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 talk page.

I had a weird idea. What if people doppelganger accounts of MascotGuy (such as "Globe guy, or 1960's muscle car guy" and ect. so it could just slow him down. Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a poor expenditure of resources and completely ineffective. The possible user names that might emanate from MascotGuy's prolific imagination surely number in the millions. Someone would have to set up a dictionary-armed bot to go through an ungodly multitude of "[x] Guy" and "[x]'s Glowball" combinations to have any effect--and, assuming that someone allowed such a disruptive bot, it would set an unfathomably silly precedent for dealing with sockpuppet vandals. Although MascotGuy's names are instantly recognizable, they are impossible to predict.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lulz that is pretty stupid. Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if the regex filter is working yet. I would imagine it could be used within good enough reason; after all, names like .*\s+on\s+Wheels is considered block on sight. Tuxide 03:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how many other people have usernames ending in "Guy." "Glowball" is probably blockable on sight. — tregoweth ( talk) 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I still need to find out his age. --  PNiddy   Go!  02:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? That's against policy. If he wants to release his age, then it's his prerogative. Don't disrupt the encyclopedia in order to find out personal information concerning a user. This is considered stalking, and could get you banned or blocked. Miranda 02:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This "user" whose prerogative it is not to reveal his age happens to be one the most prolific troublemakers you'll ever find on this project. Don't think of us a stalkers; think of us as profilers, or investigators. While I have disagreed with those who have disovered and posted MascotGuy's real name, other clues about his identity (age, location) are fair game for discussion, if they make it any easier to communicate with or stop him.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

MascotGuy uses his real name on Commons; thus I see nothing wrong with using it here since he discloses it himself. I don't really care how old he is, since bank accounts use that information for identification purposes. Tuxide 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one's every accused MascotGuy of showing sound judgement; we should probably respect the fact that this revelation was unwise. As for his age, I think it is at least vaguely useful to ascertain whether we're dealing with a child or a childlike man. Does the user who emailed his mother a year or two ago have any insight?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It was User:Lucky6.9, who apparently no longer contributes to Wikipedia. He (or she) made a comment about it in the archive. Miremare 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no guarantee that that's his real name. — tregoweth ( talk) 01:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If it really was his mother than Lucky6.9 spoke to, then it must be his real name. Miremare 17:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) My inquiry was addressed to PNiddy, because he has been involved with trollish behavior before. Even though this is a LTV that we are dealing with, privacy concerning the individual should always be respected. Miranda 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There probably aren't too many people who are particularly bothered about that, policy or not... Personally I reckon 800+ accounts pretty much waives the expectation of any "rights" on Wikipedia. Miremare 18:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Two new MascotGuy IPs have been blocked for three months. They are 75.20.183.135 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 71.159.229.49 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Use this information for future reference. Pants ^(T) 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

MascotGuy would never make an account like this. I think the account was created from someone who just happened to stumble upon this page. Any other thoughts on this? Pants ^(T) 01:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Account name Mascotguysucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For clarification; when I first saw this section I thought dear ol' Squirepants101 was WP:PA'ing. Tuxide 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we shold remove the sockpuppet tag. It makes no sense. I mean, why would I create an account called "The F-16 if fugly?" Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 02:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Squirepants's guess is probably right. — tregoweth ( talk) 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Codyfinke6 was recently tagged as a MG sockpuppet. Was a checkuser done, or was this done based on their similar editing styles? — tregoweth ( talk) 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen MascotGuy at all latley, has he packed his bags? He only turned out two socks this month.Has he left? Has he gone after a sister project? Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just taken the liberty of removing full names and email addresses from this page, or of piping links that contained them where appropriate. It's evident that, while this guy is severely misguided and very troublesome, he's not actually trying to cause problems, and currently this page is the top result for his name on google. The diff where I did it is here if anyone needs/wants this info in the future. -- Vary | Talk 16:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That he's back socking on the wiki again with User:Self Control Guy be on alert for more socks. 81.153.223.197 14:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"_____ vs. _____" has never been used as far as I've been reading. When have they been used? 99.230.152.143 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lightvision ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Doesn't seem to meet the name pattern, but check contributions. Also created an account Mighty Bitter Sweet Star ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which looks more like a MascotGuy sock. Kesac ( talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this whilst searching through articles on Category:Burger King Cartoonguy11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems similar to me. 81.151.27.58 ( talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the little so-and-so created a few new accounts...and reported himself to the list of blocked socks. He's up to nearly nine hundred blocked accounts in more than four years. The latest I stumbled on was User:Graveyard Guy. On the suggestion of User:Ryulong, I've taken the time to alert Wikimedia. Via his talk page, Ryulong suggested I contact a specific bureaucrat. He got back to me right away with the promise to bring the problem to the attention of the highest-ups. I've pointed out some facts to our advantage, namely his IP, his last name and his physical location. Someone at the Foundation is hopefully going to pull the plug on this guy via a formal complaint to Road Runner Cable. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 04:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Technovision has recreated Random House Home Video, so is surely MascotGuy. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the list of socks as of today, we are up to 990 blocked sockpuppets which equal heaven knows how much wasted time and effort this individual has caused us to spend in this four-year period.

Any bets as to when we hit the magic 1000? -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 04:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That number is long past, I'm afraid. The archive is at 990, but nothing everything has been archived. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. Somehow, I was afraid of that. I left a note on the admin noticeboard suggesting special action and it seems my suggestion has been shot down as a "do not feed the trolls" issue. It's clear the admin didn't understand what was going on, so I left an explanation of this special nature of this problem. Feel free to weigh in if you'd like. Personally, I think simply blocking the keywords and key phrases he uses will lock him down without having to file a formal complaint with the IP. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 06:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I heard that his mother responded. I have an idea: "If Mascotguy is unable to civilly abide by Wikipedia's rules, his mother needs to be at his side when he edits Wikipedia. She should guide him and/or change his words whenever possible. If he acts uncivilly and/or violates policies he may be blocked." Perhaps Mascotguy and his mom could be an editor team working under one name, with his mother there to ensure that he follows policies. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding his most common choice of phrases to the username blacklist doesn't seem like a good idea, could easily end up catching a lot of false positives and lead to the same issues as blocking the vast pool of IP addresses he has to hand. I think in some way, it might be close to impossible to stop him. Has a Checkuser been performed recently? I remember most accounts of his being registered from a university IP pool recently, I figure that contacting his ISP and university and controlling him that way would be the only thing we could do seeing as RBI is all we have here. treelo _radda 09:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

He's editing from a university? That tears it for me. This monkey has been playing us for fools for far too long now. I'll request a checkuser ASAP. It's high time this plug gets pulled. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary break

• Done. I'm not sure how to file a checkuser once others have been performed, so I've left word on the checkuser talk page as to how to proceed. Let's dim this guy's "glowball" once and for all. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 18:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to remember where I got the info that he was operating from a university now... He did move from CA to TX but that isn't what I'm thinking of. I'll do a little digging but it wasn't the most recent RFCU I did regarding him as they weren't particularly special. treelo _radda 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to file a CheckUser requests because I already did it through side channels. The two IPs used in his last two batches of accounts were blocked for 3 months. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, guess he'll end up finding more or give in? treelo _radda 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of him changing IPs is always there. I don't think he is going to give in and go away. Not his nature. If he doesn't change IPs, I suspect that we will see him disappear for three months and then be right back at it when the block expires. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 22:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest Gogo, who was the blocking admin for the IP addresses? treelo _radda 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It was Alison and Luna Santin. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, thanks. treelo _radda 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Gogo, that is a relief to learn that the current IPs are blocked. Are these the same ones he's been using? There's also the matter of his location. His new IPs might be listed in Texas, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's left California. Both my home and work IPs are two different providers and both resolve to Virginia. If the little monster does come back in January to do his very special brand of nonsense, the IPs should be blocked until July. Just my two cents' worth. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 22:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I figure that setting up blocks which run for 6 months is one method to stymie his "attacks" as is contacting his ISP if we know his possible last name as then he has no access to any of the MW sites, much less capable of editing anything and given enough time he could forget and move on. With Wikia around which he also edits though, it's unlikely. Much like spam, he might just end up being around forever and in lieu of an effective spam filter we only have RBI (but without the I) as part of our tools. treelo _radda 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Both IPs appears to be from California. Interestingly, one is a cable modem while the other is a DSL line. The DSL IP was blocked before as one of this IPs. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. Treelo's comment: If that original "e-mail username" is accurate, we have us a last name which I won't repeat here. In fact, we may have two. Another blocked sock is someone else's last name. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not cart it off to WP:ABUSE (besides it's a tortuously slow and rarely profitable procedure)? We got all the info we need so lets just tell the ISPs about the abuse and see what comes of it. treelo _radda 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Freemasons know all! Masonic Guy ( talk) 08:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I know MG doesn't communicate ever so does he have a copycat now? treelo _radda 14:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Just what we need.  :) -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat too late to be pointing this out, but User:EE Guy was almost certainly not a MascotGuy sockpuppet. Consider EE Guy's contributions. (Noted due to Borky's comment here.) A minor point in regards to the affair as a whole, but probably rather significant to Borky. - Stelio ( talk) 08:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed EE Guy from the account list. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more of restoring the poor guy's account or at least apologising to him. :-D But thank you very much for the fast response. (I should note that I have no vested interest in this case. It was just something I noticed in passing.) Keep up the great work! Thanks. - Stelio ( talk) 23:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

EE Guy was blocked by the Arbitration Committee back in 2005. Only a resolution by the current ArbCom can overturn the block. The account is so old, there is really nothing that needs to be done with it besides remove it from the MG account listings. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Haein45 seems to fit the pattern, but I'll leave it those more experienced in dealing with MascotGuy as to whether or not it is him. (If it is, he seems to have switched naming conventions for himself.) -- BlueSquadron Raven 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's him. As you mentioned, the naming convention isn't correct and the pattern of edits doesn't match his usual style either. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The edits are pretty much his style, and it's a new account that went right into making edits of this type. He tends to make subtle ones at first that then balloon into problem ones. Also, this is not the first time, particularly on List of Atomic Betty Characters, that I've seen a new account come up, make edits, and then disappear. I'm just hoping it's not a copycat, or a switch in tactics to throw us off. -- Blue Squadron Raven 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think it's him. It's a new naming convention and he didn't create the usual pile of accounts. One thing about MG is that he is consistent. Additionally, there was a CheckUser done on MG's last account and it did not pick up this other editor. Sometimes coincidences just happen. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

While looking in the Recent changes log (due to the database lag making my watchlist unusable) I noticed Letters to MascotGuy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created One Night in Bangkok Guy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 03:57 UTC. Bidgee ( talk) 04:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Noticed they are blocked now, Really this database issue isn't making it easy. Bidgee ( talk) 04:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

These accounts were seen today, only reporting becasue of the "Guy" in the user name.

• User:Sweet 'n' Sour Love Magic Guy
  
• User:Easy Rider Guy
  

This is a copy of the relevant line from the User creation log:

01:44, 24 May 2010 Sweet 'n' Sour Love Magic Guy (talk | contribs) created new account User:Easy Rider Guy (talk | contribs)

-- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 22:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have reposted this at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, in case it gets missed, and as I am unsure of the correct venue.
  Regards, 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 02:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that he may be a sock puppet. Definitely seems to fit the pattern and has "guy" in his username. -- Rockstone talk to me! 18:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's high time we demoted MascotGuy from a "high severity" abuser to something more appropriate for someone who doesn't even vandalize. In fact I would support deleting the page altogether, as I don't think making multiple accounts but never using them really even can qualify as abuse. At worst it makes Wikipedia 0.00001% slower because of the larger number of usernames that have to be searched whenever someone uses the searchbox. But for now I will just say I want to remove the information that is outdated and makes MascotGuy seem like one of the worst vandals ever, and will do so soon if nobody objects. — Soap — 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. — Soap — 20:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've not come across this user until seeing all the \bGuy$ accounts being automatically flagged at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Bot. Soap and others - is this user still active or should I go about getting that username flag removed? Sam Walton ( talk) 13:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I dont know if he's still active, but I havent yet seen a report on UAA that is actually him instead of just someone else with "Guy" in their username. I'd considered removing the entry myself since that page seems to be just mostly admins acting on their own doing small edits, but I wanted to wait for more opinions. — Soap — 20:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and I see a lot of -Guy usernames pop up there, it's not exactly an uncommon word. Anyway, I've started a thread at UAA. Sam Walton ( talk) 00:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe this LTA report may be drawing undue attention to MascotGuy's behavior! See WP:DFTT. I'm surprised this is still up! MegaMan1988 ( talk) 18:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MascotGuy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Looks like this sock is no longer active, so anyone archive this LTA report now. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:A898:34E0:4AAE:8430 ( talk) 19:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Short LTA report, no need for archiving. Sam Sailor 09:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)