Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/February 2008

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

OVERRiDE K1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

CSDC OVERRiDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ArcAngel (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

CSDC OVERRiDE created this username.

Comments

Note by CSDC OVERRiDE - Yes, I am new to Wiki rules. The name CSDC OVERRiDE was in violation of Wiki rules, so I change my name to OVERRiDE K1. I will try to delete the account under CSDC OVERRiDE, or a Moderator please delete it for me! I hope this fixes the confusion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OVERRiDE K1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No issue here, THe block is a username block. No sockpupettry involved :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Crystalclearchanges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Whitstable 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The edit history of this user is similar to banned user iamandrewrice particularly in relation to edits to Latin Europe. The second edit of the suspected puppet warned an IP not to vandalise and warned with past experience hinted at "Trust me, I know a lot about this, having once been in your position... well kind of. If you do sockpuppet, then you will be 'banned', (not blocked). This is where you will never be able to come to wikipedia ever again even if you use a different name or IP address"

I suggested to Crystalclearchanges that editing in the article a banned member used to edit in a lot when they appear to be a banned member is not a wise move. I should add that yes, in that diff I did mention I didn't really care whether they were a sock or not, which wasn't wise. But at that point I was trying to help and didn't notice whether or not they had been disruptive.

Almost immediately, the user declared a wikibreak but still continued to edit. I monitored the Talk:Latin_Europe, where Crystalclearchanges appeared to be starting to employ the same tactics as iamandrewrice used to.

So I checked earlier edits and found some page moves [1], [2], [3]. There are others, once again all in the user's logs. There were also fashion edits, for example [4] and [5]. While that may not mean much compared to user:iamandrewrice here, that user (after being banned) moved to Simple English Wiki and made many similar moves and edits to fashion pages. Simple English contributions. I should add he changed his name over there after a while to Benniguy, hence the difference, but the logs show that.

Apologies, I know this could be clearer, but I have little spare time at the moment - if you need any further information, I'll be happy to supply it.

Comments

• Hello Whitstable. I suspect, and it is only a feeling, that User:Britannic1 is also a sockpuppet of Iamandrewrice and Crystalclearchanges. Their contributions' profile, talk page history and style of intervention are very smilar. And Britannic1 appears also to be a British with a strong interest in all things "Hispanic" or "Latin". Also, after I changed my mind about the inclusion of a gallery in Latin Europe, Britannic1 appeared in my talk page asking my help with photo galleries for Spanish Americans and Spanish Britons. You may want to check it out. Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so - their contributions are quite different, but I'll take a closer look Whitstable 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• did Iamandrewrice have many page moves? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  On the Simple English Wikipedia, yes Whitstable 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is...? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Already blocked, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice. MER-C 08:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

EctoplasmOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ma1kel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[6] [7] Switched accounts immediately following final warning

Comments

Conclusions

Both users blocked --Chris 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Eddy774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RFBailey (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The third case today, although not quite as blatant as the first two. Just seven minutes after the second case was concluded, this new account was created (see log), and became active on articles related to National Express East Anglia (see contribs).

Comments

I suspect an RFCU may be needed this time. If confirmed, some sort of IP range block may be needed to prevent repeat offending.

I would agree entirely with the report submitter. This clearly appears to the same user whom I blocked for violating 3RR and has continued to use other accounts to attempt to avoid the block. Adambro (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to indef the main account and announce this on WP:AN so that a community ban takes effect. Could you please request checkuser and ask them to work out a rangeblock or other method of stopping this? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A range block is not feasable in this case. --Deskana (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the user will give up on sock puppetry. I do not see that Eddy774 is doing anything destructive. Can somebody explain what is the problem with their edits? I've also asked this at WP:AN. See [8]. Jehochman ^Talk 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this user evading a ban? I wasn't aware that sockpuppets could be discretionarily permitted? MRSC • Talk 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Eddy774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account used to evade a valid block.
• 19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) remains blocked, but with the condition that he will be unblocked after 5 days providing he agrees to an informal "mentorship" and does not create further sockpuppets. See discussion at WP:AN and User talk:19andy91 for details. Gwernol 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Untileverycageisempty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Untileveryoneisfree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Doingwhatwikitellsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Untilallarefree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Doingwhatwikitellsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Untileverycageisempty (talk · contribs) and Untilallarefree (talk · contribs)

The above accounts are blocked as SPA. Untileveryoneisfree (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation that is not heeding advice on Copyright and NPOV.

Comments

It's likely that there are other accounts. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's file WP:RFCU to empty the sock drawer. Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Untileverycageisempty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Several were  Confirmed, the others were  Stale. However, given the above evidence, I think we can conclude that all are socks. All are already blocked, and now they are tagged. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock appears

• Deepecology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

copied from my talk page:

[9] SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What's going on here? Is this another sock puppet? Jehochman ^Talk 04:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fixing the previous incarnations images. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Quack quack. I will block it. Please add a note to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Untileverycageisempty. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another

• Johnhamfull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) MikeHobday (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked. The contribution pattern indicates that it is very likely the same editor. Jehochman ^Talk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lovesugar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Lsonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Lsonline1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Blueboy96 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Only edits by Lovesugar were been attempts to add spam links to rabbit vibrator. Shortly after being blocked, Lsonline appeared and attempted to add the same spam link. It was reverted immediately, and shortly after that Lsonline1 appeared and tried to add the same link. It was reverted; he's currently in a dialogue on the talk page.

Comments

Conclusions

No possible doubt that those are the same spammer. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Walter Mellon Head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Avatar-Jedi-Alchemist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

His edits, which got him banned previously, have continued: the edits are about the same content (mostly on the Aang article) and include the same edit summaries. In addition, his userpage information is almost an exact copy on the sockpupper's userpage.

Comments

Conclusions

Quack, quack. Sock blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kyleain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

76.113.26.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Novangelis (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Editing previous case

Edits in succession to a sockpuppet in the previous case

Describing edits as "rebuke"
...as was done with past accounts.

Continuation of personal attacks
[10]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kyleain

Comments

Filed as Wikipedia:Abuse reports/76.113.26.119 which was referred here.

Conclusions

It's been ten days since anything abusive happened. We want this person to stop. Hopefully they have. I am going to close this case. If they return to cause further trouble we can reopen the case. Many of the diffs above are stale, more than a month old. This is a Comcast IP. It will be reallocated periodically, so there is no point in blocking at this point. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Andrew1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RFBailey (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Four minutes after the previous case was resolved, this new account was created [11] and is active on the same/similar articles (see contribs: [12] [13]), especially c2c.

Comments

Conclusions

Jehochman has issued a one-week block to the main account for evading a block, and has blocked the sock puppet indef. This is a reasonable response. I note in passing that the edits by the new accounts have not been reverted, and I don't know if they should be. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Obscuredata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

twoLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Obscuredata has been blocked per WP:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Drstones. Suspicion of further use of sockpuppets comes from participation on WP:Articles_for_deletion/Oxford_Round_Table_(re-nomination), where we see this.

This is similar to previous edits on the original AfD, see here and here. The logic of the posts is the same, as is the dodgy English (suggesting all edits made by someone with ESL).

It might also be worth considering whether there is overlap here with Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Billingsworth; participation on the two AfDs seems similar, see here and here.

Comments

I am not sure if this is a sock puppet or a SPA. The post [14] immediately made me suspicious, it suggests prior knowledge of wikipedia processes but the logic is spurious and flawed and the claims are largely false, whether this is evidence of editing inexperience or just POV pushing is anyone's guess. --neonwhite user page talk 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Here TwoLove admits that he was asked to comment on the AFD by a blocked user. This in itself is not a reason to block him. He has not edited since the AFD, and I don't expect that he will. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Thecomedycavern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mastersofhumor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

As soon as the puppet master was reported at WP:AIV for repeated recreation of the Lee Greenfield article, the sock was created and resumed this repeated recreation (see also Lee greenfield and other possible ways to capitalize this name).

Comments

I'm not sure what the point of this is now that the article has been salted, but you can also add in Derektrotteresq (talk · contribs), Pallets07 (talk · contribs), Standupreview (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Really these should all be blocked, but I can't do it, and it's not worthwhile to bother someone else. If these guys ever vandalise again, block on sight. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Guywithdress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Logged in 22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Notesense22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Salesmyth22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Full list in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Guywithdress

Report submission by

Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Newly created account doing the same image tagging reversions that Guywithdress was just blocked for.

Comments

Guywithdress blocked indef for obvious block evasion. Mr.Z-man 02:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else see the obvious username connection here? THE KC (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The two use different (static) IPs, so although the behavioral evidence is strong, checkuser does not definitively confirm the two as the same user. That said there is good reason to believe they are:

1. Behavioral evidence. Guy was blocked and last edited 02:20, February 13, 2008. He acknowledged the matter first at 02:08, February 13, 2008. Compare Logged In -- first edited 02:07, February 13, 2008.
2. The IP of Guywithdress is local to a specific US state. The IP of Logged In 22 is a town which by chance I have friends in, and therefore know is in that same state.
3. Other CU evidence suggests similarities too.

You might also want to look at:

• The Smartass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ?kjdfng83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who share an IP with Guywithdress and edit in a manner suggesting existing editorship and a wiki-agenda (and started editing recently)
• Nerjkng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also edited on the same IP as Guyindress.

Logged in 22 shares his IP with 4 other accounts, 3 of which are blocked. The fourth is an account created on Feb 9 which has made one edit, a stub article that Ive checked and found valid. Guyindress also has two other users on his IP, one of which edited one day in december and also one day in this last week (all good edits), the other an account created Dec 4 that has made no edits as yet.

Conclusions

 Likely FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, so what's the point of this edit? I'm not seeing the connection to User:Primetime here. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sirjustinflames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

84.71.97.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thaimanfrombk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

These three accounts suddenly appeared from more or less nowhere and are tag-team reverting the Jet engine article to introduce material not backed by reliable sources, in violation of WP:3RR, and are not responding on talk pages; multiple accusations of vandalism in subject line, lack of good faith etc. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=193541332&oldid=193535761 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=193467501&oldid=193376813 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=193304078&oldid=193297550 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=193356621&oldid=193321414

Bad faith vandalisation of launch loop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Launch_loop&diff=193305299&oldid=189421300

Bad faith vandalisation of Scotland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotland&diff=prev&oldid=193006737

- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sirjustinflames. Jehochman ^Talk 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Confirmed The sock has been blocked indefinitely, and I've given the main account a 3 day block. If trouble resumes when they return, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

123andy321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RFBailey (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Originally appeared to be a legitimate "alternative account", created due to apparent forgetfulness [15]. However, after 19andy91 was blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on c2c (history block log), User:123andy321 continued the edit war (see [16]). So the second account is being used to evade the block.

Comments

Conclusions

• Possible based on checkuser evidence alone. Given the behavioural evidence, and given the usernames, it is clear that the accounts are used by the same person. --Deskana (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Lucasbfr has blocked 19andy91 for 72 hours for block evasion, and blocked 123andy321 indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet. --Deskana (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, I got driven away for a few minutes before commenting here. Archiving, then. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) > recently blocked
KoreanShoriSenyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)> recently blocked
Orchis29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)> recently blocked
Limited200802th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Korea4one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zainichi Koreans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ikedanobuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ShinjukuXYZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kamosuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)> blocked long ago
DDRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Necmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
218.224.54.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)OCN.NE.JP ip users
124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
125.200.61.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
219.66.47.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
221.190.251.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
125.200.62.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61.199.33.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
219.66.44.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
219.66.46.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
211.63.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) >looks like an open proxy.
>looks like an open proxy. 222.12.153.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

and all listed ODN and Plala IP addresses in Case 1, Case 2, Case 3

Report submission by

--Appletrees (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Yakuza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Koreans in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So Far from the Bamboo Grove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bright888

Opp2 admitted that he uses Plala, and CITIE.[[17]] However, he also said he uses IIJ and NIFTY per his comment.[18]. I believe Opp2 use more than these listed ISP including OCN network because behavioral patterns of various anons resemble to this new advent anons. Within a short period time, the OCN anon seems to switch IP address easily, not only a different IP address, but also previously used ones. From 2008-02-05T01:16 to 2008-02-05T05:56 (3 hours 30 minutes), his ip addresses are changed to 4 different ip addresses. I think he uses some kind of IP generator or switcher. The ips are moving back and forth. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

They all are interested in Japan-Korean related articles, but some of them show almost all of field as their favorite field, others look like a single minded account. That is just a tactic to prevent them from being caught.

Opp2 also has the same habit in writing English as "was being written". Please see the collapsed boxes in the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azukimonaka file. He is the only one using the error except Orchis29. Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou and Kamosuke did. KoreanShoriSenyou who has strong anti-Korean sentiment never appeared at Dokdo article, even at the time for vote for the article name change. Azukimonaka only appeared at that time once at the article. I assume they(?) were afraid of being discovered their true identity through Checkuser files.

Comments

I retract my previous comment about Opp2's current home provider[29] that Opp2 is now most probably using plala. Sorry for not updating my knowledge.

"My provider is IIJ and NIFTY. You?"[30]

I can mention the relationship between CTIE and IIJ. I think Opp2 commented that Opp2 was using IIJ since CTIE is hosted by IIJ.[31] Therefore, the comment was reasonable.

My another comment is about Opp2's tendency to use "is being written." Appletrees, do you have any other examples that is the same as the other suspected socks? "Is being written" (not "was being..." etc.) seems really Opp2 specific and can be useful to relate Opp2 to any other socks, while the editors whom User:Appletrees mentioned here such as Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou, and Orchis29 are using similar but not the same expression "is being written."

Anyway, I think Opp2 does not mind much to be checked again and again while Opp2 seems expressing anxiety to be designated as a sockpuppet by chance because of the popularity of the ISP.--Jjok (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A related case , Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Celldea has been closed. The result basically showed no relation to Opp2.--Jjok (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet: Jjok, you're the one who said that I might have been dealing with just one person (not several people , so your suggestion really encouraged me to file this) at hour talk page.[32] You did also "teach" me how carefully I should differentiate one from various ISPs. Do you need more evidences regarding the relation between the above mentioned users and Opp2? Fine, I only included partial of what I have because I wanted to make this file compact. You also missed to point out on @nifty, one of which Opp2 asserted to use. I have some that ip addresses which seems related to dog meat. The RFCU file you added to here is no relation with his case. That is all about Watermint and meatpuppetry of yours. I found something weird on the result.--Appletrees (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another related CU request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki. It looks like K-J content disputes and User:Appletrees wants to know how many pro-Japanese and Japanese ultraright editors are acting, and ban them all because they disgrace Korean images with reliable sources.--Jjok (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jjok, well, regardless of my several efforts to inform you about chinilpa, you are insisting on calling yourself as such, from now I may regard you as a Korean senior born before 1930s. As for the the images, you're the one who takes the responsibility for the edit warring. You may also want to see this Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21. This explains why I have been chased by so many disruptive editors and why suddenly participants are increased for the poll at Sea of Japan article and began to change rankings related to Korea. What a wonderful party with meatpuppetry but isn't it nothing new. --Appletrees (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I believe the accusations are overly broad and the evidence is not well-organized. For the future, concentrate on a smaller number of accounts where you can demonstrate a conclusive linkage with a concise presentation of evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hammerandclaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Drillerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

barneca (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I have a history with Hammerandclaw; I opened an ANI thread to suggest blocking his account [33]. The block ran from 14:35 Feb 19th to 14:35 Feb 21st. At Tony Sidaway's request, he was unblocked with the understanding that he would stop editing unconstructively.

However, he's now trolling me:

• Hammerandclaw says he's going to spam a YouTube video at 18:13 on Feb 25: [34]

• Drillerman shows up on my user page at 18:18 on Feb 25 to spam the same video: [35]. Note that I have had no previous interaction with this username.

• Hammerandclaw shows up 2 mintues later to revert: [36]

• Hammerandclaw leaves an annoying message on my talk page bragging about it: [37]

• Hammerclaw makes vague comment [38] about "weird stuff going on" to another user on my talk page, and suggests to them "watch yourself…you don't want anything to happen to you."

I'm asking both accounts be blocked indef. Drillerman as an abusive sock, and Hammerandclaw because he's demonstrated he can't be trusted to behave, and for the vague threat to MastCell on my user page in the last diff above. I had a bad feeling at the time about the unblock, expecting we were being trolled, and now that it's been confirmed I suggest we limit the endless system gaming.

This passes my own duck test (I suspect sockpuppet, but if it's a meatpuppet it doesn't matter), so I'm not asking for a Checkuser prior to resolution here. But the person behind both accounts doesn't appear to be stupid, so I assume they expected to be caught, and that this is part of their fun. When this SSP is settled, I'll file an WP:RFCU to see if there are any other sleeper socks on this IP. --barneca (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

I've blocked Drillerman (talk · contribs) as a likely sock and vandalism-only account. It looks like another admin has blocked Hammerandclaw (talk · contribs) indefinitely for trolling, threats, etc. I think this is very likely to be a case of sockpuppetry, and in any case both users evinced other unconstructive behaviors as well. You could send it to WP:RFCU to look for additional socks, but they may turn it down since both named users are already blocked. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sportsfan678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Andrew.R.Daniels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

TheJesusChristandGodtoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

ScrewUroleplayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Polly (Parrot) 00:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both accounts are SPA's used to edit the same article,no edits overlap.

Comments

• Passes the duck test. Sancho 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Not enough evidence to establish that they are the same editor versus a few mates drinking beer a pulling a prank. TheJesusChristandGodtoo and SrewUroleplayer accounts have been blocked already. N further action is required. Sportsfan678 shows signs of being a potentially productive editor. If they are vandals, they will prove it beyond a doubt and then get blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Saedirof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

MarkPC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redlance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This invloves a long running edit war and disruptive behavior in multiple articles, namely Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi: Recent edits by violators: [39], [40], [41], [42],[43], [44], [45], [46], [47],

1. Saedirof (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been constantly edit-warring on Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi using multiple sock puppets and open proxies to push POV. (Check [48], [49], [50]) and was warned by many admins and finally blocked for disruptive behavior and edit-warring constantly. Check [51], [52]. Finally the last check user user results revealed that he was also using open proxies and blocked for a week: CU proof:[53]. Recently he has resumed edit-warring after expiration of block in the same articles: [54], [55], [56], [57]. Also he keeps blatantly lying and reverting by falsely accusing me of being a banned user. He was also warned by admin Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) multiple times [58], [59] that he will be blocked if he continued to do this.

2. MarkPC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) just deletes the exact same references from the article Devadasi which is related to article to Mudaliar and Sengunthar. The account MarkPC (talk · contribs) has been created for the sole purpose of edit-warring on the article Devadasi, (check [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66],[67], [68] while Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit-wars on the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar at the same time. This user was initially found to be a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs) (CU proof:[69]) but then later escaped by saying that he only edited Devadasi while Saedirof (talk · contribs) has edited Mudaliar and Sengunthar . But this is so not true as the 3 articles are closely related.

For example compare the recent edit-summaries by Saedirof (talk · contribs): [70] and edit-summaries by MarkPC (talk · contribs): [71], [72]. Look at the exact same sentence structure ("reverting after vandalism by YouOnlyLiveTwice a master puppetteer and a banned user") where they both falsely accuse me of being a "master puppeteer and sock of a banned user".

3.Redlance (talk · contribs) also mimics the same edits as Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs)and seems to have been created to forge an illusion of multiple users supporting the POV. Check: [73], [74]. RFCU result:[75] proved that he was editing purely through open proxies.

4. Initial RFCU result link: [76] where Saedirof (talk · contribs) was confirmed as MarkPC (talk · contribs). But subsequently MarkPC (talk · contribs) escaped and got himself unblocked by saying that he only edits article Devadasi and that he has never edited the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar on which Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit-wars constantly But this is not true as all 3 articles are closely related and MarkPC (talk · contribs) deletes the exact same references that Saedirof (talk · contribs) deletes from the articles Mudaliar and Sengunthar. See 1 above for edit diffs of Saedirof (talk · contribs) and 2 above for edit diffs of MarkPC (talk · contribs)

4. Multiple warnings by admin Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) that Saedirof (talk · contribs) will be blocked if he kept falsely accusing me that I'm a master puppeteer and sock of a banned user:[77], [78]

5. Admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) confirms my suspicion that Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the very same ip location: In the most recent RFCU that I filed at 21:24 on 26 February 2008 (UTC), I told that I strongly suspected that both Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edited from the same location. Admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) has confirmed this for a fact that Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the exact same location when he replied to a query by Saedirof (talk · contribs) later at 00:28, 27 February 2008. See proof: [79]. But admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) could not come to a conclusion based on technical analysis alone and he directed me here. He clearly says that Saedirof (talk · contribs) could very well be MarkPC (talk · contribs). To quote him: You and MarkPC edit from the same place. It is possibly a workplace, and I can't tell how many people work there, and certain other features make it look like you are not MarkPC, but that does not rule out that you are not the same person using two computers

Note: It is highly likely that one or more of the above are sock puppets of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) / Venki123 (talk · contribs) who were banned by the arbitration committee for heavy trolling and edit-warring on the very same articles, namely Mudaliar, Sengunthar and Devadasi. Check [80].

This is a clear cut case of sock puppetry which is proved beyond doubt by the results of the check user where intially MarkPC (talk · contribs) is confirmed as a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs) but then later escapes as his only edits are on article Devadasi and the admin who unblocked him was unaware. that the articles Devadasi, Sengunthar and Mudaliar are very closely related with overlapping references. Moreover, the confirmation by admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) that Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the exact same location further reinforces that both Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) are socks of the same person who also comes via open proxies under the alias Redlance (talk · contribs).

Comments

MarkPC has been rechecked at his behest by Jpgordon (talk · contribs); the result was that MarkPC's previous checkuser link to Saedirof was a false positive, and he was unblocked based on that. I feel it is incorrect to list MarkPC as a possible sock. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the most recent evidence(at 00:28, 27 February 2008) by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here[81] where he confirms both Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the same ip location like a workplace. He clearly says that Saedirof (talk · contribs) could very well be MarkPC (talk · contribs). To quote him: You and MarkPC edit from the same place. It is possibly a workplace, and I can't tell how many people work there, and certain other features make it look like you are not MarkPC, but that does not rule out that you are not the same person using two computers. I feel Jpgordon (talk · contribs) was unaware that the 3 articles Devadasi, Sengunthar and Mudaliar were related and based his decision on that. Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Report was filed by a single purpose attack account.[82] To prevent rules gaming, no action will be taken. If Youonlylivetwice proceeds with these attacks, they will be blocked by me for disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Oh Noes its another account part deux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Oh Noes its another account part deux 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User created the second account before being blocked on the first one. The second one does not appear to be blocked.

Comments

Conclusions

That's pretty obvious. I will block. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Oh Noes its another account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Justin Eiler (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandalized User:Nightrider 83's user page. Considering the account name, it's almost certainly a sockpuppet.

Comments

Same MO as this case--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The sockpuppet has been blocked as a vandalism-only account. --EoL talk 00:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

142.162.197.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

142.162.194.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.205.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.195.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.195.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.194.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.205.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mark7532222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Endless Dan 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Pattern of finding a similar IP address vandalizing articles related to WP:PW. Then I found these comments.

Comments

Reviewing each of the IPs contributions, it's consistently garbage and vadalism. Most reverted and unreported.

Conclusions

He's annoying.

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mark753 - the smoking gun.

I've blocked the recent IPs. They'll probably return, but a range block would be excessive at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Clamorformore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Uscrob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Nikfranklehrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Nataliyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

KM2studios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sharvimj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Smeag91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Voodoorex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Prescott B.‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Added an argument for keeping to the afd... hours after the page had been deleted)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Blatant (and dreadfully amateurish) vote stuffing attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Jones

Comments

• Seems to be well-founded suspicion of sockpuppetry. It took me three tries to make a comment because of the disruptive edits causing an "edit conflict." Several socks were created within 10 minutes of each other.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 07:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a huge fan of Alexis Jones as well as Survivor and I'm sure the other people who want to keep her bio are as well. Who are you to say she is not newsworthy? Do you know how many people become stars over night? Just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't an influential member of contemporary society. What is your personal vendetta against her? How does it benefit you to try to prove she isn't famous? Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to improve your life rather than attacking hers? Maybe you could use one of her empowerment lectures. I can't wait until she blows up even more and this whole thing shame slaps you across the face. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Con Amor,

-Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscrob (talk • contribs) 08:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • If she does something notable, then the page can be recreated. No big deal. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, the Alexis Jones discussion is irrelevant here. This page is for dealing with the sockpuppet allegations. Everyone of the socks should be banned, with a stiff block for the puppeteer.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You actually missed a few. There were two or three others who edited the article and talk page with arguments for keeping the page but didn't make it to the afd. It also might not hurt to include Lexijones1 (talk · contribs), who created the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Patent socks - passes the duck test so spectacularly it's almost insulting (leaving aside the fact that the comment above is insulting). I'd advocate blocking the lot of them for abuse of multiple accounts, and would have done it already if I wasn't on my public account... _{The public face of GB}^T/C 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All sockpuppets blocked apart from Voodoorex, who doesn't appear to correlate with the other users. However if they do continue with the same trend then feel free to bring back here. Master blocked one week. Rudget | talk 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

PS optimal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AVRao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RocketWoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PSContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Imichaelross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Optimality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brentolde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Medvall (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence as per this page

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PS_optimal

Comments

All users should be permanently blocked.

Conclusions

The following pages need deletion since created by team of puppets:

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=DIDO_%28optimal_control%29
http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Pseudospectral_optimal_control

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

Mattsbigbrother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Leostar20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

- Mike Beckham (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See reversion histories of Nine Network and Seven Network. making same changes as warned user previously

Comments

I wont do it again sorry :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsbigbrother (talk • contribs) 12:58, February 23, 2008

Conclusions

Edits looks conclusive, and so does the "self-admission" above. Mattsbigbrother has probably already served a long enough block so won't extend his (even thought it automatically expired over 5 hours ago), Leostar20 blocked indefinitely. Rudget. 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

LakeOswego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

74.128.181.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.89.98.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
216.126.104.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
189.164.156.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ourmangwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Epictatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cvsvideo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dicktater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Duanecwilson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mcws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jamesclark830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rosco999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jimveda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FeelFreeToBe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Wildad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Girardjl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Saucy tin1331 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Since the opening of the deletion review, here's a few more: Truth9898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Upsidedownpiano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Theonome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Lake Oswego (a pretty new account) and a cadre of WP:SPAs (4 IPs & 10 new accounts) all voted keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination). Others continually recreated G. Edward Griffin following the AfD closure (now salted). Lake Oswego recreated Edward Griffin, too (now also salted). The situation resulted in an AN thread permalink & an ANI thread permalink. Lake Oswego recreated the article in userspace as well, now in the deleted revisions of User:LakeOswego. LakeOswego seems intent on making a big deal about this (not user page edits and such). — Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The IPs have different WHOIS results, so this may be the work of just a lot of off-wiki canvass meatpuppeting, but it's maybe worth a closer look. Checkuser? — Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editing is all fresh, so checkuser should be able to sort it out. Having a blizzard of single purpose accounts appear is a sign of sock puppetry, but it is not enough to block them. Go for technical confirmation via WP:RFCU. The reason would be code 'D' and you should link to the closed AFD, and also to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego as the evidence. :D Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LakeOswego now open. — Scientizzle 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP this checkuser request immediately! According to WP:RFCU "Vote fraud where the possible sockpuppet votes do not affect the outcome of the vote" is an "unacceptable request". The users accused of suckpuppetry voted "keep", but the outcome was "delete". Honor the guidelines! I am NOT a suckpuppet and can well speak for myself. Soon I will include a response to the accusation of suckpuppetry and provide a likely explanation for the "evidence" in a post on Nihonjoe's ^Talk page. If, however, I find that the checkuser request has been conducted, I WILL get a new username for further contributions to wikipedia, because I cannot trust anymore that my privacy is secured. Do you really have to be online 24 hours a day just to prevent people on wikipedia from running amok? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is This A Joke? What kind of response could I possibly have? I am not a sock puppet, nor do I have an alternative account. However, I can't prove a negative. I've been a user here for two years. I'm not someone's robot. I have never communicated with anyone else on this ridiculous list. I came to the page to look for leads to other works by G. Edward Griffin that I was not aware. I found that the page was up for deletion so, I voted to "keep" because I have found the page valuable in the past. That makes me a sockpuppet? Is my vote to keep what is claimed to be evidence justifying this slanderous accusation? It's about to make me an ex-WP user. I demand an apology and that my name be removed from this list immediately. Dicktater (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, really? Three contributions to a deletion debate for a POV-fork in 2006, where you demand formal notice and a right to mediation or arbitration if the debate closes as anything other than keep (it closed as an unambiguous delete); then in September 2007 you made your first mainspace edit, inserting a section about "false claims" made by a subject in a biographical article, sourced from YouTube; then on Feb 23 this year you took part in the deletion debate for G. Edward Griffin. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that these contributions would be no loss to the project, I'm afraid, so your threat is somewhat hollow. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:LakeOswego, Is it a joke, Are they really clamming that all these users are me? Each IP is form different country!, (74.128.181.67, 65.89.98.17, 216.126.104.68, 189.164.156.182) so just think about it, if I am really capable to do this, You think I will let someone delete the Article G. Edward Griffin? Just use your common sense—Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeOswego (talk • contribs)

User:Calton, What is your problem with me? Do you hate me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeOswego (talk • contribs)

All I do is mop up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that. --Calton | Talk 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LakeOswego came back  Inconclusive. An editor came forward to explain that there had been canvassing, an obvious sock violation. However, the article is deleted, the deletion review is closed, and the single purpose accounts don't seem to be causing further trouble. Essentially, problem solved, no need for further action. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mosiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Dari.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Shootthedevgru (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

removing speedy deletion tags from Ishq bector. Both accounts had this article as their only contribs.

Comments

Conclusions

Dari.tv blocked indefinitely. Warning given to Mosiki. Rudget. 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rhode Island Hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <blocked indef last Nov>

Suspected sockpuppets

70.181.24.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <48 hrs for continuing vandalism>

Greg Jungwirth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef from RFCU>

Additional accounts after initial submission:

67.93.25.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <"colective", no edits for several days, tagged>

72.200.176.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <"colective", already blocked 24 hours, tagged>

The C. Leader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef from RFCU>

24.250.38.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <"colective", already blocked 2 weeks as a Crips r us sock, tagged>

Pokemega32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (suspected to be connected due to alleged stolen account) <doesn't edit for 5 1/2 months and comes straight to this SSP case? Highly suspicious, but see nothing blockable, tagged as suspected sock>

ThegreatWakkorati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) confirmed as unrelated

LDEJRuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <no action, not convinced of this one>

70.253.93.103's vengance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef username vio, implies disruptive intent>

I.P. 70.253.93.103's vengance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef username vio, implies disruptive intent>

70.253.93.103's vengance2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef username vio, implies disruptive intent>

3151253209225 leader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef from RFCU>

70.253.93.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <already had a temp block, no recent acty, but tagged as sock>

Report submission by

treelo _talk 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Has edited user talkpages who have dealt with his sockpuppets in the past and prior identities' userpages with aphorisms tagged with "Colective" at the end. [83] [84] [85] Greg Jungwirth seems to be the real identity of the sockpuppeteer as a prior CU case has shown [86] The IP address has been warned due to vandalising his own accounts as a double-bluff.

• Further evidence: Has recently blanked my usertalk page several times ([87] [88] [89]) and may want to consider the Greg Jungwirth account as the master account because of it predating the Rhode Island Hero account by a month. Also can be tied to User:Jungwirthwillkillallrocks given the Greg account tried to move their account to that username a few times [90]. treelo _talk 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vandalism is ongoing via different usernames and IP addresses, might need something a bit more immediate to deal with this issue. According to a WHOIS check all IP addresses are coming from a single ISP based in Atlanta, GA. --treelo _talk 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Has recently added goading comments to talkpages[91] [92] and userpages of previous identities[93] indicating their connectedness to a spate of pageblanking with associated accounts in an attempt to make those who have dealt with his vandalism in the past feel they cannot "catch him" and may have stolen another account. Given the severity of which Greg wants to vandalise and feel he's unstoppable leads me to believe that he may have mental problems and should have any prior accounts and newly used accounts at WP:LTA, preferably in a subpage. --treelo _talk 03:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• RFCU filed for suspected user. [94] --treelo _talk 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Excuse me, I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, so when I came on today, it had a note to my IP address about changes to its talk page. Apparently, I have the same IP address as this person....

I have two questions:

• 1. Is it even possible to have the same IP Address as someone else?
• 2. Will the banning of these accounts affect mine?

I really don't want to be connected to any of this, plese answer back. Pokemega32 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer, yeah they can have the same IP address but not at the exact same time. The vandal's IP address has come from a pool of IP address for your ISP but won't affect you unless you use the same IP address again should it be blocked in which case you'll have to log in to edit. treelo _talk 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres some information that might help from the previous failed check user [95] DietLimeCola (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already been listed in the original case submission. --treelo _talk 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um the only thing I have to do with Rhode Island Hero, is that I live 12 houses away from him. And he is my friend.Greg Jungwirth (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that comment pretty much proves that you're a sock puppet of Rhode Island Hero. DietLimeCola (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Greg Jungwirth, The C. Leader, 3151253209225 leader are all indef blocked as a result of the RFCU case. Will look at the rest tomorrow. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70.181.24.188 blocked 48 hours for continuing vandalism. 70.253.93.103's vengance, I.P. 70.253.93.103's vengance, and 70.253.93.103's vengance2 are all three blocked as username violations. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than write out all actions taken, see notes by each name. There is obviously something fishy going on here. "Crips r us" and Rhode Island Hero are not the masters, I think Greg Jungwirth is, so I'm tagging all in this case and the RFCU cases as such--at least they'll all be tagged the same too. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gothgirlangel1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Steven Hipkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by — Rlevse • Talk • 01

48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Gothgirlangel1981 began editing in August 2007. User:Steven Hipkins first appeared only one month ago in Jan 2008. Both self-identify as being from the UK. The edits of both users are almost exclusively in the area of sex and gender identity. The articles edited in common include Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) and Phat pants. Even edits to articles that are not obviously gender related are often in fact gender related, such as this one to Phat pants by SH and this one by GG to the same article. In both cases "male" was placed in front of several words. This fascination with gender terms can also be seen in today's editing where both editors insisted the BSA was the largest boy youth organization in America where in fact is the largest, regardless of gender membership. (BSA is in fact partly coed). SH's edits to the BSA article today are here: [96], [97], [98], [99]. GG's edits to the BSA article today are here: [100], [101], [102]. Also today, both kept changing edits to GSUSA from "girls" to "young people" or "young persons" when it is in fact girls-only (see GSUSA's own website). SH's edits on the GSUSA article today here: [103], [104], [105], [106]. GG's edits on GSUSA article today here: [107], [108].

Their language and interests are strikingly similar.

Both users use deceptive edit summaries, claiming things that did not happen. For example, see this edit, where the summary is "Modify Date Stamps, grammar errors", but the diff shows no date stamps being modified and no grammar errors being fixed, it's just insertion of "male" for the most part. An example from GG, where the summary says "removal of irrelevant info - reedited lower section", but the info was relevant and there were no lower section edits. There's also this edit where the summary is "Removed info by vandalistic editor."; but the edit clearly wasn't vandalism.

Edit comparison tool results: here

Also note that when GG stopped editing today at 22:49, SH started up at 22:52, a mere 3 minutes later, when SH had not edited in 24 days. On 30 Jan (the last day where SH edited prior to today), SH stops editing at 15:48 and GG starts at 15:55, only seven minutes later.

We have interests, time of edits never overlapping, deceptive edit summaries, tag team disruptive edit warring on BSA/GSUSA (which SH was warned for), and general location linking them together and violating WP:SOCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Was bored so I looked through this case --and it's looks pretty convincing. Both seem to have some kind of "gender issue". They take turns editing (blocks of editing). Common articles of interest and same POV in those articles. A precipitating event (in the form of a dispute on the part of Gothgirlangel1981 on scouting articles and maybe "Phat pants") provides a "reason" to create a sockpuppet, in order to fake support. Recommend running a CU to confirm, but there seems to be enough evidence without it in the case it comes back as "inconclusive". I would be extremely surprised if it came back "unrelated." R. Baley (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The evidence of sockpuppetry looks very convincing. Indef blocking sock, and 24 hour block for the master. Dreadstar † 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resovled, archiving case. Dreadstar † 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

UkraineToday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

80.97.94.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62.6.242.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
212.248.240.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.191.25.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
189.56.193.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
212.92.23.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jd2718 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62.6.242.14 appended by Jd2718 (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
212.248.240.1 appended by --TAG (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88.191.25.38 open proxy by --TAG (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
189.56.193.250 open proxy by Timberframe (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
212.92.23.102 open proxy by --TAG (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

IP edits the same article as previous user:UkraineToday socks (see the previous sock puppet reports: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th. He restores the same charts from his blog, makes false 3RR warnings, uses the same variety of mispellings (read to the end, they accelerate and become more unusual, regularly fails to sign, all matching the evidence in the previous sockpuppet reports.

And in case there is any question, he is hand-signing his talk page edits as D@Work, telling us he is the same editor as previously blocked-as-puppet DemocracyATwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The newer sock, user talk:62.6.242.14, appeared and edited twice, once the talk page where he heaped abuse on those who disagreed with him [109], and once he vandalized Internet Forum [110] which DeadEyeArrow had just repaired. DeadEyeArrow reverted UkraineToday earlier today. Jd2718 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New anon ip 212.248.240.1 has restored charts created by UkraineToday at Template:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 --TAG (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The original block was for e-mail abuse. Since then he has revealed RL id, spammed talk pages, edit warred, and used multiple puppets to evade his ban.

Both IPs are open-proxies and were blocked as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. But it's unknown if case will evolve. --TAG (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Both" in the comment immediately above refers only to the first two IPs. Jd2718 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - all future IPs of this abuser are expected to come from open proxies. 212.248.240.1 is also open proxy --TAG (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

189.56.193.250 continues edits by previous socks to the same images and talk pages, using the same vocabulary and characteristic spelling mistakes and continuing the campaign of trying to reveal my real life identity. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UkraineToday keep using proxy IPs from proksi.hash.es website. --TAG (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case anyone felt like reviewing the original ban... There are current behaviors that reaffirm the need for the original ban. The account edit wars, as we've been seeing on Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007, and, after semi-protection, on the associated talk page. The account edits disruptively (see this talk page. The 1st edit is by the banned user, copying another editor's comment, sig, and time stamp from elsewhere). The account is abusive towards other edits. The account has revealed RL data about other editors. Jd2718 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Tiresome. I have made sure all the IPs are blocked. They were open proxies. Additionally, I have semi-protected the pages that were being attacked. Hopefully the user will get bored and go find something productive to do with their time instead of bothering Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

YourLord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Illustrious One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

YourLord resumes block-evasion and disruptive activity mentioned in previous (IP-only) SP report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YourLord

YourLord's distinquishing behavior is adding certain categories to none-too-appropriate subjects, and is obsessed with cartoons and fantasy fiction "supervillians" [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]. An IP sock who self-identifies as YourLord [116] defends an IP in the same range for adding Category:Supervillains, Category:Fictional bisexuals, [117] [118] to Stewie Griffin.

(The trail of IP addresses used by YourLord is complicated to follow, but easy to identify by their distinctive obsessions. More relationships are demonstrated in YourLord's previous SSP.)

Illustrious One adds Stewie Griffin [119] to categories Category:Supervillains, Category:Fictional bisexuals, Category:Fictional characters who appear to be somewhat vain or arrogant, the latter being a new category created by Illustrious One and being populated characters from cartoons and fantasy fiction. Other edits are consistent with YourLord's interests and categorization.

Conclusion

This is an obvious sock puppet, especially if you consider these pairs of edits:

• User pages: [120][121]
• User talk pages: [122][123]

Checkuser will not help because the puppetmaster has not edited recently. I am blocking the sock. Jehochman ^Talk 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cheeser1[reply]