Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/September 2007
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EBot II (talk | contribs) at 11:20, 21 September 2007 (Archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- 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
Sarvagnya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mbrdnbry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gnanapiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Wiki Raja 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- As of Sep. 6, 2007 Sarvagnya has removed our WikiProject template from over 30 talk pages here while Gnanapiti removed our templates from 14 talk pages here. Strange enough, another user called Mbrdnbry continued removing our templates from over 70 talk pages here back to back. Also, this username was recently created as of Sep 7, 2007. Wiki Raja 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Both users Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti have engaged in edit wars and numerous reverts in which when one user does three reverts, the other username will take over. ex: here. Wiki Raja 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Total BS. I dont need a sock to clean up your hoax. I can, will and have done it with my own account. Also, what is the point of this rfcu? did I or Gnanapiti help mdnbry(or whatever) evade 3rr or anything? I request that admins throw this nonsense out. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarvagnya, please show some civility. Thanks. Wiki Raja 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah right. We used our own accounts to remove template from 40 odd pages but had to create a sock account to do the same thing from 70 other pages. LOL :D Gnanapiti 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Mbrdnbry may well be a sock, but there's no evidence to tie him to the other users named here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 14 September 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
Daniel Morales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
72.40.136.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Daniel Morales is verging on a vandalism only account. The violation of policy is attempted vote fraud. On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barneca, the IP featured above attempted to vote against Barneca. Just under two hours later, Morales also voted against him in a similar fashion. Not to mention he also cited the IP. It should also be noted that the two both edited (one edit was vandalism) Winter Park High School. [1] [2]
- Comments
Yeah, almost certainly, the use of unsigned comments with section headers in the RFA is a dead give-away.[3] [4] combined with the similar interest in an article and a single RFA. The prior edits are not productive I'll block indef.--Chaser - T 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- With the named account blocked, it doesn't seem necessary to do anything to the IP. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:58, 16 September 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
Deedstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Henry Marple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yksin 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Henry Marple (talk · contribs) is a new user with one edit, to ESADE, the same article which puppetmaster was shown to have interest in in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar already. Henry Marple's edit added identical text to that added by confirmed sock ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs) yesterday, by sock As Tidies She (talk · contribs) before that, and by Deedstar before that.
Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs) is a new user with four edits as of this writing, all of them to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreadstar, the user it was shown in the prior case that Deedstar had a particular grudge against. Deedstar made an oppose vote to this candidacy yesterday; suspicion about Deedstar's allegations led directly to the original charges of him/her being a puppetmaster last night. Gareth 1985's oppose vote specifically mentions the prior vote & activities of Deedstar with a tone of mock disapproval (other edits were to change wording & to replace automatic bot signing with his/her own signature). Gareth 1985's first edit was also similar to Deedstar's votes yesterday in being placed in the wrong place in the RfA, so that another editor had to move it. (Deedstar actually placed it wrongly twice [5] [6], with other users moving it each time to the correct place.)
It looks from here as if this user has gone from being a single purpose to a dual purpose sock, with one purpose being to continue to focus on ESADE, & the other to harass Dreadstar, or at least to disrupt Dreadstar's RfA -- as I predicted in the previous sock case would probably happen. --Yksin 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Yup; both indef-blocked as socks. MastCell Talk 17:35, 14 September 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.
User:Deedstar (3rd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Deedstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
This is Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yksin 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar (2nd)
Another new account, this time identifying him/herself as being the same as Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs) who earlier today got an indef block as a sock of Deedstar (talk · contribs). By extension, then, this new user is also a sock of Deedstar. I am Gareth 1985's one edit is again to Dreadstar's RfA; this user removed the strikeout of Gareth 1985's vote that blocking admin Pascal.Tesson earlier placed. I am Gareth 1985 also states "I resent the false inference that I have anything to do with Deedstar - evidently I am unfortunate in sharing the same Internet provider but since the Spanish market is virtually a Telefonica monopoly, there is little I can do about it." Interestingly, no one had said anything about the internet provider used by any of these socks, or made any assertion about where Deedstar or Gareth 1985 were located. But perhaps a check is in order? --Yksin 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
The RfA that Deedstar & associated socks was attempting to disrupt closed yesterday (17 Sep 2007). Activity on the one other item Deedstar & co. are interested in, ESADE, has been slow, perhaps because it was semi-protected until Oct. 5 as a sock target. So, we may not be hearing from this sock group again until then. --Yksin 21:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Nothing more to do here for now.--Chaser - T 21:26, 18 September 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
- Plautus satire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- SteakNotShake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ornis (t) 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They both appear to use the same photo. [7]
Their talk page comments are of exactly the same nature. [8],[9],[10]
Their edits to Black hole are over exactly the same issue, and pushing exactly the same POV. [11], [12]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Both accounts are indef blocked from editing. Navou banter 20:30, 16 September 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
- Real77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 66.65.119.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
IP has edited the comments of Real77 in an attempt to improve grammar[13][14][15] IP Is now using IP address to avoid ban that Real77 has (style of writing is the same)[16]
- Comments
Note: Unable to edit User talk:Real77 as the page is protected due to continued abuse of it by Real77.
- Conclusions
IP and user are both indef. blocked. M.(er) 05:49, 18 September 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
Archifile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Tallum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ExtraDry 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This diff [17] shows Tallum forgetting to log out of his account and into the puppetmaster account by commeting as the puppetmaster he then attempets to hide it by removing his comment and then not edditing from the 5th to 17th of September. His edit on the 17th of September was to reinsert a non notable person that the puppetmaster added that had been reverted.
- Comments
The article & related articles that they both edit is a school in australia and the school has had a proven history of using sockpuppets to add what ever infomation they can notable or not.
- Conclusions
Clear case of sockpuppetry. Indefinitely blocked the sock account. 72 hour block for the sockmaster. Vassyana 06:45, 18 September 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
144.134.81.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Durryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Aflumpire 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Has recently made an account of vandalism on an article. Then minitues later, Durryman has done the same thing. Not on the same page, on another random article but both cases of vandalism had the following. 'èÀŢ ṢĤîŤ Ň ḌǐĚŅŞŴ èÀŢ ṢĤîŤ Ň ḌǐĚŅŞŴ' and kept going on with that. I do suspect a sock puppet as the IP was on last warning then Durryman did the same.
- Comments
I have a 95% belief that IP user 144.134.81.186 is Durryman
- Conclusions
Durryman blocked indef, IP blocked yesterday; no further action required.--Chaser - T 05:40, 20 September 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
Burgz33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
HuStL MO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Quartet 20:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Please refer to edit history of puppetmaster [18] and suspected sock puppet [19], which excluding edits to the Jordin Tootoo page (though HuStL MO still adds Tootoo to another page), show nearly all the same pages being edited.
User has also admitted to being Burgz33 on my talk page.[20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartet (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Burgz33 (talk · contribs) was blocked [21] in April for extended personal attacks and incivility towards myself and other editors and administrators, after multiple warnings and a first block. Recently, HuStL MO (talk · contribs) appeared on a page on my watchlist and it became evident to me after a quick look that in my opinion, this user is the same individual. Currently Wikipedia's blocking policy states that an administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked. Burgz33 continues to evade the original 6 month block through the use of additional accounts and IP addresses, with HuStL MO being the latest alias.
- Conclusions
Pretty obvious case what with the incivility and similar article interests, including hockey, St. Louis, La Coka Nostra, etc. Plus the virtual admission on the talk page. Sock blocked indef. Puppetmaster's six-month block reset, starting today.--Chaser - T 09:18, 19 September 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
MatthewPerpetua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mondeo Popsicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Dweller 09:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Apparently clumsy vote-stacking at AfD ([22])
- Having seen him make a similar mistake at my talk page, I think he might just be cut and pasting other's comments for format and then typing over most of them. On this basis, I'd like this request Speedy closed, please. --Dweller 10:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
False alarm.--Chaser - T 05:29, 20 September 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
Shashwat_pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Shashwat_pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rushmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Renee 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
"New" user:Rushmi appears to be a sockpuppet of Shashwat pandey. Shashwat pandey was involved in many edit wars over the Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission pages. User:Shashwat pandey vanished after thisRFC/user was filed on him.
Several weeks later user:Rushmi appeared and presented himself as not knowing anything about Wiki. He asked to be adopted after he performed several functions that indicated a strong familiarity with Wiki. Since that time, he has used a variety of templates (e.g., two RFCs, sockpuppet), archived his page, left notices on various boards (how would new users know about these boards), and engaged in advanced forms of editing including links, font changes, and reference templates.
Here is some specific evidence.
- His very first edit was to request that the Sahaj Marg protected page template be removed[23]. How does a new user know even to do this? Wouldn't they go to a talk page first and ask what's up?
- Then, he edited an article and provided a link to a source [24] (making links usually takes new users a while to figure out).
- Then, he undid an archive[25] (how does a new user know enough to do an "undo"?).
- For these first several edits he used edit summaries, which normally new users do not use until someone points them out to them.
- After all of this (check the dates and times), he then presented himself as not knowing how to use Wiki and asked others what to do [26].
- He even went so far as to request "adoption" and then only half-heartedly engaged in "practice," yet went on to simultaneously make very advanced edits. This is a serious abuse of good faith for the editor who agreed to adopt Rushmi.
- When myself and user: Bksimonb gave advice, he at first acted very nice (in line with his super sweet emails to other editors), and then deleted our posts[27] and gave a parting salvo to me[28] more consistent with his angry Shashwat pandey personality than his innocent and sweet Rushmi identity.
- As a supposedly "new" user, Rushmi has an inexplicable anger towards me beginning with his earliest posts. The simplest explanation for this anger is that he is user Shashwat pandey and his true personality is emerging. Specifically, back in his early days he posted this on another user's page[29] saying he "noticed" that I had done two RFCs (mind you, he would have to know how to search "contribs" and go back hundreds and hundreds of posts to find these).
- Turning his attacks personal, he filed a vandalism warning against me,turned down flat
- Then he filed an ANI report here,
- Then he sanitized his archive so none of this was reflected on it, [30]
- Then, today, he filed a sockpuppet accusation [31].
- User:Rushmi's language, spelling, and "stream of consciousness" writing style are all identical to User:Shashwat pandey's writings. For example, see the identical spelling of appritiated/appritiate -- by Rushmi here and by Shashwat here. I can think of no one else in the world who spells "appreciate" in this manner.
- Finally, user:Rushmi is engaging in the same type of extreme negative POV talk as user:Shashwat pandey did (again, see Shashwat's RFC/user for diffs).
- Here he changes a category tag on the Sahaj Marg page (again, how would a new user know to do that), which his adopter points out could be seen as vandalism.
- Just yesterday, he posted an RFC and question on the "reliable sources noticeboard, asking intentionally misleading questions that have already been answered by admin Jossi. Specifically, he posted this and this, which falsely present the issue. The real questions are:
- can a newspaper article found defamatory by a trial court be used as a Wiki source?
- can a court judgment that has nothing to do with the article topic, and pertains to a procedural/jurisdictional issue, a good source.
- Admin Jossi already responded to Rushmi's question here.
Besides the intentional misleading of other editors, how would a supposed new user know (a) where to go to post all of these things, (b) know how to use the code to post all of these things, (c) be bold enough to ignore all of the opinions on the talk page (usually new users are a little tentative), and (d) have such facility and knowledge of templates, categories, and other meta-message things?
I have reason to believe other users believe Rushmi is the sock of Shashwat, see the edit tag to this recent reply to Rushmi. (User:Sethie had much experience with Shashwat on the Sahaj Marg page so is in a good place to make a judgement about this user.)
- Comments
Both of these users should be permanently banned per Wiki policy. Sanctions should be taken against new User:Rushmi for harassment, abuse of good faith of his adopter ("pretending" to be a new user), and tendentious posting of original research. 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeholle (talk • contribs)
It's 99% certain Rushmi is not new to wikipedia, Renee has detailed well how that is just not the case, yet he pretended to be.
His syntax, spelling, odd moments of excitement ("Let's see what other neutral parties think!") and even quirky use of words are identical.
Like Shashwat, Rushumi has somewhat of a wiki vocabulary, yet he consistently uses the words differently from other wiki users- as if they have learned the words from watching others, use them, but don't quite understand what they mean. Sethie 01:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
This is solid evidence that the two editors are the same person. Evidently, Shashwat moved to the Rushmi account to avoid scrutiny from the User RFC. Checkuser data may be stale by now, but I don't think it's necessary. I've blocked the Shashwat account indefinitely and Rushmi for 48 hours.--Chaser - T 07:19, 20 September 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
Daruhl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
170.148.33.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Daruhl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized Nickname ([32],[33]). Shortly after it was reverted, 170.148.33.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) undid the vandalism reversion.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Probably correct, but it's not technically a 3RR violation (only 2RR), and it appears to be a first offense. I'll warn the user not to do it again, and we'll leave it at that. Shalom Hello 00:33, 21 September 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
Deedstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
83.41.21.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nelorippalenga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
As Tidies She (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yksin 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Single-purpose sockpuppet focusing on the article ESADE, apparently using socks to evade blocks. First edits were as an anon IP 83.41.21.10 (talk · contribs), with this last edit. After reversion by Dreadstar (talk · contribs), the suspected sock created Nelorippalenga (talk · contribs), & restored the revert, & then again, a third time, a fourth time.
Given a 3RR warning by Dreadstar, Nelorippalenga then apparently created new account Deedstar (talk · contribs) in apparent parody of Dreadstar's username, & commenced readding the same problematic edits, the first time even parodying Dreadstar's edit summaries. Here's another reversion. After that was reverted again, Deedstar switched tactics and added different material. As it came from a self-published source, Dreadstar removed it; but Deedstar reverted all except the citation itself; then reverted a third time. At this point, Navou (talk · contribs) protected the article. On Nauvou's talk page, Dreadstar explained Deedstar's activities.
Deedstar's next activity was to post an oppose vote on Dreadstar's RfA. Subsequent questions about Deedstar's activities led Jaranda (talk · contribs) to block Deedstar, apparently for the disruptive parodying of Dreadstar's username.
Meanwhile, back at the ESADE article, protection had expired. Following the block of Deedstar, a new user As Tidies She (talk · contribs) reverted to the last version by Deedstar (here's the actual difference between Deedstar's last & As Tidies She's version; nonidentical parts are due to intermediate edits by an uninvolved editor). After that version was reverted by WarthogDemon (talk · contribs), new user ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs) restored it, with a somewhat mocking edit summary apparently aimed at WarthogDemon. I myself reverted, stating in the edit summary my suspicion of single-purpose sockpuppetry.
All involved accounts have edited only on the ESADE article or the account's own talk page, with the exception of Deedstar, 3 of whose 11 edits were to Dreadstar's RfA, in an apparent attempt to quash Dreadstar's candidacy. The first three user accounts also received warnings about policy violations from Dreadstar. Some of these accounts would say "see [article] talk page" in edit summary, but none of these accounts actually said anything at Talk:ESADE.
Given this user's history, it seems likely s/he will continue to create new accounts for the purpose of disruptively editing ESADE, and possibly for continued harassment of Dreadstar.
- Comments
Looks good. All clear socks. The initial edits were disruptive, and where there were sources, they didn't well support many of the contentions (for example, I can't find a source indicating that ESADE spearheaded the forum, though they were involved). The initial disruptive editing strikes me as too little for an indef block of an established editor, but if someone is starting like that, I don't see much problem with a hardblock. I left a note on Jaranda's talk page saying as much. I'm off to try to fix some of the POV problems in this article.--Chaser - T 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Duck test. Navou banter 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing more to do here. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:47, 14 September 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
- Vankalai1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Vankalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Obvious sockpuppet of User:Vankalai who was blocked for repeated spamming yesterday. This account is adding the same spam links to Wiki articles.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Both accounts are already blocked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:51, 13 September 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
- Meaganmurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- PatMurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
—EncMstr 20:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Edits same articles in similar way. I bet the IP address matches.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Obvious block evasion. Meganmurphy is indef blocked, I'll extend PatMurphy's block. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 14 September 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
- Arisemodel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Coastyards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Learntruck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Tiptoety 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Attacking the same editor within 30 seconds of each other, once first account was blocked user went to second (then third) and vandalized (made attacks on) the same page with the same vandalism. User:Learntruck blanked this page, then went and vandalized the same user page.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Coastyards has already been blocked. Learntruck's contribution pattern looks odd for a new user, and his username is similar to Arisemodel and Coastyards, but I don't see enough evidence to tie him to those accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 14 September 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
- JJonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Disconyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 96.224.166.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 96.224.41.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 63.3.22.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Kurt Shaped Box 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See WP:LTA#JJonathan for the full story behind this repeat vandal/hoaxer. User:Disconyc recreated Category:Lyric sopranos and the IPs proceeded to populate it, as well as adding other unsourced vocal range info/false 'new album' stuff/factual errors as per JJonathan's usual pattern.
Just a small selection of the type of edits in question this time: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]
Also note that User:63.3.22.129 has previously been blocked numerous times as a JJonathan IP. This edit was also made at the same time as the current vandalism spree.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Named account is already blocked, the IPs are dynamic and there's little point in blocking them for a lengthy period. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:51, 14 September 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
Mospeada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
206.110.66.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Zedla 20:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
anon account used to vandalize. Blanking of user talk page, user and anon-ip are in same general area (Alameda County, California)
- Comments by Neil916
I can't see any violation of WP:SOCK, even though though it is apparent that these are the same user. Wikipedia does not require a user to log in, and neither account has been blocked, so there is no block evasion. Neil916 (Talk) 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I agree with Neil, there's no evidence of a violation of WP:SOCK here, and therefore no reason to do anything but close this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- 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
Ridwan Haq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Ridwanlikeshorses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
both accounts mainly vandalising User:Michellecrisp
Ridwan Haq: [44]
Ridwanlikeshorses:[45] [46] [47] [48]
- Comments
probable that both accounts are sockpuppets for a user that has a disagreement with Michellecrisp but can't find evidence of which user.
- Conclusions
- Both already blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 14 September 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
- RaulAndHorstCensored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- RAHC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- RAHAGC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Raul654Censored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- RHGJC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- R208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Same user name abbreviations. Similar types of issues committed. Edits concerning the same page El Hormiguero . [49] [50] Vandalized this page. See [51]
- Comments
Report from AIV
- RAHC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account. Block evasion by user:RaulAndHorstCensored, see contribs and name for evidence. . Gscshoyru 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only are new accounts continuing the pattern, but they're becoming increasingly abrasive in their edits, e.g. referring to "ignorant admins" in an edit summary. [52] —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize they can get user name blocks. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the listed accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 14 September 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
Proticalson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Proticalsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yannick 02:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Proticalson vandalized Polar Bears and was warned. A similar user ID, User:Proticalsons then repeated some of the same vandalism on the same page.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Obviously the same user, but there's no reason to do anything. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 14 September 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
- Bucketdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Pailman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk 04:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Same drivel about Chewbacca as several recent vandal edits by User:Pailman
- Bucketdude edits:Skull Metric system Taco Bell Azerbaijan Potato Androgenetic alopecia Pi Pi
- Pailman edits: Pi Asbestos Tire iron Fire extinguisher Root beer MacGyver
- The usernames are plays on one another -- one is a bucket, the other is a pail -- the vandalism by Pail ended at Pi and about the same time the vandalism by Bucket started at the same page. And they are writing about the same thing -- Wookies and Chewbacca. It seems pretty obvious that the bucket account was created to continue vandal edits while avoiding a block on the older Pail account. ► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also be interested to know the rationale behind the delay in acting on this report.► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Please try and provide some evidence (e.g. diffs) of these supposed edits so we can see a more clearer version of what's going on with these two. Sebi [talk] 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bucketdude Diff and Pailman Diff
Same text:
The average Wookie knows pi to one hundred and fifteen places; Chewbacca knows it to five hundred and twelve, because he is very smart.
Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 14:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- With the diff, this is obvious. Bucketdude is indef blocked, Pailman is blocked for 1 hour, and is welcome to make constructive edits if he wishes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:04, 14 September 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
Auno3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
P.W.Lutherson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Similar edits at Miscegenation, especially the need for "balance" by inserting a photo of accused murdered Bobby Cutts, Jr.
- User:Auno3 on June 24 [53], [54], [55]
- User:P.W.Lutherson on September 6 [56]
- User:P.W.Lutherson on September 7 [57]
- User:P.W.Lutherson on September 8 [58], [59], [60]
- Similar edits at Human evolution
- Similar edits at Societal collapse
- User:Auno3 on September 1 [65] (compare with User:P.W.Lutherson at Human Evolution on August 31)
- User:Auno3 on September 5 [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]
- User:P.W.Lutherson on September 6 [71]
- Tag-team editing, especially while User:Auno3 is banned
- On August 29, User:Auno3 commented on fact that User:KillerPlasmodium, an editor with a philosphy similar to his, had been blocked
- User:Auno3 made no edits on August 30 and August 31
- User:P.W.Lutherson was registered and made edits on August 31
- User:Auno3 made edits on September 1 and September 2 and was blocked on September 2
- User:Auno3 made edits on September 5 and was blocked again that day
- User:P.W.Lutherson made edits on September 6, September 7, and September 8
- The only edits made by User:Auno3 after September 5 were at User talk:Auno3
- Comments
I spent 5 minutes looking at this, thinking I'd help out, only to discover that it was already resolved back on the 8th: [72]. Live and learn; next time, I check the block logs first. Anyway, I hesitate to put the {{tl:sspa}} tag on a report that doesn't have any conclusions by an admin on it, but this can be tagged and archived. --barneca (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Already dealt with. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 14 September 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
WOverstreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
161.253.37.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cmprince 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The IP and the account WOverstreet have been editing the University of Florida article with substantially identical content. The accounts have been used to "back-up" each other's edits:
[73] [74] (IP reverting to and supporting edit of WOverstreet)
[75] [76] [77] [78] [79] (WOverstreet reverting to and supporting an edit by the IP)
First suspected when after warning the WOverstreet account for ignoring Manual of Style guidelines, the IP started to make the same edits:
[80] [81] [82] (WOverstreet style edits)
[83] (My warning to WOverstreet about the MoS)
[84] [85] [86] [87] (IP reverts after the warning)
Furthermore, both WOverstreet and the IP have replaced the User talk:WOverstreet page with identical nonsensical text:
- Comments
Full disclosure: I have warned the WOverstreet account for perceived violations of WP guidelines, and have been involved in content disputes with both accounts. Cmprince 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by outside non-admin: Very obvious sock. Edits to same obscure biographical articles, and very similar, very odd disruptive behavior on User talk:Cmprince and User talk:WOverstreet today; seems they're no longer trying to hide anything. I've stuck my nose in and left what I consider a "final warning" on WOverstreet's talk page, about this sockpuppetry, but also personal attacks and impersonating other users. Further misbehavior is, I'm quite confident, going to result in a block. However, an admin may come along and review this and issue a block anyway, for the sockpuppetry. --barneca (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Yes, the IP is clearly the same user. The IP was already blocked for 24 hours by another admin. Given the wide range of misbehavior exhibited by User:WOverstreet, I've blocked the named account for 24 hours as well. If there are ongoing issues with the IP, the block there could be extended. MastCell Talk 23:05, 7 September 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
Cgkimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
CamKimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--JForget 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The account, as well as User:Ckimpson, is a block evasion of User:Cgkimpson who was blocked indefinitely for providing incorrect and false information or modifying correct information into incorrect ones in weather related articles (no National Weather Service or other weather office sources supporting it - often overestimating the Fujita/Enhanced Fujita Scale of a tornado). The initial puppet (Cgkimpson) was blocked but then User:Ckimpson was created and did similar editing to several weather-related articles (in July) and was temporarily blocked indefinitely before being unblocked. However, then came in August User:CamKimpson who've made this edit thus modifying again a sourced element [90] into incorrect info without providing a source for his change. It was reverted later by another editor as vandalism and the user also made what look like test edits in the December 20-21, 2006 Colorado Blizzard article which was reverted also. Of course, the biggest suspicion about the account is the user name that is very similar to the initial puppet and that both users have edited Colorado weather-related articles as well.
- The two accounts also share an interest in That's So Raven (see this edit by CamKimpson; various articles about "That's So Raven" appear frequently in the Cgkimpson logs). --orlady 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I originally went to CamKimpson's talk page (before ending up here instead) to post a complaint about the addition of bogus references (using pseudo-URLs) in the article Columbia Middle School(Aurora, Colorado) (currently an AFD); see the last version of the page as created by CamKimpson before anyone else touched it. I concluded that the references are bogus because they are about a school with an International Baccalaureate curriculum, but this school does not have an International Baccalaureate curriculum.--orlady 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
While the accounts are clearly one person, he cannot be labelled a sockpuppet by any of our definitions, just a user with an annoying habit of vanish and reappears after a few weeks and with a new account. He cannot be called a sock puppet since he never 2 accounts concurrently. Besides, I warned him twice upon his returns. There is no "suspicion". Circeus 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious block evasion; CamKimpson is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 14 September 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
Centstrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mavericks12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Sebi [talk] 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They both edit roughly the same articles. Centstrust tends to make his edits more profane and abusive ( [91] ), and Mavericks' edits are mostly just "[so and so] were here" or "[so and so] pwns" ( [92], [93], [94] ). But in this edit in a series of edits to Jagex, Centstrust adds rather offensive language ( [95], [96] ) and then ends with "Love, Mavericks and SgtBodyBag", which is often mentioned in many of the other edits. Sebi [talk] 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Seems pretty blatant to me. Basically admitted in the diffs shown. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling this "SgtBodyBag" guy will register an account soon, I'm keeping watch of the new user logs. Sebi [talk] 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I've blocked both accounts as vandal-only. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 14 September 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
Seaver11171944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Jimfandango (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gullucum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ZimZalaBim talk 02:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
IP has longest history of introducing uncited and erroneous content to University of Notre Dame, University of Michigan, Joe Montana and other sports related articles. User seems to be switching between accounts, all with the same MO.
- Comments
- Remark: Should be noted that the SSPs and the suspected sockmaster have each made edits to various other articles. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimfandango and Gullucum seem to be sockpuppeting as Notre Dame football fans (a WP:LAME edit war, but that's neither here nor there). Seaver has not made the same edits. I'll ask Durova if she wants to indef-block Gullucum, who has been blocked once before and has caused nothing but problems for Wikipedia. Otherwise, I think the status quo should hold. Shalom Hello 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimfandango (talk · contribs) is most likely an attack on my user name. I have run into these accounts in the past and do believe they are problematic. JmFangio| ►Chat 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Dealt with already. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 14 September 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
Eauilwehnfsajkl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Adsfgbdfyjsdg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.240.55.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rgsgsefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Loopla 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Edits by each of these accounts are very similar. Each of these accounts have received one warning, therefore user seems to be avoiding a block by starting new accounts. Diffs by users: Diff1, Diff2, Diff3, Diff4.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Probably sockpuppetry, but no edits from these accounts in a week, so I doubt blocking would accomplish much good. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 7 September 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
- SummerThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Tastetrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bastrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sxme12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Poelmean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maigad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Dynaflow babble 05:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Edits match MO of problem-user and sock-puppet edit warrior SummerThunder per his LTA subpage at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. High degree of similarity between each of the listed accounts' edits and previous SummerThunder socks. Gestalt from all the contribs lists looks and sounds like a duck. For some relevant diffs, see ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible new SummerThunder sock (long-term abuse case).
- Comments
- Sxme12 and Tastetrees seem like obvious socks to me, so I've blocked them. Bastrain blocked by C.Fred and Poelmean blocked by Ginkgo100. Maigad is not so obvious to me, so I'll let another admin have a look. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
All accounts are blocked. Shalom Hello 14:46, 7 September 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
- CrossCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Gallant Ninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- The Norse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
New account immediately starts revert warring on identical topics, with the same reverts. Potentially a few more, but not sure about them.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Checkuser linked all three accounts to the same IP. Crosscrusader and Gallant Ninja are indef-blocked, and User:CBM has decided to give The Norse a second chance. Shalom Hello 14:57, 7 September 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
- Acorah's Anti-vandalism Unit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Derek Acorah Smells Of Flora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
made the exact same edit
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Both accounts are already blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:31, 6 September 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
I went 2 harvard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Adawootharvard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dawootsafi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.75.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.189.171.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.11.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.95.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.189.165.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
orlady 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
There are similarities in the names of the 3 named users in this group ("harvard" and "woot"). Most of these users contributed to Southside A, a fictional creation that had no other contributors except for my PROD nomination and related edits. They have edited in no articles other than Southside A (edit history), Antioch, Tennessee (edit history), and Nashville, Tennessee (only one of these edited in Nashville, and only once). Most edit summaries by 68.189.95.185 and 68.189.70.20, as well as some by Adawootharvard, start with "I" ("I added," "I deleted," "I just added," etc.).
- Comments
The alleged puppetmaster I went 2 harvard was blocked.
All members of this collection of users have been active in revising Antioch, Tennessee to create an alternative reality for this community. Antioch is a suburban area of Nashville that is part of the consolidated municipality of Nashville-Davidson County, but these users have invented census data for Antioch, have identified it as the center of a metropolitan area, have altered data in the article, and have added statements about alleged issues of immigration (sometimes kurdish, sometimes hispanic, sometimes other groups), crime, etc. Additionally, most have recently contributed to the creation and editing of the spurious article "Southside A", which seems to be their made-up nickname for Antioch.
Another vandal with an interest in Antioch, TN, is 68.52.35.118
User:Dawootsafi removed the PROD template from Southside A (see diff), which had not been edited by Dawootsafi but had been edited by the other users in this collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the named accounts are blocked and the affected articles are semi-protected. The prod tag has been replaced on Southside A. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:13, 6 September 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
- Philipdarby2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Philipdarby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Philipdarby3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Freshacconci 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Regular vandalism from three almost identical user names, Philipdarby, Philipdarby2 and Philipdarby3, all for one edit to The Beatles. At least two accounts have been blocked and the vandalism continues. To avoid 3R rule, he now switches between the three accounts.
- Comments
- Actually, User:Philipdarby is the first account--I made the report based on the last bit of vandalism which was through User:Philipdarby2. Not sure if it matters, or if it needs to be changed to make User:Philipdarby the sockpuppeteer. Freshacconci 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Obvious sockpuppetry like this can be reported directly to WP:AIV for quicker response. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:42, 5 September 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
Charles669 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
70.68.179.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They both edit the same articles, but the IP is causing a lot of problems. See here. the IP tried to blank his talk page (for the second time), after the edit was reverted, Charles669 blanks it himself. The IP was also persistently removing the AFD tag from Peter Schonemann. It is very highly suspicous that this is a disruptive IP sock. Let's also note that he's making [97] legal threats. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 70.68.179.142 is definitely Charles669, see the comments made by these two on my talkpage. --Crusio 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Almost certainly the same user based on Charles669 continuing a thread started by the IP here. But the IP does something Charles doesn't, which is edit outside the Peter Schonemann article. That gives me pause about any future blocks for either. I'm getting ahead of myself, however, as what's happening so far just seems to be POV editing. Oh, and someone hitting both folks over the head with the 'show preview' button is not a bad idea.--Chaser - T 22:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I left them both messages about the show preview button. There's nothing here that constitutes abuse of multiple accounts so no further action is required.--Chaser - T 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what concerns me though. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of old news, no? The IP was blocked when whoever it was didn't stop, and the AFD is over...--Chaser - T 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But he still did it, isn't that what matters? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything that constitutes abuse of alternate accounts. It's common that new editors will do things with multiple accounts or with an account or IP because they aren't aware of sockpuppetry concerns. Unless there's a clear violation of the policy, nothing needs to be done.--Chaser - T 00:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He just got blocked again for "disruptive editing." He is also making legal threats. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's actionable! The account was blocked indef and the IP for a month. I think that resolved everything for the time being. The IP may change in that time period, anyway.--Chaser - T 03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He just got blocked again for "disruptive editing." He is also making legal threats. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything that constitutes abuse of alternate accounts. It's common that new editors will do things with multiple accounts or with an account or IP because they aren't aware of sockpuppetry concerns. Unless there's a clear violation of the policy, nothing needs to be done.--Chaser - T 00:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But he still did it, isn't that what matters? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of old news, no? The IP was blocked when whoever it was didn't stop, and the AFD is over...--Chaser - T 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- No further action seems necessary at this time. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 7 September 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
- KKKRules4Ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Sdsddsdfsdfs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Wikidudeman (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Comments
- Conclusions
Both blocked indefinitely for various reasons. No other determination required.--Chaser - T 21:52, 4 September 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
Zingostar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
88.151.83.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.209.116.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
John Hayestalk 07:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
These IPs seem to be almost exclusively used for furthering Zingostar's agenda on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley Kazim Uchea. I can't be 100% sure they are this user, but they use very similar grammar, and identical arguments, hence I wanted them checked. I was hesitant about reporting them, as I have a conflict of interest in that I support the deletion they oppose, but a number of other editors (whose opinions I trust) have also suggested that they may be sockpuppets.
- Comments
Well one is obvious. The other IP isn't so clear, but AFD is not just a head-count and SPAs are routinely ignored, so don't fret too much.--Chaser - T 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I hadn't even seen that. John Hayestalk 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at things again, I decided to block Zingostar for 24 hours. That should resolve this for now. I doubt the other !vote will affect the result for the reasons stated above.--Chaser - T 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- No further action seems required. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 7 September 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
ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mrawesomeguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ChrisStansfield Contribs 03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Has yet to make a contribution to the mainspace, but has appeared on the Talk:Shoot 'Em Up page to reiterate allegations previously made by sockpuppet User:Muckrakerius. Meanwhile has posted private information about Wikipedia editors on his own talk page, and threatened legal action and mischief, both common practices of the numerous sockpuppets/meatpuppets of User:ColScott.
- Comments
It's getting routine to ban sockpuppets of User:ColScott, especially since he has a popular message board where he frequently asks members to "give him new email addresses" with which to engage in sockpuppetry and also regularly implores members to dig up information about Wikipedia editors.
- Conclusions
Let's nip this one in the bud BEFORE it escalates into more of a mess.
- Sock blocked, page protected, all done already, not sure why we need an SSP, seems unnecessary ~ Riana ⁂ 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem
Mr Murphy has already been in contact with me. There's nothing to suspect here, it's pretty obvious, methinks. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:45, 4 September 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
69.150.85.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
69.150.84.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.157.162.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.94.92.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.91.213.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.143.30.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.149.142.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.253.173.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
IPs after report report was filed:
68.91.215.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
NrDg 00:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Exact same vandalism to different accounts. Leaving obscene comments on Miley Cyrus' article and talk pages. The more recent IP's have also begun to attack Emily Osment's page. Each IP has been blocked but moves to different IP to continue.
- Comments
All obviously related. You don't need a suspected sockpuppetry report for this. You need semi-protection. I've done that for you.--Chaser - T 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Article talk page semi-protected.--Chaser - T 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am closing this case; no further action is needed. Shalom Hello 18:52, 6 September 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
129.120.244.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
69.181.174.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Tenebrae 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Registered a few moments ago to make the same Hulk (comics) edits, consistently removed by several editors, as that of an anon IP who has just been reported, independently by two editors, for WP:3RR. The original anon IP continued his rvs after being warned of WP:3RR, then stopped and this new anon IP began.
- Comments
The apparent sock puppet was given a warning on his talk page.
- Conclusions
The 129.etc account was blocked at the time by Spartaz and has not resumed editing since Sept. 3. The 69.etc account also edited only on Sept. 3, so there is nothing to gain by blocking him now: blocks are preventative, not punitive. Shalom Hello 19:07, 6 September 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
Venom-smasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Movieguy999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
The Filmaker 12:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Venom-smasher had previously made massive edits to the reaction sections of the Star Wars prequel trilogy films, namely Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. He engaged in revert-wars, broke 3RR, and repeatedly argued and edited against consensus. His opinion changed over the course of the argument, but consistently said that he believed that the Reaction sections were to negative towards the films. He would repeatedly make accusations that were not based on assuming good faith, believing that all those who edited the articles did not like the film and were merely trying to bias the reader's outlook. He eventually left, returning briefly six months later and then leaving again. User:Deckiller issued a warning for revert warring and uncivil edit summaries. He had generally argued and edited against consensus and refused to civilly discuss his edits. Now User:Movieguy999 has appeared with the same arguments over weasel words, massive removal of cited information, dislike of the Razzies and information on a RiffTrax on the film and many more of the exact same arguments. He has revealed a decent understanding of how to edit Wikipedia and again has many of the exact same rationales of "Rules of Wikipedia", often stating that it his right to make "these edits". Other smaller notes include his style of capitalizing the section headers of all his messages on talk pages and the way he refuses to discuss changes until forced to, at which he makes accusations, to which I reply, to which he simply circles make his original argument and accusations without actually responding to my rebuttal. You may see Venom-smasher's and Movieguy999's very similar comments at Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/Archive 1, Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Talk:Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/Archive 04, User talk:Venom-smasher and User talk:Movieguy999. The Filmaker 12:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- How is this a violation of WP:SOCK? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Movieguy999 is very obviously a sockpuppet of Venom-smasher. The fact of him being a sockpuppet is a violation in the first place, Venom-smasher is using to avoid being blocked per Deckiller's warning of his history of revert warring against consensus and blatant border walking of the 3RR. The Filmaker 23:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- There's no overlap in editing times between these accounts; Venom-smasher stopped editing in May 2007, Movieguy999 started on August 16 2007. The accounts can't be jointly violating 3RR or any other form of tag-team editing. Venom-smasher was blocked once, for 24 hours, but otherwise was an editor in good standing, so Movieguy999 is not evading a block or ban. In short, there's no prohibited use of multiple accounts here. If Movieguy999 is editing disruptively in some way you'll have to address that through some other process. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:09, 3 September 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
Bormalagurski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Kaster 07:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Editing articles: Malagurski, Marta Malagurski, Mała Góra
- allowed Bormalagurski identity (serbian)
- Comments
I confess. It's true. I only wanted to write a few articles about my heritage. --TheWriterOfArticles 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Confirmed by the suspected sockpuppet. See above. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- TheWriterOfArticles is indef blocked, Bormalagurski's 1-year ban is reset. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 2 September 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
Dino Renzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
81.159.121.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.135.133.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.149.36.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Big D Productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dean 'Big Dean' Woodward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dino Antonio Renzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FFB Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fieldrecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forest fields park (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forest fields Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forestfields (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascalpatrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascals Mob Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Simone Wentworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
T-Rex Entourage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Renzo Family (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.152.10.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
-- Jreferee (Talk) 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This is a two month on-going, recurring problem of one or more editors dodging deletions and blocks by using user pages to host a website in Wikipedia about the fictional gangster gangs "The Rascal Mob" and " T-Rex Entourage" as a way of expanding the website Dino Renzo and Co. Note how Dino Renzo and Co includes a link to Wikipedia. This same person/group also appears to be involved in posting articles on non existent or nonnotable musical label/group efforts.
The article Dean "Big D" Woodward was speedy deleted between May 17, 2007 and May 22, 2007.[100]. The article FFB Recordings was deleted five times between May 17, 2007 and June 21, 2007.[101] The article Nott's City Stand Up was speedy deleted may 18, 2007.[102] The article Dean Harry Woodward was speedy deleted four times on May 22, 2007.[103] The article Big Dean was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[104] The article Forest Fields Boy was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[105] The article Return of the Don was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[106] The article Forest Fieldz Boyz was speedy deleted June 2, 2007.[107] The article Dino Renzo was speedy deleted June 8, 2007 and June 14, 2007.[108]. Per Special:Undelete, Rascals and 81.159.121.52 were involved in this article. The article Rascal Mob Recordings was speedy deleted June 14, 2007 and June 15, 2007.[109] The article Dean 'Big Dean' Woodward was speedy deleted June 15, 2007.[110] The article Rascal Mob was deleted June 20, 2007.[111] Per Special:Undelete, Rascals, 81.159.121.52, and Rascals Mob Recordings were involved in this article.
On June 24, 2007, it was noted at AN that similar pages were being created as user pages.[112] On August 28, 2007, it was noted at UAA that similar pages were being created as user pages.[113] The above noted users are listed at UAA as being involved in this fictional gang effort. In addition to attempting to avoid detection by using user space rather than article space, these editors are branching out to name variations to avoid watches over deleted pages. For example, the user page User: Dino Antonio Renzo was created after several deletes of User:Dino Renzo. Here is a list of pages that may be created in furtherance of this effort by Dino Renzo: Alberto Renzo, Damon Dales, David Chapman, Deanna Jones, Denzil Smith, Dino Renzo, Franklin Coles, Fredo Caan, Jacob Street, James Thornton, Lee Quoins, Leon Atkins, Mark Alexander, Roberto Renzo, Ryan Buzz, Simone Wentworth, The Rascal Mob, T-Rex Entourage, User:Alberto Renzo, User:Damon Dales, User:David Chapman, User:Deanna Jones, User:Denzil Smith, User:Dino Renzo, User:Franklin Coles, User:Fredo Caan, User:Jacob Street, User:James Thornton, User:Lee Quoins, User:Leon Atkins, User:Mark Alexander, User:Roberto Renzo, User:Ryan Buzz, User:Simone Wentworth, User:The Rascal Mob, User:T-Rex Entourage. Rather than continue to delete the created user pages and temporarily block Dino Renzo, I propose that each page be tagged as being operated by a puppetmaster to prevent recreation of these user pages. A checkuser may be warranted as well. Also, salt where needed.
- Comments
I've added User:Renzo Family and User:86.152.10.22 above. --- RockMFR 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the named accounts are indef blocked, except for User:Rascalpatrol, which seems unrelated (and hasn't edited since Jan 2007 anyway). The IPs are portable, so it's not worth blocking at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:28, 2 September 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
Loask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Thepeanut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Humjosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pekaak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— iridescent (talk to me!) 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Four accounts with a history of tag-teaming on goatse.cx. The four accounts are now multiple-voting "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weasel Thomas (patent hoax article created by Loask)
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Obvious, and all the named accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:23, 1 September 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
Dewarw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Wrawed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Lurker (said · done) 10:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
For starters, Wrawed is Dewarw backwards. This guy isn't even trying to conceal sockpuppetry.
User:Wrawed pops up on a couple of Harry Potter AfDs to agree with a comment made by User:Dewarw: [114] and [115]
On the Andy Murray article, Wrawed pops up to support Dewarw (Dewarw and Wrawed are editing against consensus in this article and manage to resurrect an edit war that I for one hoped was dead). Here Dewarw issues an unjustified vandalism warning against an editor on his talk page, then Wrawed issued a similar warning on the articles talk page a few minutes later (the editor in question, an IP, was editing in favour of consensus)- before removing Dewarw's warning from the editor's talk page.
Minor stylisitic similarity- both editors have user pages that are redirects to talk pages (or had before I edit then to add sock tags)- Wrawed, Dewarw
- Comments
- Conclusions
I've indefinitely blocked User:Wrawed as a disruptive sockpuppet. I've asked User:Dewarw for comment; I think it's fairly obvious he's the sockmaster, but would like to hear what he has to say before applying any remedies to that account. MastCell Talk 18:09, 31 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
Zephyr99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
71.111.0.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.104.174.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.242.186.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) likely
- Report submission by
Check-Six 06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Identical edit remarks, use of auto post, same POV edits of D B Cooper article...
- Comments
- Please also revert edits by sockpuppets or user
- Conclusions
Yes. Page semi-protected to prevent editing by IP socks. Zephyr99's block extended again. MastCell Talk 18:14, 31 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
Roosterrulez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Bobbyisalegend 143214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amazingalistair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
richi 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- After User:Carlossuarez46 speedily deleted a page (I believe Aurora Rose Levesque) the master complains, closely followed by the two suspected puppets.
- The puppets were recently created and have made no article edits (although one of them did give the master an "award").
- Comments
- Possibly meatpuppets, but in any case blatantly not the type of behaviour we should suffer ... richi 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Agreed these are fairly obvious sock or meatpuppets. Puppet accounts blocked indefinitely; Roosterrulez blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 18:27, 31 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.
User:Daniel575 (7th)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Eidah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
IZAK 16:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Unfortunately Daniel575 (talk · contribs) has had a long history of abusive editing leading to multiple blocks and bans, subsequent use of sockpuppets, bans and blocks, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel575 for at least six prior proven sockpuppets that have been blocked.
Many editors familiar with Judaic topics on Wikipedia know that User:Daniel575 has returned as Eidah (talk · contribs) but have been afraid to confront him (pathetically, one admin has taken it upon himself to even "protect" him), see comment by User:Yossiea in this regard: "We all know he is (Daniel575), but he has an admin friend, Y (talk · contribs). When I pointed out one of Daniel's sockpuppets, I got yelled at for going on a witch hunt. We know he's Daniel, he's Dutch, check out his edits. It's getting to the point that nobody wants to edit Jewish or Israeli articles anymore because they are not in the mood of getting involved with Daniel and his tactics. If you look at his talk page, Y gives tacit approval of the knowledge that he is indeed Daniel." [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] So much for that.
The main issue revolves around Eidah (talk · contribs)'s abusive language and violation of Wikipedia's rules on a gross scale that mirror exactly the behavior of Daniel575 (talk · contribs). He has taken it upon himself to be the "St. George" of Haredi Judaism's "anti-Orthodox" wing slaying the "dragon" of "Zionism" in all its forms in order to save the "maiden" in this case anyone who agrees with his radical POV. User:Daniel and his sockpuppets can be recognized in many negatives ways. One is the curses he throws at those who oppose him. Thus in a recent CFD User:Eidah accused those who oppposed him as:
- "Zionist heretics who are being controlled by the Soton [121]
- "the despicable yetzer horo of supporting the impure Zionist lie" [122]
- "you have sold out to the disgusting traitors and you are working to defend the reshoim" ("reshoim" means "wicked") [123]
- "All of the groups in this category are VIRULENTLY anti-Zionist"
- "impure Zionist state and praying for it to be dissolved"[124]
- "Zionism of any type, religious or secular, is completely false"[125]
- "the transgression of the so-called 'religious Zionists' is even worse than that of the secular Zionists, because through their actions they aim to justify the acts of the Satan."[126]
- "'religious Zionists' will face their punishment for that in Gehinnom"[127]
A simple review for July and August of 2007 of User:Eidah's talk page shows his total disregard for Wikipedia's culture of simple co-operation and his willingness to be blocked for his brazen actions. He functions like a Kamikaze:
- Advice from User:Meshulam: "Careful about the language you use, especially on talk pages...The problem is that your message is easily dismissed if you use inflammatory language to explain your edits." [128]
- Blocked by User:PinchasC (admin) for 31 hours: "in regards to this post[129], please review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and Violating of WP:POINT abuse of editing privileges. [130]
- Warning from User:Avraham about insults: "For example [131]" [132]
- Warning from User:Meshulam: "...you're perceived as being a pain, you'll never win an edit war. And a 24 hr block means that everyone gets free reign on the articles in question until you're done. And then if you go back to edit warring, they'll just block you again..." [133]
- Blocked for 24 hours by User:MastCell: "for violating the three-revert rule at Neturei Karta." [134]
The above is but a small example of what has gone on in less than two months, and the list could go on and on as one rummages through his edits. ALL the subject areas edited by User:Eidah are exactly the same ones that User:Daniel575 and all his sock-puppets sat on. They are one and the same and should all be blocked. IZAK 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Daniel575 and his latest sockpuppet User:Eidah make life miserable for anyone he opposes. His primitive curses and wild non-compliance with any rules smack of cyber-terrorism. He must be blocked and banned to the fullest. IZAK 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really have to do much other than to point to his edits, and point to his 6+ other sockpuppet cases. This has gone on long enough. Yossiea (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I don't have much to say about this subject. I am only responding because I was quoted. If you look at the greater context of all of my statements on this user's talk page, you will see that I was giving him (what I thought were) helpful pieces of advice, not warnings. He and YiddisherYid are equally guilty of edit-warring. With respect to Y's "support" of this user: the only evidence that has been brought is the innuendo and accusations of other users.... there isn't a single quotation from Y brought above that demonstrates his dedication to protecting Eidah. Eidah has a lot to say, and is a wealth of information. He has not threatened any users. He has written abrasively, but all of the comments brought above are sweeping condenations of Zionism, not individual editors. I do not think that condemnation of Zionism is against Wikipedia policy. With respect to the accusation that he is a sockpuppet (which is the only accusation that matters in this context): All that IZAK has managed to say about that one is that he is Dutch and an Anti-Zionist. IZAK has also stated (in underlined text, which I guess is supposed to add credibility) that "everyone knows" that he is Daniel575. If that is the case, then it remains to be seen what grounds "everyone" has for "knowing" such a fact, given the utter dearth of evidence. He may indeed be Daniel, after all. But there simply isn't enough evidence for anyone to eternally block this user on those grounds.--Meshulam 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be fairly simple to check. He is evading a community ban by reincarnating himself. How many followers of Dushinsky originally from Holland do you know editing Wikipedia? Yossiea (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having been to Holland lately, I can't answer this question. But this comment is no different from IZAK's "case in chief." Rhetorical questions are not evidence. I can tell you do not like this user, but there is no evidence other than that he's dutch and anti-Zionist. --Meshulam 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- EVERYBODY KNOWS that this person is who he is. He's completely upfront about it. I remember the "community ban" discussion on ANI or whatever when he was first indefinitely blocked. Whether or not that was justified then I do not express an opinion on, but I am not willing to enforce it again. Some other admin may if he wants to, I suppose. I am not protecting him in any way - I have done nothing whatsoever to protect him and I don't understand in what way I am involved with this. -- Y not? 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem that IZAK is right. I think that I personally recommended to the user to simply find another hobby rather than getting obsessive about WP. But it's one thing about being obsessed and another thing about being aggressive, something that is usually reduced over time in balanced people. Maybe facebook could be expanded with Daniel's expertise or something. --Shuki 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As somebody who has had edit wars with him this last week i find his work very valued to our enciclopedia, from correspondence i had with user Izak i can see why he wants to get rid of use Eida, but eida should not be blocked for Socpupetry he did not try to hide his identity and hasn't used 2 names to influence any consensus. Please make him talk with one name and lets make it about the issue not about the user. Izak has tried to delete his category and it failed so he goes after this user. Please lets not fool ourselves, lets be honest we don't like his view but if he is right with the facts we should not try to win our view by simply blocking him on technicalities of sockpupetry which he is not guilty in the real sense of the word.--יודל 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- יודל: Eidah's behavior goes way beyond the acceptable bounds of normal editing. When any editor says something Eidah does not like, he is liable to utter the weirdest and cruelest curses and launch into edit wars and revert articles wildly-- something that Daniel575 and all his other sockpuppets did in the exact same way, so they are all coming from the same source. That kind of behavior is dangerous and not normal and does not belong in a community that is devoted to building a rational encyclopedia. I have nothing against the subject matter that so fascinates Daniel575/Eidah, and he does bring some good information when he writes. However, very sadly and unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives in this case. When he turns his attention to edits on his watchlist (as he instantly does when edits are made to "his" articles) he then goes on what can only be called rampages and tirades to swing the totality of his interests into only one direction (his "anti-Zionism" mantra.) That is what is called an obsession and it is dangeous and destructive as he lets no-one and nothing get in his way, and he thinks he is being so clever and righteous in doing so. How sad and pathetic. Daniel575/Eidah has a lot of growing up to do and when he can somehow prove that he is capable as functioning as an adult and completely avoid any sort of tantrums and especially those curses, threats and destructive edits, then he can come back sometime in the future. For now, he must be put back into his cage. IZAK 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i agree he should be blocked for calling names and behaving as a non consensus builder by reverting articles in silence. But not for his views they are very valube to an open free encyclopedia. therefore the issue here is wrongly identified as sockpupetry--יודל 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- יודל: Eidah's behavior goes way beyond the acceptable bounds of normal editing. When any editor says something Eidah does not like, he is liable to utter the weirdest and cruelest curses and launch into edit wars and revert articles wildly-- something that Daniel575 and all his other sockpuppets did in the exact same way, so they are all coming from the same source. That kind of behavior is dangerous and not normal and does not belong in a community that is devoted to building a rational encyclopedia. I have nothing against the subject matter that so fascinates Daniel575/Eidah, and he does bring some good information when he writes. However, very sadly and unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives in this case. When he turns his attention to edits on his watchlist (as he instantly does when edits are made to "his" articles) he then goes on what can only be called rampages and tirades to swing the totality of his interests into only one direction (his "anti-Zionism" mantra.) That is what is called an obsession and it is dangeous and destructive as he lets no-one and nothing get in his way, and he thinks he is being so clever and righteous in doing so. How sad and pathetic. Daniel575/Eidah has a lot of growing up to do and when he can somehow prove that he is capable as functioning as an adult and completely avoid any sort of tantrums and especially those curses, threats and destructive edits, then he can come back sometime in the future. For now, he must be put back into his cage. IZAK 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As somebody who has had edit wars with him this last week i find his work very valued to our enciclopedia, from correspondence i had with user Izak i can see why he wants to get rid of use Eida, but eida should not be blocked for Socpupetry he did not try to hide his identity and hasn't used 2 names to influence any consensus. Please make him talk with one name and lets make it about the issue not about the user. Izak has tried to delete his category and it failed so he goes after this user. Please lets not fool ourselves, lets be honest we don't like his view but if he is right with the facts we should not try to win our view by simply blocking him on technicalities of sockpupetry which he is not guilty in the real sense of the word.--יודל 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem that IZAK is right. I think that I personally recommended to the user to simply find another hobby rather than getting obsessive about WP. But it's one thing about being obsessed and another thing about being aggressive, something that is usually reduced over time in balanced people. Maybe facebook could be expanded with Daniel's expertise or something. --Shuki 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- EVERYBODY KNOWS that this person is who he is. He's completely upfront about it. I remember the "community ban" discussion on ANI or whatever when he was first indefinitely blocked. Whether or not that was justified then I do not express an opinion on, but I am not willing to enforce it again. Some other admin may if he wants to, I suppose. I am not protecting him in any way - I have done nothing whatsoever to protect him and I don't understand in what way I am involved with this. -- Y not? 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having been to Holland lately, I can't answer this question. But this comment is no different from IZAK's "case in chief." Rhetorical questions are not evidence. I can tell you do not like this user, but there is no evidence other than that he's dutch and anti-Zionist. --Meshulam 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who confirms that Daniel575=Eidah also curses and condemns those who wish to expose him to trolling by revealing his previous compromised identity:
See Category talk:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism#Question for Eidah: are you blocked User:Daniel575?: "I am aware that is user is a reincarnation of Daniel. It's not exactly a shock to anyone. Everybody knows. However, I have done literally nothing to protect his user, not as a user, and certainly not with my administrative privileges!! If you would like to submit a recall petition, you may do so. It will be fun, actually. As for running around revealing what I attempted to conceal, you have my intense contempt, and you have committed a grievous aveirah bein odom lechaveiro, for which you will have to answer in two weeks. -- Y not? 20:03, 30 August 2007" [135]
- How dramatic of you, IZAK! -- Y not? 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dramatic? I have only quoted you verbatim without adding one word. Your words also affirm User:Yossiea's statement above that "We all know he is (Daniel575)...We know he's Daniel..." Al Pi Shnei Eidim O Al Pi Shlosha Yakum Davar ("two or three witnesses establish a fact")... you should know that. IZAK 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, silly rabbit, the top-line commentary -- Y not? 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Azoy, well it's a summary of the facts. IZAK 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, silly rabbit, the top-line commentary -- Y not? 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dramatic? I have only quoted you verbatim without adding one word. Your words also affirm User:Yossiea's statement above that "We all know he is (Daniel575)...We know he's Daniel..." Al Pi Shnei Eidim O Al Pi Shlosha Yakum Davar ("two or three witnesses establish a fact")... you should know that. IZAK 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- This looks like a match, and Eidah will be blocked, but if it is necessary to create Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (8th), please do a better job of presenting the evidence next time. There's actually nothing in the evidence above that shows Eidah is Daniel575; I had to conclude that on my own by looking at their contribs. What's here is a bunch of complaining about Eidah, combined with many assertions that everyone knows who he is. Well, folks, the admins who deal with this page may not know who Daniel575 is, and don't see any obvious connection between him and the suspected sockpuppet. So make it easy for us by presenting some clear evidence. Also, next time please do not include an acrimonious, off-topic dialogue. Thank you. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:59, 2 September 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
Hungrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
203.212.203.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.177.251.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Blackbeard2k7 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
[136] The suspected sock puppet removes a cited source of disputed material.
[137] The user Hungrywolf actually replaces the suspected IP with his username (doh!)
[138] Another suspected puppet has removed comments from Hungrywolfs talk page.
- Comments
The user is evidenced here as performing sock puppetry for malicious intent. He was previously blocked for engaging in an edit war on the same article (Field Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over other disputed material. If you look closely at the history of this article, as well as M.U.L.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you will notice that this user clearly has a problem. Additionally, the user has since removed the sock puppetry case warning from his talk page and continues to revert all of my edits even with reliable cited sources, ignoring all admins and third opinions. He has been blocked for this type of activity in the past. --Blackbeard2k7 (talk · contribs)
If we assume good faith, the evidence suggests that Hungrywolf made an edit, which did inappropriately remove someone else's comments, then realized he wasn't logged in and fixed his signature.
There is nothing wrong with removing comments from your own talk page. Even if the other IP is his, there is no malicious intent in the third diff. --Onorem♠Dil 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- This looks like an instance of the user forgetting to log in (or perhaps his browser had a hiccup). No evidence of violation of WP:SOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 1 September 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
Returnofthevogons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Loco Teacher Spree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pro Mice Creator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.102.220.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.102.248.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NORDKAPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SERRALONGA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Serrallonga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
etc, etc, etc...
- Report submission by
Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
There is a pattern on the users vandalizing some Barcelona-related pages (Barcelona, TV3 (Catalonia), ESADE, ...) in which they only add non sourced crap just to degradate the articles. I already explained it in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NORDKAPP but the solution was not exhaustive. It seems this user is changing regulary his identity. Look: (almost) all users have nothig nothing neither in User Page not in talk page. Some of their user names are ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS, some other follow a pattern of 3 words (as the ones blocked in the last request). Nothing to say about "Returnofthevogons"... All of them have very few contributions and they are all to make this vandalizing. This time I ask to go to the root of the problem and try to find who is the master, protect the pages, block all the range of ip's... I don't know, but if you see the history of this pages, you can see this annoying regular "contributions" from a recent created account, and this is exhausting for the regular users. By the way, some of them have been already blocked for different reasons. Let's notice that when they have been blocked, they haven't even answered, argued or protest. Of course, it is not a problem: just have to create a new account...
Please, I hope this time the problem is studied a bit deeply. Thank you in advance.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Added days later: Huthillor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). And (s)he continues... I wonder how many users will (s)he create...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I'll block some of these as vandal only accounts, but when throwaway accounts are vandalizing a handful of articles, the best thing to do is ask for page protection. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 1 September 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
Gtadoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.34.164.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fmehdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)
- Evidence
Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and Gtadoc are supporting each other, e.g [139]. Allgoonames's Talk page consists entirely of complimentary exchanges between Gtadoc and himself. Allgoodnames created his account 10AUG at 20:54, and Gtadoc's first comment on his Talk page was at 21:00 (6 minutes after the account was created)[140].
203.34.164.71 forged a complimentary comment on Gtadoc's Talk page, signing it "Stephen."[141] Gtadoc then edited the signature to make it a wiki-link to the Talk page of editor Stephen [142]. Stephen later asserted the comment was not his, at which point Gtadoc deleted the entire section.
Gtadoc has a history of other fradulent activity, e.g. deleting user comments from a Talk page and then accusing the user of deleting them.Bsharvy 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that Allgoodnames and Gtadoc post on the exact same themes: medical research and complaining that nobody respects their expertise [143] (this is Allgoodnames commenting on Gtadoc's Talk page, another case of supporting each other). IP addresses should not generally be considered sockpuppets; I sometimes forget to sign in before posting. However, in this case the IP posting is represented as someone other than Gtadoc (it is supporting him), and it involves forging a signature of another editor, which strikes me as serious.Bsharvy 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added User:Fmehdi as this user and Gtadoc contributed to the disruption, nasty tone, and the ultimate abandonment of all editors from making any attempt to improve the Che Guevara article. I suspect User:Fmehdi because this account was used between July 19 to August 8, mostly to support User:Gtadoc in his point of view on the Che Guevara article talk page and to attack User:Zleitzen. The only user talk page posts from that account are one to me [144] and some to User:Zleitzen, one of the longtime editors of the Che Guevara article,[145][146][147]and supporting posts to User:Gtadoc on that subject. [148] There are also some posts to the Talk:Che Guevara.[149][150][151][152]
- Other than these, there are only a few other edits from this account and none since August 8 when this account gave User:Gtadoc a barnstar "For your work on several science pages, like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and for improving pages dealing with medical and graduate education".[153] Fmehdi did not edit any of the pages mentioned in the barnstar. --Mattisse 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - User:Gtadoc did accuse me of defending User:Zleitzen thereby causing the uproar that occurred on the Che Guevara page.[154]. In fact, I did make a post about Zleitzen to Fmehdi's page and to Gtadoc's not to defend Zleitzen but to explain him as the attacks on him were unnecessarily nasty, given the situation. [155][156] I made no posts about Zleitzen on the Che Guevara talk page. My first post to the Che Guevara talk page was July 29. I will add that I thought the interaction between Gtadoc and Fmehdi strange at the time as they were both new to the Che Guevara article but neither posted to other editors than Zleitzen of the article, and both seemed angry at him. Mattisse 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am adding the comparison between Gtadoc and Fmedhi on Kate's Wannabe: Gtadoc [157] and Fmedhi.[158] I believe Fmedhi was used primarily to give a false sense of support to Gtadoc on Che Guevara talk page and to attack User:Zleitzen. Mattisse 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I am new to this part of Wikipedia, so I may be wrong. I think the comments made after the initial report are supposed to go here, in the "Comments" section. I will move them if there is no objection. (Moved comments)Bsharvy 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for vandalizing my user page. To respond, I looked at Gtadoc's talk page that bharvey mentions, the IP address is actually seems to be from where he lives, along with the one singing it. Kind of funny that he's here accusing someone else of it. I'm pretty sure Gtadoc himself left WP because it was a waste of time for him (as would be, say, me trying to teach molecular genetics to a monkey)...since I work with him/sit 10 feet from him he asked me to comment on a page relating to radiation as its my field of research. I have no idea who fmehdi is, but it seems she made mattisse angry at some point...though I find it amusing that her edits seemed to be about indain fashion...lol. I'm more than happy to prove who I am, or for that matter prove where I work and my share my CV with you, since you are trying to assert you know something about radiation sickness on the one page I commented on I would wonder if you are willing to do the same?? In any event, I'd appreciate it if you both (or whichever of you did) quit vandalizing my page (or in Bsharvey's case) quit making childish comments on talk pages to me. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of User:Fmehdi's edits were about Indian fashion as stated about by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken above. Other that the above edits, User:Fmehdi has made 2 edits to Palestine, 2 to Israel, ⋅2 to Phrenology, and 2 to Mansehra. --Mattisse 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right; the comment (which you didn't mention) was about bollywood; I assumed it was fashion, but its the indian movie industry...lol...'pats mattise on the back' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 12:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, to edit my above, I actually checked and the IP address 203.34.164.71 is signed elsewhere as Andrew73 and Stephen and is located at a university in Syndey Australia (according to RBL) and previously (it must be shared) to an address in Oregon...hmmm...a long way from minnesota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 02:39, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, to dig deeper; this is funny, IP address 203.34.164.71 has it origonal post about plants...which upon some investigation is also a primary topic on a page linked from bsharvy's user page...lol. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken has intensified his support of Gtadoc, and attacks on me, with a thoroughly dishonest complaint on the administrator's notice board [159]. Gtadoc/Allgodnames, you need to be careful about your accusations. I followed the Wikipedia steps for a suspected sockpuppet. One of the required steps was to put a sockpuppet notice on your User page. I wouldn't use complaince with wiki-policy as a basis for slinging around accusations of vandalism.Bsharvy 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I reported you because already having been here a whole 3 or 4 days you've been entirely disruptive on the page you've been trying to ruin and unlike others I wanted to see if you would be put to the a proverbial tree and hung by the community (who says scientists have no sense of humour?) or if editers like you are welcome here, in which case it will simply confirm the commonly held perception that wp has no standards for its editers/material. And, posting notices all over the place and trying to hide behind some policies you just read today is still vandalism, though, imho that term applies to most of the posts in your contributions page. Funny though that you feel free to accuse others of everything under the sun yet get offended when others call you on your actions. To bring a touch of logic to the conversation (don't worry, just a touch) if I was gtadoc's sockpuppet there would be no point for me to post anything here as I would just go create another account and continue posting on my merry way. BTW, I'm willing to prove who I am and what my "credentials" and "expertise" are...what about you? No worries, I already looked at the webpage you linked to your userpage and I see that you have none, yet make accusations against others as if you did...I don't think WP:CIVIL allows me to post here what I think about that...lol. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're busted. You don't know how to spell "editor." You spelled it "editer." In an amazing coincidence, Gtadoc also does not know how to spell "editor." Even more amazingly coincidentally, he spelled it "editer." Here is one of his edit sumaries: "removing diatribe per WP:NPA also leaving warning on editer Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill talk page)"[160]. (Of further note, in that same edit, you deleted my comment from a Talk page, and later accused me of deleting it.)Bsharvy 05:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, you're a two year old; I don't know how to spell anything, and I can't do math in public. Though, speaking of busted...you accused Gtadoc of adding a comment to his own page, the IP address 203.34.164.71 actually maps to somewhere in SE asia...hmmm...where might you be? Seems like a case of meatpuppetry/wikistalking/strawmanpuppetry to me...did I spell all those right? Oh, by the way, I can't knowledgable either, but then, neither can George Bush...gosh, I must be him too! Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, keep it Civil. Comments like you're a two year old are not helpful. --SXT4 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this isn't simply to retaliate / antagonize User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, then, there should be {{Socksuspect}} tags on the other involved parties, for one. For two, User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: This isn't a forum about other's conduct. There is a time and a place for that, and, this isn't it. I understand, that this is likely very frustrating, but, you need to keep your cool. When you don't, it can make it appear to some, that you're enraged at being "caught" or "outed". To me it doesen't appear that User:Fmehdi is a sock, at least, not here. It does smell an aweful lot, like User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and User:Gtadoc are, however. Same topics, on the same article, focusing over the same editor, on the same part of the article. Of course, there's also [161] User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken claiming to attend school at the Mayo Medical School, and, User:Gtadoc seems to be very familiar with that particular article, too. I suppose, it could all just as easily be some sort of massive coincidence, however. But, I digress. Even if these users are socks, are they Violating WP:SOCK? If not, I don't see the problem. If so, evidence should be compiled, and, forwarded to WP:RFCU. Anyhow, that's my opinion on the matter, and, you know what they say about opinions... --SXT4 06:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in my very first post I told everyone in the article that I work with gtadoc, he sits right accross the hall from me, we attend the same school, and he asked me to comment on a page because it was in my area of research and not his. I told him I would write something brief as I kind of view wp discussion pages as a waste of time, and I wrote something brief. As for Bsharvy he was actually the user harrassing other people in that page and he immediately started on me after my first post, and, unlike others, I have very little desire to placate childish behavior...its not as much being enraged by anything, rather amusement. As already pointed out, if I was a person who wanted to go around sockpuppeting I wouldn't have any reason to post here, I'd just make a new puppet and be on my way. In any event, there is already an admin action pg for Bsharvy, hopefully he can be dealt with there. In my admittedly limited experience with WP it seems one of its major limitations is the inability of expert users to make contributions that can't be trashed by blowhards.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His/her very first post: "I went ahead and checked per the request of one of the editors and am weighting in on Gtadoc's side, I don't know if the issue is still at hand but his edits were accurate, which I can't say for some other editors..." Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Request_for_comment. The point about "editer" is not that it is a spelling a mistake. It is a very specific spelling mistake. Out of the millions of words they could both misspell, and the thousands of ways each could misspell it, each misspelled the same word, in the exact same way.Bsharvy 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, it was my second post; which in relevent part said "Ignoring childish comment; and yes, we work at the same institution...what about you? "...note, the childish comments were from none other than Bsharvy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 12:23, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Question Even if these accounts are linked, how is WP:SOCK being violated? --SXT4 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - In the case of User:Fmehdi it is not a huge deal and it may be more of I guess what you call meatpuppet(?). User:Gtadoc may have asked someone he knew to join Wikipedia to support his position on the Che Guevara article. The result was that the article, which was a FA, has not been edited since User:Gtadoc left as the talk page became very heated and all involved editors have withdrawn. It probably will not be edited in the foreseeable future because of the turmoil. Also, a person who was a very good editor in the past, (17,000+ edits) and who has now retired, was further alienated by being repeatedly attacked in an already ugly situation. However, perhaps none of this is important enough -- I understand that. I do think that, although User:Fmehdi may not be a sock puppet, that the account was pretty much a single purpose account. But you probably know the definitions of what qualifies more than I do. --Mattisse 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment I quoted above is faked show of support: Allgoodnames "weighted" in on the side of Gtadoc in a disagreement. He later reiterated that he was siding a certain way in the disagreement (against me), and it was the same side Gtadoc had previously supported. In the same Talk page, he defended Gtadoc's comments against another editor's criticism that we were using the page for personal disagreements. All this is on the Talk page for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only entry Allgoodnames has ever edited. Both he and Gtadoc have taken sides on various issues discussed there, creating the impression that there are two "votes" for those positions instead of one. Fake support on User Talk pages is probably less serious, but it still creates a false impression of sentiment on Wikipedia re the discussed issues. He/she/they have routinely complained about the uninformed, rude (insert various insults about rectums, dicks, and whatnot, here) editors in their "mutual" experience, and since their only "mutual" experience is the one Talk page, it is pretty clear whom they "mutually" criticize (me). All of these insults are propped up by the sockpuppetry. They are a fake show of support for one editor's view. Finally, the mere creation of this report prompted Allgoodnames to open a complaint about me on the admin incidents page. The gist of that is siding with Gtadoc (his "colleague") in claims that I am distruptive, etc. Again, fake show of support, this time in a complain to admins. "It is a violation .. to edit as IP, rather than logging in to your account, in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest (a legitimate interest excludes wikistalking) in reviewing your contributions." It's hard to prove the forged signature from the IP address was Gtadoc, but Gtadoc did edit the signature to make it a wiki-link to the User's Talk page. When the User (Stephen, an admin, I think) wrote that it wasn't his comment, Gtadoc deleted the whole thing. The fake comment from the IP address was, of course, a show of support (against me). So the basic violation is faking shows of support, deceiving other editors about editor sentiment, and outright attacks in the name of defending the "other" editor (sockpuppet). I can't comment on the Fmehdi claim, since I didn't participate in that discussion.Bsharvy 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken say they know each other in real life, and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken states in this very case that Gtadoc asked him to comment on an article. These are exactly the sorts of circumstances that point to a violation of Wikipedia policy on meatpuppets (if not sockpuppets), but I don't see any evidence of an actual violation--for instance, there's no evidence of joint participation in AfDs or other types of "voting". Therefore, there's no reason to block either account.
- I don't see any compelling evidence that the IP or User:Fmehdi is a sock.
- If both Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken continue to edit, they should take care to abide by WP:MEAT. In particular, I strongly advise them to avoid jointly participating in controversial discussions. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 1 September 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
- Ygraj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Mike4lyf5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
✬Dillard421✬ (talk • contribs) 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Comments
- Conclusions
- No evidence that the alternate account is being used abusively. No action needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 1 September 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
Jereiaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
CodyCoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.196.247.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.170.166.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Baconfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This case is close to being too old to post here; I admit that I had mostly forgotten about it. I posted an incident in WP:ANI on the 20th about a very persistent vandal called Cody Coker, which can be found here. Coker and a host of IPs also claiming to be him created several vandalism pages, removed CSDs, and vandalized many pages, including my user page.
This case is also unusual in that the sockpuppet(s, if you count the IPs) have already been banned, so now it's more of a whodunit. It turns out that before the vandalism spree, I had CSD'd the first article called Cody Coker, which had been created by User:Jereiaki (see the user's talk page). I mentioned on the ANI report, but it never went anywhere. So forgive me for rambling a bit, and I apologize if this whole thing is in the wrong place, but I'd just like to find out if Jereiaki is behind Coker and all the vandalism.
New: User:Baconfish is also Cody Coker, according to his edits on this very case.
- Comments
It's too hard to draw any conclusion. Keep in mind that CodyCoker made his first edit on 20 August, whereas Jereiaki edited once in 2006 and again in 2007, on the same day CodyCoker made his appearance. Since Jereiaki has no other acts of vandalism on his record, and has not edited since August 20 anyhow, I believe the safest course of action is to assume good faith and leave well enough alone. Shalom Hello 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All socks, and all the named accounts are indef blocked, IPs blocked for various periods. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 1 September 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
Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 24.37.123.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Ramdrake breached WP:3RR in the article race and intelligence undoing the actions of MoritzB and other editors and removing content five times between 12:57, 26 August 2007 and 20:17, 26 August 2007. See:
I gave a message of this violation to Ramdrake. [167]
Ramdrake then performed an edit in which he restored my version of the article. [168]
However, 3 minutes after this edit IP address 24.37.123.58 reverted the article back to Ramdrake's version. This is suspicious because the location of the IP address is in Montreal, Canada. (Confirmed with http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation)
Ramdrake states on his talk page that he lives in Montreal. See: [169]
The contribution history of 24.37.123.58 indicates that this IP address has been used to make edits related to Quebec, white people and race and intelligence. The contribution histories of Ramdrake and this IP address are in all respects very similar. [170] [171]
Ramdrake denied that he owns this IP address after I inquired about it. [172] Thus, I suspect him of mala fide use of a sockpuppet to circumvent the three-revert-rule.
MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeeny and Ramdrake have similar edit histories and times [173] [174], identical positions (ex: See how Jeeny backs up Ramdrake: [175] Many more examples can be given...) Recently Jeeny retired [176]. Less than 2 days later, so did Ramdrake [177]. Then Jeeny returned, claiming a Wikibreak: [178]. So did Ramdrake, exactly same day! [179]. And of course they returned from the break together: [180] [181]. KarenAER 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I would just like to point out, for the record, before anyone starts on any chase, that these four changes do not revert to the same point at all, and one isn't a revert at all, as nothing was removed, and the additions were all original, so 3RR wasn't broken to begin with.--Ramdrake 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A revert is defined as "undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content." ([WP:3RR])
- Your first two edits restored deleted content.
- MoritzB 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the "evidence" in question, but in my opinion it is circumstantial at best. I do feel obliged however, to say that the user MoritzB merely made this page as a reactionary response to charges brought against him by the user in question.[182] Whatever the case may be, Ramdrake has done nothing as far as blatant disruption since he/she was merely reverting the apparent vandalism and strongly suspected sockpuppeting going on. Also, the only reason he got the idea was through an apparent instigator who has noted edit disputes with Jeeny[183], a user who warned him on his talk page about 3rr. The bias imo is apparent as the user even tries to connect Jeeny with Ramdrake, which is totally unfounded, and MoritzB merely compartmentalized it, and is trying to make an entire case out of it.[184]Taharqa 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KarenAER wrote on my talk page that Jeeny is Ramdrake's sockpuppet, too. I didn't make that claim. Could you stop your pointless accusations, please?MoritzB 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Karen and Moritz, if you do not agree with a number of editors, that does not mean they are sockpuppets. In my opinion this is a complete waste of time. Before making accusations of sockpuppetry I recommend doing adequate research on the parties involved. In fact both of you have recent accounts, hmmm??. Muntuwandi 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The request for checkuser was declined by User:Deskana with the following statement:
The privacy policy generally prohibits releasing IPs. It's obvious that the IP is him, anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake MoritzB 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ramdrake is the ip. A few days off are warranted. The situation was very tense but I do not condone what was done. I do not know everyone very well to comment on Jeeny and Ramdrake. They seem to be different people but you never know. On the 3RR, I initially thought no harm was done, but upon careful inspection, there was a violation. Brusegadi 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had dealings with both of these editors and there is absolutely no indication that one is a sockpuppet of the another. Indeed the only substantial evidence presented here is that Ramdrake may have broken the three revert rule by making a revert while not logged in to his account. This may not be acceptable behaviour for sure, but this is surely evidence that RAmdrake and Jeeny are not socks or even Meatpuppets. If Ramdrake and Jeeny were sockpuppets why would be not just revert with his sock account? Why would he use an IP address? The evidence of sockpuppetry is nonexistent. If ramdrake reverted from his IP address then give him a warn, it's what is usually done surely? Alun 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid Brusegadi is off-base. MoritzB and KarenAER have been pushing an extreme fringe POV on the article for several days with very little support, and in frustration have turned to (independent, no doubt) attacks on Ramdrake's character as well as Jeeny's very existence. The weakness of his argument is evident in that he has to combine it with a non-existent 3RR violation (the five edits concern two different matters, and the first set of edits really is rather trivial, mainly a dispute over what goes in a citation and not the actual removal of a view or content from the article) that is in any case unrelated to the charge of sock-puppetry. You know, I often agree with Jeeny and Ramdrake and often edit at the same time. I am surprised MoritzB or KarenAER have not accused me of being a "sleeper sockpuppet" - you know, four years before he set up his own account, Ramdrake created me just in case. The issue is simple: these editors are part of a tiny minority and several editors who are more familiar with the current research disagree with him. Instead of acknowledging that his in the minority, MoritzB can only imagine that everyone who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet. This is reckless POV warrioring at its worst. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not said that Jeeny is Ramdrake's sockpuppet and Ramdrake is the one who has seriously broken Wikipedia policies with his IP sockpuppet. This is a very simple case of a dishonest editor. Content disputes are irrelevant.
- MoritzB 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all very well, but it doesn't explain why you posted information purportedly showing that Ramdrake has broken the 3rr rule. This page is supposed to present evidence of sockpuppetry and not evidence of breaches of 3rr. The IP account listed has only four edits, so it is obviously not being used as a sock account. Possibly it is Ramdrake, and if it is, it certainly is a foolish thing to do, but it does not represent a persistent attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policies. If Ramdrake made a mistake, even if this mistake was engaging in an edit war using an IP, then this is a different thing to having a specific sockpuppet account for nefarious purposes. Let's remember to assume good faith. Also it's worth taking into account the essay regarding wikilawyering. All the best. Alun 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of the sockpuppet was to circumvent the 3RR. It is specifically forbidden to use sockpuppets to circumvent policies.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Circumventing_policy
- MoritzB 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read what I wrote? Alun 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified my statement and apologize to you for my error. The fact remains that Ramdrake has done nothing wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramdrake did broke the 3RR both with his account and the sockpuppet. See: [185]
- MoritzB 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this SSP report as a way to get back at Ramdrake (talk) for a RFCU case filed against MoritzB (talk) by Ramdrake (talk). Also, it would be nice if MoritzB would assume good faith when dealing with other editors. nattang 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how Ramdrake's previous (baseless) reports excuse his use of sockpuppetry to circumvent 3rr.
- MoritzB 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will someone please close this case so I can get rid of the trolls harrasing me? Please do a check user on me and Ramdrake. Sheesh- Jeeny Talk 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I'm going to leave the case open, but my provisional conclusion is that Ramdrake should not be blocked. I add a couple of notes:
- Ramdrake's block log shows two blocks for 3RR long in the past, one specifically regarding "race and intelligence." That causes people like me to become suspicious.
- MoritzB is clearly making a counterattack from Ramdrake's accusation against him two days earlier. That makes me suspect a bogus accusation.
- It's possible that the IP is Ramdrake. There's no way to be certain because of insufficient evidence. It is equally possible that the IP was some other fellow patrolling recent changes, who evaluated a diff and decided "Ramdrake was right." I have made such an evaluation doing RC patrol at least once. The nature of the 3RR violation, if there was one (counting the IP edit), is also questionable. If it comes to a question of whether there were three reverts or four, and maybe one of them wasn't really a revert, and maybe one of them was from a disinterested IP, and the whole dispute goes far beyond the bounds of this accusation, etc. etc., the best course of action is not to block Ramdrake.
That being said, it would be nice for everyone involved (especially MoritzB, the plantiff) to cool down, and for Ramdrake to be extra careful to avoid even the appearance of 3RR, given the past history.
The claim that Jeeny is related to these two editors is patently ridiculous and does not merit further comment. Shalom Hello 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now certain that the IP was Ramdrake, (confirmed with RFCU).
"Having discussed with Deskana privately, I believe that the privacy policy is not intended to protect the IPs of users when it is the IP itself that is being used for abusive editing. In this case it is a clear Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake[reply]
- This matter has already been dealt with through the checkuser case linked above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 1 September 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
MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Franz V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 211.72.213.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 128.241.111.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Runtshit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 82.181.92.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Ramdrake 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
FranzV has only two edits, both of them to revert to a previous edit which MoritzB had made and which had been reverted in the meantime. One of the edits has no summary, while the other only has "MoritzB is right", so these look suspicious.--Ramdrake 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User is currently using sockpuppets to violate 3RR. Need confirmation of sockpuppet status. Edit histories are pretty clear that these are single-purpose edit-war sockpuppets. --Strothra 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Indeed..
As pointed out by Strothra, the banned sock puppet IP of user "runtshit" is connected to a sockpuppet of MoritzB, 211.72.213.93, who made the exact same edit as MoritzB and used precisely the same exact summary as 128.241.111.213! They supposedly log on and make their first edit ever merely to revert to MoritzB. [186] [187]
Observing the commotion hands on, I feel extremely confident that these are sock/meat puppets (they have to be). Also, from another article where MoritzB was restricted due to 3rr, another suspected sock/meat puppet pops up, blindly reverting to MoritzB not long after MoritzB sent a message to Ramdrake pleading to have the page reverted due to 3rr. Mind you, this is the first edit by this Ip as well, and the single purpose was to revert for MoritzB it seems. [188] [189]
MoritzB: [190]
Suspected sock Franz V with the same exact edit on the same page, during the same time period, of course, reverting conveniently to MoritzB. [191]
It isn't a matter of anyone "liking his edits", since most of the editors in question despise them. It is mainly about him causing disruption and apparently using sock puppets to avoid responsibility, not to mention that he is likely Runtshit and has been banned, in which case the user shouldn't even be allowed to edit.Taharqa 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Franz is not my sockpuppet and I don't know him. Obviously some guy who appreciates my edits, though. MoritzB 21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious that my edits are popular and I cannot help if non-established users agree with me.
- MoritzB 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MoritzB MoritzB 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that usercheck doesn't tell us anything about your case as a whole as you're strongly suspected as being Runtshit.. The admin from the checkuser conceded that it is in fact possible that you indeed are the banned user in question, but they didn't elaborate on the IPs.Taharqa 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Give me a break. Runtshit made 5 edits all of which said: "Yes, but Roland Rance is an extremely smelly piece of shit". Look at his contribution history. Any reasonable person can see that it is extremely unlikely that I am "Runtshit". LOL.
- MoritzB 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Runtshit's IP is connected to one of your other sockpuppets, also from identical edit summaries on the same exact article you edited, reverting to the same exact thing around the same time period. The odds of these IPs not being you is low. Not to mention the other IPs addressed.Taharqa 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, none of those IPs are mine which was confirmed by an admin.MoritzB 02:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Nothing has been confirmed by an admin, that's not true at all. You were only checked for one username and it can still be a meat puppet, the same admin states that you may be connected to Runtshit and/or his ips, along with the others.Taharqa 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This attempt to connect me with Runtshit is desperate and ridiculous. Runtshit was a banned random vandal who made five edits saying: "Yes, but Roland Rance is an extremely smelly piece of shit".
- MoritzB 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I think there is strong evidence that Franz V and MoritzB are tag-teaming, even if checkuser can't prove it.
I also think that the suspected link to banned user Runtshit should be left out of the conversation. Runtshit happened seven months ago, and did not directly impact in the current dispute. It will not be possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MoritzB is Runtshit: the checkusers left it as a "maybe."
KillerChihuahua blocked MoritzB for 24 hours for his role in the ongoing dispute - especially, as best I understand, for violating 3RR. The remaining question is whether to levy a block on Franz V.
I will leave this discussion open, as for Ramdrake above, but I believe that, with checkuser results already received, it is time to proceed to other steps in dispute resolution. Shalom Hello 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked Franz V as a probable sockpuppet of Hayden5650 (talk · contribs). Picaroon (t) 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Franz V is a sock of Hayden5650, and unrelated to MoritzB. Checkuser found that MoritzB and 211.72.213.93 are unrelated (211.72.213.93 is now blocked as an open proxy). 128.241.111.213 is blocked as a sock of User:Runtshit, but there's no evidence that MoritzB is connected to that account. Therefore, this report provides no evidence that MoritzB is involved in sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]