove the article, fine! but don't besmirch my name!
I certainly support blocking Qabbalah. -- User:TonySReed (I can't find the tilde on my laptop) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonySReed ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Dicksg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Safgeneral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I believe this user is a sockpuppet for Dicksg, recently blocked ( User_talk:Dicksg) for repeated (over 20 times!) vandalism to National Service in Singapore. Namely, he engaged in a revert war with several other users including User:Terence Ong, User: Vsion, and User: Rifleman_82 repeatedly inserting this unencyclopedic, POV, and original research text:
<quote> One person account "i came to singapore at the age of 2 from malaysia,studied from k1 to jc 1,than at the age of 17 i cancelled my pr and went to uk to study.i came back to singapore at 21 and got an employment pass.after 5 years of ep i applied for pr and got it. i dont have to serve a minute of ns.i have a letter from mindef congradulating me that i am not liable for ns(ever). so i suggest you go down to singapore immigration and change your ic from pink to blue. the only advantage for pink ic holders are a subsidised 4 rm hdb flat. what is the value of a ns exempt letter from mindef ? priceless. i rather die than convert from blue to pink. i pray that the mentor lives for another 20 years and maintain the current status quo than i can retire a rich man in malaysia. malaysia boleh !!! btw my son will be learning this hat trick from his old man me." Another person account "Same case here with me....! i was in malaysia studying til Form 6 (singapore's JC level) ....my dad is a 1st generation PR and i got my letter to serve NS after my studies. All i did was to renounce my PR and i didnt have to serve. 3 months later, i applied for a local uni as a malaysian and got in. After my degree, i was on EP and 1month after i got my first job, the singapore government offered me PR AGAIN.......i pity you singaporean......but its a loophole indeed. BTW, i was on scholarship during my studies in singapore as well so it was absolutely free...........GREAT FEELING....!!! I LUUVVVVV SINGAPOR</quote>
For his trouble, he received five warnings from 14 Sep to 17 Sep, having been blocked once on 14 Sep (8 hours), before finally being blocked indefinitely on 17 Sep.
The new user, User:Safgeneral, is believed to be the sockpuppet of User:Dicksg because there is a similarity in the style of posts. Specifically, the posts appear to be placed randomly, with no regard for the context of the section. The posts are mere cut-and-paste statements, no attempts being made to craft the addition to fit the context of the article.
-- Rifleman 82 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Grungoria (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Garamundi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Uses same writing style, sources and arguments as puppet User:Garamundi.
Please look at his edit here Talk:Axis_Powers#Debate_with_White_Guard and compare it to the statements of his puppet later in the debate. His points and arguments are identical. Furthermore he calls other people's arguments stupid and generally has no regard for Wikipedia's no perosnal attack policy or warnings given to him by admins.
Also if you see his edit history [ [61]] and [ [62]] you will notice that these are not the kind of edits a first time editor would make. He clearly had the experience needed to make major changes to the article. Also you will notice that Grungoria's personal attacks began 5 hours after he created that account. A user who is only 5 hours old does make such edits, it is highly unusual. it makes me think that Grungoria is not the sockpuppeteer but another puppet of an unknown puppeteer but I have no direct evidence so I am only reporting the two known accounts.
He is trying to make it seem as if his views has broader support than they really do.
Both have only made edits to the Axis Powers article and only a few yet they are quite familiar with Wikipedia policies about NPOV and decided to start right away with editing the article rather than "get their feet wet" on the talk page first. Makes me think that maybe they are both sock puppets belonging to an unknown puppeteer.
Ran a check by CheckUser which resulted in a likely verdict. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grungoria.
Has been blocked just 2 days ago for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR and is currently under a warning for personal attacks. These include accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry and using my ethnic heritage as an argument against me. These attacks occured shortly after his block expired and has not ended despite a warning being added by an admin on his talk page.
His only response to this case has been to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of another user User:White Guard with whom he also disagrees.
I request that he and his sockpuppet is permanently blocked. MartinDK 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Can he prolong the case by not responding to it? MartinDK 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
.
While Robertjkoenig has not posted for awhile (in fact, either he or one of his other sockpuppets was permanently banned from Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales), he continues to post using a variety of short-lived (at least in terms of their use) sockpuppets. Puppets used recently include User:84.58.226.55, user:usaa_indexer, user:usaa_editor, user:true_to_usaa, user:voltaire_redux, user:69.147.149.74; in the past he has also used a variety of IP addresses as well as the following user names user:philosophenweg, user:zorro_redux, user:kwai, and user:outofthenoondaysun.
Essentially, the only posts he makes on Wikipedia are on the USAA page, the USAA discussion page, or on the Reciprocal interinsurance exchange page. Typically, he will use Wikipedia as a soapbox; he believes the existence of USAA is illegal and likes to cite court cases (such as True v. USAA) or (Tuck v. USAA) as well as other arcane legal citations. He (or his sockpuppets) have been banned for their habits of editing archived talk pages, violating the 3 revert rule, and for personal attacks against others who do not share his opinion. Any of this activity can be observed by checking any of the user pages cited above.
It is my intention in making this post that all Robertjkoenig sockpuppets be banned, and for entry to remain in the archives to facilitate banning of any further sockpuppets generated by Mr. Koenig.
-- Swizzlez 22:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts have already been blocked. Iola k ana• T 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Koenig contacted me via this post [63] from an address in Riga. He is still after the same old thing. I blocked his IP address. Watch for this guy.-- Brad Patrick 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ccson Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Robotam Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bearly541
TareTone (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tonetare (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Aaroandre (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The user Taretone, previously banned user [64] has a long grudge against myself and a couple of other users (including one admin).
The first move of the sock is to tell his friend Sugarpine that he's back and that he plans to have a little fun. His next move is to post disgusting abuse here and then move over to my page to do the same.
This follows a pattern of abuse and bad behaviour under his previous names:
-- Charlesknight 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:ShinerDawg moved the article caffeine to "Caffeine on WHEELS!!!!!!" Special:Contributions/ShinerDawg
User:Jobe6 has also moved articles to "(article name) on WHEELS" as well, before being blocked from editing by Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. Special:Contributions/Jobe6 – Zntrip 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The user has used various IDs and AOL sockpuppet IDs such as Bobbydoop, Mikeandike, User talk:152.163.100.130, User talk:64.131.205.160, User talk:68.175.26.54. The NinjaNubian ID was only created about 2 weeks, after the Alpha Phi Alpha article was semi-protected so that anonymous or newly registered users could not edit the article. After about 7 days when the ID was no longer new, he began his vandalism and revert war again. The user created another ID Mykungfu saying he lost his password to NinjaNubian. Since admin attention was brought to the ID Mykungfu via an AfD and RfC, the user has used anonymous IP addresses to revert and remove the AfD template on the page Alpha Kappa Nu as well as comments on the discussion page [66] and comments on the AfD itself [67]. User has also used Anonymous IPs to remove dispute templates from article Sigma Pi Phi. [68] Mykungfu's edits under anon IP are traceable. [69] - Robotam 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet? The user pages of Mykungfu
states
Lost my password to NinjaNubian
Created another one Mykungfu 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is also on the userpage for Ninjanubian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NinjaNubian
Robotam is engaged in a revert war with Mykungfu and this should be noted.
Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu
he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..
he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian
posted by anon IP of Mykungfu 150.210.226.2 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu
he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..
he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian
Mykungfu
08:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=75463808
User:Ccson reported by User:Errabee (Result: warning) Three revert rule violation on
Alpha_Phi_Alpha (edit|talk|links|history|logs). Ccson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):
Previous version reverted to: difficult to say, several minor additions, wikifying has been done as well.
1st revert: 11 September, 04:30
2nd revert: 11 September, 06:19
3rd revert: 11 September, 12:00
4th revert: 11 September, 15:40
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
not done, only after 4th diff warning was given: [19] However, user seems to know about WP:3RR: 30 August, 05:12 Comments: User:Bearly541 reverted the other two additions/reversions from User:NinjaNubian. Errabee 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ccson reported by User:NinjaNubian (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on
Alpha Phi Alpha (edit|talk|links|history|logs). Ccson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=76160415
Previous version reverted to: 02:43, 30 August 2006 1st revert: 04:11, 30 August 2006 2nd revert: 04:11, 30 August 2006 3rd revert: 04:16, 30 August 2006 4th revert: 04:28, 30 August 2006 Time report made: 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: As can be seen above, this is his second 3rr violation in under two weeks. I want a documentation of Ccson's reversion as well as the on going edit war between users.
These diffs are back in August and even earlier than the above warning? --WinHunter (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) yes this user has a constant history of 3rr behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&limit=500&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Kappa_Nu&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Kappa_Nu
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&oldid=75715627
Bearly541 the co author has also been problematic in that he has posted things such as Ninja Nubian
Please do not accept edits by Ninja nubian. He/she is putting irrelavent facts without discussing them on the discussion page. Bearly541 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC) REVERT AT SIGHT. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75102668
reverted edits on kappa alpha psi http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&action=history
over here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75102453
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75056898
both on september 11th
over here as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=72767067
on the alpha phi alpha article twice on september 11th
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history
as can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=75056228
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=75053784
as well as here on another day
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=72533713
These users exhibit a very similar behaviour. Uploading a huge number of fair use images without source or rationale and never responding to any talk page comments. Ddanno35 ( talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for this abuse, Donotsayno has not yet been blocked but I just warned him. They seem to be editing the same sort of articles (US TV) and never use edit summaries.-- Konstable 10:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Account have been blocked. Ddanno35 is actually the sockpuppet; Donotsayno is the sockpuppet master, after checking the user creation log. Iola k ana• T 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Both User:Tecunre and User:Ltnte may be sockpuppets of User:Edipedia. It has been confirmed by a checkuser that Edipedia uses socks to violate 3RRs. Both these accounts were created on the day of this report, making similar edits that Edipedia does. Ltnte was already blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Immediately afterwards, account Tecunre was created to make the same reverts.
Blocked per the RFCU result. Iola k ana• T 13:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The basic issue here is that someone whose first user account was permabanned appears to be extensively editing as an IP anon and has also apparently registered some sockpuppet accounts. (This suspicion could probably be tested using the evidence listed below via a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.)
KraMuc ( talk · contribs · block log) has been permabanned for his offensive and disruptive POV-pushing at less-widely articles such as
as well as widely and frequently edited articles such as:
Users previously suspected of socking for Kramuc include:
New users suspected of socking for KraMuc include:
Compare the following list of edits, noting such features as:
As his registered user KraMuc ( talk · contribs):
In addition to his user account, KraMuc has frequently used numerous IPs, mostly from the Munich area. There is no doubt about his identity as an IP "anon" because he frequently signs these edits as "KraMuc". Note that he has clearly continued to edit as an anon even after being permabanned.
This domain is registered to Deutsche Telekom AG (dial-up access in Munich). The following IPs have apparently been used to edit Wikipedia exclusively by "KraMuc".
Note: the edit history is destroyed, but it seems that as the dip.t-dialin.net anon, KraMuc wrote at 19:20, 8 May 2006 in the talk page of the deleted article on "Anti-relativity" "Ich bitte Sie dringenst, die kriminellen Handlungen von 'pjabobi' zu unterbinden. Er hat u.a. auch Texte vernichtet sowie eine Botschaft für den User 'E4mmacro', einen australischen Dozenten. Solche Handlungen sind gesetzwidrig, also kriminell" ("I ask you to stop the criminal actions of Pjacobi. He deleted among other things edits and a message for the user ' E4mmacro ', an Australian lecturer. Such actions are illegal, thus criminal"), a WP:NPA- WP:NLT vio. See the link to this statement for admins only.
This domain is registered to the Deutches Museum, a science Museum in Munich
This is a more doubtful case of a possible KraMuc IP anon. This domain is apparently registered to Deutsche Post AG in Bonn and putatively geolocated near Burlingame, CA, in the San Francisco Bay region
This domain is registered to Arcor AG and apparently geolocated near Düsseldorf
This domain is registered to Easynet Group Plc, aka Easynet DV GmbH, and possibly geolocated somewhere near Ludwigsburg, a suburb of Stuttgart
This domain is allegedly registered to InterBusiness (headquartered in Rome) via Telecom Italia (but has a bogus registrar)
Apparently geolocated near Milan:
Apparently geolocated near Ferrara:
Likewise registered under Telecom Italia S.p.A.
This domain is also allegedly registered to Interbusiness under Telecom Italia (but has a bogus registrar)
This domain is allegedly registered to Atlanet S.p.A. in Rome (but has bogus registrar)
As PaolaDiApulia ( talk · contribs)
One of the anon IPs noted abovem 84.154.112.248 ( talk · contribs) has been used only to leave a message at User talk:Jimbo Wales asking that KraMuc's permaban be overturned by Jimbo Wales and to vandalize my notes on the KraMuc case. There is no doubt since this anon signed himself "KraMuc".
One of the new suspected sockpuppet accounts, Alarich di Busento ( talk · contribs · block log) is also a single use account, used only to leave two messages at User talk:Jimbo Wales supporting the plea by KraMuc and deprecating comments by other users:
End of KraMuc (2nd) (sorry, I can't fix the munged indents)
User Page under construction.. He commented on my talk page that he'd made a legitimate change, yet he has a talk page under each name ( User talk:Kamikaze, User talk:SuicidalZero) and uses the redirect " User:SuicidalZero | Kamikaze " . Even if no untoward behavior is meant, his use of multiple alias has the potential for confusion, and seems unnecessary. -- Tenebrae 21:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Wps85 recreated the article Jeff Davidson, previously posted by User:Jdbreathe, and recently deleted for the eleventh time. The article had been copied from the user page of Jdbreathe, where it had been edited. The implication is that Jdbreathe is Jeff Davidson. In [74], User:Wps85 asserts himself to be Jeff Davidson. Neither user appears to have done anything apart from articles about Jeff Davidson. Pseudomonas 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Usman Farooq seems to have set up an account called MaverickInUrFace solely to attack other users who disagree with him on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. The latter also signs his abuses as "Usman" — Ravikiran 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I have done no such thing. Just because another user has the same first name as mine I am being accused of sock puppetry? Usman is a very common Muslim name. If I was involved in sock puppetry I would not use my name to sing it. And If admins can check ip adresses then they will see that we don't have the same ip address either. I have maintained a high standard of co-operation and civilty and it disturbs me that I am accused of something with so feeble an evidence.
Comes out of nowehere, signs as you and has personal attacks in the edit summary. Pretty clear to me. Iola k ana• T 18:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Their edits are strangely similar. Same articles, almost identical edits (and in some instances completely identical). IrishGuy talk 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
A simple WHOIS will show that the anon is from Queensland, Australia, same as Daffy, so the coincidences keep mounting up. Exact same articles, exact same edits, exact same protestations, and no connection? Colour me skeptical. A checkuser will no doubt confirm this. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
1) DaffyDuck619 never contributed a citation for the Robin Williams bit of fandom for Doctor Who (except imdb.com or some original research) but I provided the citation 2) So what it's true information 3) DaffyDuck619 never added in the category section for Dave The Barbarian category: fictional cowards. I only put back fictional heroes because he falls under the category, I bet a million bucks if I deleted a category in a page which the page falls under you would put it back. 4) DaffyDuck619 has asked people not to delete the word huge, I was doing the next best thing, putting it back up there. 5) I've made contributions to pages DaffyDuck619 hasn't like the Hollywood walk of fame or the TV movie for Doctor Who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 ( talk • contribs)
A lot of people are from Queensland, Australia. That doesn't mean there the same person.That I don't think is evidence. Brian Boru is awesome 13:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
However all of which is explained in the above paragraph I typed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 ( talk • contribs)
Blocked. Iola k ana• T 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Arthur Ellis has recently been removing large portions of Rachel Marsden, as he does from time to time. Yesterday, after Ellis had reverted for the second time, a new user Craigleithian appeared, performing much the same edits as Ellis -- namely, removing sections that contained sourced and verifiable information that did not reflect well on the article's subject. 3 of Craigleithian's 4 edits are wholesale removal of material from the Marden article. Suspect that this may be a sock to circumvent 3RR.
Craiglethian's edits: [83] [84] [85] [86]
Ellis's edits in that time frame:
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
Note also that Craigleithian seems to have the same interpretation of BLP, as noted on his talk page and on Talk:Rachel Marsden. Ianking 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Craigleithian also posted a nearly identical comment here to one posted by Arthur Ellis here. I suppose it's remotely possible that one comment inspired the other, but if there's one thing I've learned in my three years on Wikipedia, it's that a brand-new user who suddenly appears in the middle of a contentious edit war and supports one side of the debate is never a truly disinterested party offering a genuinely neutral assessment of the POV situation; it's always a puppet of either the sock or meat flavours. But then again, y'all knew that already. Okay, maybe Arthurleithian didn't. Bearcat 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Requests for checkuser confirms the suspicion -- Geedubber 07:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts have been blocked. Iola k ana• T 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
username is 'i am willy' -- DakAD 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I assume you mean i_am_willy ( talk · contribs)? Iola k ana• T 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
my appologies. i followed the instructions i found to the letter (actually, i wondered about the detailed instructions not linking to the user account, but i assumed youd use the 'what links here')
anyhoo, i've only just noticed the existance of the 'blocklog'link... it appears he was blocked just after account creation, anyway.
sorry for the timewaste :-/ -- Dak 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Could not add the sockpuppet notification at User talk:Randallrobinstine as the page is protected. -- ReyBrujo 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked. Iola k ana• T 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) page
User:Jean-Philippe writes on Talk:Center for Science in the Public Interest: “A quick look at the article history reveals that ever since this article was created last year, the article has been under pressure from one source attempting to drown what little information on the subject exists in favor of a massive amount of negative information. It's an open secret that 90%+ of those edits come from one source using a multitude of sockpuppets. A simple look at the contribution histories confirms this. [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]”
And upon the appearance of a new account User:Bryant Wright [99], Jean-Philippe writes
“Does that mean that the next time we speak, you'll be using a different sockpuppet? That's a shame :P”
The alleged sock puppeteer is David Justin (real-life David J. Hanson)
The alleged sock puppets are: Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, Stu Wise, Enrique Perez, Sandy Beech, Emma Jacobson, Al Ellison, Neverglade, Cheese Lover
History of edits on the CSPI page
The edits of these accounts all show a strong similarity, different accounts copy in the same or very similar text. Nunquam Dormio 19:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I added {{cleanup-date|August 2006}} on August 13, 2006. Other than that, I know nothing about the page or the other edits or editors. Mattisse (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Surprised to get a message on my talk page about sockpuppetry. My edit to Center for Science in the Public Interest page was:
On 2nd September I set AWB chugging through a shedload of pages using RETF, as I sometimes do. I usually load up pages that link to a page I choose at random, or that kind of thing - just correcting spelling mistakes while I'm doing something else - it interrupts me periodically when it finds a typo. My involvement with Center for Science in the Public Interest is thus totally accidental, and only arose because someone/somesock had typed Commerical. I have responded here simply so that you can eliminate me from your enquiries. I am not a sock.
Good luck with your endeavours. Cheers. Euchiasmus 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I see what I did some months ago was add some Category links. My additions are still present and seem appropriate. I don't know anything about the article's contents. Good luck. Thanks Hmains 22:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
My single edit to the page was 5 months ago, early in my Wikipedia editing experience. I attempted to remove some POV, added some {{citation needed}} tags, re-ordered some of the text and did a little copy editing. I haven't visited the page since and have no real knowledge of the material. The content and format have drastically changed since then. Let me know if you need any more info... -- Scientizzle 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't watched this closely, but looking at the contributions linked above, there is a strong push by these user accounts for a strongly critical POV against the Center for Science in the Public Interest. I don't know whether it's sock puppetry, meat puppetry or something else, though the fact that most of the edits by these accounts are on the one article is potentially suspicious. Cheese Lover's contributions are more diverse, but they seem to have a lot of topics in common with David Justin's contributions. Definitely worth checking for further evidence (IP addresses or whatever). -- Singkong2005 talk 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
On the whole the contributions don't overlap, so its not the worse sockpuppet situation I've seen. I'd be inclined to take no action other than reverting, a pain I know, but theres plenty of other pages on contriversal groups, which get a similar level of negative attention. This might be a case for WP:RCU, if they do seem to be editing from the same IP account we would have more evidence of a concerted campaign. -- Salix alba ( talk) 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure doing the allegation of sockpuppetry was entirely adequate, but it did serve my purpose to identify the user and prevent any more reverting without discussion. I will add that the speed at which new users were created to apply reverts is a blatant example that someone has this article on his watchlist. Examine the entrance of new users in the history if you wish, but by example Bryant Wright was created 6 hour after my first edits to the article to make a blanket revert, whereas Stu Wise was created less than 24 hours after Neutrality's took out the huge criticism section. His first edit here [100] and the complete diff here [101]. I'm not familiar enough with the custom of a checkuser to know if it's justified in this case against their concern of privacy, but at least 6 months of constant revert, using a multitude of sockpuppets, with no discussion does qualify as a distruption. JSYK, here's the edits I took in consideration for the 6 month number [102]. Jean-Philippe 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Take this to WP:RFCU. Iola k ana• T 19:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the motion. Granted, sockpuppet investigation may not be the most appropriate action. But something needs to be done. These accounts clearly collaborated with a clear POV goal, often falsifying information or inserting unreferenced defamatory claims. This clearly violates Wikipedia's mission, and there should be a way to fight it, regardless of the question if these accounts are sockpuppets or not. That question may be interesting in the context of the 3RR rule, though. Common Man 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
editor | date of change | regarding "encouraging other to collect misleading information" |
regarding cspinet.com | other |
Sandy Beech | 19:55, 22 May 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" | ||
Sandy Beech | 18:32, 6 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 18:29, 7 June 2006 | deleted "One CCF tactic has been to register domain names similar to those used by CSPI." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 17:34, 11 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping (and adding POV to) "CSPI has attracted the attention of groups opposed to ...." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 01:49, 12 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 19:21, 15 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 14:56, 16 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
Sandy Beech | 18:46, 17 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." (Interesting, how Sandy Beech made up for the fact that Emma Jacobson forgot their usual change by doing the same change just after Emma's edit.) After this, the edit war ended, as the other side gave up. |
||
Sandy Beech | 02:20, 13 July 2006 | changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI says not eat foods high in saturated fat". | ||
Sandy Beech | 01:09, 14 July 2006 | changed "CSPI is a nonprofit institution" to "CSPI is a nonprofit corporation" changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" and more related changes |
||
Sandy Beech | 16:39, 14 July 2006 |
changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" |
||
Sandy Beech | 20:52, 15 July 2006 | changed "CSPI is a nonprofit institution" to "CSPI is a nonprofit corporation" changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI criticises foods it considers to be too high in saturated fat"changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" and more related changes |
||
Sandy Beech | 21:39, 16 July 2006 | inserted "encouraging other to collect misleading information (CSPI, n.d.), " (wrong reference, see my talk with Enrique Perez about this same change. | ||
Sandy Beech | 19:14, 18 July 2006 | inserted unreferenced "[CSPI] receive[s] grants and payments from trade groups. " | ||
Sandy Beech | 02:52, 19 July 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" | ||
Sandy Beech | 00:32, 20 July 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI criticises fooods (sic!) that do not meet its nutritional standards"many other changes that were summarized by user:Neutrality as " hit piece". |
||
... | ... | ... and ... | ... so ... | ... on ... |
Common Man 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Check user request has been made Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser — Nunquam Dormio 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
wikt:Wonderfool ( talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Wonderfool has been permanantly blocked on the English Wiktionary. AFAIK, when the same stunt was pulled by him last year, he was asked not to edit any WMF project. After considerable contrite apologies were made, he was allowed to edit again (no longer as a sysop.) Creating several sock puppets, he was able to get a new user nominated for sysop, and about one year later, during WikiMania, repeated his stunt.
In IRC channels, he has promised to return next year, for more of the same. He expressed dissatisfaction that his Wikipedia user Dangherous ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) narrowly failed the RfA procedure.
This is an active inter-project vandal. As new Wikipedia sockpuppets are uncovered, en.wiktionary.org would greatly appreciate information about them, on the Wiktionary beer parlour.
This user is known to use sleeper accounts. One is User:Dangherous ( wikt:Dangherous ( talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Dangherous). His logs at Wiktionary, starting at August 6, 2006, show what he is capable of doing with administrator tools. When Wonderfool was an administrator under his original username, he went on a similar rampage on September 17, 2005, as you can see in this log. He tried to get adminship here (see this RFA, where he admits he is the same Dangherous as the Dangherous in Wiktionary.
Wonderfool attacked Wiktionary in the same manner that the
Anonymex vandal gang is rumored to be trying to use to attack Wikipedia.
Please note that some of the Wiktionary sockpuppets named are possibly impostors on Wiktionary who stole legitimate Wikipedians' usernames. However, some of them could be moles from the Anonymex vandal gang mentioned above that could be waiting for the right moment to attack Wikipedia.
CltFn is an established editor here at wikipedia who primarily edits articles related to criticism of Islam, most often those of books critical of Islam. Recently I have run across a user ( User:Amenra) that I suspect is a sockpuppet of CltFn for several reasons that are listed below:
1. Amenra and CltFn edit the same type of articles. Often one user will edit/start a specific article and the other user will do the same later on. See user contributions for evidence. Specific example 1. Specific example 2.
2. Related to the above, both also regularly upload images of the covers of books critical of Islam and use/edit each others images; See [103] and [104]. Specific example
3. Amenra and CltFn share the same view and often revert to each others versions. See the histories of Seeing Islam as Others Saw It and Hagarism for recent examples of such activity.
4. Amenra's account was registered [105] during the December 26th, 2005 block of CltFn.
5. Amenra has shown a relatively significant increase of activity during some of CltFn's blocks with noticeable lack of activity in between. See contribs of Amenra during April 30 (while CltFn was blocked for 96 hours), and during early September (while CltFn was blocked twice for 48 hours).
6. Amenra and CltFn have very similar typing styles and word choices showing habits I have not seen in any other users to date.
7. Amenra and CltFn have used misleading edit summaries for reverts and other possibly controversial edits. See [110] [111] [112] [113].
8. Amenra showed an unusually high level of familiariaty of Wikipedia policy from his very first edits. He was familiar with fair use policy and using edit summaries from his first edit. From his second edit, he was already familiar with the typical format of an article, templates, categories, external links, headings, etc.
Now, obviously, I can understand two different users have similar interests and the same viewpoint on their interests, however, the other similarities and evidences are strong indications of sockpuppetry. If the reviewing admin is unsure of what conclusion to reach in this case, please let me know so that I can file a request for a checkuser. BhaiSaab talk 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Thordice appears to be another sock/meat puppet that came into existence soon after a 24-hour block was implemented on User:Blake911's account. Previous puppet accounts, namely User:Jackson512 and User:Choirboy (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blake911), were identified and banned. One example specific to the Thordice account is the AfD nomination of the Blake Van Leer article (Blake911 has self-identified as this Van Leer person). Upon Blake911's temporary blockage, Thordice (whose account came into existence approximately five hours after Blake911's blockage) took up the defense of the article's existence. Additionally, Thordice has picked up Blake911's project of creating articles for other members of his family (e.g., Samuel Van Leer), as well as continuing to edit and defend the existence of his various other creations (e.g., Bloodclan and its corresponding AfD nomination). Simões ( talk/ contribs) 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Near identical edits and usernames:
— ERcheck ( talk) 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts mentioned have been blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Similar pattern of edits, including attacks on User:HarryKnock, similar edits to Thank God You're Here. User:Daphne Roberts created just after User:Colwyn_13@hotmail.com was tagged with {{ test4}}. -- Chuq 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Weak disagree. Although the only evidence is the single edit of Daphne Roberts, which is a link that matches up exactly with a link posted by Colwyn but removed a short while before. HOWEVER, the evidence is not solid and there are other reasonable explanations as to why the links match up. Another user could have been reading, saw the recent change and he/she disagreed with the removal of the one link. Like as in lineral mathimatics, it is impossible to extrapolate a relation with but a single data point. Daphne needs to post a bit more for any certainty. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Bulish.org and User:Bulish.cx have very similar usernames. They have also gotten into trouble for adding nonesense to Wikipedia, about the same subject. Bulish.org has also been shown to vandalize Wikipedia.
Bulish is the page mentioned above.
Accounts have been blocked. Iola k ana• T 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This person has so many sock puppets that it is hard to keep up with them. One person, using several sockpuppets, has been vandalizing the Beverly Hills High School page for months and he is the reason that the page had to be semi-protected TWICE.
This user only has 5 edits, four of them are for the BHHS article, and the 5th edit was a vandalism of User:Accurizer's user page by putting "I think I am a fucking loser, and other areas. Thanks for stopping by!" on Accurizer's user page. This kind of attention seeking vandalism is typical of this guy.
StarFAX recieved this warning on his talk page for vandalism: "Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVD+ R/W 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)"
From userpage of User:The Kombucha Mushroom People "Hi, some people know me as Super7am. I'm a convicted and many times blocked vandal.DcClark is gayyyyy!!!!!!!" Elephant Juice 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Obvious. Vandal account, anyway. Iola k ana• T 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
See IP's contribs, he's editing all the same articles Jackp used to (namely Sydney and Eyes Wide Shut). CRCulver 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Obvious. Iola k ana• T 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
On Talk:Ben Best/archive 1 user User:Ben Best makes the following allegations (Allegations are summarised in the bullet points below):
Note that Ben Best is both a wikipedia editor User:Ben Best and the subject of an article Ben Best, mainly regarding his cryonics activities. Nunquam Dormio 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems likely. Iola k ana• T 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Lenapecal911 has been the strongest advocate for either the inclusion of the Bloodclan guildpage(up for AfD), or the exclusion of the Shadowclan guildpage(also up for AfD), his stance depending on if Bloodclan is kept or not. He or she has written some other non-notable articles other than the Bloodclan article (he or she was the original author) such as the Van Cleeve article (a vanity article written about himself or herself), and other articles related to his family members. He or she took great offense to anyone offering opposition to his stances (all of his articles went up for AfD, most were deleted) and was banned for 24 hours for personal attack after repeated warnings[ [129]]. I say all of that to give context to the situation as it appears he has created a sock puppet, User:Jackson512 and voted again in the Bloodclan AfD. Both Jackson 512 and Lena 911 have similar arguements for the inclusion of the Bloodclan article. That being that if the Shadowclan article is included, then the bloodclan must be included by default as well. This is not out of the ordinary on its' own, as even I agree with others and vote per nom or per (insert user's arguement). What brings me to suspect sockpuppetry is that Jackson512 has had no other votes prior to today, is a brand new account, and managed to find his way directly to the Bloodclan AfD page[ [130]]. Another concern to be brough to light is where Lena threatened the re-opening of already deleted, non-notable articles[ [131]] and the use of multiple computers, ISP addresses, and accounts though use of, what he boasts, to be several office locations and home places that have access to the internet[ [132]] to circumvent any action taken against her or his articles.
I hope I made it clear, please alert me if I can improve upon this to make it easier to discern the truth, or if I havn't made valid enough arguement. Regards, Shazbot85 Talk 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Choirboy, a new single purpose account, also seems to very likely be a Lena! -- Jestix 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Reiteration User:Lenapecal911 threatened to use other internet access points to bypass IP identification[ [133]]. He or she boasts on the Jackson512 talk page that his IP is different[ [134]]. I ask, why would a brand new user immediatly offer this defense? How would he or she know such things would be checked for? Shazbot85 Talk 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that User:Jackson512 came into existence 10 hours after User:Lenapecal911 was issued a 24-hour block. Jackson512 additionally seems to be picking up where Lenapecal911 left off (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodclan). Simoes 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ms. Schwarz is a banned user of Wikipedia (see User:The real Barbara Schwarz) that has been known in the past to use sockpuppets on talk pages to make it appear as though more people support her ideas than really do.
JohnPower ( talk · contribs · count) has suddenly appeared on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz pages, and is making threats and personal attacks. The IP address 172.190.37.157 is associated with edits on this page signed by this user, and this is an AOL proxy IP address. Barbara Schwarz has posted to the Usenet using an AOL account before. [135]
Also the stilted English style of this user is reminiscent of the writings of Ms. Schwarz.
Edits from an AOL 172 block were made and signed as "The Real Barbara Schwarz". [136] 01:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Obvious. Iola k ana• T 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The above user, banned for six months in July, is back as User:24.94.120.140. Compare the edit histories here and here. He also vandalized my user page here.
Blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: there is another report for two other sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse.
User:Mattisse has already been confirmed as a puppeteer, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. In particular, many of these puppets went around tagging articles about pagan authors with multiple tags.
Another thing the socks did was to create intentionally non-notable parody articles on pagans, such as, for example Anne Hill, created by sock Flinders, Modern occultists also created by Flinders, Charles Gatewood, again created by Flinders. Joi Wolfwomyn, again created by Flinders. There are several others. Another sock, User:NothingMuch started a semi-hoax and/or duplicate article Headingley ground. Suspected sock LiftWaffen has created a duplicate of Anne Hill at Ann Hill, this was the user's first edit.
Now LymphToad has done two things which match Mattisse's agenda.
Several of Mattisse's puppets complained vocally on Talk:Association for Consciousness Exploration, Talk:Starwood Festival and Talk:WinterStar Symposium about these events being "a group of thirty friends" and she and her socks followed all the links of speakers and performers, multiply tagging the articles, too numerous to list here. In short, this looks like more WP:POINT games by Mattisse. - 999 ( Talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at article creations etc., this is an obvious sock. Iola k ana• T 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ms. Schwarz is a banned user of Wikipedia (see
User:The real Barbara Schwarz) that has been known in the past to use sockpuppets on talk pages to make it appear as though more people support her ideas than really do.
The recent edits of SummertimeBlues ( talk · contribs · count) demonstrate that this user is a sockpuppet of someone, most likely Ms. Schwarz herself. The person is apparently already very familiar with the editing procedure and this new account seems singularly interested in discussing Ms. Schwarz. This is highly unusual that someone would only make edits to a Ms. Schwarz article and then make claims that Ms. Schwarz isn't notable enough to deserve an article. If she isn't notable enough then why did SummertimeBlues bother to create an account on Wikipedia for the express purpose of talking about Ms. Schwarz.
Also the stilted English style of this user is reminiscent of the writings of Ms. Schwarz. I also find it troubling that this user is repeating the threats of Ms. Schwarz to sue Wikipedia, when Ms. Schwarz was already banned for that behaviour. Vivaldi ( talk) 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note 216.190.11.45 ( talk · contribs · logs) appears to be another sockpuppet, and the IP address is that of Barbara Schwarz's ISP. [143] I have added the sockpuppet tag to the User:216.190.11.45 page. Orsini 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mattisse has already been confirmed as a puppeteer, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. In particular, many of these puppets went around tagging articles about pagan authors with multiple tags. In this case, the article Stephen Kent (musician) was tagged by Mattise [144] and then later by User:LiftWaffen [145]. But the most curious thing is that Liftwaffen is also editing an article which was created by another of Mattisse's socks, User:NothingMuch. The article is The End of American Jewry's Golden Era, and so far is has NothingMuch has created and edited it twice and now Liftwaffen is also editing the same article. See the article history.
Another interesting tidbit is this user's first edit is to create [146] a duplicate article Anne Hill under Ann Hill. The former article was created [147] by User:Flinders, another Mattisse sockpuppet. Following this, User:BlackHak adds a link to the article to Starwood Festival: [148].
I suspect that both User:LiftWaffen and User:BlackHak are socks of User:Mattisse. — Hanuman Das 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
For BlackHak, there is fairly strong evidence of sockpuppetry, namely that Ann Hill was created by new user User:LiftWaffen at 14:21, 2 September. The article is linked from no other article when it is created. Then User:BlackHak adds a link to the article from Starwood Festival at 16:23, 3 September. This looks like intentional misdirection. How did BlackHak find the article which is not linked from any other article. How did she know that it should be linked from Starwood Festival? Unless she is the same user who created Anne Hill, who was Flinders who was a sockpuppet of Mattisse. — Hanuman Das 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:BlackHak also asked a question,about the tagging on Village Pump (technical) [149]. Previously User:Capit (a confirmed sockpuppetet of Mattisse, although the user claims to be here grandchild) also posted a similar question on VP(T) of a similar nature [150]. User:Mattisse, has rescently asked questions there [151], as had another sock User:Massmato [152]. None of these questions are really on topic for VP(T), but it seems to be a favorite place to ask for help, so contribute a bit more evidence. -- Salix alba ( talk) 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:4.245.122.69 made this edit to Talk:Alexander the Great continuing Cretanpride's insistence that homosexuality was "not common in ancient Greece", using text that Cretanpride previously posted to Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece.
Note also the edits of
--Akhilleus ( talk) 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked—yet again. Iola k ana• T 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Cave quid dicis ( talk · contribs) first and so far only edit was to revert an addition of a POV tag (without explanation) at Sons of Confederate Veterans. User:Fix Bayonets! had previously reverted the article 3 times to remove the tag, thus I suspect that this account was created merely to avoid WP:3RR. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A new account, User:Dannyfloyd, created the article Brunnock on August 29. It was his first edit. According to the article, a brunnock is a creature "characterised by foolish and clumsy behaviour. They are described as being short almost squat in stature with hairy, wart-covered skin and having odious breath." The Brunnock article is a smear against me (my surname and username is Brunnock). So far, all of Dannyfloyd's edits have related to the Brunnock article.
I think that DannyFloyd is a sockpuppet for User:AndyAndyAndy. As you can see on Talk:Pottery/Archive 1 and Talk:Pottery, AndyAndyAndy has a bone to pick with me.
Confirmed. DannyFloyd is a sockpuppet for AndyAndyAndy. See
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy. --
Sean Brunnock
23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Up to now I have been very patient but it would be much appreciated if someone could explain what the heck is happening. I have spent not an inconsiderable amount of time over the last 6 months contributing to wikipedia. I can not but think somebody is playing some rather silly, and perhaps even malicious, games. I ask for a resolution to this as I have been unfairly maligned Regards, Andy
I do not think sockpuppetry is present here. Iola k ana• T 17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sean Brunnock, Although I confess to feeling as if I am having to defend myself for others’ actions I the spirit of openness I am happy to list my email address so that you can contact me direct. Please advise if you are interested Regards, Andy
Dear Sean Brunnock, Please do not accuse me of changing yoour comments as I did not; I simply highlighted one posting of mine and one of yours. This was done solely to clarify the resolution to this rather strange debate
I'm was very puzzled about the so called 'evidence' you have referred to, including the useage of hello, whilst and regards. These are all common English words that I been used appropriately. From my expereince starting an email, fax or message with 'Hello' is just as popular as 'Dear'. Of the main emails I receive each day I estimate that of those from English speakers in excess of 90% end with 'Regards'. And again the word 'whilst' is very common, and signing of with ones name is hardly unusual
It is purely speculation but I wonder if you are confused about the regional use of English: I note you have recently used the term 'heads-up'. This is new to me. However after a little searching I understand it is popular in the US ... can I therefore presume you are American? Well I am British and as such differences in phrasing would be expected. Perhaps Dannyfloyd is also British and therefore would have more in common with how I speak / write than you. Again this is speculation but it is something I would consider before listing rather spurious evidence. Maybe Dannyfloyd will comment if he is reading
Also having checked the disussion page of the article that is in question I also wonder as to why you engaged in debate with Dannyfloyd, including making contributions yourself, if this was me and it was a fake entry (and referring back to your comment above I can see nothing suspecious about the use of the word contribution ... could I ask what other you would deem to be suitable?)
Regards,
Andy
'Dear Sean Brunnock,
Thank you for being considerate enough to post the above. Whilst I have highlighted this is bold, along with my reply, I am happy for all relevant correspondence on this page and otehrs to be deleted Regards, Andy'
Dear all, Whooaa ... please note: 1. I am not DannyFloyd 2. I do not know a DannyFloyd 3. I do not have 'a bone to pick with' with Sean Brunnock
Please could someone explain what is happening here?
Regards,
Andy
Dear Sean Brunnock,
What is going on here? Please see my comments above
I do not have ' ... a bone to pick with' you. Please explain what you mean by this
What is the issue with the word 'whilst'? As I have used 'is' in this current post twice, are you going to misinterpret that?
I would be very grateful if you would address any issues you have with me (though I can not understand what they may be) to me rather than posting such comments as you have recently
Regards,
Andy
Dear Sean Brunnock,
Rather than changing your posts on this page could you please respond to mine Thank you Andy
Seems likely. Iola k ana• T 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Heraklis, an account created on Sept. 2, follows in the footsteps of User:MegasAllexandros, whom Checkuser has confirmed as a sock of Cretanpride. Heraklis has edited The 11th Day: Crete 1941, an article started by MegasAllexandros, and his other edits are to articles that MegasAllexandros edited or pertain to disputes started by MegasAllexandros/Cretanpride. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
comment I have already been blocked as I cannot edit with my user name Heraklis. So much for assuming good faith. I edited on the article The 11th Day: Crete 1941 because I am a relative of Alex Spanos, the man who funded the film. I was also an extra on the set. Once I found there was such an article I decided to join wikipedia. As for my edits on 1994 World Cup I got to that article by looking up the history of the 11th day. It linked me to it by looking at MegasAllexandros' contributions. Feel free to ask me about my other edits as I'm sure there is a logical explanation to them. Until the checkuser result comes in I think I should be allowed to edit with my user name.
User has been blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
In my option if you disagree with Halbared then you get accused of being a sockpuppet. I was trying to carm the situtaion down by asking Halbared to be civil. He removed the warning with no response. He has tried to turn the things i said against me. Can somebody checkuser me so he can be showen that im not a sockpuppet. DXRAW 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with Halbared, you are suddenly a sockpuppet. How is this fair? Look at the people he is accusing. They have all had some kind of content dispute war with him! This should be proof enough that Halbared's accusations of sockpuppetry are NOT true. May i please remove the accusation on my page of being a sockpuppet, as i am clearly not one?!?! I plan on reporting this to higher level Wikipedians. Thank you, -- Cookie 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The IP addy 67.185.26.89 seems to be a confirmed sockpuppet account that Cuke monster has used before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.185.26.89
It might be possible that User:DXRAW is also a sock puppet.
Edits to my own talk page and to the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bautista http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Bautista&oldid=73547469 make me think this user is at it again( Halbared 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
I am being accused of being uncivil and warnings are being posted on my page by User:DXRAW, accusing me of being uncivil to Cuke Monster. I have asked for citations, and as evidence DWRAW pointed out a page where Cuke admits he has been a vandal before and the proof that he used the ip 67.185.26.89 as a sock puppet.( Halbared 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
I felt I have been very civil and I have let the edit stand in the favour of Cuke monster. I have amended the disclaimer on the page though because it doesn't fall in with wiki wrestling protocol( Halbared 09:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
It may be possible that this is not a sockpuppet, but it just seems coincidentasl that Cuke monster used a lot of warnings on my talk page and now DXRAW does too, that Cuke monster is not around now as DXRAW is spamming my page with warnings, although different computers might be, being used? The MO of both users seems similar?? User talk:Halbared
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Halbared&oldid=73565448 This advises for me to sign my mssg, when I always sign them. Possibley this user is using wiki to make a point?( Halbared 12:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
Edits to Featured Article Tahirih Justice Center bear strong similarity to edits made to article Mail Order Bride. Edits made to both websites advertise for identical websites with similar mysogenistic agendas. Elementalcs 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
When someone creates a brand new username in order to brand someone else as a sockpuppet, I have to ask the question: Elementalcs, clearly you've had edit disputes with this person, yet you just created this account in the last hour. Who are you a sockpuppet of? Fan-1967 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User does not exist. Iola k ana• T 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Edipedia has been blocked 48 hours for his fourth violation of 3RR. He is currently using a sockpuppet, User:Editor 1, to make his edits in articles Han Chinese and Overseas Chinese, e.g. Edit by Edipedia Edit by Editor 1, and Edit by Edipedia Edit by Editor 1. Editor 1 has also removed the 3RR report that I filed, which Edipedia was blocked for [154]. Editor 1 made the same edits in the two pages that Edipedia has edit warred in ; counting Editor 1's edits, he has made a total of 7 reverts under 24 hours in an article and 5 reverts under 24 hours in another. Editor 1 has also uploaded an image with a false license, the same false license that Edipedia used to upload his ~10 images. Moreover, Editor 1 makes the same grammatical mistakes that Edipedia makes [155]. Lastly, Editor 1 tells us to "discuss" per this edit, but in fact the account has not started a discussion before that. Only the account Edipedia has made a discussion in the article, so the connection is obvious. Aran| heru| nar 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's just your imagination. Edipedia 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Apro, an account created today, joined in Talk:Alexander the Great, supporting the position of User:MegasAllexandros, a confirmed sock of Cretanpride. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. Iola k ana• T 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
IP is from same ISP as Cretanpride's other socks. User made two contributions to Talk:Alexander the Great, taking the position of MegasAllexandros (a confirmed sock of Cretanpride), and blanked out part of Talk:Josiah Rowe, the talk page of an editor/admin involved in dealing with Cretanpride.
Is this the best page to report this kind of continued IP sockpuppetry? --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Users
have made the idential edits to the article Jesse Macbeth (reversing the meaning of the intro), and have refused to discuss changes on the talk page. The edits by Deepthroat followed Jessefriend's 4th revert by five minutes. Together, the three have repeated the revert 12 times today. -- Mmx1 23:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Evidence seems clear that this is a sockpuppet.
— ERcheck ( talk) 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts have been blocked. Iola k ana• T 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I am submitting this user because I have reason to believe that User:Kitia is also User:IndigoGenius, and is simply recreating articles that were deleted under the latter name (most notably Cesidian Root and TTF-Bucksfan). Further, in the Cesidian Root discussion board for the now protected article, Kitia's arguments are not unlike what was discussed in the Cesidian Root deletion discussion (please reference for IndigoGenius' arguments against deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cesidian Root).
-- Dennis The TIger 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Dattat ( talk · contribs) first edit is to insert exactly the same text into Dattatreya as previously inserted by Shravak ( talk · contribs) less than 1 hour after Shravak had reverted the article 4 times despite having been warned of 3RR. A copy of the details from the 3RR report follows:
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
An ongoing editwar on The Smurfs article. Persistent additions of links to Pvcblue's website to the article from the following IP addresses. Please refer to previous case for details. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Evidence
Comments
Like before - I do NOT know who this is - it is NOT me - that is a verizon user, I have grandecom. I don't care anymore!!!!!!!
Several edits from this IP ( 86.132.128.191 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) have suggested that this user is the indefinitely banned user Leyasu evading his ban again:
Additionally, several similar IPs have been blocked for the same types of edits and have been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu#List of blocks and bans as such. They have also been confirmed as sockpuppets of Leyasu by CheckUser; the results of those cases are posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu.
I have blocked this IP for one week. Idont Havaname ( Talk) 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
herasleftnut: where is krj and his corn update? naftee: i'm a part-time troll, nate naftee: do you think i'll ever stop ? herasleftnut: ha herasleftnut: i figured out how to word this herasleftnut: without sound like I like a total homo nharmon: top post? nharmon: what is to top post? nharmon: grindingteeth, you'll never stop trolling. You enjoy it too much. sholmes: lunch time ! ---- sholmes leaving (Aug 29 23:05) ---- trig leaving (Aug 29 23:07) ---- trig joining (Aug 29 23:07) naftee: nate : when you reply to something leaving the previous text under your reply naftee: like in an e-mail naftee: haha naftee: grindingteeth naftee: did you like that userbox, nate ? naftee: i didn't make it, though :( nharmon: yeah <nharmon:nharmon laughs> naftee: the category is hilarious naftee: dumb wikipedians naftee: haha nharmon: you're such a prick :) naftee: aw geez naftee: :) naftee: but seriously naftee: i've had about 20 accounts indef blocked on wikipedia nharmon: hahahahaha nharmon: not just Daloonik? naftee: i'm trying to get back at this jerk MONGO, you see naftee: no way man naftee: but MONGO, you see, has his userpage semi protected naftee: so i wanted to create an account like MONGO SUCKS naftee: and then wait a few days, and post something to his page naftee: but like, whenever i create an account along those lines, there's always somebody ready to toast my ass naftee: it's uncanny naftee: the longest i've had an account last is 16 mins naftee: so i gave up on that line :( nharmon: rofl nharmon: Create an account called "EatmeMongo" naftee: some of the guys are funny, though nharmon: or naftee: ok nharmon: MongoEatsMe naftee: watch naftee: i'll do it naftee: watch the logs ---- bipolar joining (Aug 29 23:13) naftee: 03:12, 30 August 2006 MONGO eats me out (Talk | contribs) New user account naftee: j naftee: bipolar ! naftee: ok ---- sliew joining (Aug 29 23:13) naftee: so in a few mins naftee: that account'll be blocked indef naftee: hi silew ! nharmon: heh sliew: Hi all. naftee: now, what i REALLY hate, dude. naftee: REALLY hate naftee: is when you put up an unblock request and that Pgk guy comes along, blanks the talk page and protects it naftee: it's annoying ! naftee: so once i blanked his talk page naftee: but it got reverted in a few mins :( nharmon: 23:14, 29 August 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs) blocked "MONGO eats me out (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (o rly) nharmon: hehe nharmon: o rly naftee: 03:14, 30 August 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs) blocked "MONGO eats me out (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (o rly) naftee: two minutes naftee: heh naftee: it's so screwed up, man naftee: who spends their time deleting usernames :(
N. Harmon 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no clue what N. Harmon is talking about. I've never used Grex, and do not know who Daloonik is. Nathan's evidence seems rather slim indeed. Grindingteeth 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
A few points:
IP user (4.245.120.147) says he is User:Ellinas, who has been banned indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride.
Blocked. Thanks, Iola k ana• T 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Previous Case 2 Previous Case 1
The user Subhash bose is under ban , this new account created subsequent to the ban has started editing almost the same set of articles that Subhash did.It is already established that this user's IP is the same as University of Texas at Austin, the same as Subhash.
The tone and tenor of arguments and edits by both these accounts are same, and I have noted the following similarities in their writing styles.
Similarities in reasoning using Logic:
Netaji:
The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) [168]
HKelkar
The very claim that RSS is fascist is a POV statement unless it is qualified as a claim, since there are ample arguments to refute their alleged "fascism". Thus, you are gaming the argument by a circular logic. You have assumed the very thing you are trying to establish and that won;t work. It is like saying A->B because A->B. Munje went abroad, then founded an org in India. Association does not prove ideology.Hkelkar 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC) [169]
Similarity in reactions:
Netaji
I'm afraid your most recent edit 'boycott of muslims' had absolutely nothing to do with the Gujarat riots and is a completely independent event. Plus, your extract from the supreme court was unnecessarily long because it is already cited and quoted, and I have adequately paraphrased your POV. Please refrain from further anti-Hindu propaganda or we will have a revert war on our hands. Agree upon a compromise and move on.Netaji 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [170]
Hkelkar
I'm afraid attacking the source is the last resort of a losing argument. I have not attacked any sources, merely questioned them. I admit that generally Christianpost is partisan. Since a non-Hindu site has not attacked a hindu organization in this case, it bears mentioning. Plus, the article is written by a non-Christian. The thesis was submitted through Sorbonne University, Paris, France.Hkelkar 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) [171]
Noting that the same source Christianpost has been mentioned by user Subhash Bose in this edit
There is very high probability that this is a new Sock Account created to facilitate Subhash to circumvent the ban.I have noted another user Bakasuprman to be continually trolling the pages where evidence against Subhash has been mentioned.He has already mentioned in a few edits the necessity to "make noise" to influence the case checkers TerryJ-Ho 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Subhash_bose#Sockpuppetry_case_2
Note - Checkuser came out Inconclusive Bakaman Bakatalk 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Content moved to the discussion page by Bakaman TerryJ-Ho 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - view talk page for responses Bakaman Bakatalk 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have obtained help from Netaji regarding this offline (we are in the same department and meet up during lunch , discuss etc.). That is why we have cited the same source, he referred it to me. I am told that may be construed as "meatpuppetry". While I disagree, if an admin thinks I shouldn't correspond with Netaji regarding wikipedia then, of course, I will cease to do so. As for our sockpuppetry accusation; I reietrate that we have already cleared that up with the admins on irc, where we chatted with them from different computers (established by different ip addresses). Plus, Netaji edits from his home mostly, as his ip address is not UT (see that chat transcript), and mine is AT UT, miles away from his home. The chat transcript is located here:
posted there by netaji. I believe the admin can get independent confirmation from admins Blnguyen and Skriet.
I believe that this may be a manouever by the accuser in order to get his opponents blocked so that he can make unsubtantiated claims (which I have refuted) on wikipedia articles. Of course, in the interests of assuming good faith, I will say that this is only a possibility and hope that I am wrong. I also hope hope that TerryJ-Ho will refrain from wasting his time smearing his users and use his abilities to contribute to wikipedia. Hkelkar 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Plus, earlier case filed against netaji and myself as sockpuppets (I'm sure admin can look for it) was dropped. Hkelkar 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[172]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rushdie ( talk • contribs) .
It wasn't removed. Rushdie is merely another person out to get Subhash. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Several new socks of already indefblocked user:
See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pnatt.
36, 35, and 34 have also been blocked, the last two before they actually did anything. User:Angr 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[173]: See file history at the bottom. User:Prettyw0man and User:Prettywoman2010 have vandalized despite warnings the pages. They uploaded both the very same picture with the same measurements and datasize. Plumcouch Talk2Me 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Rgulerdem (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (indef banned user)
Bismihi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Articles involved:
Fethullah Gülen (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
User:Bismihi is suspect of being another sockpuppet of indef bannded user User:Rgulerdem Old cases here: [1] [2]. Basically the same arguments as in the old case apply: Same spelling mistakes, same defensive fixation on Fethullah Gülen, single pupose account, goes into edit war mode immediately after establishing account, exhibits an extremely uncanny familiarity with the history of the Fethullah Gülen article and its contributors at the talk page [3] and in his edit summaries [4], Azate 00:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked. Iola k ana• T 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Nodekeeper (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Proabivouac (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
the user account (Proabivouac) may be new, but it is certainly not new to wikipedia. the first few edits point to previous experience on WP, although obviously not quite enough to know how to raise concerns about GAC in the right manner, which is notable as User:Nodekeeper too is still relatively new. his style of posting is reminiscent of Nodekeeper's entertaining voluminous blocks of discussion, per Talk:Muhammad. he is also noted as going to the talk pages of Aiden [5] and Opiner [6], both of whom involved in the Muhammad article dispute (as was Nodekeeper), and indirectly requesting assistance of them for the article Muhammad as a diplomat. the new account knows pretty much what he is doing most of the time, and along with almost the exact same approach in style and psychology as User:Nodekeeper, it has led myself and other users to suspect that the link may be more than just common interests. it is also noteworthy that both users tend to accuse Muslim editors in general of inherently working against the rules of wikipedia. User:Nodekeeper has a long history of these kinds of accusations( [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and more), and User:Proabivouac repeated such with his very first edit [12]. the reason why i believe that this is blameworthy sockpuppetry is that the sock is portraying themselves as an independant user, without seemingly any justifiable reason to be using a sock (seemingly a SPA) looking at his current contributions, when the account of the suspected sockpuppeteer is already in use. the user is definitely a sock as can be seen from their contribs, and i believe there is evidence to suggest it may be User:Nodekeeper. ITAQALLAH 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Evidences that Proabivouac is a sockpuppet I think Proabivouac is definitely a sockpuppet.
Evidences that the sockpuppeteer is Nodekeeper
-- Aminz 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no connection whatsoever between myself and User:Nodekeeper, nor do I operate in contravention of WP:SOCK. The preceding comments suggest that I have been dragged into an existing dispute between User:Itaqallah, User:Aminz and User:Nodekeeper which would be better addressed in another forum. Proabivouac 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Only insinuated. Please take this to WP:RFCU. Iola k ana• T 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
64.14.194.26 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Joesatisgod (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Both users added the same vandalism text, "RJ Pasaporte", multiple times to the article PCU Dolphins within a couple of hours of each other. Joesatisgod had also added the same text to the same article on Sept 14.
64.14.194.26 was recently blocked for vandalism to now-deleted article Rachell Ann Loresto on Sept 19, and has been warned again on Sept 25, presumably after the block was lifted. Multiple prior warnings for vandalism. Using suspected sockpuppet Joesatisgod to evade block and vandalism detection? No block notice appears on Joesatisgod's talk page. Rrburke 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No violation of sockpuppet policy. Iola k ana• T 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Finsj (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Cpacifico (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Several links to essay by the apparent owner of Finsj and a coworker of his had been added by Finsj ( [15] [16] [17] [18] ; I deleted them in accordance with WP:EL, and explained that course of action, after stumbling across a link to an essay that contained many factual inaccuracies.
Cpacifico appears to be a new account that readded some of those links ( [19] [20] [21] [22])
No other policy violations (regardless of whether this is one or not) are known to me; however, it seems impossible to contact the contributor off Wikipedia (a comment on his essay was removed without reply).
It seems clear to me that the purpose of the new account is to add external links to Finsj's work while hiding that it is actually him that is adding the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RandomP ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Articles involved:
Serialization (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
String functions (programming) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Regular expression (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Script.aculo.us (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Looking at the history, Finsj added the external link to the Serialization article at 14:56 on 9/25, RandomP reverted the change at 16:08 on 9/25, the Cpacificio user was created at 20:31 on 9/25 and his first edit was two minutes later to re-add the external link. Combined with the rest of the two users' edit history, it seems pretty cut-and-dry. Neil916 ( Talk) 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. Iola k ana• T 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Zoso2005 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 18:08 9/18/06)
Franklin999999999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 18:09 9/18/06)
129.93.196.226 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Elvis 1950 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 21:29 9/23/06)
Dormir 2777 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 01:13 9/24/06)
Lindy3930 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 03:13 9/24/06)
Tier1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 14:24 9/24/06)
Flea1999 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 14:30 9/24/06)
Memphisjack (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (Account created 17:33 9/24/06)
Sockpuppetry and Vandalism issues surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The RCP (Red Car Posse) During this Afd yesterday, a series of vandalisms occurred to all the people who voted to delete and some of their article creations by a series of new user accounts. The following is my account of it. (also, it appears to be still alive diff)
User(s) suspected of sockpuppetry (my guess is that there are two distinct users, possibly three, but no more.):
Affected users (in other words, users who voted to delete the article):
User:Dormir 2777 did not participate in the Afd, instead, made four edits total as described below:
Possibly related acts by other single purpose accounts:
The vandalism to User:Dina was reverted by User:DVD R W, who also placed a warning on User:Dormir 2777 's talk page. User:DVD R W was then vandalized by User: Dvd R W (sole edit) diff
I don't understand how this pertains to me at all. Apparently it's not enough to condemn a factual article but now I get to be blamed for something I have no knowledge of. The "evidence" seems inconclusive and appears to be something Dina has against me, an intense vendetta. I apologize for anything these particular users have done, but I have no ties to this is any way. Wikipedia leaves itself open for such vandalism by not at least requiring all new accounts to have an email address. And, why is that even though some new users have nothing against the article in question, every one of them immediately must be a "sockpuppet"? -- Zoso 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Note This matter appears to be resolved as the editor in question db-authored his article and so far as I can tell, the relevant user pages, articles etc. haven't been vandalized since. Since I'm relatively sure I can't personally close a sock puppet case, I'm just going to leave this note here until someone else does. If I'm mistaken in that assumption, please let me know. Thanks. Dina 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Complaint withdrawn. Iola k ana• T 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Cretanpride (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
GreekEconomist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Checkuser has already shown that User:GreekEconomist has an IP similar to an IP that Cretanpride has used in the past. It was felt that since GreekEconomist was not following Cretanpride's pattern of behavior, s/he might be a different person, and his/her account was left unblocked. However, GreekEconomist has today made contributions to Talk:Alexander the Great that reflect Cretanpride's interests (see this diff. Furthermore, this post to my talk page directs us to a discussion in a MySpace forum, started by Cretanpride. I still believe that GreekEconomist is a sockpuppet, and would appreciate it if an administrator takes another look. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I have an interest in Alexander the Great. I originally named myself after him. If you look at my edit I suggested more info on his relationships with women and more info on his military campaigns. Adding info in these categories would improve the article. User Apro posted and I responded. That is what you do on wikipedia. Regarding my edit to Akhilleus' talk page, he had accused me of not telling the truth about the whole myspace thing and I was trying to show him otherwise. I have not supported Cretanpride's argument. This is a case of bad faith against me. I feel as if I can't express my opinion now, or else I'll get blocked, and that is not right. GreekEconomist 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely. I would say more, but do not wish to violate WP:BEANS. Iola k ana• T 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
12.182.70.131 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
YassirLaCama (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Johnbrownsbody said this might be the same user who operates from 12.182.70.131. I agree with because both of them have made the same style of edits. The vandalism also occured today a few minutes apart after each edit. Then YaSirCaLama registered a few minutes late and his edits were all vandalism in the same style. His account got blocked for one week because of vandalism. Hmrox 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the same computer, since timestamps indicate on the seven article indicate simultaneous edits. They seem to be cooperating on childish vandalism at the same time, though, so both are probably at the same location. And by the way, logged-in users are not sockpuppets of anonymous (not logged in) users. Wikipedia does not require its editors to log in. -- Neil916 ( Talk) 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Not blocked. Iola k ana• T 16:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Dhammafriend (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Bodhidhamma (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Truthlover (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
All accounts are new. All accounts have similar names of similar etymologies. They have been editing the same articles Indian Buddhist Movement, Indian Caste System, Hindu, History of Hinduism, as well as their respective talk pages. The aggressive and insulting tone used by the accounts are 100% identical as you can see here, here and here.As far as User:Truthlover,while he pretended to "calm things down" between his fellow socks (as a facade) he then went on to push the same anti-Hindu POV by moving Indian Caste System to Hindu's Caste System(fork article speedily deleted), which is part of the agenda of users like User:Dhammafriend, which is why I suspect him to be a sockpuppet also. Hkelkar 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
All three socks have rabidly anti-Hindu views (see edit summaries of their edits in history page) and my talk page here, and here, as well as on the talk pages of the socks and sockmaster, all of which are the same wording used by new users with very similar names (as an aside, the word "Dhamma" and various other Neo-Buddhist concepts are used or alluded to in all three of the user names) Hkelkar 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Bodhidhamma 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dhammafriend is Truthlover Dhammafriend (and Truthlover) has completely reverted [Indian Buddhist Movement[|this page]] to how it was prior to his/their ban. He/They did not only remove the navayana concept, which he/they question but also all the citations that cleared up citation neccessity's. I have reverted the page to how it was prior. Thegreyanomaly 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It is also important to note that "they" reverted the 'official-style' referencing back to their informal previous citations, they also removed claims of dubious assertions and etc. the proof is [ [23]], [ [24]], [ [25]]
Interestingly. TL reverted it to just DF left it before his ban. -- Thegreyanomaly 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please take this to WP:RFCU. Iola k ana• T 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
65.143.104.102 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
65.142.204.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Microchip (comics): After I removed two paragraphs of uncited POV at 03:18, 19 September 2006, describing that rationale in the edit summary, they were reverted by User:65.143.104.102 the next day — this IP's only day on Wikipedia, per Special:Contributions/65.143.104.102.
I again removed the POV paragraphs, and left a note at User:65.143.104.102 asking that he not revert this again since the paragraphs "violate the Wikipedia policies regarding original research and neutral point-of-view". Today, the exact same two paragraphs reappeared, inserted this time by User:65.142.204.13 — who similarly has never been on Wikipedia before today.
I'm not sure if anything can be done with evidently the same person using different computers, but this seemed the logical place to report someone apparently using multiple identities. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 20:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's almost definitely the same person using a dynamic IP via Qwest as an internet provider, apparently based in Kansas City, or near Columbus OH, depending on who you ask. It was probably the same computer. They weren't logged in to Wikipedia, and their IP address changed, either because it was a dial-up account or their ISP rotated their address. See the IP Address article for a more detailed explanation of this. These types of users are also referred to by Wikipedians as "anonymous users", or "anon's". Neil916 ( Talk) 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No violation of the sockpuppet policy. Neil916 ( Talk) 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Not blocked. Iola k ana• T 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Cretanpride (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
John1111111111 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Posted a message on User talk:Apro asking for help in an edit war on Homosexuality in ancient Greece. The edit war was carried on by User:Steve88 and User:James577, already blocked as probable socks of Cretanpride.
Already confirmed by Checkuser, but not yet blocked. (I am not an admin.) --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Mattisse (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Timmy12 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Suspect is tagging the same set of articles previously tagged by Mattisse and her other sockpuppets, continuing the pattern of tagging and/or vandalising articles on pagan writers and musicians, vis:
On most of these articles, the same tags are being placed as were placed by Mattisse and her sockpuppets.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hanuman Das ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Neil916 ( Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Neil916 ( Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not blocked. Iola k ana• T 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Randallrobinstine (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vrrayman2004 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
User continues to create bogus pages such as
FOX 70s as with previous incarnations of his/her sockpuppets.
Wildthing61476
20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Article creations. Iola k ana• T 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Randallrobinstine (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Vrrayman1998 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Same MO and similar name to Vrrayman1987
Blocked. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
is suspect of being another sockpuppet of indef bannded user User:Rgulerdem Old cases here: [46] [47]. Basically the same arguments as in the old case apply: Same spelling mistakes, same defensive fixation on Fethullah Gülen (but this time in a different article), single pupose account, goes into edit war mode immediately after establishinmg account, conceals major reverts as "minor" edits Azate 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Qabbalah (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
TonySReed (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
HisNameIsAlive (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Sockpuppet User:TonySReed ? User:Qabbalah created an article Tony Reed, with massive self-promotion by spamming and vandalising multiple music genre articles (see Special:Contributions/Qabbalah. The article Tony Reed was put up for an AfD, and see: what a coincidence: by accident the "real" tony reed just found out this page at this very moment ( User:TonySReed , registers, knows his way around in WP and goes voting for a "keep"... very suspicious at least. (If it's not sock puppetry, Qabbalah has had enough warnings for this ugly spamming of dozens of articles, so a block may be a good idea as well....)
User:HisNameIsAlive appears to be another sock, evidence same as above. Oh, and User:TonySReed has "authenticated" himself to User:HisNameIsAlive on his talk page, which is quite amusing. Leibniz 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I need to make this clear. I am NOT the person going by the handle "Qabbalah". I have been a regular visitor to wikipedia for a couple years now, but never bothered to get a membership until this debacle reached my attention. I have figured out what little I know because I use computers regularly and, aside from formatting, wikipedia is pretty easy to navigate. If you want the article on me to cite sources and show notability, I'm happy to oblige.
The user "Qabbalah" has impersonated me before I suspect. I am "Qabbalah" on myspace due to the fact that "Qabala" was already taken by this same user. Go look for yourself!
I appreciate Qabbalahs efforts to promote me, but not the posting of my personal information and the half-truths and omissions present in the article. If you wish to remove the article, fine! but don't besmirch my name!
I certainly support blocking Qabbalah. -- User:TonySReed (I can't find the tilde on my laptop) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonySReed ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Dicksg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Safgeneral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I believe this user is a sockpuppet for Dicksg, recently blocked ( User_talk:Dicksg) for repeated (over 20 times!) vandalism to National Service in Singapore. Namely, he engaged in a revert war with several other users including User:Terence Ong, User: Vsion, and User: Rifleman_82 repeatedly inserting this unencyclopedic, POV, and original research text:
<quote> One person account "i came to singapore at the age of 2 from malaysia,studied from k1 to jc 1,than at the age of 17 i cancelled my pr and went to uk to study.i came back to singapore at 21 and got an employment pass.after 5 years of ep i applied for pr and got it. i dont have to serve a minute of ns.i have a letter from mindef congradulating me that i am not liable for ns(ever). so i suggest you go down to singapore immigration and change your ic from pink to blue. the only advantage for pink ic holders are a subsidised 4 rm hdb flat. what is the value of a ns exempt letter from mindef ? priceless. i rather die than convert from blue to pink. i pray that the mentor lives for another 20 years and maintain the current status quo than i can retire a rich man in malaysia. malaysia boleh !!! btw my son will be learning this hat trick from his old man me." Another person account "Same case here with me....! i was in malaysia studying til Form 6 (singapore's JC level) ....my dad is a 1st generation PR and i got my letter to serve NS after my studies. All i did was to renounce my PR and i didnt have to serve. 3 months later, i applied for a local uni as a malaysian and got in. After my degree, i was on EP and 1month after i got my first job, the singapore government offered me PR AGAIN.......i pity you singaporean......but its a loophole indeed. BTW, i was on scholarship during my studies in singapore as well so it was absolutely free...........GREAT FEELING....!!! I LUUVVVVV SINGAPOR</quote>
For his trouble, he received five warnings from 14 Sep to 17 Sep, having been blocked once on 14 Sep (8 hours), before finally being blocked indefinitely on 17 Sep.
The new user, User:Safgeneral, is believed to be the sockpuppet of User:Dicksg because there is a similarity in the style of posts. Specifically, the posts appear to be placed randomly, with no regard for the context of the section. The posts are mere cut-and-paste statements, no attempts being made to craft the addition to fit the context of the article.
-- Rifleman 82 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Grungoria (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Garamundi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Uses same writing style, sources and arguments as puppet User:Garamundi.
Please look at his edit here Talk:Axis_Powers#Debate_with_White_Guard and compare it to the statements of his puppet later in the debate. His points and arguments are identical. Furthermore he calls other people's arguments stupid and generally has no regard for Wikipedia's no perosnal attack policy or warnings given to him by admins.
Also if you see his edit history [ [61]] and [ [62]] you will notice that these are not the kind of edits a first time editor would make. He clearly had the experience needed to make major changes to the article. Also you will notice that Grungoria's personal attacks began 5 hours after he created that account. A user who is only 5 hours old does make such edits, it is highly unusual. it makes me think that Grungoria is not the sockpuppeteer but another puppet of an unknown puppeteer but I have no direct evidence so I am only reporting the two known accounts.
He is trying to make it seem as if his views has broader support than they really do.
Both have only made edits to the Axis Powers article and only a few yet they are quite familiar with Wikipedia policies about NPOV and decided to start right away with editing the article rather than "get their feet wet" on the talk page first. Makes me think that maybe they are both sock puppets belonging to an unknown puppeteer.
Ran a check by CheckUser which resulted in a likely verdict. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grungoria.
Has been blocked just 2 days ago for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR and is currently under a warning for personal attacks. These include accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry and using my ethnic heritage as an argument against me. These attacks occured shortly after his block expired and has not ended despite a warning being added by an admin on his talk page.
His only response to this case has been to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of another user User:White Guard with whom he also disagrees.
I request that he and his sockpuppet is permanently blocked. MartinDK 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Can he prolong the case by not responding to it? MartinDK 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
.
While Robertjkoenig has not posted for awhile (in fact, either he or one of his other sockpuppets was permanently banned from Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales), he continues to post using a variety of short-lived (at least in terms of their use) sockpuppets. Puppets used recently include User:84.58.226.55, user:usaa_indexer, user:usaa_editor, user:true_to_usaa, user:voltaire_redux, user:69.147.149.74; in the past he has also used a variety of IP addresses as well as the following user names user:philosophenweg, user:zorro_redux, user:kwai, and user:outofthenoondaysun.
Essentially, the only posts he makes on Wikipedia are on the USAA page, the USAA discussion page, or on the Reciprocal interinsurance exchange page. Typically, he will use Wikipedia as a soapbox; he believes the existence of USAA is illegal and likes to cite court cases (such as True v. USAA) or (Tuck v. USAA) as well as other arcane legal citations. He (or his sockpuppets) have been banned for their habits of editing archived talk pages, violating the 3 revert rule, and for personal attacks against others who do not share his opinion. Any of this activity can be observed by checking any of the user pages cited above.
It is my intention in making this post that all Robertjkoenig sockpuppets be banned, and for entry to remain in the archives to facilitate banning of any further sockpuppets generated by Mr. Koenig.
-- Swizzlez 22:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts have already been blocked. Iola k ana• T 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Koenig contacted me via this post [63] from an address in Riga. He is still after the same old thing. I blocked his IP address. Watch for this guy.-- Brad Patrick 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ccson Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Robotam Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bearly541
TareTone (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Tonetare (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Aaroandre (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The user Taretone, previously banned user [64] has a long grudge against myself and a couple of other users (including one admin).
The first move of the sock is to tell his friend Sugarpine that he's back and that he plans to have a little fun. His next move is to post disgusting abuse here and then move over to my page to do the same.
This follows a pattern of abuse and bad behaviour under his previous names:
-- Charlesknight 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:ShinerDawg moved the article caffeine to "Caffeine on WHEELS!!!!!!" Special:Contributions/ShinerDawg
User:Jobe6 has also moved articles to "(article name) on WHEELS" as well, before being blocked from editing by Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. Special:Contributions/Jobe6 – Zntrip 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The user has used various IDs and AOL sockpuppet IDs such as Bobbydoop, Mikeandike, User talk:152.163.100.130, User talk:64.131.205.160, User talk:68.175.26.54. The NinjaNubian ID was only created about 2 weeks, after the Alpha Phi Alpha article was semi-protected so that anonymous or newly registered users could not edit the article. After about 7 days when the ID was no longer new, he began his vandalism and revert war again. The user created another ID Mykungfu saying he lost his password to NinjaNubian. Since admin attention was brought to the ID Mykungfu via an AfD and RfC, the user has used anonymous IP addresses to revert and remove the AfD template on the page Alpha Kappa Nu as well as comments on the discussion page [66] and comments on the AfD itself [67]. User has also used Anonymous IPs to remove dispute templates from article Sigma Pi Phi. [68] Mykungfu's edits under anon IP are traceable. [69] - Robotam 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet? The user pages of Mykungfu
states
Lost my password to NinjaNubian
Created another one Mykungfu 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is also on the userpage for Ninjanubian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NinjaNubian
Robotam is engaged in a revert war with Mykungfu and this should be noted.
Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu
he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..
he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian
posted by anon IP of Mykungfu 150.210.226.2 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu
he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..
he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian
Mykungfu
08:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=75463808
User:Ccson reported by User:Errabee (Result: warning) Three revert rule violation on
Alpha_Phi_Alpha (edit|talk|links|history|logs). Ccson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):
Previous version reverted to: difficult to say, several minor additions, wikifying has been done as well.
1st revert: 11 September, 04:30
2nd revert: 11 September, 06:19
3rd revert: 11 September, 12:00
4th revert: 11 September, 15:40
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
not done, only after 4th diff warning was given: [19] However, user seems to know about WP:3RR: 30 August, 05:12 Comments: User:Bearly541 reverted the other two additions/reversions from User:NinjaNubian. Errabee 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ccson reported by User:NinjaNubian (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on
Alpha Phi Alpha (edit|talk|links|history|logs). Ccson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=76160415
Previous version reverted to: 02:43, 30 August 2006 1st revert: 04:11, 30 August 2006 2nd revert: 04:11, 30 August 2006 3rd revert: 04:16, 30 August 2006 4th revert: 04:28, 30 August 2006 Time report made: 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: As can be seen above, this is his second 3rr violation in under two weeks. I want a documentation of Ccson's reversion as well as the on going edit war between users.
These diffs are back in August and even earlier than the above warning? --WinHunter (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) yes this user has a constant history of 3rr behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&limit=500&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Kappa_Nu&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Kappa_Nu
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&oldid=75715627
Bearly541 the co author has also been problematic in that he has posted things such as Ninja Nubian
Please do not accept edits by Ninja nubian. He/she is putting irrelavent facts without discussing them on the discussion page. Bearly541 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC) REVERT AT SIGHT. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75102668
reverted edits on kappa alpha psi http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&action=history
over here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75102453
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75056898
both on september 11th
over here as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=72767067
on the alpha phi alpha article twice on september 11th
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history
as can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=75056228
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=75053784
as well as here on another day
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=72533713
These users exhibit a very similar behaviour. Uploading a huge number of fair use images without source or rationale and never responding to any talk page comments. Ddanno35 ( talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for this abuse, Donotsayno has not yet been blocked but I just warned him. They seem to be editing the same sort of articles (US TV) and never use edit summaries.-- Konstable 10:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Account have been blocked. Ddanno35 is actually the sockpuppet; Donotsayno is the sockpuppet master, after checking the user creation log. Iola k ana• T 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Both User:Tecunre and User:Ltnte may be sockpuppets of User:Edipedia. It has been confirmed by a checkuser that Edipedia uses socks to violate 3RRs. Both these accounts were created on the day of this report, making similar edits that Edipedia does. Ltnte was already blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Immediately afterwards, account Tecunre was created to make the same reverts.
Blocked per the RFCU result. Iola k ana• T 13:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The basic issue here is that someone whose first user account was permabanned appears to be extensively editing as an IP anon and has also apparently registered some sockpuppet accounts. (This suspicion could probably be tested using the evidence listed below via a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.)
KraMuc ( talk · contribs · block log) has been permabanned for his offensive and disruptive POV-pushing at less-widely articles such as
as well as widely and frequently edited articles such as:
Users previously suspected of socking for Kramuc include:
New users suspected of socking for KraMuc include:
Compare the following list of edits, noting such features as:
As his registered user KraMuc ( talk · contribs):
In addition to his user account, KraMuc has frequently used numerous IPs, mostly from the Munich area. There is no doubt about his identity as an IP "anon" because he frequently signs these edits as "KraMuc". Note that he has clearly continued to edit as an anon even after being permabanned.
This domain is registered to Deutsche Telekom AG (dial-up access in Munich). The following IPs have apparently been used to edit Wikipedia exclusively by "KraMuc".
Note: the edit history is destroyed, but it seems that as the dip.t-dialin.net anon, KraMuc wrote at 19:20, 8 May 2006 in the talk page of the deleted article on "Anti-relativity" "Ich bitte Sie dringenst, die kriminellen Handlungen von 'pjabobi' zu unterbinden. Er hat u.a. auch Texte vernichtet sowie eine Botschaft für den User 'E4mmacro', einen australischen Dozenten. Solche Handlungen sind gesetzwidrig, also kriminell" ("I ask you to stop the criminal actions of Pjacobi. He deleted among other things edits and a message for the user ' E4mmacro ', an Australian lecturer. Such actions are illegal, thus criminal"), a WP:NPA- WP:NLT vio. See the link to this statement for admins only.
This domain is registered to the Deutches Museum, a science Museum in Munich
This is a more doubtful case of a possible KraMuc IP anon. This domain is apparently registered to Deutsche Post AG in Bonn and putatively geolocated near Burlingame, CA, in the San Francisco Bay region
This domain is registered to Arcor AG and apparently geolocated near Düsseldorf
This domain is registered to Easynet Group Plc, aka Easynet DV GmbH, and possibly geolocated somewhere near Ludwigsburg, a suburb of Stuttgart
This domain is allegedly registered to InterBusiness (headquartered in Rome) via Telecom Italia (but has a bogus registrar)
Apparently geolocated near Milan:
Apparently geolocated near Ferrara:
Likewise registered under Telecom Italia S.p.A.
This domain is also allegedly registered to Interbusiness under Telecom Italia (but has a bogus registrar)
This domain is allegedly registered to Atlanet S.p.A. in Rome (but has bogus registrar)
As PaolaDiApulia ( talk · contribs)
One of the anon IPs noted abovem 84.154.112.248 ( talk · contribs) has been used only to leave a message at User talk:Jimbo Wales asking that KraMuc's permaban be overturned by Jimbo Wales and to vandalize my notes on the KraMuc case. There is no doubt since this anon signed himself "KraMuc".
One of the new suspected sockpuppet accounts, Alarich di Busento ( talk · contribs · block log) is also a single use account, used only to leave two messages at User talk:Jimbo Wales supporting the plea by KraMuc and deprecating comments by other users:
End of KraMuc (2nd) (sorry, I can't fix the munged indents)
User Page under construction.. He commented on my talk page that he'd made a legitimate change, yet he has a talk page under each name ( User talk:Kamikaze, User talk:SuicidalZero) and uses the redirect " User:SuicidalZero | Kamikaze " . Even if no untoward behavior is meant, his use of multiple alias has the potential for confusion, and seems unnecessary. -- Tenebrae 21:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Wps85 recreated the article Jeff Davidson, previously posted by User:Jdbreathe, and recently deleted for the eleventh time. The article had been copied from the user page of Jdbreathe, where it had been edited. The implication is that Jdbreathe is Jeff Davidson. In [74], User:Wps85 asserts himself to be Jeff Davidson. Neither user appears to have done anything apart from articles about Jeff Davidson. Pseudomonas 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Usman Farooq seems to have set up an account called MaverickInUrFace solely to attack other users who disagree with him on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. The latter also signs his abuses as "Usman" — Ravikiran 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I have done no such thing. Just because another user has the same first name as mine I am being accused of sock puppetry? Usman is a very common Muslim name. If I was involved in sock puppetry I would not use my name to sing it. And If admins can check ip adresses then they will see that we don't have the same ip address either. I have maintained a high standard of co-operation and civilty and it disturbs me that I am accused of something with so feeble an evidence.
Comes out of nowehere, signs as you and has personal attacks in the edit summary. Pretty clear to me. Iola k ana• T 18:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Their edits are strangely similar. Same articles, almost identical edits (and in some instances completely identical). IrishGuy talk 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
A simple WHOIS will show that the anon is from Queensland, Australia, same as Daffy, so the coincidences keep mounting up. Exact same articles, exact same edits, exact same protestations, and no connection? Colour me skeptical. A checkuser will no doubt confirm this. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
1) DaffyDuck619 never contributed a citation for the Robin Williams bit of fandom for Doctor Who (except imdb.com or some original research) but I provided the citation 2) So what it's true information 3) DaffyDuck619 never added in the category section for Dave The Barbarian category: fictional cowards. I only put back fictional heroes because he falls under the category, I bet a million bucks if I deleted a category in a page which the page falls under you would put it back. 4) DaffyDuck619 has asked people not to delete the word huge, I was doing the next best thing, putting it back up there. 5) I've made contributions to pages DaffyDuck619 hasn't like the Hollywood walk of fame or the TV movie for Doctor Who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 ( talk • contribs)
A lot of people are from Queensland, Australia. That doesn't mean there the same person.That I don't think is evidence. Brian Boru is awesome 13:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
However all of which is explained in the above paragraph I typed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 ( talk • contribs)
Blocked. Iola k ana• T 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Arthur Ellis has recently been removing large portions of Rachel Marsden, as he does from time to time. Yesterday, after Ellis had reverted for the second time, a new user Craigleithian appeared, performing much the same edits as Ellis -- namely, removing sections that contained sourced and verifiable information that did not reflect well on the article's subject. 3 of Craigleithian's 4 edits are wholesale removal of material from the Marden article. Suspect that this may be a sock to circumvent 3RR.
Craiglethian's edits: [83] [84] [85] [86]
Ellis's edits in that time frame:
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
Note also that Craigleithian seems to have the same interpretation of BLP, as noted on his talk page and on Talk:Rachel Marsden. Ianking 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Craigleithian also posted a nearly identical comment here to one posted by Arthur Ellis here. I suppose it's remotely possible that one comment inspired the other, but if there's one thing I've learned in my three years on Wikipedia, it's that a brand-new user who suddenly appears in the middle of a contentious edit war and supports one side of the debate is never a truly disinterested party offering a genuinely neutral assessment of the POV situation; it's always a puppet of either the sock or meat flavours. But then again, y'all knew that already. Okay, maybe Arthurleithian didn't. Bearcat 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Requests for checkuser confirms the suspicion -- Geedubber 07:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts have been blocked. Iola k ana• T 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
username is 'i am willy' -- DakAD 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I assume you mean i_am_willy ( talk · contribs)? Iola k ana• T 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
my appologies. i followed the instructions i found to the letter (actually, i wondered about the detailed instructions not linking to the user account, but i assumed youd use the 'what links here')
anyhoo, i've only just noticed the existance of the 'blocklog'link... it appears he was blocked just after account creation, anyway.
sorry for the timewaste :-/ -- Dak 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Could not add the sockpuppet notification at User talk:Randallrobinstine as the page is protected. -- ReyBrujo 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked. Iola k ana• T 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) page
User:Jean-Philippe writes on Talk:Center for Science in the Public Interest: “A quick look at the article history reveals that ever since this article was created last year, the article has been under pressure from one source attempting to drown what little information on the subject exists in favor of a massive amount of negative information. It's an open secret that 90%+ of those edits come from one source using a multitude of sockpuppets. A simple look at the contribution histories confirms this. [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]”
And upon the appearance of a new account User:Bryant Wright [99], Jean-Philippe writes
“Does that mean that the next time we speak, you'll be using a different sockpuppet? That's a shame :P”
The alleged sock puppeteer is David Justin (real-life David J. Hanson)
The alleged sock puppets are: Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, Stu Wise, Enrique Perez, Sandy Beech, Emma Jacobson, Al Ellison, Neverglade, Cheese Lover
History of edits on the CSPI page
The edits of these accounts all show a strong similarity, different accounts copy in the same or very similar text. Nunquam Dormio 19:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I added {{cleanup-date|August 2006}} on August 13, 2006. Other than that, I know nothing about the page or the other edits or editors. Mattisse (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Surprised to get a message on my talk page about sockpuppetry. My edit to Center for Science in the Public Interest page was:
On 2nd September I set AWB chugging through a shedload of pages using RETF, as I sometimes do. I usually load up pages that link to a page I choose at random, or that kind of thing - just correcting spelling mistakes while I'm doing something else - it interrupts me periodically when it finds a typo. My involvement with Center for Science in the Public Interest is thus totally accidental, and only arose because someone/somesock had typed Commerical. I have responded here simply so that you can eliminate me from your enquiries. I am not a sock.
Good luck with your endeavours. Cheers. Euchiasmus 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I see what I did some months ago was add some Category links. My additions are still present and seem appropriate. I don't know anything about the article's contents. Good luck. Thanks Hmains 22:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
My single edit to the page was 5 months ago, early in my Wikipedia editing experience. I attempted to remove some POV, added some {{citation needed}} tags, re-ordered some of the text and did a little copy editing. I haven't visited the page since and have no real knowledge of the material. The content and format have drastically changed since then. Let me know if you need any more info... -- Scientizzle 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't watched this closely, but looking at the contributions linked above, there is a strong push by these user accounts for a strongly critical POV against the Center for Science in the Public Interest. I don't know whether it's sock puppetry, meat puppetry or something else, though the fact that most of the edits by these accounts are on the one article is potentially suspicious. Cheese Lover's contributions are more diverse, but they seem to have a lot of topics in common with David Justin's contributions. Definitely worth checking for further evidence (IP addresses or whatever). -- Singkong2005 talk 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
On the whole the contributions don't overlap, so its not the worse sockpuppet situation I've seen. I'd be inclined to take no action other than reverting, a pain I know, but theres plenty of other pages on contriversal groups, which get a similar level of negative attention. This might be a case for WP:RCU, if they do seem to be editing from the same IP account we would have more evidence of a concerted campaign. -- Salix alba ( talk) 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure doing the allegation of sockpuppetry was entirely adequate, but it did serve my purpose to identify the user and prevent any more reverting without discussion. I will add that the speed at which new users were created to apply reverts is a blatant example that someone has this article on his watchlist. Examine the entrance of new users in the history if you wish, but by example Bryant Wright was created 6 hour after my first edits to the article to make a blanket revert, whereas Stu Wise was created less than 24 hours after Neutrality's took out the huge criticism section. His first edit here [100] and the complete diff here [101]. I'm not familiar enough with the custom of a checkuser to know if it's justified in this case against their concern of privacy, but at least 6 months of constant revert, using a multitude of sockpuppets, with no discussion does qualify as a distruption. JSYK, here's the edits I took in consideration for the 6 month number [102]. Jean-Philippe 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Take this to WP:RFCU. Iola k ana• T 19:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the motion. Granted, sockpuppet investigation may not be the most appropriate action. But something needs to be done. These accounts clearly collaborated with a clear POV goal, often falsifying information or inserting unreferenced defamatory claims. This clearly violates Wikipedia's mission, and there should be a way to fight it, regardless of the question if these accounts are sockpuppets or not. That question may be interesting in the context of the 3RR rule, though. Common Man 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
editor | date of change | regarding "encouraging other to collect misleading information" |
regarding cspinet.com | other |
Sandy Beech | 19:55, 22 May 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" | ||
Sandy Beech | 18:32, 6 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 18:29, 7 June 2006 | deleted "One CCF tactic has been to register domain names similar to those used by CSPI." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 17:34, 11 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping (and adding POV to) "CSPI has attracted the attention of groups opposed to ...." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 01:49, 12 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 19:21, 15 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
Emma Jacobson | 14:56, 16 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
Sandy Beech | 18:46, 17 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." (Interesting, how Sandy Beech made up for the fact that Emma Jacobson forgot their usual change by doing the same change just after Emma's edit.) After this, the edit war ended, as the other side gave up. |
||
Sandy Beech | 02:20, 13 July 2006 | changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI says not eat foods high in saturated fat". | ||
Sandy Beech | 01:09, 14 July 2006 | changed "CSPI is a nonprofit institution" to "CSPI is a nonprofit corporation" changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" and more related changes |
||
Sandy Beech | 16:39, 14 July 2006 |
changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" |
||
Sandy Beech | 20:52, 15 July 2006 | changed "CSPI is a nonprofit institution" to "CSPI is a nonprofit corporation" changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI criticises foods it considers to be too high in saturated fat"changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" and more related changes |
||
Sandy Beech | 21:39, 16 July 2006 | inserted "encouraging other to collect misleading information (CSPI, n.d.), " (wrong reference, see my talk with Enrique Perez about this same change. | ||
Sandy Beech | 19:14, 18 July 2006 | inserted unreferenced "[CSPI] receive[s] grants and payments from trade groups. " | ||
Sandy Beech | 02:52, 19 July 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" | ||
Sandy Beech | 00:32, 20 July 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI criticises fooods (sic!) that do not meet its nutritional standards"many other changes that were summarized by user:Neutrality as " hit piece". |
||
... | ... | ... and ... | ... so ... | ... on ... |
Common Man 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Check user request has been made Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser — Nunquam Dormio 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
wikt:Wonderfool ( talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Wonderfool has been permanantly blocked on the English Wiktionary. AFAIK, when the same stunt was pulled by him last year, he was asked not to edit any WMF project. After considerable contrite apologies were made, he was allowed to edit again (no longer as a sysop.) Creating several sock puppets, he was able to get a new user nominated for sysop, and about one year later, during WikiMania, repeated his stunt.
In IRC channels, he has promised to return next year, for more of the same. He expressed dissatisfaction that his Wikipedia user Dangherous ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) narrowly failed the RfA procedure.
This is an active inter-project vandal. As new Wikipedia sockpuppets are uncovered, en.wiktionary.org would greatly appreciate information about them, on the Wiktionary beer parlour.
This user is known to use sleeper accounts. One is User:Dangherous ( wikt:Dangherous ( talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Dangherous). His logs at Wiktionary, starting at August 6, 2006, show what he is capable of doing with administrator tools. When Wonderfool was an administrator under his original username, he went on a similar rampage on September 17, 2005, as you can see in this log. He tried to get adminship here (see this RFA, where he admits he is the same Dangherous as the Dangherous in Wiktionary.
Wonderfool attacked Wiktionary in the same manner that the
Anonymex vandal gang is rumored to be trying to use to attack Wikipedia.
Please note that some of the Wiktionary sockpuppets named are possibly impostors on Wiktionary who stole legitimate Wikipedians' usernames. However, some of them could be moles from the Anonymex vandal gang mentioned above that could be waiting for the right moment to attack Wikipedia.
CltFn is an established editor here at wikipedia who primarily edits articles related to criticism of Islam, most often those of books critical of Islam. Recently I have run across a user ( User:Amenra) that I suspect is a sockpuppet of CltFn for several reasons that are listed below:
1. Amenra and CltFn edit the same type of articles. Often one user will edit/start a specific article and the other user will do the same later on. See user contributions for evidence. Specific example 1. Specific example 2.
2. Related to the above, both also regularly upload images of the covers of books critical of Islam and use/edit each others images; See [103] and [104]. Specific example
3. Amenra and CltFn share the same view and often revert to each others versions. See the histories of Seeing Islam as Others Saw It and Hagarism for recent examples of such activity.
4. Amenra's account was registered [105] during the December 26th, 2005 block of CltFn.
5. Amenra has shown a relatively significant increase of activity during some of CltFn's blocks with noticeable lack of activity in between. See contribs of Amenra during April 30 (while CltFn was blocked for 96 hours), and during early September (while CltFn was blocked twice for 48 hours).
6. Amenra and CltFn have very similar typing styles and word choices showing habits I have not seen in any other users to date.
7. Amenra and CltFn have used misleading edit summaries for reverts and other possibly controversial edits. See [110] [111] [112] [113].
8. Amenra showed an unusually high level of familiariaty of Wikipedia policy from his very first edits. He was familiar with fair use policy and using edit summaries from his first edit. From his second edit, he was already familiar with the typical format of an article, templates, categories, external links, headings, etc.
Now, obviously, I can understand two different users have similar interests and the same viewpoint on their interests, however, the other similarities and evidences are strong indications of sockpuppetry. If the reviewing admin is unsure of what conclusion to reach in this case, please let me know so that I can file a request for a checkuser. BhaiSaab talk 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Thordice appears to be another sock/meat puppet that came into existence soon after a 24-hour block was implemented on User:Blake911's account. Previous puppet accounts, namely User:Jackson512 and User:Choirboy (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blake911), were identified and banned. One example specific to the Thordice account is the AfD nomination of the Blake Van Leer article (Blake911 has self-identified as this Van Leer person). Upon Blake911's temporary blockage, Thordice (whose account came into existence approximately five hours after Blake911's blockage) took up the defense of the article's existence. Additionally, Thordice has picked up Blake911's project of creating articles for other members of his family (e.g., Samuel Van Leer), as well as continuing to edit and defend the existence of his various other creations (e.g., Bloodclan and its corresponding AfD nomination). Simões ( talk/ contribs) 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Near identical edits and usernames:
— ERcheck ( talk) 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts mentioned have been blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Similar pattern of edits, including attacks on User:HarryKnock, similar edits to Thank God You're Here. User:Daphne Roberts created just after User:Colwyn_13@hotmail.com was tagged with {{ test4}}. -- Chuq 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Weak disagree. Although the only evidence is the single edit of Daphne Roberts, which is a link that matches up exactly with a link posted by Colwyn but removed a short while before. HOWEVER, the evidence is not solid and there are other reasonable explanations as to why the links match up. Another user could have been reading, saw the recent change and he/she disagreed with the removal of the one link. Like as in lineral mathimatics, it is impossible to extrapolate a relation with but a single data point. Daphne needs to post a bit more for any certainty. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Bulish.org and User:Bulish.cx have very similar usernames. They have also gotten into trouble for adding nonesense to Wikipedia, about the same subject. Bulish.org has also been shown to vandalize Wikipedia.
Bulish is the page mentioned above.
Accounts have been blocked. Iola k ana• T 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This person has so many sock puppets that it is hard to keep up with them. One person, using several sockpuppets, has been vandalizing the Beverly Hills High School page for months and he is the reason that the page had to be semi-protected TWICE.
This user only has 5 edits, four of them are for the BHHS article, and the 5th edit was a vandalism of User:Accurizer's user page by putting "I think I am a fucking loser, and other areas. Thanks for stopping by!" on Accurizer's user page. This kind of attention seeking vandalism is typical of this guy.
StarFAX recieved this warning on his talk page for vandalism: "Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVD+ R/W 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)"
From userpage of User:The Kombucha Mushroom People "Hi, some people know me as Super7am. I'm a convicted and many times blocked vandal.DcClark is gayyyyy!!!!!!!" Elephant Juice 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Obvious. Vandal account, anyway. Iola k ana• T 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
See IP's contribs, he's editing all the same articles Jackp used to (namely Sydney and Eyes Wide Shut). CRCulver 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Obvious. Iola k ana• T 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
On Talk:Ben Best/archive 1 user User:Ben Best makes the following allegations (Allegations are summarised in the bullet points below):
Note that Ben Best is both a wikipedia editor User:Ben Best and the subject of an article Ben Best, mainly regarding his cryonics activities. Nunquam Dormio 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems likely. Iola k ana• T 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Lenapecal911 has been the strongest advocate for either the inclusion of the Bloodclan guildpage(up for AfD), or the exclusion of the Shadowclan guildpage(also up for AfD), his stance depending on if Bloodclan is kept or not. He or she has written some other non-notable articles other than the Bloodclan article (he or she was the original author) such as the Van Cleeve article (a vanity article written about himself or herself), and other articles related to his family members. He or she took great offense to anyone offering opposition to his stances (all of his articles went up for AfD, most were deleted) and was banned for 24 hours for personal attack after repeated warnings[ [129]]. I say all of that to give context to the situation as it appears he has created a sock puppet, User:Jackson512 and voted again in the Bloodclan AfD. Both Jackson 512 and Lena 911 have similar arguements for the inclusion of the Bloodclan article. That being that if the Shadowclan article is included, then the bloodclan must be included by default as well. This is not out of the ordinary on its' own, as even I agree with others and vote per nom or per (insert user's arguement). What brings me to suspect sockpuppetry is that Jackson512 has had no other votes prior to today, is a brand new account, and managed to find his way directly to the Bloodclan AfD page[ [130]]. Another concern to be brough to light is where Lena threatened the re-opening of already deleted, non-notable articles[ [131]] and the use of multiple computers, ISP addresses, and accounts though use of, what he boasts, to be several office locations and home places that have access to the internet[ [132]] to circumvent any action taken against her or his articles.
I hope I made it clear, please alert me if I can improve upon this to make it easier to discern the truth, or if I havn't made valid enough arguement. Regards, Shazbot85 Talk 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Choirboy, a new single purpose account, also seems to very likely be a Lena! -- Jestix 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Reiteration User:Lenapecal911 threatened to use other internet access points to bypass IP identification[ [133]]. He or she boasts on the Jackson512 talk page that his IP is different[ [134]]. I ask, why would a brand new user immediatly offer this defense? How would he or she know such things would be checked for? Shazbot85 Talk 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that User:Jackson512 came into existence 10 hours after User:Lenapecal911 was issued a 24-hour block. Jackson512 additionally seems to be picking up where Lenapecal911 left off (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodclan). Simoes 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ms. Schwarz is a banned user of Wikipedia (see User:The real Barbara Schwarz) that has been known in the past to use sockpuppets on talk pages to make it appear as though more people support her ideas than really do.
JohnPower ( talk · contribs · count) has suddenly appeared on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz pages, and is making threats and personal attacks. The IP address 172.190.37.157 is associated with edits on this page signed by this user, and this is an AOL proxy IP address. Barbara Schwarz has posted to the Usenet using an AOL account before. [135]
Also the stilted English style of this user is reminiscent of the writings of Ms. Schwarz.
Edits from an AOL 172 block were made and signed as "The Real Barbara Schwarz". [136] 01:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Obvious. Iola k ana• T 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The above user, banned for six months in July, is back as User:24.94.120.140. Compare the edit histories here and here. He also vandalized my user page here.
Blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: there is another report for two other sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse.
User:Mattisse has already been confirmed as a puppeteer, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. In particular, many of these puppets went around tagging articles about pagan authors with multiple tags.
Another thing the socks did was to create intentionally non-notable parody articles on pagans, such as, for example Anne Hill, created by sock Flinders, Modern occultists also created by Flinders, Charles Gatewood, again created by Flinders. Joi Wolfwomyn, again created by Flinders. There are several others. Another sock, User:NothingMuch started a semi-hoax and/or duplicate article Headingley ground. Suspected sock LiftWaffen has created a duplicate of Anne Hill at Ann Hill, this was the user's first edit.
Now LymphToad has done two things which match Mattisse's agenda.
Several of Mattisse's puppets complained vocally on Talk:Association for Consciousness Exploration, Talk:Starwood Festival and Talk:WinterStar Symposium about these events being "a group of thirty friends" and she and her socks followed all the links of speakers and performers, multiply tagging the articles, too numerous to list here. In short, this looks like more WP:POINT games by Mattisse. - 999 ( Talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at article creations etc., this is an obvious sock. Iola k ana• T 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ms. Schwarz is a banned user of Wikipedia (see
User:The real Barbara Schwarz) that has been known in the past to use sockpuppets on talk pages to make it appear as though more people support her ideas than really do.
The recent edits of SummertimeBlues ( talk · contribs · count) demonstrate that this user is a sockpuppet of someone, most likely Ms. Schwarz herself. The person is apparently already very familiar with the editing procedure and this new account seems singularly interested in discussing Ms. Schwarz. This is highly unusual that someone would only make edits to a Ms. Schwarz article and then make claims that Ms. Schwarz isn't notable enough to deserve an article. If she isn't notable enough then why did SummertimeBlues bother to create an account on Wikipedia for the express purpose of talking about Ms. Schwarz.
Also the stilted English style of this user is reminiscent of the writings of Ms. Schwarz. I also find it troubling that this user is repeating the threats of Ms. Schwarz to sue Wikipedia, when Ms. Schwarz was already banned for that behaviour. Vivaldi ( talk) 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note 216.190.11.45 ( talk · contribs · logs) appears to be another sockpuppet, and the IP address is that of Barbara Schwarz's ISP. [143] I have added the sockpuppet tag to the User:216.190.11.45 page. Orsini 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mattisse has already been confirmed as a puppeteer, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. In particular, many of these puppets went around tagging articles about pagan authors with multiple tags. In this case, the article Stephen Kent (musician) was tagged by Mattise [144] and then later by User:LiftWaffen [145]. But the most curious thing is that Liftwaffen is also editing an article which was created by another of Mattisse's socks, User:NothingMuch. The article is The End of American Jewry's Golden Era, and so far is has NothingMuch has created and edited it twice and now Liftwaffen is also editing the same article. See the article history.
Another interesting tidbit is this user's first edit is to create [146] a duplicate article Anne Hill under Ann Hill. The former article was created [147] by User:Flinders, another Mattisse sockpuppet. Following this, User:BlackHak adds a link to the article to Starwood Festival: [148].
I suspect that both User:LiftWaffen and User:BlackHak are socks of User:Mattisse. — Hanuman Das 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
For BlackHak, there is fairly strong evidence of sockpuppetry, namely that Ann Hill was created by new user User:LiftWaffen at 14:21, 2 September. The article is linked from no other article when it is created. Then User:BlackHak adds a link to the article from Starwood Festival at 16:23, 3 September. This looks like intentional misdirection. How did BlackHak find the article which is not linked from any other article. How did she know that it should be linked from Starwood Festival? Unless she is the same user who created Anne Hill, who was Flinders who was a sockpuppet of Mattisse. — Hanuman Das 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:BlackHak also asked a question,about the tagging on Village Pump (technical) [149]. Previously User:Capit (a confirmed sockpuppetet of Mattisse, although the user claims to be here grandchild) also posted a similar question on VP(T) of a similar nature [150]. User:Mattisse, has rescently asked questions there [151], as had another sock User:Massmato [152]. None of these questions are really on topic for VP(T), but it seems to be a favorite place to ask for help, so contribute a bit more evidence. -- Salix alba ( talk) 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:4.245.122.69 made this edit to Talk:Alexander the Great continuing Cretanpride's insistence that homosexuality was "not common in ancient Greece", using text that Cretanpride previously posted to Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece.
Note also the edits of
--Akhilleus ( talk) 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked—yet again. Iola k ana• T 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Cave quid dicis ( talk · contribs) first and so far only edit was to revert an addition of a POV tag (without explanation) at Sons of Confederate Veterans. User:Fix Bayonets! had previously reverted the article 3 times to remove the tag, thus I suspect that this account was created merely to avoid WP:3RR. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A new account, User:Dannyfloyd, created the article Brunnock on August 29. It was his first edit. According to the article, a brunnock is a creature "characterised by foolish and clumsy behaviour. They are described as being short almost squat in stature with hairy, wart-covered skin and having odious breath." The Brunnock article is a smear against me (my surname and username is Brunnock). So far, all of Dannyfloyd's edits have related to the Brunnock article.
I think that DannyFloyd is a sockpuppet for User:AndyAndyAndy. As you can see on Talk:Pottery/Archive 1 and Talk:Pottery, AndyAndyAndy has a bone to pick with me.
Confirmed. DannyFloyd is a sockpuppet for AndyAndyAndy. See
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy. --
Sean Brunnock
23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Up to now I have been very patient but it would be much appreciated if someone could explain what the heck is happening. I have spent not an inconsiderable amount of time over the last 6 months contributing to wikipedia. I can not but think somebody is playing some rather silly, and perhaps even malicious, games. I ask for a resolution to this as I have been unfairly maligned Regards, Andy
I do not think sockpuppetry is present here. Iola k ana• T 17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sean Brunnock, Although I confess to feeling as if I am having to defend myself for others’ actions I the spirit of openness I am happy to list my email address so that you can contact me direct. Please advise if you are interested Regards, Andy
Dear Sean Brunnock, Please do not accuse me of changing yoour comments as I did not; I simply highlighted one posting of mine and one of yours. This was done solely to clarify the resolution to this rather strange debate
I'm was very puzzled about the so called 'evidence' you have referred to, including the useage of hello, whilst and regards. These are all common English words that I been used appropriately. From my expereince starting an email, fax or message with 'Hello' is just as popular as 'Dear'. Of the main emails I receive each day I estimate that of those from English speakers in excess of 90% end with 'Regards'. And again the word 'whilst' is very common, and signing of with ones name is hardly unusual
It is purely speculation but I wonder if you are confused about the regional use of English: I note you have recently used the term 'heads-up'. This is new to me. However after a little searching I understand it is popular in the US ... can I therefore presume you are American? Well I am British and as such differences in phrasing would be expected. Perhaps Dannyfloyd is also British and therefore would have more in common with how I speak / write than you. Again this is speculation but it is something I would consider before listing rather spurious evidence. Maybe Dannyfloyd will comment if he is reading
Also having checked the disussion page of the article that is in question I also wonder as to why you engaged in debate with Dannyfloyd, including making contributions yourself, if this was me and it was a fake entry (and referring back to your comment above I can see nothing suspecious about the use of the word contribution ... could I ask what other you would deem to be suitable?)
Regards,
Andy
'Dear Sean Brunnock,
Thank you for being considerate enough to post the above. Whilst I have highlighted this is bold, along with my reply, I am happy for all relevant correspondence on this page and otehrs to be deleted Regards, Andy'
Dear all, Whooaa ... please note: 1. I am not DannyFloyd 2. I do not know a DannyFloyd 3. I do not have 'a bone to pick with' with Sean Brunnock
Please could someone explain what is happening here?
Regards,
Andy
Dear Sean Brunnock,
What is going on here? Please see my comments above
I do not have ' ... a bone to pick with' you. Please explain what you mean by this
What is the issue with the word 'whilst'? As I have used 'is' in this current post twice, are you going to misinterpret that?
I would be very grateful if you would address any issues you have with me (though I can not understand what they may be) to me rather than posting such comments as you have recently
Regards,
Andy
Dear Sean Brunnock,
Rather than changing your posts on this page could you please respond to mine Thank you Andy
Seems likely. Iola k ana• T 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Heraklis, an account created on Sept. 2, follows in the footsteps of User:MegasAllexandros, whom Checkuser has confirmed as a sock of Cretanpride. Heraklis has edited The 11th Day: Crete 1941, an article started by MegasAllexandros, and his other edits are to articles that MegasAllexandros edited or pertain to disputes started by MegasAllexandros/Cretanpride. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
comment I have already been blocked as I cannot edit with my user name Heraklis. So much for assuming good faith. I edited on the article The 11th Day: Crete 1941 because I am a relative of Alex Spanos, the man who funded the film. I was also an extra on the set. Once I found there was such an article I decided to join wikipedia. As for my edits on 1994 World Cup I got to that article by looking up the history of the 11th day. It linked me to it by looking at MegasAllexandros' contributions. Feel free to ask me about my other edits as I'm sure there is a logical explanation to them. Until the checkuser result comes in I think I should be allowed to edit with my user name.
User has been blocked. Iola k ana• T 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
In my option if you disagree with Halbared then you get accused of being a sockpuppet. I was trying to carm the situtaion down by asking Halbared to be civil. He removed the warning with no response. He has tried to turn the things i said against me. Can somebody checkuser me so he can be showen that im not a sockpuppet. DXRAW 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with Halbared, you are suddenly a sockpuppet. How is this fair? Look at the people he is accusing. They have all had some kind of content dispute war with him! This should be proof enough that Halbared's accusations of sockpuppetry are NOT true. May i please remove the accusation on my page of being a sockpuppet, as i am clearly not one?!?! I plan on reporting this to higher level Wikipedians. Thank you, -- Cookie 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The IP addy 67.185.26.89 seems to be a confirmed sockpuppet account that Cuke monster has used before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.185.26.89
It might be possible that User:DXRAW is also a sock puppet.
Edits to my own talk page and to the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bautista http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Bautista&oldid=73547469 make me think this user is at it again( Halbared 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
I am being accused of being uncivil and warnings are being posted on my page by User:DXRAW, accusing me of being uncivil to Cuke Monster. I have asked for citations, and as evidence DWRAW pointed out a page where Cuke admits he has been a vandal before and the proof that he used the ip 67.185.26.89 as a sock puppet.( Halbared 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
I felt I have been very civil and I have let the edit stand in the favour of Cuke monster. I have amended the disclaimer on the page though because it doesn't fall in with wiki wrestling protocol( Halbared 09:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
It may be possible that this is not a sockpuppet, but it just seems coincidentasl that Cuke monster used a lot of warnings on my talk page and now DXRAW does too, that Cuke monster is not around now as DXRAW is spamming my page with warnings, although different computers might be, being used? The MO of both users seems similar?? User talk:Halbared
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Halbared&oldid=73565448 This advises for me to sign my mssg, when I always sign them. Possibley this user is using wiki to make a point?( Halbared 12:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
Edits to Featured Article Tahirih Justice Center bear strong similarity to edits made to article Mail Order Bride. Edits made to both websites advertise for identical websites with similar mysogenistic agendas. Elementalcs 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
When someone creates a brand new username in order to brand someone else as a sockpuppet, I have to ask the question: Elementalcs, clearly you've had edit disputes with this person, yet you just created this account in the last hour. Who are you a sockpuppet of? Fan-1967 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User does not exist. Iola k ana• T 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Edipedia has been blocked 48 hours for his fourth violation of 3RR. He is currently using a sockpuppet, User:Editor 1, to make his edits in articles Han Chinese and Overseas Chinese, e.g. Edit by Edipedia Edit by Editor 1, and Edit by Edipedia Edit by Editor 1. Editor 1 has also removed the 3RR report that I filed, which Edipedia was blocked for [154]. Editor 1 made the same edits in the two pages that Edipedia has edit warred in ; counting Editor 1's edits, he has made a total of 7 reverts under 24 hours in an article and 5 reverts under 24 hours in another. Editor 1 has also uploaded an image with a false license, the same false license that Edipedia used to upload his ~10 images. Moreover, Editor 1 makes the same grammatical mistakes that Edipedia makes [155]. Lastly, Editor 1 tells us to "discuss" per this edit, but in fact the account has not started a discussion before that. Only the account Edipedia has made a discussion in the article, so the connection is obvious. Aran| heru| nar 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's just your imagination. Edipedia 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Apro, an account created today, joined in Talk:Alexander the Great, supporting the position of User:MegasAllexandros, a confirmed sock of Cretanpride. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. Iola k ana• T 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
IP is from same ISP as Cretanpride's other socks. User made two contributions to Talk:Alexander the Great, taking the position of MegasAllexandros (a confirmed sock of Cretanpride), and blanked out part of Talk:Josiah Rowe, the talk page of an editor/admin involved in dealing with Cretanpride.
Is this the best page to report this kind of continued IP sockpuppetry? --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Users
have made the idential edits to the article Jesse Macbeth (reversing the meaning of the intro), and have refused to discuss changes on the talk page. The edits by Deepthroat followed Jessefriend's 4th revert by five minutes. Together, the three have repeated the revert 12 times today. -- Mmx1 23:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Evidence seems clear that this is a sockpuppet.
— ERcheck ( talk) 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts have been blocked. Iola k ana• T 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I am submitting this user because I have reason to believe that User:Kitia is also User:IndigoGenius, and is simply recreating articles that were deleted under the latter name (most notably Cesidian Root and TTF-Bucksfan). Further, in the Cesidian Root discussion board for the now protected article, Kitia's arguments are not unlike what was discussed in the Cesidian Root deletion discussion (please reference for IndigoGenius' arguments against deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cesidian Root).
-- Dennis The TIger 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Dattat ( talk · contribs) first edit is to insert exactly the same text into Dattatreya as previously inserted by Shravak ( talk · contribs) less than 1 hour after Shravak had reverted the article 4 times despite having been warned of 3RR. A copy of the details from the 3RR report follows:
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
An ongoing editwar on The Smurfs article. Persistent additions of links to Pvcblue's website to the article from the following IP addresses. Please refer to previous case for details. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Evidence
Comments
Like before - I do NOT know who this is - it is NOT me - that is a verizon user, I have grandecom. I don't care anymore!!!!!!!
Several edits from this IP ( 86.132.128.191 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) have suggested that this user is the indefinitely banned user Leyasu evading his ban again:
Additionally, several similar IPs have been blocked for the same types of edits and have been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu#List of blocks and bans as such. They have also been confirmed as sockpuppets of Leyasu by CheckUser; the results of those cases are posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu.
I have blocked this IP for one week. Idont Havaname ( Talk) 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
herasleftnut: where is krj and his corn update? naftee: i'm a part-time troll, nate naftee: do you think i'll ever stop ? herasleftnut: ha herasleftnut: i figured out how to word this herasleftnut: without sound like I like a total homo nharmon: top post? nharmon: what is to top post? nharmon: grindingteeth, you'll never stop trolling. You enjoy it too much. sholmes: lunch time ! ---- sholmes leaving (Aug 29 23:05) ---- trig leaving (Aug 29 23:07) ---- trig joining (Aug 29 23:07) naftee: nate : when you reply to something leaving the previous text under your reply naftee: like in an e-mail naftee: haha naftee: grindingteeth naftee: did you like that userbox, nate ? naftee: i didn't make it, though :( nharmon: yeah <nharmon:nharmon laughs> naftee: the category is hilarious naftee: dumb wikipedians naftee: haha nharmon: you're such a prick :) naftee: aw geez naftee: :) naftee: but seriously naftee: i've had about 20 accounts indef blocked on wikipedia nharmon: hahahahaha nharmon: not just Daloonik? naftee: i'm trying to get back at this jerk MONGO, you see naftee: no way man naftee: but MONGO, you see, has his userpage semi protected naftee: so i wanted to create an account like MONGO SUCKS naftee: and then wait a few days, and post something to his page naftee: but like, whenever i create an account along those lines, there's always somebody ready to toast my ass naftee: it's uncanny naftee: the longest i've had an account last is 16 mins naftee: so i gave up on that line :( nharmon: rofl nharmon: Create an account called "EatmeMongo" naftee: some of the guys are funny, though nharmon: or naftee: ok nharmon: MongoEatsMe naftee: watch naftee: i'll do it naftee: watch the logs ---- bipolar joining (Aug 29 23:13) naftee: 03:12, 30 August 2006 MONGO eats me out (Talk | contribs) New user account naftee: j naftee: bipolar ! naftee: ok ---- sliew joining (Aug 29 23:13) naftee: so in a few mins naftee: that account'll be blocked indef naftee: hi silew ! nharmon: heh sliew: Hi all. naftee: now, what i REALLY hate, dude. naftee: REALLY hate naftee: is when you put up an unblock request and that Pgk guy comes along, blanks the talk page and protects it naftee: it's annoying ! naftee: so once i blanked his talk page naftee: but it got reverted in a few mins :( nharmon: 23:14, 29 August 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs) blocked "MONGO eats me out (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (o rly) nharmon: hehe nharmon: o rly naftee: 03:14, 30 August 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs) blocked "MONGO eats me out (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (o rly) naftee: two minutes naftee: heh naftee: it's so screwed up, man naftee: who spends their time deleting usernames :(
N. Harmon 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no clue what N. Harmon is talking about. I've never used Grex, and do not know who Daloonik is. Nathan's evidence seems rather slim indeed. Grindingteeth 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
A few points:
IP user (4.245.120.147) says he is User:Ellinas, who has been banned indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride.
Blocked. Thanks, Iola k ana• T 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Previous Case 2 Previous Case 1
The user Subhash bose is under ban , this new account created subsequent to the ban has started editing almost the same set of articles that Subhash did.It is already established that this user's IP is the same as University of Texas at Austin, the same as Subhash.
The tone and tenor of arguments and edits by both these accounts are same, and I have noted the following similarities in their writing styles.
Similarities in reasoning using Logic:
Netaji:
The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) [168]
HKelkar
The very claim that RSS is fascist is a POV statement unless it is qualified as a claim, since there are ample arguments to refute their alleged "fascism". Thus, you are gaming the argument by a circular logic. You have assumed the very thing you are trying to establish and that won;t work. It is like saying A->B because A->B. Munje went abroad, then founded an org in India. Association does not prove ideology.Hkelkar 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC) [169]
Similarity in reactions:
Netaji
I'm afraid your most recent edit 'boycott of muslims' had absolutely nothing to do with the Gujarat riots and is a completely independent event. Plus, your extract from the supreme court was unnecessarily long because it is already cited and quoted, and I have adequately paraphrased your POV. Please refrain from further anti-Hindu propaganda or we will have a revert war on our hands. Agree upon a compromise and move on.Netaji 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [170]
Hkelkar
I'm afraid attacking the source is the last resort of a losing argument. I have not attacked any sources, merely questioned them. I admit that generally Christianpost is partisan. Since a non-Hindu site has not attacked a hindu organization in this case, it bears mentioning. Plus, the article is written by a non-Christian. The thesis was submitted through Sorbonne University, Paris, France.Hkelkar 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) [171]
Noting that the same source Christianpost has been mentioned by user Subhash Bose in this edit
There is very high probability that this is a new Sock Account created to facilitate Subhash to circumvent the ban.I have noted another user Bakasuprman to be continually trolling the pages where evidence against Subhash has been mentioned.He has already mentioned in a few edits the necessity to "make noise" to influence the case checkers TerryJ-Ho 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Subhash_bose#Sockpuppetry_case_2
Note - Checkuser came out Inconclusive Bakaman Bakatalk 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Content moved to the discussion page by Bakaman TerryJ-Ho 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - view talk page for responses Bakaman Bakatalk 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have obtained help from Netaji regarding this offline (we are in the same department and meet up during lunch , discuss etc.). That is why we have cited the same source, he referred it to me. I am told that may be construed as "meatpuppetry". While I disagree, if an admin thinks I shouldn't correspond with Netaji regarding wikipedia then, of course, I will cease to do so. As for our sockpuppetry accusation; I reietrate that we have already cleared that up with the admins on irc, where we chatted with them from different computers (established by different ip addresses). Plus, Netaji edits from his home mostly, as his ip address is not UT (see that chat transcript), and mine is AT UT, miles away from his home. The chat transcript is located here:
posted there by netaji. I believe the admin can get independent confirmation from admins Blnguyen and Skriet.
I believe that this may be a manouever by the accuser in order to get his opponents blocked so that he can make unsubtantiated claims (which I have refuted) on wikipedia articles. Of course, in the interests of assuming good faith, I will say that this is only a possibility and hope that I am wrong. I also hope hope that TerryJ-Ho will refrain from wasting his time smearing his users and use his abilities to contribute to wikipedia. Hkelkar 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Plus, earlier case filed against netaji and myself as sockpuppets (I'm sure admin can look for it) was dropped. Hkelkar 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[172]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rushdie ( talk • contribs) .
It wasn't removed. Rushdie is merely another person out to get Subhash. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Several new socks of already indefblocked user:
See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pnatt.
36, 35, and 34 have also been blocked, the last two before they actually did anything. User:Angr 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[173]: See file history at the bottom. User:Prettyw0man and User:Prettywoman2010 have vandalized despite warnings the pages. They uploaded both the very same picture with the same measurements and datasize. Plumcouch Talk2Me 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)