Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EBot II (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 6 August 2007 (Archiving 67.55.159.44). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The administrators instructions list for this page has been rewritten due to the archival bot's presence here. Administrators, please have a read over the new instructions as it will help with the bot's tasks. Also, the new process for the bot is at the talk page. |
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
346 | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 |
356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1149 | 1150 | 1151 | 1152 | 1153 | 1154 | 1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 |
1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
469 | 470 | 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 |
479 | 480 | 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
322 | 323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 |
332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 |
Other links | |||||||||
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian is in fact a sock puppet. Cases on this page are debated for up to ten days, after which the decision considering the suspect has to be made. The conclusion of the discussion can be one of following:
- the user has engaged in sockpuppetry (in a manner disallowed by Wikipedia policy on sock puppets)
- it is not evident whether the user engaged in sockpuppetry (and is sent to Requests for checkuser (WP:RCU))
- the user is legitimate and has not engaged in sockpuppetry
The process of reporting a suspected Sock puppet can be found below.
Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy on sock puppets (WP:SOCK) before opening a case.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
Administrators
Administrators, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving etc for editing here at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP). This has recently been updated and therefore administrators should read over the minor changes that have happened.
Closed archives
Reporting suspected sock puppets
Before creating a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:
|
- Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
- Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
- Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry: Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below.
Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled:
Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report.
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)
After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
- List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
- Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}} ~~~~ or similar.
- Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
- Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.
Open cases
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Fioranoweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
202.142.98.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.95.199.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fiorano Software (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fiorano123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Itpl fiorano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sanjaya fiorano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sanjaya123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sanjayakumarsahu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Webteam fiorano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
A. B. (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Fiorano Software has been waging an ongoing PR effort on Wikipedia for over 18 months, spamming links and articles
Links:
- fiorano.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Accounts:
- Sanjayakumarsahu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
- Webteam fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)
- Fiorano Software (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Software LinkWatcher search • Google)
- 61.95.199.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
- Fioranoweb (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
- Sanjaya fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)
- 202.142.98.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
- Sanjaya123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
- Fiorano123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
- Itpl fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)
Spam articles created as blatant advertising and deleted by Wikipedia administrators:
- Fiorano Software
- FioranoMQ™ 2006
- Fiorano ESB™ 2006
- Fiorano SOA Platform
- Mr. Atul Saini
- Mr. Vinod K. Dham ,
- Note that the spammer overlooked the commas when cutting and pasting article.
- Note that the spammer overlooked the commas when cutting and pasting article.
- User page created as a spam page.
- User page created as a spam page.
- User page created as a spam page.
- User page created as a spam page.
- User page created as a spam page.
Articles vandalized:
References:
- meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Fiorano Software spam (Permanent link)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Fiorano Software spam on Wikipedia (Permanent link)
- Comments
I made mistakes in reporting this case, somehow creating an empty first case. This report is in fact the first real case, not the 2nd. Sorry. --A. B. (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All of the named accounts are now blocked; the IPs have been left untouched. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Wolly da wanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- --Wooooooooly da Woog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
SLSB talk 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
*Same userpage
- Comments
I have a hunch that they arent related, that "Woooooooooly" is User:Ockenbock, who tends to always create socks to troll User:The Hybrid, User:Metros, and my talk pages. I strongly suggest a checkuser.There appears to be two users with very similar names. User:--Wooooooooly da Woog and User:Wooooooooly da Woog.--User:Atomic Religione
- Your evidence is that they both have the same userpage (twice listed), what do you mean by "made"?, and please provide diffs of these "similar edits". –sebi 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't beleve in Sock Puppets!!!!And I Definately WOULD NOT USE ONE!!!! Wolly da wanderer 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) On a another note I didn't create my page on the 6/08/07 I created mine on the 5/08/07Wolly da wanderer 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Well, the usernames seem suspicious, but the alleged puppet has no edits, so there's no policy violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
83.26.34.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
83.26.37.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.26.45.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.26.46.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
–sebi 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- All have made the same edit to the Talk:Habbo Hotel:
- IP 1 (83.26.34.139):
- IP 2 (83.26.37.187):
- IP 3 (83.26.45.184):
- IP 3's first diff to Talk:Habbo Hotel, and another edit to The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, obviously enforcing the same message "pool's closed".
- IP 3 (83.26.46.65):
- IP 3's only edit. Not exactly the same as the other edits.
- WHOISs for all IPs show that the user is located in Poland (apart from IP 2, from Paris, France):
- Comments
- Conclusions
- This isn't really sockpuppetry, it's just low-grade IP vandalism. No action necessary; if the problem happens again, just revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Kephera975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Kephera975 (talk · contribs) posted a comment on my talk page signed as banned user 999. He immediately realized his mistake and replaced it with another message.
- Comments
The date of signing of the first post is curious. Its 9 June 2006 (UTC). This looks like a cut and paste job from a comment on Kephera975 talk page. [4] --Salix alba (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- the 2 posts have completely unrelated subject matter so it looks more like Kephera accidentally blanked the pre-existing comment by 999. If the comments said the same thing, that would more imply it's the same person under different names. But they don't. I don't necessarily disbelieve this allegation though:) But his accidently blanking/replacing an unrelated comment by another user, doesn't necessarily provide evidence.Merkinsmum 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check the diffs. That comment wasn't posted on my page by 999. It was posted by Kephera975. Then he blanked/replaced it. IPSOS (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it looks like an accidental cut and paste from a comment on Kephera975's own user talk page to me. It's spurious evidence at best.
User:IPSOS, I came across the issue while browsing ANI and it does concern me that you raise this allegation during a content dispute with User:Kephera975; having been on the receiving end in the past myself, I have to doubt your ability to assume good faith. ColdmachineTalk 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from judging me. In all cases where I have made sockpuppet accusations, there have been either previous use of sockpuppetry or evidence that made me believe the was a use of sockpuppets. The fact that you got yourself unblocked does not mean that there was not extremely good evidence that you were a sock at the time I reported you as such. IPSOS (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]Actually the evidence was so spurious the case was overturned. I am also not 'judging' you here; I've no interest in engaging in politics on here, or in warring with you, and my comments on the AfDs in question (recommending weak keeps or merges) should indicate that. I have also noted that I do partly agree with you on the nature of the AfD proposals - I feel that WP:POINT and bad faith may be at the root of them. However this sort of information (i.e. past history of accusations, and the context of them) may be useful for judgement by administrators on this particular case. ColdmachineTalk 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]The evidence was strong to me. Several sockpuppets had been blocked, and you and one of those blocked socks used exactly the same wording. You are not bothering to look at it from my point of view. To me, it looked like yet anothe r sock in a series of socks. You continue to ignore that given the history of sockpuppetry in the case, I had no reason to continue to assume good faith given the clear evidence. The fact is that multiple admins thought the the evidence was strong at the time and so did I. So please stop accusing me of bad faith, because my actions were justified and never called into question by any of the admins responding. IPSOS (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]I appreciate your position on the matter, but it's not relevant to this case. Let's move on. I apologise if you feel attacked, but that was not the intent as I say. The intent was merely to raise some context which might be of use to admins when examining this case. We are human, and we are fallible, and this has been proven. ColdmachineTalk 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you for acknowledging my position. I agree, let's move on, no hard feelings. Feel free to remove this whole conversation, as I agree it it not applicable here. IPSOS (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Kephera's edit using the dated signature of 999 was bizarre, but it does not prove sock puppetry. He copied the source code verbatim from the first nontrivial comment that someone else left on his talk page, namely, this pair of comments by 999. I have no idea why he did that, but it doesn't mean he has secret access to 999's offline identity. It just means he was copying something from his talk page archives. I'll assume good faith until further evidence comes to light. Shalom Hello 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Hariharan91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Maddy20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chelsea123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Universal Hero 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Users have very similar edit history and see edit history of Trisha Krishnan and Chelsea FC which all seem to own.
All seem to claim to support Chelsea, similiar edit patterns. Universal Hero 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Has User:Maddy20 edited Chelsea FC? JodyB yak, yak, yak 17:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: The article interests of the three accounts are similar. I did not check any diffs to compare editing styles. Universal Hero, the user who reported this case, is himself suspected of sock puppetry below on this page (I have not yet examined that case, and I have no opinion). Chelsea123 has been inactive since Jan. 2007. Shalom Hello 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I see no evidence of a policy violation here. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Potters house (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Sapienz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Daniel Case 05:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I was clearing out expired prods when I came upon Harold Warner, from which the tag had been removed[5] by Sapienz, who claimed that sources had been added as xlinks. Since he turned out to be a relatively new user, I decided that I would list the article at AfD and leave a note about removing prods on his talk page.
But as I looked at his history,[6] and the article's, I noticed that there seemed to be a focus on articles related to Potter's House Christian Fellowship. I noted also that there seemed to be an edit war between Sapienz and Darrenss ([7], [8] and [9]) who he claimed was an ex-PHCF member biased against the group. Darrenss's userpage does seem to suggest this.
I then decided to put this on WP:AN/I. But then I decided to look into Potters house, who had originally created the article[10]. And things got interesting.
Potters house was blocked indefinitely in May for an inappropriate username. This was after two blocks, one for spam and another for 3RR, (the latter lifted after two of the 24 hours) last summer.[11]. But I noticed Potters house has a similar thing about Darrenss and his purported agenda ([12], [13], [14]). Sapienz has been, and Potters house was, actively editing Wayman Mitchell.
It also seems to me their language is similar. Is Sapienz simply Potters house, trying to evade a ban?
- Comments
- IMO, yes - same editing styles, same allegations being made. It's been reasonably confidently established that Potters house, along with several IPs (see User talk:Darrenss for an extended conversation between them) were a PH member by the name of Nick, who had some personal beef with Darrenss regarding the latter's former involvement with PH, and regularly vandalised that user's user page. I put it on semi-protect and things seem to have rapidly slowed down there. Orderinchaos 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can verify that this is true. The same user aka user:Potter's House, aka User:Xsxsxsxs, aka user:Sapienz, aka heaps of anon IP's. I recently placed an incident report for his behaviour under the heading user:Sapienz - Incidents on the 3rd of August outlining his various IP's that he has used to harrass me and others. I already had 2 posts I left on Sapienz talk page and he deleted them both, besides only Nick aka potters house guy knows I used to attend his church, that fact he uses against me. I tried to be civil to him to explain my edits on those talk pages and even invited him to discuss it but so far he has chosen to complain to other editors about me and has avoided any coversation regarding his favorite articles. One more thing, on the Wayman Mitchell talk page Nick explains that he runs a site http://www.waymanmitchell.com and has scanned onto his site a book he is using for reference which is copyrighted. Also Nick is the web admin for http://www.cfmau.com and http://www.pottersclub.com which he has furiously fought to get into the Potters House related articles.Darrenss 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Sapienz is almost certainly Potters house editing under a new username. Potters house was blocked for an inappropriate username; his new name is not a username violation, so this is not really block evasion. There may be COI or other problems with Sapienz's editing that might warrant a block, but no evidence of such is provided in this case--therefore, there is at current no reason to take action against Sapienz. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- 70.12.117.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 70.12.212.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Mushrambo 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I believe the users are one and the same due to the new IP adding "a douche nozzle" to the Andy Borowitz page, which the old IP also did frequently
- Comments
- Conclusions
Practically, it might be justified to extend the 31-hour block on the ...212.33 IP because the ...117.27 IP evaded the block, vandalizing within an hour after the original IP was blocked. However, since he stopped after one edit, I think the simplest thing is to ignore the problem and let the block run its course (which it already has). Shalom Hello 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind providing some diffs of these edits by the IPs, please? –sebi 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the same person using both IPs, but there's no need to take further action on this. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
67.98.206.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
146.115.58.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Cerejota 04:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Multiple reverts with same argument, but different users. [15]
Admits being sock puppet and taunts for a checkuser: [16] In fact a checkuser should be performed to insure no further sock puppets exist, including registered accounts.
- Comments
Raised related ArbCom enforcement here: [17]
- I wasn't attempting to appear to be more than one person, here. I was simply doing anon editing from more than one location. While WP:SOCK doesn't strictly apply to anon editors in my understanding, I will gladly make it clear that this personal IP also edits under that other shared IP as well on my user page. -- 146.115.58.152 04:37, 5 August 2007
- Now this ("admits to being a sock") is patently false. I admit to editing from two different IPs. WP:SOCK applies to registered accounts, not IP editors. I haven't voted on anything or tried to evade WP:3RR simply because I use multiple computers. I'm rather aghast that having addressed his concerns here he still insists on making an issue of this. -- 146.115.58.152 20:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently the point that running a WP:CHECKUSER on an IP address doesn't obtain any new information (duh) has sailed clear over Cerejota's head. -- 146.115.58.152 20:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are twisting my own words of explanation to you to use as evidence against me, and I'm replying to this evidence, as is my right, with all the patience for such behavior I can muster. -- 146.115.58.152 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the situation, but this is an editor that popped out of nowhere I do not want to do a RfCU myself, but do ask you (Newyorkbrad) or some other uninvolved admin did it. He *taunted* me to perform a Checkuser in my talk page, and admited the multiple IPs. And it is not based on a few edits, the editor is now editing in the RfAr for Allegations of apartheid, and for being a relatively recent editor, has an in depth knowledge of policy as obscure as WP:ASR. This is all highly suspicious.
In fact, when I started this, I was hoping that it would be a simple anon troll. Now I worry about actual sockpuppetry by a registered user...
Based on these things, I must state a suspicion that these might be sockpuppets of a registered user. Hence, my asking for mediated RfCU. If I am out of line, please let me know. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so I'm a "troll" purely because I'm editing anonymously? This is all purely over a content dispute involving WP:ASR and Template:Allegations of apartheid, about which I've essentially given up the ghost, and as such this whole action borders on WP:HARASSment. Unless it can be suggested I've committed some actual action which warrants a WP:RFCU (per the list on that page) I would appreciate wikipedia respecting my privacy. I don't appreciate such an action being performed solely on the grounds of a vague "suspicion" that doesn't link me to any active registered account. -- 146.115.58.152 03:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under category "G" for the reasons I have already stated and possibly a modified "B" and "F" (I mean, what are the chances of an recent anon user knowing the intricacies of WP:ASR???). To be clear, I initially thought it was a troll/vandal attack, but when you started to engage that suspicion disappeared, then you taunted me with checkuser and changed your tone from a WP:ASR-based objection to more classic edit conflict in terms only an editor with a year+ of experience in these articles could have. I mean, it was your own writting that made me suspicisious.
If you quack, people are naturally going to think you are a duck.
I got a proposal: reveal your possible registered accounts to Newyorkbrad, and he sends a message to the community that you are not a puppet/master for active registered accounts, or banned accounts or in any other way are anyone other than an anon editor of these IPs. I have no interest in knowing your identity, I do have an interest in making sure you are not a sock of a registered account, in particular one active the articles in question.
Lastly, I again request guidance, should I pursue RfCU or should a third party neutral admin do it?--Cerejota 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, without any evidence, you are calling me a "troll" and a "vandal" simply because I am editing anonymously, and we had a content dispute. I see this as a complete disregard of WP:AGF on your part. I would hope no third party, including Newyorkbrad, would put up with such an obvious attempt to harass another wikipedian. Were I ever a registered editor, I'm certainly seeing how the other half lives now. -- 146.115.58.152 13:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cool down. I have not called you a troll or a vandal. I did say that initially I supected this and then changed my opinion. I say this clearly, so I cannot understand how you can possibly say that I have called you a troll or a vandal: To be clear, I initially thought it was a troll/vandal attack, but when you started to engage that suspicion disappeared. I am quoting myself from above.
- Please do not misrepresent what I said, or try to poison the well with a counter-charge. I am not harassing you. I am simply following the process the community has to deal with the kind of suspicions I have. I might be correct or incorrect, but following process is not harassment. I have remained civil.
- However, your accusation is a very serious one, and I sugest you take it to the corresponding forum if you truly think it has merit.
- Otherwise, I cannot take it seriously and must think of it as an overreaction at best, or an attempt to poison the well so that a checkuser is not performed that might reveal additional sockpuppets. Thanks!--Cerejota 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so your suspicions changed from me being a vandal and a troll to being a banned editor. Explain to me again when you ever assumed good faith? How about we just dead this, instead of this ongoing one-upmanship? I still don't think that link in the template does much good, but I really don't care any more. You have a strong resemblance to the guy who wrote WP:POOR, I think. -- 146.115.58.152 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have strong resemblance to the guy, but as the page history show, I *am* the guy who wrote it, based on a posting by User:Localzuk in a talk page, as noted in the talk page of WP:POOR. I ask you again to stop forum fishing and poisoning the well, and if you have a problem with my behavior, follow the process we have in wikipedia for it.
- And I do not think you are necessarily a banned user, I do suspect one of your sockpuppets are a registered account. This account might be active or inactive, but you in depth knowledge of a long debate and of wikipedia policy as obscure as WP:ASR, which is not usual in anonymous users.
- BTW, WP:SOCK clearly says that we have a sockpuppet situation, a user posting from two different IPs. This doesn't mean the user should be banned per-se, but sockpupetry in this case is beyond suspicion, as it is admitted by the user.
{{SockpuppetProven}} needs to be put in. Some admin please make note of this. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, WP:SOCK clearly says that we have a sockpuppet situation, a user posting from two different IPs. This doesn't mean the user should be banned per-se, but sockpupetry in this case is beyond suspicion, as it is admitted by the user.
- My apologies I didn't realize that the template was about banning. We are not yet in that step.--Cerejota 07:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
If all that is involved here is the same individual editing anonymously from two different locations, then the anon is right that in and of itself there is no policy violation, particularly since the relationship is acknowledged.
Theoretically, checkuser could establish whether any registered users edit from either of these IP's, but I doubt that an RfCU would be entertained based on just a couple of edits. Of course, if this anon is the same individual as a registered user who has edited on the same articles, he or she should kindly say so.
Absent further evidence, I am inclined to close this case, but will await any further responses or input first. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of a policy violation here, and no need for a Checkuser request. Case closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Muamshai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Shehzadashiq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
M12390 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They are meatpuppets, pushing their collective agenda at MQM, Altaf Hussain and related pages.
- What is the evidence for this statement? Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz: Please refer to Shehzadashiq's suspected sock puppets page. If you need further detials, then you can see their mutual communication on their and my talk pages. You can also see how they have buddied up by alternatively reverting my posts to avoid the 3RR rule. M12390 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
- More specific evidence is needed to warrant an accusation of sockpuppetry. If you can provide more specific evidence, then I'll take another look, but without that, there's no reason to keep this case open. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Eir Witt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Vix mouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Kurt Shaped Box 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Self-identifies as User:Ram four ever - a sockpuppet of banned User:Eir Witt.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Already blocked indef. MER-C 12:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Muhammed Sonny Mercan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Muhammed sonny mercan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Miighankurt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Brianga 08:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See userpages for those in question.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Doesn't matter: both accounts are stale for many months. Shalom Hello 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Thefunk42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Hip Hop Jin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.83.4.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Thefunk42 created an article called L.S., which is being considered for deletion. Mr. Jin, shown here and here deletes the AfD template and edits the article. He uploads an image for the article as well. The IP also does a similar thing here here and POV pushes here Jin is also an alternate account of CraftyKid™ who was blocked because of his username. It is suspicous that an account would be made and immediatey edit an article like that.
UPDATE: The article was deleted, but what they were doing is removing the deletion templates and editing the article in a similar way.
- Comments
I don't even know who those people are, my guess is that they are fans of Jin and LS and decided to try and upload/edit the information on the pages. The only reason I've made mistakes with the articles I've created/edited so far is because I'm still new to creating Wikipedia articles and still learning from my mistakes.
All I know is that thefunk42 is the only account that I've created on wikipedia. If anyone has any suggestions on other ways to prove this, please let me know, thanks.
--thefunk42 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll checkuser request, see how that goes. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
This too difficult. I'm making an RFCU request. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Faithinhumanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
IPSOS (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Green108 has been editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) disruptively for some time. After a 20 July 2007 block for 3RR, there began a pattern that after Green108 has reverted three times, suddenly Faithinhumanity would appear to do the next revert.
Recently Green108 has been blocked for a week for using two sockpuppets, Bkangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Shortskirtlonglegs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). After these blocks, the regular editors (I am not one, simply have been monitoring the situation) were proceeding to clean up the biases which had been introduced into the article by Green108. Shortly thereafter, Faithinhumanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows up and begins to reinsert the same biases.
While I am not certain that this is a case of sockpuppetry, I am sure that it is either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I will continue to research and add evidence to try to determine which it is. In any case, it is Wikipedia policy to treat meatpuppetry as if it were sockpuppetry when they cannot be distinguish, so I believe there is a cause for investigation and possible action here.
- In some cases the language and style of edits has a familiar ring e.g. [18] compared to [19] (removal of website figures) and [20] compared to [21] (phrase "entirely different"). The phrase "the practice" [22] re-appears also.
- In addition the introductions of Faithinhumanity [23] and Shortskirtlonglegs [24] have some simularities. They both go along the lines of, "Hello, I know of a BK/the BKs, I've got some books...".
- Regards Bksimonb 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to TalkAbout (talk · contribs):
- 18:31, 7 August 2007: blocked used Green108 begins to edit as 212.126.146.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [25]
- 18:49, 7 August 2007: Switched to 212.126.146.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and continues to edit [26]
- 19:28, 7 August 2007, Green108's block is extended [27]
- 03:00, 8 August 2007, Green108 is warned not to evade his block [28]
- 04:07, 8 August 2007 TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) starts to edit the talk page, taking up the very same issues as both Green108 and Faithinhumanity [29]
- 4:32, 8 August 2007 use same accusation "I see you guys are having a hayday deleting the article down to a PR JOB:-(......)" and use of ...... as Green108 [30]
- 01:44, 9 August 2007 212.126.143.106 Green108 responds once again on this page to defend himself. (comment placed by self User:Green108
Reply by TalkAbout to False allegations :
- Stating falsehoods as facts is not a proper thing to do and I am also requesting the link to lodge a complaint against this Admin IPSOS.
- I am requesting that I be removed from this allegation, made by IPSOS and request that the tag on my page be removed as well. I am not a sockpuppet and take this as grave allegation against my integrity and my many contributions here as an editor. I find this insulting, degrading and an affront as I am well aware that Admins can see where the editor is logged in from and this only ads to the caustic attitude lodged against me. TalkAbout 06:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I am current blocked from editing while logged in but can still edit when not logged in.....I am trying to respond to this matter alone , it seems mad someone can be tried without being allowed to defend themself
I'd like to ask for evidence to support all this allegations being made against me ,(+diffs) not just for this case but also the previous one . I understand that as the one accused , I can ask for this
I really have no interesting in all this trickery , for me it is clear...the BKWSU Internet PR team are out to block , ban, revert or otherwise any informed independent voice with experience of the Bkwsu, see; [31] . The two Bkwsu followers are Bksimonb (talk · contribs) and Riveros11 (talk · contribs). I am not the sort to sit down making up accusation but if these two are not working a "team" who is!!!!!
I stand by my edits on the article which have included the addition of 30 plus references and the tidying up off them all.....once shown how. the issue is not about me , the issue is that the Bkwsu members have been resisting full exposure for months and months making just such accusations User:Green108
- Comment- Much as I love him, User:IPSOS has a history of making sockpuppet pages on other users. That's a few he's done in the last week, such as Kephera795, he also did it gravely in the past to User:Coldmachine.
The pasting a 'this user is a suspected sockpuppet of' on someone's userpage is quite rude too and I would advise people that they are well within their rights to simply remove it. (I've heard of other suspected sockpuppet reports being filed and this template has never been used. Particularly mean as it seems to be only User:IPSOS who's suspecting any of these people.Merkinsmum 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am simply following the clear instructions at WP:SSP, where step-by-step instructions are given on how to report suspected sockpuppets. I don't report sockpuppets unless I think they are rather obvious, and the according policy, the tag may not be removed for ten days while the situation is investigated. IPSOS (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2007
- I would like to try and throw some light on this. There are a number of editors over the history of the BKWSU article who I believe are affiliated with a certain website forum that I documented in the arbcom case here. One trait they seem to have in common is that they repeatedly make accusations of a "team" against any editor not aligned with their POV, especially any editor they think or deduce is a BK. I originally introduced myself as being from the BK IT Team but that is an internal team, not a team of editors, as seem to be implied by the accusations. This "team" thing has been used as a stick to beat opposing editors with ever since. In fact the article history shows the exact reverse of their claims is true and this is what IPSOS and other uninvolved editors are discovering. Sockpupptry has been identified involving Green108 and the now-banned User:195.82.106.244. There may be other editors involved to a lesser extent. They can be identified by the characteristic accusations they make and that they support each other's POV edits. Hope that helps clarify. Against this background I don't consider what IPSOS is doing to be unreasonable, even if mistaken, and, as he stated, he is only following WP:SSP which unfortunately doesn't allow for much discretion. Regards Bksimonb 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any judicial system that does not allow for the accused person to defend themselves, or further accuses and punishes the individual for attempting to defend themselves, is very highly flawed and suspect. Especially one without imperial evidence. This is as much about Wikipedia standards and ethics as the topic in question and I ask IPSOS to withdraw the prejudicial and pejorative tone to his accusations.
I have been advise to sit this out but I wont for the reason above. I would like it noted that I have not attempted to edit any topic and I have instead attempted to answer this accusation, ask for advice and communicate with the admins involved to ask for their evidence.
I have not "switched" identity as I am accused nor attempted to hide my identity by sockpuppetry. I have signed each comment clearly with my user name. I have clearly document the reasons for this and the circumstances of my responding. Puppetry involves an intent to deceive. (And, no, I am not TalkAbout either, even Simon knows that !!! IPSOS lacks a history with this article).
I would not want the goodwill of the Wikipedian admins to be abused nor their time wasted. Just to clarify, the "Team" I have referred to is known as "The Internet PR Core Team" that writes "on behalf of the RCOs" (Regional Coordinators) within the BKWSU; and not the general IT team of which Simon was or is also engaged in doing server support.
The BK members working as a 'team' on the BKWSU article, which is quite different, are Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and others. Actually, in most cases we can or they have put specific names to them. Simon is engaged not just in actions such as the Wikipedia but also setting policy. He no doubt remembers that this was discussed at the the NCO (National Coordinators) meeting in February 2007 at the BKWSU headquarters in India.
As it is BKSimonb's stated intent to have me or any other informed contributor banned, he and Riveros11 continuing to work in tandem which I have therefore to interpret as an "official" policy of the BKWSU, I would ask that this is taken in consideration with these continued broad distortions and accusations; and especially remove any other user that might agree with any point I make from their firing line.User:Green108
- Isn't Green108 engaging in sockpuppetry through the repeated acts of circumventing his temporary block? It shows a willingness to engage in sockpuppetry. Also, I have found IPSOS to be a careful and thorough editor and very complete in gathering evidence.
- Procedural question -- is it normal for editors to know and reveal so much personal information about other editors? (e.g., above where Green108 says with regard to bksimonb "he no doubt remembers this was discussed at the the [sic] NCO (National Coordinators meeting in February 2007...") If bksimonb wanted to reveal this about himself, fine; but it seems inappropriate in terms of both privacy and safety for someone else to disclose personal information about another editor. --Renee 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Green108 just confirmed everything I said. I rest my case. Bksimonb 04:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This whole page has just ONE link to a post that TalkAbout made. If you are going to accuse someone of being a socket puppet you should provide much evidance, not just 1 post. By your logical anyone who posted next in that discussion could have been a socket puppet of green108.--Dacium 06:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem to me that an atmosphere of fear is being created, through these persistent cases, to stop any other editor from contributing except those approved by the organisation.
- I have no interest in any particular position in the article. I've not done any significant editing on it. I am monitoring for disruption. Reverting and/or reincluding things which consensus on the talk page is against, because they are clearly against WP policies by giving minor things undue weight or using unreliable sources is disruptive. Green108 edited in a disruptive manner. I am noticing the same pattern of disruption. If editors would follow dispute resolution, discuss on the talk page first, and only make changes to the article once there is a consensus, then I would be sure that new editors appearing are not Green108. IPSOS (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- User:Mackensen has already noted that User:TalkAbout is unlikely to be a sock of Green108 ([32]).
- User:Faithinhumanity is a single-purpose account and therefore a likely candidate for a sockpuppet, but the evidence here doesn't clearly identify Green108 as the master...although things certainly look suspicious. If there are continuing problems, a new Checkuser request would be the way to go. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
98E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
PitOfBristol1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheers, Lights 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Before banned user 98E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned, he made undiscussed changes to templates and reverted it back whenever his edits were reverted (see [33]). PitOfBristol1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account. He has reverted to the old version of {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} (history) and {{SockpuppetProven}} (history) without discussion, and was reverted because his changes were undiscussed. Every time he was reverted, he reverted it back. He is currently blocked for violating 3RR at the time this case was created.
- Comments
- Looks like a strong connection to me. Unfortunately the checkuser on PitofBristol1973 came back inconclusive due to open proxy use. -Nard 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Both accounts are already indef blocked for vandalism. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
86.29.240.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
86.25.50.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.246.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.248.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.244.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.251.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.255.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.255.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.247.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.241.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.241.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.25.52.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.246.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.56.232.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.240.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.25.51.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
VegitaU 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This is one of the most annoying things I've come by…a real mess. I can't tell whether the above clowns are sock puppets, meat puppets, straw puppets or just a bunch of separate clowns all hailing from Great Britain. They've all descended upon the Iraq War talk page and just wreaked havoc. It all began innocently enough: some unregistered user (User:86.25.50.222) trying to voice his opinion. Soon, however, it began to unravel. User:86.29.246.148 added this offtopic nonsense. Some time later, User:86.29.248.245 added this personal attack, reverted it, and added it again. Next day, User:86.29.244.175 added this garbage. Later the same day, User:86.29.251.25 added all this nonsense over the course of several edits. Other users decided to embroil themselves and soon added further piles of trash. After a few minutes, User:86.29.255.64 added unnecessary tags. I promptly reverted all the nonsense. Things went well for a couple days…didn't receive any vandalism for a while. Then, they came back with a post about Iraqi feminists, veterans, and a picture of a dead Iraqi. For a few days, nothing happened, but yesterday they came back. At this time, we had begun a discussion dealing with what picture we wanted to have as our lead on the Iraq War article. I had hoped this would be a dignified discussion to lead to an agreement. A few posts by User:86.29.247.13 and User:86.25.54.26 began to come in. Then, User:86.29.241.244 posted this nonsense which I promptly reverted. He added this which I also reverted out of a bad faith suspicion. User:86.29.241.253 added this, and User:86.29.241.114 all this and this. User:86.25.52.233 came in, making more edits. User:86.25.52.233 added his subjective remarks, followed by User:86.29.246.193 with this and this garbage. User:86.29.240.56 decided it would be nice to blank the entire talk page (reverted). Then, User:83.56.232.180 walked in on his soapbox. Finally, User:86.29.240.115 finished up with and edit agreeing to another unregistered user's comments. I've used him as "puppeteer" because, unfortunately, I haven't seen any centralized puppet master. This just looks like a multitude of nonsense that fell on the talk page. Maybe a semi-protect would solve the problem, but I don't have an issue with the comments so much as all the IP addresses looking the same and all adding to a childish and misspelled bickering on the site. Looking at the talk pages of some of these users, you see the insults they like to throw at each other. If you can help me with this, I appreciate it. Thanks.
Update: User:86.25.51.217 just recently added vandalism to the page again. Interestingly found that User:86.29.253.55 is suspected of being User:Elspeth Monro's sock puppet. Though not a party to this issue, the question emerges: is this a related case? -- VegitaU 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe User:Freetown may be the scokpuppeteer. The problems continue on the Iraq War talk page. -- VegitaU 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
86.29.251.25 is on this list. This same IP has been making arguments on some of the same pages as these other sockpuppets. Such as the talk page on Iraq War. My report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Toddy Ball 2 is merged into this report.
- 86.29.251.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Short pat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Toddy Ball 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Kerry Perry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Conclusions
- The IPs appear to be dynamically assigned from the same ISP. Either a range block of semi-protection of the article/talk page is the best way to deal with them. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- JJonz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- CrystalB4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Kbmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 75.176.32.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- JJonz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Marsmanhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Gscshoyru 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
JJonz and CrystalB4 joined within 3 days of each other, whereas Kbmann joined about a half-month later. All three of them have made the same kinds of edits to various comic book pages, usually making superman-favoring edits. I've suspected JJonz and CrystalB4 to be socks for quite a while, but when Kbmann suddenly started reverting all my edits yesterday, I took a look at his contribs, saw that his edits were the same as the other two, and figured it was JJonz getting revenge.
Added an ip address, edits are the same as JJonz and other socks.
The ip, today, just now, went about reverting edits to these articles, in order to get around JJonz's month-long block. Gscshoyru 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added JJonz2, whose edits were the same as the other socks during his short stint before he was blocked. His username and contribs speak for themselves. Gscshoyru 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the Jjonz2 indentity was immediately constructed when another ban was put on the 75.176.32.12 address. As for proof that the ip definitely is Jjonz, he continued a personal-attack monologue in mid-sentence without noticing that he had been logged out:
- Seen here: (11:37, 9 July 2007)
- Here: (10:56, 9 July 20) and (11:49, 9 July 2007)
- Or for an easier view, here. Dave 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CrystalB4 has now just been indef blocked, the user went on a trolling spree, making non-controversial edits, but his edit summaries were trolling directed at me and others. I reverted the changes as vandalism originally, but realized my mistake, and stopped, waiting for an admin to block. Others reverted his changes, however. Please note that both JJonz2 and CrystalB4 refer to me as Gaashooru for some unknown reason. Gscshoyru 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And when Jjonz said "Hey, baby boy!!!" and "Aww, are you feeling all right?" to me yeasterday, in his usual faux-Lobo imitation, CrystalB4 followed up today with "Hello DavidA, are you O.K. today???" As Gscshoyru just mentioned he's also currently blatantly trying to bait several users with pointless non-vandalism edits, while feigning a highly exaggerated "victimised pacifist" portrayal, since they by now assume that he's simply reverting again, as frequently othervise.
- To summarise, we have a guy who constantly reverts all edits done in the last months for several pages, , uses street-level "yo mama" insults while refusing to take it to the talk, is completely unimpressed by warnings, thinks bans are funny, and circumwents them by using several cover-identities at once. Dave 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another, recently joined sock, Marsmanhu. The user has made edits to the same articles as the rest of the socks, and when I reverted some of his POV'd edits, in his edit summaries he called me "Sir" and called what I was doing harassment, in much the same way CrystalB4 did to those who were reverting his edits before he was blocked. His first edit to the Wonder Woman article is very much like that of CrystalB4's first, as well, and the style of making a bad edit and then a good one, to try to get me to revert a bad edit, the same way CrystalB4 did, is evident. Gscshoyru 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I believe that these are all socks, based on the timing and style of the contribs, including articles of common interest to all three accounts. Kbmann has been indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account by Persian Poet Gal. The other two accounts have been blocked a combined four times for edit warring and personal attacks. Given the new information that this person has been using sock puppets to disrupt other editors, I would endorse an indefinite block. Shalom Hello 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the listed socks have been blocked, and the master has been blocked for 6 months. Nothing further required right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Universal Hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Prin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Prince Godfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Blegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
GameKeeper 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User has very similar edit history and style to blocked user's Prin (talk · contribs) and Prince Godfather (talk · contribs) which are both banned. see edit history of R. Madhavan edit history. He seems to have a particular WP:OWN issue with this article.
He started editing on a large scale after Prince Godfather was banned (prince godfather banned on [13:04, 5 March 2007]], Universal Hero's edits start in earnest on 2nd of April [34]. He has used a similar "wait and use another ID" technique before when he created his 1st sockpuppets.
He has uploaded an image which looks like a copy vio which was the original reason he was banned, before he engaged in sock puppetry. Sadly he looks like he is getting better at faking the copyright of these. The image in question is here Image:AVMstudios.jpg and it appears to have come from here. I have asked the user to explain this on his user page.
user Blegend appears to have been reverting to Universal Hero, edits in an unusual way. If this user is Prin then he has used this trick before.
For reference: the case that got Prince Godfather banned is detailed here [35]
- Well, Universal Hero's edits resemble that of Prince Godfather. I mean, both of them love adding false citations to the articles they edit. Universal Hero is also an avid editor of the R. Madhavan article. Prince Godfather was a fan of the actor mentioned. A sockpuppet of Prince Godfather, User:King Dracula was a fan of Arsenal F.C. and also lived in London. "Coincidentally", Universal Hero also lives in London and supports Arsenal.
- In reference to a point made by GameKeeper, Universal Hero created his account after another two sockpuppets of Prince Godfather were banned. They are User:Maddy92 (March 9 - March 12) and User:FA Maker (March 22 - March 29).
- Comments
- ??? - Those links don't mean anything in my eyes. User:Gamekeeper, after seraching your contributions you do nothing but run after sockpuppets and complain to User:Yamla. You seem very similiar to another editor. I'll request a check for you. Sorry, I've got no idea who Blegend, Prin, or Prince Godfather are, and after looking through their edits, I've noticed they add in junk. Look at the R. Madhavan page, it's slowly turning into a rather acceptable article..........unlike it was before, if you check my user page, it says I plan to this to some other articles. Look at the Sivaji: The Boss page, which I have done 490 + edits and then gave up editing the article showing I don't try to own the article...Universal Hero 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further evidence.
- I asked universal hero to explain how he had uploaded a copyright violating image. He said that he had not but a friend had done at his house using his account. This friend had conveniently retired from Wikipedia. Unfortunately for Universal Hero this friend came back from retirement and has now denied the accusation. This kind of deviousness used to upload copyrighted material was one of the reasons prince godfather was banned. See the case I linked above. Full conversation regarding the copyrighted image is here User_talk:GameKeeper#Apologies and User_talk:Universal_Hero#Copyright. GameKeeper 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- The evidence presented here isn't enough to establish sockpuppetry. No action taken. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/156.34.217.48
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Richard Deagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
209.212.28.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
At Choke (film), 209.212.28.50 attempted to add an unverifiable photo of a piece of paper that purportedly lists the production schedule for the film. Edit warring took place, at which I stopped at my 3RR limit and the anonymous IP exceeded his (he was warned after his third revert of the 3RR violation). I filed a 3RR violation report, seen here, which went through, and the anonymous IP was blocked for 24 hours. The article was left at the last revision by that editor, since I had exceeded my limit and the article receives no apparent traffic. Shortly after, Richard Deagon, not having edited since July 25, 2007, began editing the article. This evidenced sockpuppetry allowed the user, initially editing on his IP, to sign onto his registered handle, to continue editing on Wikipedia despite the 3RR block.
- Comments
The evidence is compelling: both the user and the IP have focused on the articles Choke (film) and Choke (novel) on July 25 and again yesterday and today. An appropriate punishment, in my opinion, would be a long but not indefinite block for Richard Deagon - maybe one week. Shalom Hello 12:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Nicholas has already blocked the IP for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Shalom Hello 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a reverse situation. The IP edited first, then when it was blocked, the editor logged onto the registered handle to continue editing, despite the 3RR block. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
The editing patterns strongly suggest the named account and the IP are used by the same person, but this activity is now stale, and a block would serve no purpose at this point. If any further problems occur, blocks would certainly be appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Madsurrealist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
BenjaminPeret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Worldeater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thikeboylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Madsurrealist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RedAnarchy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
notey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--TextureSavant 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
PRIOR EVIDENCE: This sockpuppetry is repeated vandalism by Keith Wigdor, who has been harrassing other users associated with the Surrealism article. This same individual, Madsurrealist for a long time was using the account of Classicupiter2 and is a previously proven sockpuppeteer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Classicjupiter2
The arbitration committee looked into the problem, but they didn't do anything about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/TextureSavant
RECENT EVIDENCE:
Here are some of the most recent diffs:
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
A checkuser analysis was recently completed, confirming that the above accounts are indeed socks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thikeboylove
- Comments
This Suspected-Sockpuppet case is being filed in order to take further action in preventing this individual from causing further disruption to the Surrealism article.
The first four user accounts in this case are all new and use the same disruptive language and mannerisms that suggest that the Classicjupiter2 sockpuppeteer has returned from a few months' reprieve in order to cause more trouble for the Surrealism article. His usual motive is the skewing of consensus & disruption of discussion regarding the article. In particular, he has a beef with the Chicago Surrealist Group, and repeatedly attempts to remove references to them that appear in the article. Keith Wigdor is sore because he can't succeed in getting his own name and website (http://www.surrealismnow.com) into the Surrealism article. --TextureSavant 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These various sock accounts should be blocked, so as to prevent Keith Wigdor/ User:Madsurrealist from causing more disruption to the Surrealism article.
- Conclusions
- All the listed accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Vinay412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Never_bdsd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Miyamw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added 2 August 2007)
- Report submission by
andy 11:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User is attempting to undo revisions to two articles that were favourites of banned sockpuppeteer Vinay412
The restored revisions are sections that were heavily edited by sockpuppets of Vinay412
User's only other edit is this - there is a link to this talk page from my contributions page and my archived talk but no other obvious link that Never bdsd might have followed
Miyamw - evidence
User has recreated Human_figure which was deleted and redirected after an AfD debate which included a lot of sockpuppetry.
The user is a single-purpose account
The recreated article contains a reference to Female body shape which was jealously guarded by Vinay412, as was the original version of this article.
The style of English is very similar to that of Vinay412's previous edits.
The previous discussion on the article has been archived, without any link to the archive
andy 09:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- user:Vinay412 is blocked as sockpuppet of User:Kuntan. So moving it to kuntan, and adding that latest sockpuppet of kuntan is vinay412. if you undo this move i will take it to arbcom.
- admins dont twist the rules at your will, i will have to take it to arbcom, and i will post a case by creating a sockpupet, with opposite parties as admins User:Ryulong, User:Sandstein, User:Kinu, User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington for misuse of admin privileges and negligence. Never bdsd
07:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Socksuspect has not answered the allegation but instead disruptively moved the page (with threats). I've reverted the move. andy 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not threat, but it is "notice" served. Please do not mistake.Never bdsd 07:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say striked? I disown you, boor. What's your business in IIsc? Milching the buffaloes? 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Looks like a match. All the listed accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Crate321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Wallyjack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pax6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Kl4m 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Contributions should be evidence enough.
Wallyjack removes {{prod}} from admin DGG.
My opinion : this user creates and edits a single article under 3 different user names.
Admins : decide if it's the same person.
- Comments
I agree. These editors are singularly focused on Anti-procreation movement, which was created a few days ago by User:Crate321. It cannot be a coincidence that three separate accounts suddenly edit the same new article at the same time. The socks need to be blocked, and Crate321 must be limited to one account. Shalom Hello 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- It's highly likely that all of these accounts belong to the same person, but I don't see any policy violation. Remember, one can edit Wikipedia under multiple usernames, as long as the accounts are not used to violate policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
SalvNaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
MarkCentury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Immediately after User:MarkCentury was blocked for WP:3RR in Steven E. Jones, User:SalvNaut made the same edit.
- MarkCentury's edits (from WP:AN/3
- Base edit 15:12, August 1, 2007
- 1st revert: 21:53, August 1, 2007
- 2nd revert: 22:12, August 1, 2007
- 3rd revert: 22:17, August 1, 2007
- 4th revert: 22:29, August 1, 2007
- blocked 22:46, August 1, 2007
- SalvNaut
- Comments
The evidence is very strong that these are sock puppets. Aside from the revert warring - the alleged evasion of 3RR occurred less than an hour after MarkCentury was blocked - an examination of SalvNaut's contribs shows a concentrated interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is not beyond the scruples of some POV editors to use sock puppets to win an argument, and I suspect that's what happened here. Shalom Hello 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- MarkCentury fits the definition of a single-purpose account--his contributions all relate in some way to Steven E. Jones, and he jumped right into a controversy in his very first day of editing. The similarity between his edits and SalvNaut's, especially the reverts given above, strongly suggest that both accounts are operated by the same person. Since MarkCentury is the newer account, I'm indef blocking MarkCentury, and giving SalvNaut a 48-hour block. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- 172.130.221.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Several America On Line IP's starting with 172.xxx and possibly User:aolworker
- Report submission by
JForget 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Same person targeting Canadian Liberal politicans with vandalism. The same person (possibly during work shifts) has kept on vandalism several articles on Canadian politicians (some would-be polticians also) such as Stephane Dion, Justin Trudeau, Bob Rae, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau and several others including Olivia Chow, Jack Layton and Peter Kormos as well as the Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party. He also made attacks against Liberal members on other articles, one of them included Tiny. In addition, when editors included me, warn the user, he often made personnal attacks or vandalism to the user pages or talk pages. The person used about hundreds of the computers from the AOL headquarters in Virginia for several months. The IP range looking at the WHOIS is ranging from 172.128.0.0 to 172.191.255.255 and has used hundreds of account whiten this range (an example is 172.165.129.102 and 172.130.95.37 used immediately after 172.130.221.247). The vast majority of the IP's were clean prior to the rampage by the small person. A user also mentionned a few months back at the AIV talk page that a User:aolworker existed and that some the 172.xxx have used this for vandalism which may suspect that the user name was used by him as well. However, after an IP was block or made several edits (vandalistic in nature), he changed IP and this happened several times, but it's difficult to pinpoint the initial AOL IP account that started the strings of socks.
- Comments
We need something more specific to go on than IPs in the 172.0.0.0/8 range and "Canadian Liberal politicians." Please give more detailed info including specific examples of IPs and articles. Raymond Arritt 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
This report is too vague. In any case, the problem described is not sockpuppetry, but vandalism from the AOL range, which is best addressed through reversion, and judicious semi-protection, if necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- For further evidence Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Watchdogb
- For further discussions Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Watchdogb
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Sinhala freedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 18
- 21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
- Both of these users are from Toronto, Ontario and suspected to be from the Greater Toronto Area. Both are from the same ISP and within the same operational area of that ISP.
-
- IP - 99.245.165.28[44]
- ISP - Rogers Cable Communications Inc.
- Location - Canada [City: Richmond Hill, Ontario](Greater Toronto Area)[45]
-
- IP - 74.102.154.231[46]
- ISP - Rogers Cable Communications Inc.
- Location - Canada [City: Toronto, Ontario][47][48]
- User:Sinhala freedom has been editing with an apperant anti-LTTE bias, [49][50][51][52][53][54] and even accusing to the Norwegian Minister of International Development.[55] However he accidentally made an edit without logging in, therby revealing his actual IP address.[56] Once he realized that he was not logged in he directly went and blanked the IP talk page.[57] As a matter of fact, this IP was previously used (as little as 6 days before) to make blatently pro-LTTE edits.[58], pretty much proving the meatpuppet suspicions.
- In order to evade WP:3RR on the LTTE article, he made sure he didn't revert the same content more than 3 times.[59][60][61] After he reached to the reversion limit of 3, he started to leave a{{totally-disputed}} tag on top of the article.[62][63][64] When he reached to the maximum reversion limit of 3 on the tag, User:Watchdogb came to the support of User:Sinhala freedom and added the tag himself.[65] When a dispute existed User:Sinhala Freedom directly added a Wikipedia:Request for page protection[66] while other newbies were leaving their talk page messages without even signing in. Not only he was evading, this user was also commenting 17 times when User:Snowolfd4 was reported by User:Watchdogb[67] and reporting to the behavior of editors to the WP:ANI.[68]
- User:Sinhala Freedom has been commenting in Wikipedia:Peer review/Parâkramabâhu I,[69] where User:Snowolfd4 and I were working on a peer review, User:Sinhala Freedom kept a negative comment which I categorize as stalking. After we revert his edits as trolling he repeatedly adding the same comment which was gone into an editwar. On July 24, 2007 User:Snowolfd4 removed the comment made by User:Sinhala Freedom saying Trolling.[70] One minute later User:Taprobanus reverted that[71] and after one hour it was reverted by me.[72] After that User:Sinhala Freedom joined to the revert war and he/she made 4 reversions by violating WP:3RR.[73][74][75][76] 15 minutes after he made the 4th revert he reverted his own last revert to get away from the WP:3RR violation.[77]
- User:Sinhala freedom also followed me and User:Snowolfd4 on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karnataka and made a comment. Even before we two made our decisions there another two Sri Lanka centric wikipedians (User:Iwazaki and User:Netmonger) have been there. But clearlying further more my suspicions of stalking my edits, User:Sinhala freedom made his decision after we two vote there.[78]
- On July 25, 2007 User:Ulflarsen kept a message on Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam saying [..]Regarding user Sinhala Freedom; I have received an email that states that the said user is writing under a fake position to undermine the arguments of sinhala editiors active on this article, that is admin Blinguyen, snowolfd4, lahiru_k and Iwazaki. I have warned the user that we have rules against such, telling the user to stop using the account and I have also reported it to admin Circeus.[..][79]
- On July 26, 2007 User:Ulflarsen posted the e mail which sent by the User:Sinhala freedom to him.
- It contains [..]Sorry for the recent criticizing of Norway effort on the LTTE page. I am not who I claim to be and this is intended to break and demoralize sinhala nationalists who have ransacked many SL and tamil related pages. I want you to keep this a complete secret and not reflect this in any of your comments to me or any other page. I hope your intervene in helping to force that neutrality disputed tag. This whole account is a cover to try to get the neutrality disputed tag on that page and the master plan obviously is to launch RFCs on snowolfd4 and lahiru_k. We have evidence to believe these guys are sharing accounts and using sockpuppets.[..][80]
- Comments
- LOL very pathetic. Richmondhill is atleast a 30 minutes drive from where I live (Toronto (North York)). I do not know how I can be at two places at the same time. Watchdogb 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence I am NOT Sinhala freedom
MY Contrib : 22:45, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/3RR (New report on 3rr violation)
MY Contibs: 22:46, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:watchdogb (result))
Sinhala Freedom's contrib: 22:46, 24 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (→Regarding the proposed section about external support)
Seems like I can be at 2 different places at same time. Or mabe I can travel closer to the speed of sound and get from one spot to another (more than 10-15 km away) and contribute less than a minut later. Watchdogb 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Watchdog's evidence does indeeed check out, in addition to the fact that Sinhala made another edit the same minute. I don't think there's any way he could switch accounts that fast. -Amarkov moo! 22:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, most of this report is irrelevant to Watchdog; the only connection actuall made is that he supported Sinhala once on one article. I'm really not even seeing plausible sockpuppetry here. -Amarkov moo! 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care whether he is lives in Richmondhill or Toronto, North York or what so ever since todays technology have been developed and anyone can do multiple edits within one minute using multiple accounts. confused? Those are called anonymous proxy servers and remote accessing. And this is what happens when bad hands learn to use them, as I suspects.
- Connections between those two users doesn't make any sense since case about trolling, stalking and disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate their pathetic points. By reading Ulflarsen's message on his talkpage can get a full understanding about this incident. I know that in here Wikipedia we don't take any emails as evidence, but I know Ulf have no any reason for lying or protect someone else. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can I use anonymous proxy and still be detected by DSN ? Also how can anaonymous proxy let me have connections to a whole different city's IP ? Further, there is no way that anonymous proxy can be used from the same place and have another IP. This is impossible. Your type of accusation is very laughable because this way we can accuse every single wikipedia user of using sockpuppet. Watchdogb 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What Lahiru_k doesn't mention is that UlfLarsen confirms that he doesn't know who sent the email message "User Sinhala Freedom is right in that I do not know who sent it, however I think its approriate to mention it" [81]. It also evident there is no motive for me to ask for support from UlfLarsen (who is evidently not an administrator) which he posted after, when the page was already protected and already had a content dispute tag by 05:20 25 July 2007. As I had mentioned earlier on the LTTE talk page, I believe the email was a hoax, since someone posted that UlfLarsen and admin FayssalIf had already wanted the content dispute tag on the page (this was posted on July 24th). Sinhala freedom 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- As for 3RR violations, I had got a warning from Nick on my talk page [82] during the dispute on the LTTE page not to revert more than 3 times within a 24h time period (this was after my 3rd revert of [83]), which is what I followed. Sinhala freedom 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- My comments regarding the Parâkramabâhu I article were well intentioned. That king after all is Sri Lanka's greatest and I felt the article could be much improved to reflect the greatness of this individual and therefore I made suggestions as to how to improve the article. Another user, Taprobanus also supported my comment on that page Wikipedia:Peer review/Parâkramabâhu I. I am deeply saddened that the accuser wrongly interprets the comments as stalking [84]. Sinhala freedom 01:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karnataka I thought was well deserved. The article was superbly written and inspiration for everyone else on wikipedia. I don't how I could be stalking anyone there. I didn't argue with anyone. The accuser and myself both supported Feature Article status for the article ? How is that stalking ?? Sinhala freedom 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be possible that they are sockpuppets, although it would take enough work to do what's necessary that I highly doubt it. (You are right that locations mean nothing, of course.) But you've only shown one connection between the two. That's not enough to base a sockpuppetry accusation off of, sorry. -Amarkov moo! 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Almost no connection has been demonstrated between the two accounts. The complaints of trolling, harassment, etc. by Sinhala freedom may be valid, but there's not enough evidence to conclude that he is abusing sockpuppets. -Amarkov moo! 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
IguanarayD: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 89.123.58.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Resolves to "RIPE" in Amsterdam - 82.181.184.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Resolves to "RIPE" in Amsterdam - 86.156.31.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Resolves to "RIPE" in Amsterdam - 89.122.192.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Resolves to "RIPE" in Amsterdam - 71.179.20.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Resolves to "Verizon" in Virgina, USA. Possibly proxy, or meat puppet.
- Report submission by
- Evidence
As noted above, the first four IPs are from the same ISP, in the same geographic area. The fifth is from a different part of the planet, but shows signs of puppetry, be it proxy or meat.
IguanarayD: first uploads an image intended to attack the creator of Ctrl+Alt+Del by sarcastically implying that he has no creativity, due to the similarity of their facial expressions in the selected frames. He adds it to the article, making another sarcastic note about the facial expressions. I remove it as a violation of WP:NPOV (based on the comments about the art being amazing, before I realized it was a thinly veiled insult), and it is added again by Sockpuppet#1 here, in a different part of the article. I remove it as an attack, having realized that, and tag the image.
Sock#2 adds a giant BLP violation in accusing the creator of the comic to be homosexual. A "rumours" section is added again by Sockpuppet#1, again violating BLP by accusing him of lewd acts with a minor. Sock#5 (Who seems to attend the same high school as Chultu and Rice Krispies...) agrees, and reinforces the "truth" of it.
Iguanaray has shown their tendancy to edit via IPs, by making this comment on Sock#4 and then immediately logging in to sign it. In addition, the only other edit on their user page is from Sock#1.
Sock#3 vandalizes my user page, again attacking web comic art (for those who do not know, Tycho and Gabe are the main characters in the Penny Arcade webcomic strip) in the same manor that the sockpuppeteer and sock#1 have. Again, it also resolves to the same ISP, in the same location.
- Comments
Starting loads of proxy accounts for the sole purpose of making a few mock edits on CAD's page is just silly. I only posted a thread about my initial edit on a forum that might or might not be associated with Ebaumsworld.com, so I assume other, equally bored people thought adding more fake edits would be funny. It sounds a bit more rational if you ask me. - User:IguanarayD:
- More rational to think that five people in the same area with the same ISP on the same topic on the same day with the same view points, than that a single puppeteer would use multiple IPs to vandalize? I'd like to hear the logic in that --Lie! 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I logged off and on a few times during my edits, but all I did was the CAD face pic and the rumor edit about Buckley showing his genitals to a young girl (which, while admittedly not worthy of Wikipedia, is a valid rumor considering Tim deletes *EVERY THREAD ABOUT IT* that pops up on his forum and bans the OP instead of giving a rational response proving it wrong). The other Tim edits and the Penny Arcade stuff on your page had nothing to do with me, aside from the Ebaums related forum thread I mentioned earlier. A lot of people harbor a dislike for Tim's work and, as it turns out, are bored enough to attack a Wikipedia article about it at the same time.
- They also like to blow up yellow vans, according to reliable news sources. - User:IguanarayD:
For what it is worth, these IP-addresses are not all in the same geographic area. They are certainly not assigned to RIPE NCC. Two of the addresses are assigned to a LIR in Romania, one is in Finland and one in the UK. I recomend using a whois tool which is able to resolve assignments that are not done by ARIN. Havardk 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- This activity is all stale, so I don't think there's much point in investigating. Any further disruption from User:IguanarayD: should be greeted with a substantial block. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Toddy Ball 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Kerry Perry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.29.251.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Short pat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yancyfry 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
These 3 accounts have been having an arugment about the Iraq War on Talk:Iraq War and Talk:Chili pepper. The accounts have responded to each other with a two-word insult.
Short pat has been a recent addition to the sockpuppets.
- Comments
The first three accounts are single-purpose accounts focused on the Iraq War, so they appear to be sock puppets. It's harder to tell about Short pat. Shalom Hello 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Short pat didn't have a hard time finding Kerry Perry and Toddy Ball's pages. But Short pat is making some constructive edits. -Yancyfry 05:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching through other reports, and found another page with same socks. I added these socks to that report. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.29.240.115.
- Conclusions
All the accounts listed here have received blocks of various lengths, let's see if this solves the issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
CenturyRain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Payapichit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cool Bluetalk to me 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
One piece of strong evidence is reviewing the contributions of Payapichit and those of CenturyRain. Payapichit repeatedly adds the photo Image:Srirasmi.JPG to the page Srirasmi, in which CenturyRain has made revisions to. They both also have made revisions to Srirasmi and Ploypailin Mahidol Jensen. CenturyRain has also loaded Image:Ploy Jensen.JPG in which CenturyRain added the picture, but Payapichit re-added it when it was removed. Payapichit and CenturyRain have both been adding information to pages about Thai royalty. Both accounts were created within] a few days of eachother. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Both CenturyRain and Payapachit appear to be the same user as MKPluto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FlamingSpear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Compare these edit summaries:
Proabivouac 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:FlamingSpear:
- "Prem Tinsulanonda being received by villagers at an official function in the south. I took this photograph myself and then resized it."[89]
- "I am a professional photographer. I took this photograph on a trip to the North. I believe in releasing as many of my photographs as possible in the public domain.""[90]
Per Luna Santin, both FlamingSpear and MKPluto claim to have taken Image:Prem.JPG.[91][92] Proabivouac 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I think CenturyRain and MKPluto are the same since they uploaded the same photo Image:Srirasmi.JPG and claimed the ownership. CenturyRain uploaded on 13 July 2007, then it was deleted. MKPluto uploaded again on 26 July 2007; already mentioned above. You might be able to find more info at Admin noticeboard --Manop - TH 06:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also history of Image:Premsboys.JPG. Pascal.Tesson 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 05:05, 28 July 2007 MKPluto (Talk | contribs) (393 bytes) ({{hangon}})
- 05:08, 28 July 2007 FlamingSpear (Talk | contribs) (263 bytes) (←Created page with '==This photograph is public domain== I am a professional photographer. I took this photograph on a trip to the North. I believe in releasing as many of my photogr...')
- Comments
- I'm thinking the owner of those sockpuppets are still active in Wikipedia. Every sockpuppets help Wikipedia by adding {{unreferenced}} and so forth to many articles. See those from CenturyRain, from FramingSpear, and from MKPluto. I'm kind of surprised at first to see those sock know those templates including {{cn}} --Manop - TH 05:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
It's likely that CenturyRain and Payapichit are sockpuppets of MKPluto/Flaming Spear. There's a Checkuser case on this that's been pending forever, I guess it never got listed. Anyway, all of these accounts are serial violators of image policy, presenting copyrighted work as their own, and then supposedly releasing it into the public domain. I can't see the images they uploaded, but some of their uploads have been considered vandalism. I'm going to indef block all of the accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Jj1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
216.141.201.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.140.166.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.140.163.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.126.177.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Banazir 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Suspected puppetmaster has been given repeated warnings for blanking the Controversy section of iTalkBB, the only page that Jj1010 and the above suspected meatpuppets have ever edited, and the only section and edit action that they have committed. Warnings for Jj1010 culminated in a brief (31-hour) temporary block on 20 May 2007.
None of these users has ever responded to requests to desist from blanking, nor edited the talk page to provide any sort of justification. At least three editors (Banazir, AndroidMouse, and Chetblong) have rolled back the page a total of about 20 times to date, to undo the section blanking. Since January, 2007, the Controversy section has contained negative allegations - one of them with a cited reference - of bad business practices by the company described in the article.
The discussion page for iTalkBB contains a calendar of section blankings, showing that the suspected meatpuppets are carrying out blankings in alternation that are cumulatively frequent. It is evident from this alternation that the meatpuppets are working in tandem to avert frequent vandalism blocks. In a recent case, one of the suspects, 216.141.201.178, committed two blankings in a three-day period, four in a one-month period, and six total within about three and a half months, but did not incur a block due to the individual frequency of vandalism being too low.
Circumstantial diff link evidence is provided in the section below.
- Diff links
For Jj1010
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=131037479&oldid=128639074
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=125944267&oldid=125943713
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=119761028&oldid=119226718
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=118527792&oldid=118494064
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=109835972&oldid=108293231
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=105005184&oldid=104980260
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=104866372&oldid=104866031
For 216.141.201.178
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=147246406&oldid=146860933
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=146810550&oldid=145446660
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=140599773&oldid=136894117
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=136894050&oldid=133397741
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=122502626&oldid=121885200
- Comments
All of the suspected meatpuppets are anonymous, and their IPs differ significantly, but the timing is suspiciously regular, and the blanking edit is identical in almost every case. I submit that the rotation is deliberately intended to subvert Wikipedia anti-vandalism policies by "slipping under the radar".
None of the suspected meatpuppets have ever even written an edit summary, but the puppeteer, Jj1010, once tagged a blanking edit as "delete unverifiable content". (Considering that the content in question is cited with a verifiable source, this rationale is invalid.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735
The frequency of vandalism is not high by absolute measures, but blanking and restoration constitutes almost all of the edits to this page at present, creating an extreme nuisance for its maintainers.
In one of the only cases where Jj1010 made any edits in addition to blanking the Controversy section, he or she demonstrated what I believe to be a vested interest in the company, adopting a defensive POV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=prev&oldid=104866372
I have collected the above evidence in the hopes that the apparent collusion among the users who are blanking this one page will be identified and discouraged.
- Conclusions
- It's quite possible that this is an instance of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but since these are dynamic IPs blocks would be pointless. I'm afraid that this problem has to be addressed through standard vandal-fighting means, i.e. reversion. If the vandalism is frequent enough page protection may be an option. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- MadeinFinland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Bob Lee Swagger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Jddphd 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Previous contribs suggest similar pattern
- Comments
- Conclusions
User:Daniel Case has already blocked Bob Lee Swagger indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MadeinFinland. Based on the obsessive editing to Romani people by both accounts, I endorse the block. Shalom Hello 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Sounds like we're done here. MastCell Talk 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Anatolmethanol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Will (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Comments
Self admission. Will (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Clear and self-admitted sock of a banned user, blocked indefinitely, Fadix's one-year ban has been reset. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
216.163.40.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Temp cleanup3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
77.232.80.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kekeke9181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Additional suspected sockpuppets
- 64.22.116.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 64.85.160.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 64.250.228.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 65.254.224.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 74.50.9.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 74.86.11.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 74.86.69.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 198.145.112.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 204.15.130.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 205.234.195.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 206.55.71.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 209.85.29.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Blackup anon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Kaka9211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Nlhonioe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 74.222.0.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 207.210.230.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Chunky Rice 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User Temp cleanup3 is an SPA which was created with the sole purpose of listing the article GameTZ.com for deletion[96]. 216.163.40.100, other than one edit, has existed solely for the purpose of advocating this deletion. At the AFD, 216.164.40.100 made unfounded accusations of incivility towards those who argue for keeping the article, including Seicer and myself, Chunky Rice [97][98].
Subsequently, Kekeke9181 is created and places civility warnings on my user page[99] and Seicer's talk page[100]. 216.164.40.100 adds the same template to Nihonjoe's talk page [101]. In all cases, the template was placed at the very top of the page. Kekeke9181, then uploads an obscene image, which 77.232.80.10 then places on Seicer's user page [102].
- Comments
I'm fairly certain that there is a puppetmaster that I'm not aware of, since these are all single purpose accounts. I suspect that the same puppet master is responsible for the previous AfDs of GameTZ.com, as well, since they are littered with SPAs.
- Note by Nihonjoe: Please also see the edits here, here, here, here, here, and here. These were made by 216.163.40.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (listed above), as well as the following:
- 206.55.71.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 209.85.29.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 204.15.130.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 74.86.69.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 198.145.112.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 64.250.228.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
These may also be connected ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably, I advertised the discussion to a few contributors I know. I did not encourage them to advocate the article's deletion, but to simply contribute their thoughts toward it. The discussion wasn't recieving much attention outside of a close circle of contributors whom are all apparently associated with one another in some fashion. I didn't feel that reaching an honest consensus among them would be possible without bringing in more opinions. Unfortunately, I believe the contributors I called in aren't very serious about using Wikipedia, and have instead caused further problems mentioned above. I sincerely apologize for any annoyance this has caused, and understand that it only further complicates the discussion. I doubt they will be bothering anyone again, though they do have active Wikipedia accounts. Whether or not they made these contributions from their real addresses is another story. 216.163.40.100 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that my range is dynamic. Other contributors may access it off and on during the day. I am not necessarily responsible for their edits. 216.163.40.100 22:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note from Nihonjoe: Looks like things aren't changing much as my userpage was just vandalized by 69.10.36.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not for sure where this is coming from, but I received an edit by 74.86.69.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has also made a similar edit to some of the socks above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All ranges involved are SPA. AfD nominations 2, 3 and 4 are bogus.
I guess I just wanted some kind of human contact, even if it has to be like this. I won't bother you anymore. 216.163.40.100 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- :If you want human contact, this isn't the way to get it. Go to a library, a party, a restaurant, a bar, or some other place with people. If you want to actually help with the encyclopedia, please do so. I strongly encourage that. But wasting people's time by making bogus nominations and either vandalizing pages yourself or getting others to do it is not productive or conducive to producing a good encyclopedia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The admission that his AFD was bogus (since this is the 4th attempt) would nuff the AFD? If he had been involved with the prior bad-faith AFD nominations of the article, then the user's latest attempt and all future attempts should be nulled and rendered keep through consensus and through admission of vandalism. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The situation is taken care of. All ranges involved in recent conflicts are proxies. This is evident by their contribution history prior to these events. You may want to take the liberty of blocking them. In fact, [here] is the entire list. At least 80% are already blocked. 216.163.40.100 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just had some vandalism to my talk page from this guy, from 2 different IP's listed above. Luckily, it was reverted by some kind souls before I even saw it, but this guy still has not quit, apparently. Also, there was bragging about it (already undone) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com 4th nom Dstumme 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional accounts:
- 205.234.195.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Kaka9211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 206.55.71.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 65.254.224.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 74.86.11.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- It's possible there may be more by the time this discussion is closed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I suspected:
- Nlhonioe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 74.50.9.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- I've added all of the socks to the top of this page to make it easier to see them all. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Well, the AfD is long closed, and the behavior outlined in this report seems to have ceased. Since this activity was largely coming from IP accounts, semi-protection would have been a good way to limit the disruption in the AfD. It might be worth checking to see if the IPs are open proxies, if that hasn't been done already. But I don't see that any action needs to be taken at the moment. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
RealityTelevisionFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EndlessDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ThuranX 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
RealityTelevisionFan has recreated categories formerly generated by Creepy Crawler, creating categories of the nature "Actors by superhero movie franchise",[104], [105], [106], [107]. EndlessDesign follows behind removing other, similar categories, then alphabetizing the list [108], or instead, simply continuing the process of adding the categories [109].
Further, Creepy Crawler [110] and RTF [111] both maintain user pages full of movie charts. Both have also used their user pages for dreamcasting Spiderman:CC [112], and RTV [113].
Doczilla linked me to his lengthy Previous analysis of EJBanks/CreepyCrawler Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/EJBanks. He compiled extensive evidence there.ThuranX 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Further, I am not the only user to notice this. User:Doczilla also commented User_talk:RealityTelevisionFan#Civil_socks here on the similarities.
- They have some interspersed edits on July 21 around 19:17 UTC. Unless he logged out of RTF, logged into Endless Design, made an edit, logged back out, and logged into RTF again, all within a minute, it seems unlikely that both are sockpuppets. -Amarkov moo! 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Likely – having reviewed the contributions of all three accounts, in particular the collective tendency to add superhero-related categories; the additional collective similarity for all accounts to utilise their userpages for extremely similar purposes; and the generally otherwise similar editing habits of all the accounts, it is clear to me that all three accounts are one in the same, and as such both secondary accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Anthøny 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.26.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.125.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Comments Removed link to Wikipedia article that was asked to be placed on by the talk page [114] of St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 . Deletion of sourced material [115]. Using the same IP range as he did before. Most likely in avoidance of WP:3rr. UnclePaco (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.40.192.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.15.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.107.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.98.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.253.39.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.25.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.25.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.125.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.253.55.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.115.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.151.137.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by Suchagoodguy 04
- 19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
Utilizing multiple IP address to circumvent edit wars and 3rr blocks. Has been blocked previous to this for 3rr violations. [116] Has engaged in personal attacks against various users and has same editing patterns.
- Comments
Is it just a bit weird that the person making the report is a new account whose 10th edit was to insert a series of fact tags and whose 14th edit was to create a SSP case? There's fast learning, but that's a bit odd... Dibo T | C 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the editors that deal with this case might also have an interest in examining the relationship between User:Suchagoodguy and User:64.131.205.111 User:Bombaplena112User:199.219.144.52 User:BoriquaStar and the rest of the users listed in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111, cause i'm a 100% sure that there is a relation between them judging from their contributions especially those concerning latinos and the caribbean. I'm just saying isn't the fact that the first thread in User talk:64.131.205.111 is about St. John's University, odd enought? wich is the exact same page that TiconderogaCCB has been edit warring about, i mean it would not be unussual considering the ip adress has already been confirmed as a sockpuppeter.-24.138.194.220 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Goes to show it's probably a bad idea to come to the sockpuppet board if you're a sock yourself, SuchAGoodGuy is indeed YoSoyGuapo, and is blocked indef as such. However, regardless of the merits of the reporter, it's pretty clear that TiconderogaCCB was behind the use of the IPs to aggressively revert war at St. John's University, and has been blocked for a week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/87.167.242.147