Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2007

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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Barnorama2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mysdaao 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Username is the almost the same with a 2 added, and both users have vandalized User talk:Kablammo

Comments

Conclusions

• Obvious. Barnorama2 is blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 31 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Peschong1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134.29.58.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134.29.33.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134.29.69.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.24.166.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.159.215.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134.29.39.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wyatt Riot 00:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Multiple edits to Mankato, Minnesota and other sites promoting himself and his businesses (Examples: [1] and [2]), was eventually blocked for WP:SPAM violations. Edited some articles using as an anonymous IP user (User:134.29.58.194 and User:134.29.33.91) adding the same or similar sites, and now has created another account with a similar name, again adding links to those same sites as well as an article about himself Matthew Peschong which is (currently) tagged for speedy deletion.

• All above IPs come from city of Mankato, Minnesota where the spammer is located. IPs commencing with 134. appear to come from Minnesota State University Mankato where spammer is believed to have been a student. Activities include not only addition of own website to city articles as an External link and his own name as a notable person, but also pernicious changing of other links to links to his own site [3] (including this gem where he changed link for the official site for the city of Mankato to his own site, while leaving the text indicating it was the official city site: [4]) and partial blanking of undersigned's talk page after reversion of spammer's inappropriate edits: [5]. Kablammo 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It may help to add those sites to the spam blacklists?

Conclusions

Peschong1 is blocked; you may want to add his website to the spam blacklist ([6]). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 31 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

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

Report submission by

Whsitchy 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All three have done the exact same reverts to National Indoor Football League despite community consensus. The second IP is weak in it being a sock, but the reverts are the same.

Comments

Arenafoot does not seem to be a puppet. I made an error in reporting him. --Whsitchy 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Blocked Arenaball and semi-protected National Indoor Football League. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 31 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by --AStanhope 04

41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Raphaelaarchon has been disciplined for 3RR and multiple negative potentially libelous edits on the Glenn Greenwald article. The issue has been beaten to death. He has returned as 71.100.1.7 by his own admission. See Greenwald Talk page edits by 71.100.1.7 where he signed as Raphaelaarchon.[7]

Comments

Conclusions

• I don't see any blocks on the Raphaelaarchon account, nor any violation of WP:SOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 31 May 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

benito484847 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by Juansidious 20

50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

After I warned Benito484847 about vandalism, he struck back by vandalizing my user page. After being told by other editors that he would be banned for further vandalism, he stopped. However, "another" editor with a similar name and style of writing began to vandalise my talk page and front page. Again, the user stopped once they were told that any more vandalism would equal a ban. Unless he gets punished, he's going to continue the cycle of vandalism and creating new accounts.

Comments

Conclusions

• Both accounts are indef blocked as vandal only accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:17, 31 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

131.96.170.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
12.160.192.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.211.81.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Noroton 01

38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:69.118.129.76 (hereafter "69" or "he") has been disruptive in various ways as a look at the history of 69's user page shows (While his current talk page here shows numerous warnings have been left on the page, numerous others have been taken off, such as many of those on this old version of the page):

At List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut, 69 has engaged in an edit war, with numerous editors changing back his reverts. See history here, from this edit to this edit. It was finally ended with a page block here.

In order to come up with a consensus and end the edit war, a very, very long discussion took place in which 69 rudely and stubbornly stuck to his points (starting here and continuing to this part of the discussion), long after his objections had been met.

In order to broaden the discussion and see whether there was a consensus, a straw poll was started (here). At this point, three anonymous editors showed up ("131" here, "12" here, and "65" here). Two of these (12 and 65) had no prior edits on Wikipedia; a third 131 had one prior edit (in Wikipedia Sandbox). These four accounts (so far) are the only !votes for deleting (there was one other, whose mind I then changed).

Comments

Wikipedia makes dispute resolution extremely difficult, including this long, complex process for reporting sockpuppets/meatpuppets. It is pretty damned obvious that there's abuse of various types going on here. I have been extremely patient in dealing with someone who is obviously not acting in good faith. Whether these accounts are meat puppets or sock puppets (and I've done the WHOIS search and found they are from different Internet accounts from widely divergent geographical locations) the pattern is obvious.

I strongly urge administrators to look into whether any non-anonymous Wikipedia editors use any of the same Internet accounts referenced at the top of this complaint and examine what that possible editor has been editing. Perhaps a motive can be found in a past dispute with me or another editor.

This may very well be the most pathetic grasping for straws I've ever seen. I'm not sure what's more void of evidence and logic... this case or the points you've made for keeping that ridiculous section in the Ridgefield residents article. 69.118.129.76

Conclusions

• This isn't checkuser, so we can't look into whether any registered accounts are editing from those IP addresses. If this were checkuser, I doubt we would look into it; there may be a violation of WP:SOCK here, but the evidence isn't conclusive. In addition, this just doesn't look that serious; I highly doubt the IP votes will change the outcome of the poll. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 31 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Brownlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
R613vlu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
20.138.246.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Past SSPs of RachelBrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Report submission by

Bulldog123 09:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive58#Rachel Brown sockpuppet army blocked (December 2005)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive59#Sock check (December 2005)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive21#RachelBrown socks (December 2005)

According to documentation above, User:Newport is a likely reincarnation of User:RachelBrown, a user accused of gross sockpuppetry over a year ago. Four sockpuppets were blocked. The sockpuppetry charges were later dropped due to "lack of evidence" and the sockpuppets unblocked. However it seems that the gross sockpuppetry continues to this day but under different usernames, with the previous usernames only showing up once in a while to continue vote fraud and consensus faking. Details are as follows:

I cite the following 15 AFDs/CFDs/DRs. To the best of my knowledge, this is every Afd/CfD within the last year ever participated in by two or more of the users By doing this, it shows the high frequency of the overlap of these users' votes.

If the usernames share the same opinion on the RFA, the chart below will have a yes by the username. If they voted differently, there will be a no.

Most CfDs/AfDs are closed as "no concensus", where this result defaults to the outcome these users wanted. Please see any archived history of these categories/articles for detailed responses.

• Case #1: Categories for deletion, May 20, 2006 - "All ethnicity category pages"
• Case #2: Categories for deletion, September 10, 2006 - Jewish Sportspeople
• Case #3: Categories for deletion, September 12, 2006 - Jewish Mathematicians
• Case #4: Categories for deletion, November 12, 2006 - Anti-Semitic people
• Case #5: Categories for deletion, November 12, 2006 - Anti-Semitic canards
• Case #6: Categories for deletion, November 23, 2006 - Anti-Semitic people
• Case #7: Articles for deletion, December 10, 2006 - Zsa Zsa Riordan
• Case #8: Categories for deletion, December 27, 2006 - Actors by Religion
• Case #9: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish Fencers
• Case #10: Articles for deletion, 2007 - List of Peruvian Jews
• Case #11: Deletion Review, 2007 - List of Peruvian Jews
• Case #12: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish Scientists
• Case #13: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish figure skaters
• Case #14: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish musicians
• Case #15: Deletion Review, 2007 - Jewish figure skaters

Three or four more categories and articles they have vote stacked are missing.

The following are examples of oppose or support stacking on RFAs. If the usernames share the same opinion on the RFA, the chart below will have a yes by the username. If they voted differently, there will be a no.

• Case #1: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shirahadasha
• Case #2: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3
• Case #3: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amarkov
• Case #4: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Werdna_2
• Case #6: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Marskell
• Case #7: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moreschi
• Case #8: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FT2 2
• Case #9: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seraphimblade 2

Several more probably on Votes for Bureacracy/Other Administration

• TALK:Albert Einstein - voting to include "Jewish" categories and exclude "German" categories
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28 Eugène Ionesco - User:R613vlu, anon IP, and User:Newport faking consensus against User:Daizus
• For examples of past faking consensus- please see the EDIT WARRING section.

All three registered users make articles for British scientists, and almost exclusively for British-Jewish scientists. If you take a look at Newport's userpage it says "Currently, my main project is to write short biographical articles on eminent scientists, mostly British, where there is currently no Wikipedia article or a very poor one."

On Newport's talk page, a user commented that Newport writes British scientist/professor articles like a resume and that he/she shouldn't do that because this is an encyclopedia. It can be read at User talk:Newport#David Malcolm Lewis.

The "resume format" looks awkward and un-wiki-like and Newport seems to do it on most of the articles he/she makes for British(-Jewish) academics.

Brownlee and R613vlu make British scientist/professor articles in the exact same way... the "resume" format. I cite following articles done by the three users:

• David Malcolm Lewis, created by Newport (note that the extended biograpy was added by someone else)
• Norman Bentwich, created by Brownlee
• Barry Supple, created by User:R613vlu (their first edit)

All three articles are British Jewish academics/scientists/professors. All three articles are written in Newport's strange resume-looking format, often copied from Who's Who. Just taking a test sample, we can see pretty much all British professors articles are not written like that if they are done by different users.

The point of this section is to show similarities in wording in edit summaries. These alone would not be "sufficient" enough but together with everything else they paint a clearer picture.

Below are a few examples of similarities in wording of edit summaries. This is NOT to say all these edit summaries are unique only to the users. It IS here to show the like-mindedness and similar thinking pattern of the users, in addition to wording. The contributions go back so far that providing diffs for these is very burdensome so I give only a few examples in areas where they are necessary.

• "delete/remove refs" - "because you don't like what they say"/"them"

[8]

[9]

[10]

• "We have [number] good sources that say that he was Jewish"

[11]

[12]

[13]

• "violates [policy] and [policy]" || "anything else violates [policy]" || "please do not violate [policy]" etc..

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

• "reports what reliable sources say" || "reporting"

[18]

[19]

• "remove nonsense" || "preposterous!" || "nonsense!" etc..

[20]

[21]

[22]

• "POV to ___" etc

[23]

[24]

[25]

• "undoubted Jew(s)" || "undoubtedly Jewish"

[26]

[27]

• "lets stick to"

[28]

[29]

[30]

• "____ to deny ___" || violates WP:NOR to deny - to go beyond ||

[31]

[32]

[33]

This goes on and on, with many more examples.

Note, that due to past blocks the user is probably more experienced with making it appear like the users are different.

User:Newport, User:Brownlee, and the anon IP repeat the same arguments during edit wars, often using very similar edit summaries (diffs are above). All users misunderstand WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and frequently use both in their arguments on talk pages.

Examples of this can be found historically at TALK:List of German Jews, TALK:List of Hungarian Jews,TALK:List of Iberian Jews, TALK:List of Czech Jews (archive #1), TALK:List of Polish Jews, TALK:List of Jewish scientists and philosophers and nearly every list of Jews article has some history of an edit war where all three users participated and agreed with eachother.

Articles where users have faked consensus include TALK:Georg Cantor, TALK:Otto Lilienthal, TALK:Albert Einstein, TALK:Alexander Grothendieck, TALK:Grigori Perelman, TALK:Peter Sarnak many many more...

Users often vote on the same RFAs. It was once mentioned on wikipedia that sockpuppets frequently indulge in RFA votes because this is an attempt at trying to make themselves appear more inclusive with the community.

All users vote "Oppose" to RFA candidates who disagree in some way with their editing styles...frequently their reasonings are very similar with wordings such as "oppose with regret" and "oppose with a heavy heart."

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha for [34] made by Newport and [35] made by R613vlu, including an edit made by Brownlee where the resemblance between the above two votes are stark, in wording, tone and general theme.

User:Brownlee once voted to support AND oppose an RFA on User:Daniel_Bryant. (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User_talk:Brownlee#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006.2FVote.2FDaniel.Bryant) This is evidence that the user sometimes pays no attention to how or why they're voting on an RFA, but simply votes either for the sake of bringing up their edit count or for the sake of looking like strong community participants.

Checkuser reveals that User:Brownlee and User:R613vlu use open proxies to edit (and have shared about half a dozen proxies between them). Therefore, it can be suggested that the sockpuppets Brownlee and R613vlu are used via open proxies by Newport. The individual IP editor on the other hand is apparently a very public IP used by other valid editors on wikipedia.

Note that the IP address has a very high edit count but refuses to get a username. A possible reason why the IP editor refuses to get a username is because the sockpuppeteer is aware the the IP is held by other VALID users on wikipedia and thus uses it only to **appear** like another editor.

Note that the Newport account has been accused of sockpuppetry in the past. Given this, it is probable that Newport sockpuppeteer has become more adept at making sockpuppets look like different people by using proxies to edit.

All four users have direct and immediate access to The Jewish Chronicle newspaper and the Encyclopedia Judaica. The Jewish Chronicle requires a paid subscription and is targetting a specific audience, so it is not a household newspaper everyone can be expected to have. Encyclopedia Judaica is very expensive too and not accessible online except through payment. That all four users have paid memberships to both of these resources is indicative, along with everything else, that they are NOT separate people. To see examples of each user using information from these sources see the recent talk page history at TALK:Otto Lilienthal and TALK:Georg Cantor.

See Talk:List_of_Polish_Jews#Changing_the_scope_of_the_article.3F and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28 Eugène Ionesco

A slip-up made by Newport confirms that Newport is the same user as the anonymous IP address (20.138.246.89).

User:Newport, User:Brownlee, User:R613vlu, and User:20.138.246.89 were all edit warring with User:LeszekB over measures taken on List of Polish Jews. They were arguing in TALK:List of Polish Jews. At one point, after LeszekB's argument, the IP address 20.138.246.89 writes the following:

This is clearly just a dispute about whether the scope of the article should be

changed. Shouldn't we just take a poll of editors? That's what's normally done

in these circumstances.--20.138.246.89 12:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LeszekB responds with:

A poll to *rename* the list would be acceptable, but there's no negotiating

someone's identity. "I think he's German." "Well, I think he's English. Let's take a poll." That doesn't work. You can't take a poll on whether wormholes exist, you need citations that say they do. You can't take a poll on if people like Adrien Brody and Scarlett Johansson are Polish, you need citations that say

they are. LeszekB 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Immediately after this, Newport responds to the comment INSTEAD of 20.138.246.89 and writes:

That isn't what I am proposing. I am proposing a vote on whether to change the

scope of the article, which is clearly laid out in the introduction. There is no Wikipedia policy whatsoever that says that the scope of an article is determined solely by one editor's over-literal interpretation of the article

title.--Newport 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a slip up. Newport made no proposal for a poll, that was 20.138.246.89, but Newport is responding as if s/he made the comment that was made by 20.138.246.89.

In addition to this, in the Eugene Ionesco Mediation Cabal, Newport writes

I am in contact with the anon.

In contact with an anon who never revealed their email address on wikipedia or left a message on Newport's talk page? How can somebody be *in contact* with an anon any other way?

See User talk:Newport#Biographical articles

This is the only time in history any user has left a message on eachother's talk page and it was done on purpose. The message suggests R613vlu "accidently" started finishing an article initiated by Newport. This suggests Newport lost track of which username account s/he used to make those edits and ended up editing like Newport on the R613vlu account. In order to cover his/her tracks, R613vlu left a message on Newport's User talk page asking if it is "OK" that R613vlu finished Newport's edits. This seems suspicious, especially since Newport responded promptly "I'm delighted to welcome a new collaborator" - possibly covering up for future mistakes.

See Talk:List_of_Polish_Jews#Proposal

User:Brownlee brought up an example of an article dispute on the Seamus Heaney article concerning his birthplace. However, if you look at the talk page of Seamus Heaney, User:Brownlee never participated in these discussions. Rather, it was User:Poetlister. In fact, the original discussions for the Seamus Heaney dispute took place on October 2005, User:Brownlee was only an editor since March 2006. How would s/he know about that discussion when s/he never made an edit on that article talk page and registered almost half a year after the discussions took place?

It is likely Brownlee is confusing her time editing as Poetlister, who was a suspected sockpuppet of Newport. This would suggest a connection between Newport and Brownlee. In addition, the username Brownlee also sounds suspiciously like Rachel Brown. The latter is obviously not evidence, per se, but it is note-worthy.

According to a sorting algorithm which sorts editing times in ascending order, for the three registered usernames, no overlap in editing times could be found since their first edits on wikipedia. If proof of this is needed it will be given, but considering the output is over 2000 lines long, it won't be put on this SSP.

Comments

My only contribution to the above SSP was the analysis of editing times, and I will be glad to comment on that if needed. The rest of the SSP was sent to me through email after suspicions of meatpuppetry, WP:CANVASSing, and sockpuppetry on recent Cfds, the last three listed above. [36] If anyone has any questions regarding some of the evidence on this SSP, you will likely have to refer to users who have dealt with these people personally. I also analyzed the contribution summaries for the previously blocked sockpuppets, which I will link to if anyone wants. Bulldog123 09:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently looking at this with CheckUser. The other results will take a while longer to look through, but I can say right now that 20.138.246.89 (talk · contribs) is clearly Simul8 (talk · contribs), and I only reveal that because it is a WP:SOCK violation based on some of the double-voting, at least. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one month each, per double-"voting" on at least two CfD's and DRV's, and edit warring with the IP on controversial pages the account frequents, in contradiction to WP:SOCK. Daniel 07:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See [37]. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 31 May 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

*XERxes135* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

*vulgaration* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DearPrudence 02:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User uses same signature (♠ΜōōŠε♠) and has vandalised pages (especially userpages) in exactly the same way that *vulgaration* did (usually by replacing the entire userpage with "♠ΜōōŠε♠"). Also, both usernames are formatted the same way, with asterisks on either side. *vulgaration* was blocked within the last twenty-four hours for vandalism.

(Note: I'm sorry that the formatting doesn't seem to work for the two usernames - I think it's probably because they both begin with asterisks.)

Comments

Conclusions

• Obvious sock. vulgaration is indef blocked, XERxes135 warned that any further vandalism will result in a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:10, 30 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Billybatts70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zaian 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Admitted by user, see [38]

Comments

JBAK (talk · contribs) has been indefintely blocked, as well as several other sockpuppet accounts: Williamdevino (talk · contribs), BOV1993 (talk · contribs) and JBAK88 (talk · contribs).

Conclusions

• Obvious. Billybatts70 is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:14, 30 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• TheHoover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already blocked.
• 64.75.137.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)- Honolulu, see Evidence for connection
• 72.235.115.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)- Honolulu, see Evidence for connection
• CarlEHewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2ndMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Anonymouser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LelandStanford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

Carl Hewitt continues uses sock puppets to edit his own article, Carl Hewitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in violation of a topic ban. [45] [46]

User:TheHoover appeared on May 10, and has only made edits related to Carl Hewitt, and he shows uncanny knowledge for a new Wikipedia user. One of the anon edits appears to be a legal threat. [47]

He has disrupted WP:BLPN with redundant reports.[48][49]

Both 64.75.137.250 and 72.235.115.241 resolve to Honolulu, HI. Prof. Hewitt was scheduled to appear at a workshop in Honolulu on May 14. [50] How coincidental that not one but two anonymous IP users from Honolulu show up and take an intense interest in this article. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

• All the named accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:03, 30 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

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

Report submission by

edgarde 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Three new accounts created to edit-war in Black Sabbath albums and fight for preservation of copyvio images.

• JudasAngel – account created 2007-05-23T22:35:53

Single-issue sock on a campaign for which SEGA has employed other single issue socks in the past (notably Rumitoid and OneLove1977), demoting non-"official" members (always Geoff Nicholls) of Black Sabbath in album credits (contrary to WP:ALBUM#Credits and contrary to consensus).

Diffs are basicly edit history for this account: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

/ edgarde 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes pattern here by editing single Black Sabbath album article using different names. Note abusive and misleading edit summaries, a SEGA behavior.

• GlennGoins — account created 2007-05-24T23:36:44

• Note misleading Edit summary here[62]
• Note "You know I'm right" language (comparable to OneLove1977[63] and some of SEGA's language), here[64]

• GregPhilMan — account created 2007-05-24T23:51:13

• Note abusive Edit summary here[65]
• Note fondness for copyvio material (and abusive summary) here[66]
• A likely WP:DISRUPT: legit images deleted[67][68]

/ edgarde 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with contribs by

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

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

OneLove1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Comments

SEGA is subject to a community ban for having made over 40 sockpuppets, and uploading massive amounts of WP:COPYVIO images. Is an IP block possible for this user? The puppets are breeding like bunnies.

Page still exists for Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SEGA. This report is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SEGA (2nd).

Conclusions

• All of these accounts are blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:54, 29 May 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

Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Ron liebman user ID first appeared on January 30, 2007.

Isidore wax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared April 22. CU confirmed
Irene liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) -> First appeared March 24. CU confirmed
Moe kaplan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 5. CU confirmed
Robert scheinblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 12. CU confirmed
Rasheed wilds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 12. CU confirmed
Isidore was (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 14. CU confirmed
Jos martinez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 15. Claims not to be Liebman. CU confirmed
Emily ciorciari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 15. CU confirmed
Michael ing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 15. CU confirmed
Frank scelta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 15. CU confirmed
Eddie gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 15. CU confirmed
Gamere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 19. CU confirmed
Mikemaddog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 20. CU confirmed
Ted ditullio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 9. CU confirmed
Evelyn m. begley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 8. CU confirmed
Cynthia roberts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 8. CU confirmed
Alvin berrios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 22. CU confirmed
Di Tullion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 22. CU confirmed
Ross adell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 17. CU confirmed
Rick dempsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 14. CU confirmed
Mischa gelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 23.
Joe nunziatta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 25.
Steven nadel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 25.
Lynn samuels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 25.
Joya das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> First appeared May 25.

12.199.96.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> he resumed using this on May 12, as soon as its 7-day block expired.
65.88.88.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.88.88.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.183.247.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
162.83.241.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.106.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.106.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.159.196.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.106.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
198.22.236.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Ebyabe 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though User:Ron liebman's account was blocked, he is manifesting through a variety of other user accounts and anonymous IPs. He always makes the same edits (primarily birth or death date changes), without providing sources in the articles. He only provides "documentation" in the edit summaries. He has been asked repeatedly, but never puts citations for his changes in the articles themselves.

He also changes the entry for the actor Ron Leibman to include how the actor is often confused with the baseball biographer Ron Liebman (note the reversed "i" and "e" between the names). (The user has, in fact, hijacked the names of several actual members of the Society for American Baseball Research in creating his sockpuppet accounts.)

A checkuser case [95] has been run and confirms that as of May 23, 2007, the accounts listed are all sockpuppets. This reaffirms that the behavior-based identification methods used so far are accurate and correct.

Non-Baseball related
Escitalopram
Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Joy Behar
The View

Baseball related
Al Simmons
Billy Hamilton (baseball player)
Casey Stengel
Harry Simpson
Hideki Matsui
John Henry Lloyd
Rip Repulski
Tony Kubek
Victor Pellot
Wes Westrum
Whitey Ford

More baseball, occasionally vandalised by him
1935 in baseball
1936 in baseball
1940 in baseball
1960 in baseball
1961 in baseball
Cap Anson
Chief Bender
Christy Mathewson
Eddie Cicotte
Edward Caraballo
Ernie Banks
Frankie Frisch
Fred Haney
Frisch
Gil Hodges
Harry Chappas
Johnny Pesky
Larry MacPhail
List of Major League Baseball individual streaks
Major League Baseball titles leaders
Major League Baseball titles streaks
Mike Sharperson
MLB consecutive games played streaks
Paul Dean
Ron Santo
Sam Jones (baseball)
Sam Rice
Vada Pinson

This has been going on since at least early April, with no signs of stopping. Even if all the accounts are blocked, I believe he'll continue through other accounts. But at least this way, there's an official record here of his activities, for future reference.

This is also the first time I've done one of these, so I hope I'm proceeding correctly. Please advise if you need more info or anything.

Oh, and he exceeds 3RR, if you count his various identities. And sometimes even when you don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebyabe (talk • contribs)

• He also reverts the Escitalopram article to an old, non-NPOV version continually. This is what originally brought him to my attention - I don't edit baseball-related articles, but some digging led me to understand that he has been a thorn in the side of baseball wiki editors for quite some time. At any rate, this can be used as an additional check for the (almost certain) future sockpuppets. Cheers, Skinwalker 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have sent an e-mail to the SABR organization, notifying them of the situation. My approach with them was to assert that a vandal is using fake ID's that are the names of SABR members. Wahkeenah 23:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A SABR representative got back to me, and I have directed him to this page to allow him to see what's been going on.

• SABR, if/when you're reading - There are two possibilities here.
  • One, this is a set of legit SABR editors who are making correct (historically accurate) edits, but doing so in a manner incompatable with Wikipedia guidelines and rules. If so, please work with them to get them to engage us in a discussion on User talk:Ron liebman.
  • Two, someone is trying to impersonate a lot of SABR people, from New York City public libraries and related facilities. This seems rather annoying.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page User talk:Georgewilliamherbert (or email via my user contact info on Wikipeda). I am the Wikipedia volunteer administrator doing most of the blocking of these accounts, though others are finding most of them and flagging them. Georgewilliamherbert 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure there's any point in keeping this report open; Checkuser has confirmed the socks, everything listed here is blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all the articles are protected, and this guy has been inventing new ID's nearly every day. Baseball Bugs 06:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Liebman passed in 2023, so this page likely only has archival value at this point. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Ron_Liebman 161.185.198.86 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2024 (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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ProtoCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orangemarlin 23:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

1. This edit indicates involvement in a discussion well prior to the editor registering as a user.
2. Editor mainly edits Intelligent Design where sockpuppets of VacuousPoet have shown up previously.
3. First edit was on May 10, 2007, which was five days after ImprobabilityDrive's last edit.
4. This edit is very similar to this edit in both style and content.

Comments

Certainly, User talk:ProtoCat is clear evidence of trolling, as is much of Talk:Intelligent design/Archive40. My experience wih them involved tthem asking me to continue a discussion on their talk page - then accusing me of stalkig - because I continued the discussion - on their talk page! Even if not a sockpuppet, this user seems to eeither be a troll or... rather seriously disturbed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• A troll indeed, and quacks like VacuousPoet, who quacked like Kdbuffalo. So ProtoCat is blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 26 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Billy227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First, and foremost, I would like to state the obvious, by saying that both accounts have the name "Billy"

Next of all, I would like to mention the style in which they write, Imbilly made this awards page, and Billy227 has made several edits to Wikipedia, so finding a page is not hard.

Being a vandaliser in heart, Billy227 often broke the civil policy, SHOUTING WORDS IN ALL-CAPS and otherwise putting others down.

The Imbilly account may be taken as a "bad hand" account, as it was used mainly for vandalism, and was blocked indefinitely. The Billy227 account was created a short while before Imbilly was blocked, and the puppeteer continued to use Billy227 for legitimate edits.

When it was stated that he had the Imbilly account on his talk page, Billy227 replied "do not affiliate me in any way, shape or form with that account you spoke of. I have no clue about whose account that is." If he really did not know who that account was, he would've looked into it more, instead of denying it flatly as if it were preposterous that he could be connected to it at all.

As my closing statement, I would like to announce that, as we are familiar in real life, I know that he has specifically admitted to having the Imbilly account, he worded it like so: "Come on Tim, I had my Imbilly account way before you joined Wikipedia!"

Tim.bounceback is also a friend from school, and I believe he should be able to confirm this, as well as help point out facts that I've missed.

Comments

Comment: A a vandaliser!? i have not engaged in any such actions! Also, could you please link to some pages where I supposedly "Broke the civil policy"? And even if I did break it, what does that have to do with supposedly "Being a sock puppet"? These entire accusation is blasphemy.
Also, this account has never been in another discussion/vote that I have been in. How can this be called a sock puppet?
Also, looking at my account, I see that it was made in January of 2007. Looking at this other account (Imbilly), was blocked in April. How can you possibly tell me that my account was made shortly after this other one was blocked when there is in fact a 3 month gap in between these events.?
Furthermore, me and this other account share no similarities in style of writing. If you think we do, could you please link to some examples.
And finally, the user making this accusation was accused of being a sock puppet before. How can people be sure that he just wants to accuse others because he was.
That is all. -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, and lastly. I didn't "Flatly deny" your previous accusation (which you mentioned above). Nor did I have to "Look into it". I know this is my only account, so I had no need to investigate. -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, here's my response. You broke the civil policy several times on your userpage and Tim's. Consider reading into it. Second of all, read the policy on sockpuppetry To see what is considered to be unacceptable. Third of all, Assume good faith, I agreed to be a second account to AFYFAF due to restrictions, but only because someone changed my password. Lastly, you are obviously lying, as you dropped the Imbilly account as if it were a vandaliser, but you didn't even know him, is that possible? Thank you for clearing up some misunderstandings. Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you give specific links to diffs of these supposed "Civil policy breaking". Also, what you claim I did is not "unacceptable" anyway. This other account did not ever agree with me (or was even involved for that matter) in any sort of discussion or vote. Explain that? Also, if I supposedly did something "unacceptable", please specify exactly what that was. Thanks! -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, jeez, just read the policy, will you? It says specifically! Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, please be nice. Secondly, I wish for you to specify where. Otherwise, your argument holds no ground. -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, quote: "RAHK EX! This is a new user that you are talking to! Please DO NOT act in such an innapropiate manner towards the newcomers. You comments will be put under a new header. Shame!" OK? Just read the policy, it's not hard... Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay buddy, cool down. My comment was justified. You yourself weren't being nice to another uesr (PhishRCool). I neded to make my comments clear. Also, please answer the rest of my questions (see above). Thank you. -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, how can you call me a vandal? in fact, I have over 500 anti-vandal edits. Can you explain that please? -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Read the sockpuppetry policy section on good hand/bad hand, and all will become clear. Besides, point me to a part in the policy that says that jokes are not allowed (referring to PhishRCool) Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The last edits made with this other account were quite a long time ago. Also, you're comments weren't a joke. They were just plain being mean. Also, this whole accusation is ridiculous. You only did this because Tim told you to. You don't believe any of what you're typing do you? I think we should get some more commenters other than just us two? Sound good? -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, I made no such comment stating that this other account was mine. Don't lie please! -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry here. User:Billy227 and User:Imbilly have edited entirely different pages, and personally I see no resemblance in style between either user. I'm trusting Billy227 when he says he doesn't know about the Imbilly account; I'm not buying this "good hand/bad hand" business, and I think that Billy227's seriously being treated unjustly here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also do not see any evidence of sockpuppetry. Billy is an extremely common name, so I do not think that provides any evidence to suggest they are related. I do not think there editing styles are similar. Saying that Billy227 is a "vandaliser in heart" seems to be a breach of WP:AGF. And we have no evidence to show that he said in real life that also owns the Imbilly acount. --Mschel 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will remain neutral but you have been canvassing user talk pages so I would firstly stop this, however I will remain neutral. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also do not see any sockpuppetry here, but if it makes you feel better request a checkuser. But, I doubt it's a sock.--ROASTYTOAST 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doubt there's a connection between the two. A big issue is the nom said that Billy (the account in question) had said he owned the Imbilly account. To me, it seems like that statement could have been made up, and it's very circumstantial evidence wise. --Whsitchy 23:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• No compelling evidence of any connection between these two accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:46, 26 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Created article Persix, which is spam for software made my Kian Software. Puppeter was blocked earlier today for spamming articles related to same company.

Comments

Comment Because the edits are deleted, it is rather difficult to tell but the chances of these being socks seem high, however please note that User:Kiancorp did you actually create the Persix article (or was not warned prior to its deletion), they created the actual master company who created the software, however the seem to show a correlation. Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Probably a sock, definitely a spam problem. Kiancorp is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ECW113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User continues to add vandalism to Bratz articles as with other sockpuppets of this IP. (See Bratz:The Movie)

Comments

Comment Some of the IP address edits are not vandalism (for example here - although he made a mistake with the template; and here), the ECW113 only has one edit to the article and that appears not to be vandalism, only adding information, I doubt this would be sockpuppetry because many articles and regularly vandalised by different IP's/user accounts but not all are sockpuppets, see what the concluding admin thinks. Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Inconclusive. No action taken. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 26 May 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

Waterking1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Waterking123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User created Ps3 life which is similiar to Wii life cretaed by this user. User was blocked earlier for vandalism and creation of nonsense article, and this new accoutn is to get around it.

Comments

Conclusions

• Both accounts have blocks; nothing to do at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:34, 26 May 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

JoeyC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Radioheadwanderer was created and promptly began posting notices on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJ Johnson, which I find extremely unlikely for a new user. JoeyC5 was the creator of the article in question and a review of the two users logs suggests that it could easily be one person logging in and out of two accounts.

This is my first report of suspected SP and I seem to have made a mess of it. Basically User:JoeyC5 appears to have created User:Radioheadwanderer to back him up on AfD. See below as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What is a sock puppet? What is this?Radioheadwanderer 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Seems possible, but since neither account has edited since the close of the AfD I don't see a reason to act at this time. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 26 May 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

Rocket-Purse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

84.66.218.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Japanese_Zapher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NinjaTobei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Elder_Deitra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SlappyFan421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Theonethird 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Rocket-Purse first created the articles Doonys and Doonys characters on 21 April 2006. These articles cite no sources and are likely hoaxes. All of this user's other contributions are in some way Doonys related. Speculation about the article began on the Doonys talk page on 4 March 2007, but this went largely unnoticed.

Later, on 8 May 2007, some information was accidentally deleted from the page but was reverted within 24 hours. A user with the IP 84.66.218.37 left an unsigned comment on the Doonys talk page coming to the defense of the deleted information. User 84.66.218.37 has made eight total contributions to Wikipedia between 8 May 2007 and 10 May 2007 all relating to Doonys. All of the other suspected sockpuppets related to Rocket-Purse follow a similar pattern of contributing a small amount of information in a limited period of time

User Japanese Zapher first appeared at 07:02 (UTC), on 12 May 2007 in response to some vandalism done to the article. The user's response was followed 11 minutes at 07:13 later by a response from Rocket-Purse. Twenty minutes later, at 07:33, another user, NinjaTobei appeared and commented on the vandalism.

On 14 May 2007, a user posted a comment on the talk page questioning the legitimacy of the article and calling for specific information and sources to support the article. User Elder Deitra first appears here to, yet again, defend the article.

On 17 May 2007, user SlappyFan42 appeared with yet another defense.

Comments

To me, it seems clear that the suspected puppetmaster, Rocket-Purse, created an article based on his or her own fantasy. The bulk of the article for Doonys was written by Rocket-Purse and has no external sources whatsoever to back it up. When the existence of Doonys began to be questioned, the user created multiple users to defend the article and make it seem as though there are lots of people who know about the show. All of the suspected sockpuppets have made relatively few contributions, and all within a short period of time, as if each new defense required another user to provide validity. It is also noteworthy that the contributions from each of the newer accounts do not overlap with each other except for one contribution that Japanese Zapher made before NinjaTobei's. It seems rather clear that there is one person behind all of these accounts. Theonethird 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am absolutely certain now that Doonys is a not a "real anime" as such, and thus fails the Notability criterion, after some further research I suspect that one or more of the users in question may actually be real people. However, even if they are not sockpuppets, the evidence is still very much in favour of them being astroturfing meatpuppets. PS4FA 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Doonys article has now been deleted. Theonethird 12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• All named accounts indef blocked; IP left untouched. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 26 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

85.179.28.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.128.62.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
220.239.77.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
213.54.176.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.107.79.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
140.138.150.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.99.17.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85.114.130.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85.180.69.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.69.68.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.40.207.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.67.43.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.99.17.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.213.243.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.70.150.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.99.17.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.161.137.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.2.116.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.67.149.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.93.55.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.3.40.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.247.33.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85.179.28.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
163.13.112.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.107.79.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
159.149.155.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.76.192.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.84.155.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.136.219.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Marty Goldberg 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User is engaged in war editing across a slew of entries to push agenda on currently contested [96] debate. Using sock puppets/dynamic IP to get around 3RR rule. Several of the IP's had been banned by admins, but yet more keep appearing.

• The user is now blanking 3RR warnings and blanking sock puppet warnings with the comment "and rm the 2nd liar's accusation. I don't care." which doesn't show ver good faith in this process. Therefore I submit this as evidence that User:Sarenne is on balance more likely to be guilty. Fnagaton 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And another blanking of the same warnings. [[97]] Fnagaton 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And now the user has moved the talk page to here which has the effect of breaking the links above that show the repeated blanking of these warnings. Fnagaton 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I agree with is report. The language/phrasing used in the change comments, the actual changes, the time of day the "anonymous" user is most active, the "amazing" ability of the new anonymous user to start submitting spurious 3RR reports against editors without first warning the editor and the way Sarenne has already been blocked for disruptive edits on the same topic all make me suspect Sarenne of sock puppetry. Fnagaton 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• User:Sarenne was blocked as a single-purpose edit-warring sockpuppet, separate from this report. The above IPs are mostly open proxies and have been blocked as such. Because they are open proxies, there may be no way to confirm the connection between User:Sarenne and the IPs, but they were both edit warring for the very same issue, and User:Sarenne was the only user account edit-warring for it, at least the only user edit-warring presently and so rampantly. —Centrx→talk • 18:37, 24 May 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

WikiMan53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

«Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 01:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• WikiMan53 has been removed from VandalProof's authorized user list on 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC) [98][reply]
• Then, the user tried, unsuccessfully, to change Daniel's decision
• On 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC), Hahaimbored is created. [99]
• On 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC), Hahaimbored nominated WikiMan53 for adminship [100]
• The only edits made by Hahaimbored are related to WikiMan53's RfA [101]
• There is one edit which clearly explains everything: in the edit, Hahaimbored accept the nomination he made for WikiMan53 [102]
• Then, 3 minutes later, WikiMan53 removes Hahaimbored's wrong acceptance and state that he accept the rfa (all on Hahaimbored's talk) [103]

Comments

It's quite strange that Hahaimbored registered and the only edit made are to nominate somebody for an RfA. Also is very strange that he mentions WikiMan53's claims to "Good edits using VandalProof", while the two shouldn't know each other.

Also, the edit where Hahaimbored accepts the nom he made for WikiMan53, is clearly WikiMan53 who mistaken the window and signed as the wrong user.

Conclusions

 Confirmed Sean indef. blocked HaHaimbored via hardblock, and when WKM53 signed on, he found himself autoblocked. Real96 01:33, 22 May 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

Art Dominique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Lieutenant Dan Taylor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Stlemur 09

35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

• Contributes solely in the form of adding the same original-research essay and POV comments to Continuation War, just as Art Dominique did:
  • [104]
  • [105]
  • [106] etc.

• Accuses User:Whiskey and User:Illythr of being sockpuppets/puppeteers, just as Art Dominique did

• Makes the same claims about "Stalinist history" that Art Dominique's sockpuppet did

Comments

Conclusions

• Already blocked, seemed obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 21 May 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

Ati3414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

SirLeopold 09:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User appears to be evading an indefinite block. From the content in first few edits [107], user continues edits of User:Moroder, a previous sockpuppet of Ati3414. Edits also fit profile according to last sockpuppet report, Suspected_sock_puppets/Ati3414: Including preferred topics (special relativity related pages, and graphics hardware/algorithm related pages), and posting external links that refers to Adrian Sfarti in them[108]. SirLeopold 09:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

IP blocked for 1 week. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 23 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Logan Gregory FC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Xv8M4g3r 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lots of vandals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Luke Dunster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
King Logo Returns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Iridescenti 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Not certain if this is one user with multiple SPAs, or two users with two-three SPAs each. User:Loshgr created Windsor High School (Halesowen) a month ago as a stub, and since then has been tag-teaming with User:Logan Gregory FC and User:Luke Dunster in adding assorted personal attacks, e.g. [109] by Loshgr (all intermediate revisions by same user), [110] by Luke Dunster and [111] by Logan Gregory FC. Two accounts also tag-teamed on the recently deleted hoax Huzcal article. Also, both accounts have been adding & amending content to User:Xv8M4g3r 2 and the associated talk page (eg [112] by Logan Gregory FC and [113] by Loshgr). (User:Xv8M4g3r 2 is a self-declared SPA). Finally, Xv8M4g3r 2 and Loshgr are the sole editors to the user and talk page of User:Lots of vandals, which in turn has made no contributions other than to create an account.

In light of the content of some of their edits, I strongly suspect that both are linked to the infdefblocked User:King Logo Returns but can't prove it. Even in the unlikely event that they're not sockpuppets, or the multiple accounts are found not to violate policy, Loshgr in particularly probably warrants at the very least a final warning in light of the history of vandalism (eg).

Comments

Conclusions

• Sockpuppets or meatpuppets, doesn't really matter which. Most contributions are pranks or vandalism, so I'm indef blocking the ones that aren't already blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:50, 21 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Wikimachine 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The evidence being constructed here. Take a look at [114] and [115]. Many of their most edited main & talk pages coincide. Also, their areas of interest which are Japan (mainly out of interest, or in defense against KPOV) & Korea (mainly for dispute) coincide too. Look at [116], and [117]. Their first edits were about Asashoryu Akinori. First Komdori opens a Requested Move case voluntarily, even without talking about it in the discussion page, and LactoseTI joins in & supports the page move, despite the fact that rest of the crew oppose the suggestion.

And then Komdori edits heavily on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), under sections "Sumo Wrestlers (not names)", (obviously, he was unsuccessful with name change) and "Proposal" and "Pseudonyms", under which he shares lots of edits with LactoseTI. They then both edit on Wikipedia:Sandbox & then go back to Asashoryu Akinori.

Komdori moves on to the naming dispute at Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), while LactoseTI at Dokdo naming dispute (used to be Liancourt Rocks) & articles such as Japanese-Korean disputes.

Both participate in a dispute at Talk:Yasukuni Shrine. Komdori continues to talk at the Imjin War talk page (= Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), so does LactoseTI, except that he also has Dokdo page to worry about.

Something funny is that both Komdori & LactoseTI don't really know about Korean culture except at the extent that a foreigner could read a book & know a little about it. Komdori's edits on articles of Korean topics are usually rv's, etc., something that a non-Korean could easily do. On the other hand, he seems to know a lot about Japanese culture & its history. I wonder why a Korean who came from Korea would be so interested in Japan, but not really in his own country... He doesn't even have a WikiProject Korean banner, & I don't think he is even in the project... like most Korean editors here. It's as if he doesn't want to participate, & want to be all alone. But that's not likely either. LactoseTI, on the other hand, who is not a Korean, is overly concerned with Korean articles & making sure so that they are NPOV. He's also very interested in Japanese stuffs.

Another thing I've noticed is that their edit intervals swap. There are times when their edits overlap, but probably that's because the Wikipedia server only tracks edits by the minute, not by the seconds. So we can't really find out if they ever have a simultaneous edit. Furthermore, at intervals when Komdori edits a lot, LactoseTI edits little & vice versa. Also, there are intervals in which one account would be restive while the other account would be extremely active, and vice versa. I'd like to show that more in the data section I'm creating, and I'm right now.

Their recent violations include 3RR revert war in here for Dokdo article. However, LactoseTI refrained from participating in the discussion any further, which I assume is meant to serve as a buffer against SOCK attacks.

Finally, let me add that an admin already confirmed that their IP addresses coincide are from the same region. However, they pleaded "not-guilty" (I made that up) because they went to the same university & they were using the same internet live in the same region. Even later, LactoseTI claimed that he was a professor at a university in New Jersey & Komdori claimed that "knew him". However, LactoseTI's behavior at Talk:Turtle ship in making aggressive & uncompromising stance against the statement that the turtle ship was iron clad & at his talk page where Merumman (? is that his name?) & he constantly gave "good faith violation & block" warnings to each other. So, we already know that their IP address is the same, it's just a matter of looking at their areas of interests & edit intervals, etc. (Wikimachine 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

• Sock puppets Multiple accounts are not against Wikipedia policy per se. In the recent discussion of Dokdo the two users are not supporting each other and so it would not be a sock puppet violation (even if there is a sock puppetry multiple account). You need to show that they are sock puppet and there is a sock puppet violation. I don't see any recent violations. Macgruder 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm Macgruder, where did you come from? Let me explain, just in case there could be a misunderstanding. At first, I assumed that Macgruder & Komdori were the 2 sock puppets. However, you joined Wikipedia in 2004 while Komdori joined in 2006. So, it didn't really matter... however during that process when I researched both of your edits, I felt that Komdori's edits were kind of funny... Reminds me of LactoseTI? So I went on to check on him.

I already showed the 3RR revert violation, and I know that LactoseTI could join any time soon. Plus, he had already discussed in Dokdo naming dispute before. (Wikimachine 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I get it from the Wikipedia Policy guidelines. Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but users must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. Since pretty much everything you have written relates to multiple accounts rather than sock puppetry I assume that you are unaware of the difference.

So multiple accounts are not prohibited on Wikipedia. What is prohibited is using multiple accounts from supporting each other for example. I see no recent violation of that issue. This whole page is ridiculous not because of the issue of multiple accounts (which I don't believe anyway) but you have not focussed your arguments on whether the two users are supporting each other. You have simply said some ridiculous stuff about what you perceive as personality or knowledge issues suggesting that two people are the same (this in not sock puppetry!) . Something funny is that both Komdori & LactoseTI don't really know about Korean culture except at the extent that a foreigner could read a book. That is both totally irrelevant to the issue, rude, and not something I want to see Wikipedians saying.

I suggest you read the WP:SOCK guidelines and focus on those. Macgruder 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are in an (admittedly heated) discussion with two that agree on a topic you disagree on, and you immediately think "sock puppet!" You couldn't get enough together for it, so you tried to find an editor who had similar edits to either of them in order to further your accusation. Even if Lactose and I we were the same person (we're not), you've barely listed anything that would be against policy. I'm sure I've probably reverted in several cases where there was a Wikipedian nearing his 3RR limit, maybe even helped you once or twice with it. --Cheers, Komdori 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that having multiple accounts is not illegal. What I've seen in edit history, assuming that the right conditions are true (that they are indeed sock puppet & master), are illegit. WP policy states that you wait for the very recent violation even if you sight a violation from long time ago. I think that I have an obligation to make SOCK attack b/c supposedly they made these illegit edits (coordinated efforts for the sumo wrestler... again, all these are hypothetical) since long time ago & they performed 3RR.

Komdori, I always watch out for sock puppets in disputes. The evidence of your past edits itself serve as violations, plus the 3RR. (Wikimachine 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• I'm a bit surprised by this report. It's lucky I happened to see it because I happened to be watching some of the talk pages and the editors contributions who submitted this report. No one mentioned it to me. I'm not sure what the policy is when you file one of these things if you only mention it to the editor who has the most edits or what, but with over 1,000 myself (yay,I hadn't noticed until now), it would have at the least been courteous to tell me (I just noticed he left a tag on my user page, but that was all). I'm particularly distressed by this comment because I had just got through leaving Wikimachine a comment about how I felt the conversation we'd been having was being very fruitful and thanking him for his level head.

I might add that an admin never said our IP coincided. This is a simple fabrication. I severely doubt that to ever have happened. We're both in the same region of the country (heck, we work at the same university, though there are over 10,000 here). We have tea together, we don't live together. For the nth time, Wikimachine, it's in NY, not NJ. As for the first edits being regarding the same article, well, I was introduced to Wikipedia by him after visiting for seeing sumo for the first time in my life. We talked about the article, and how to improve, and we started editing.

And I'm getting sick of people using as evidence things like "He doesn't act like a Korean" or "He doesn't stick together with Koreans by joining Korean enclaves here." I'm sorry, I don't throw this word out so easily, but that's racism. Who are you to say how a "Korean should act"? As for "not knowing Korean culture," you didn't even know what my wife's pet name for me (Komdori) meant in Korean. Something simple like this might demonstrate a level of knowledge of Korean culture that you don't have, but you don't see me accusing you with some racist thing. --Cheers, Komdori 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Komdori, I assumed that you'd watch your user page. And no, I'm didn't fake that nice talk we had the other day. I really meant it. Ok, fine, IP don't coincide then. I just remembered something similar when we had a dispute at Dokdo long time ago, and, when you got blocked, I went "great, less opposition. Something was really fishy to begin with." However, when you got unblocked for the reason that the admin was mistaken, you were truly out of my radar. Understand, I understood you as something of a foreign/unknown object that I felt would serve as a counterbalance to this systemic bias (as you can see, I'm part of WikiProject countering systemic bias... however I feel that there are biases not only in articles/topics covered but in these communities that different Wikipedians form) amongst the Korean Wikipedians (I notice that a noticeable amount of them are just acting plainly stupid, probably middle schoolers feeling all hi & nationalistic).

Like I said, I moved away from S. Korea a long time ago when I was young, so I forgot a lot (I can speak without stutter, but my vocab is limited to that of a 3rd grader). And I'm not being a racist. If you're going to accuse somebody of being a sock puppet, you better cut it nice & clean because you're only going to do it if you're really sure that somebody is really a sock puppet. Or else, you shouldn't accuse someone of being one because there is a risk that they might not be sock puppets, and that's bad for many reasons. So, I thought through & gathered as many data & observations, and made one hammering blow. That's what I think. If I was a racist & defined how Koreans should act, etc., (assuming that you'd believe my story above) why would I even have thought like that (above, again)?

I admit. Komdori & LactoseTI talk really differently. (Wikimachine 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikimachine, I still think you're one of the most level-headed editors I bump into now and again. I have also noticed a bit of a "youthful nationalistic" trend in some of the Korean groups, but I think you might be right that it's time to join in WikiProject Korea. I sometimes wonder what to edit, and it might be a nice source to get ideas.

Please don't take the word "racist" too much to heart, I just meant by it that to define how people should act because of their race is kind of a simple definition of racism, and it seemed you did this when you said, "I wonder why a Korean who came from Korea would be so interested in Japan, but not really in his own country... He doesn't even have a WikiProject Korean banner, & I don't think he is even in the project... like most Korean editors here."

You and I have had a long and serious discussion on the Dokdo page recently. I understand the feeling to be eager to participate in such a discussion, but be afraid of people "breaking the rules." I'm not breaking them. When that page comes down to a vote, I'm sure there will be at least few sock puppets attempts on both sides, but I won't be in the group of editors using that tactic. I don't think you will, either, and although I am disappointed that you thought there was a possibility I was breaking rules, I definitely won't hold it against you. We have continued the same spirited conversation on that talk page even after this report. Hopefully it can get settled soon (perhaps people more familiar at looking at sockpuppet cases will realize quickly this isn't one) and we can move on.

In the future, if you have a suggestion about joining a project like the WikiProject Korea group, etc., please bring it up to me. I am not anti-Korean for sure, I just have a strong interest in the dispute articles to try to find a long lasting solution that will satisfy everyone. I heard lawyers say if you find a solution where no one is happy, it means it's probably the best one. --Cheers, Komdori 20:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take "level-headed"ness as a compliment, Komdori. I'm really sorry if there was no sock puppetry to begin with & is that right that the violation must take place in the discussion? I don't want to be a hypocrite by withdrawing my accusations, and saying "all right we're all friends now" immediately. But I admit I had not considered the possibility that two really good and close friends editing on Wikipedia might make cooperative moves that all the more allow false sock puppetry accusations to slip in very easily.

I also read your words on my discussion page. No, I wasn't really serious in all this except for the edit data & your edits that seem to overlap in areas of interest. I have not a single drop of grudge for you not joining WikiProject Korea, nor do I think that you joining WikiProject Korea should be something so overwhelming that the burden would be on you to talk with me about joining the project. Plus, it's not like I'm the president of the project. I can't speak for the whole group. Like I said, it is my philosophy that when I make a sock accusation, I either do it 100% or don't do it at all b/c it just destroys everything.

Again, I'm really impressed (could you get it?) by your reaction. I would just have exploded & gone 100-day war on why I'm not a sock puppet. If you have nothing to do with this sock puppetry case, it's my sincerest belief that you should run for adminship. You remind me a lot of Visviva, who now seems to have retired. --Cheers, (Wikimachine 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• A similar accusation by Wikimachine in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Assault11 went nowhere, per the RFCU cases related to that one. Wikimachine is erroneously accusing fellow participants in the ongoing mediation, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo... and it's the 2nd time he's doing it. If we're going on a fishing expedition, I suggest we do an RFCU against all users in that mediation.

Just look at the old RFCU case for LactoseTI, and you'll see that it was determined at high levels in Wikipedia, that LactoseTI and Komdori are NOT sockpuppets of each other. User:Mackensen has personally presided over on this decision.--Endroit 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All of you guys are so picky. Good friend100 19:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_%281592-1598%29&diff=next&oldid=68948541

It's not like I'm doing it only on people who's in disputes with me. This is the 3rd time I'm doing it. By the way, are there any outside opinions other than these editors whom I already know? (Wikimachine 02:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Conclusions

• LactoseTI and Komdori are separate editors, and so are not sockpuppets. They acknowledge knowing each other, however, so both users are urged to be aware of Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppets. I see no evidence of policy violation in this report, however. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 21 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Baby Dove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Aeuio 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This ties in with my earlier claim, because Mario Fantoni is the same user as Mfantoni.

Comments

Conclusions

• Again, clearly the same person, but having multiple accounts is permited, as long as they are not used for abusive purposes. If these accounts have violated WP:SOCK, please provide evidence. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:23, 20 May 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

Freddy Diab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Diaz Warren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Possibly 216.80.110.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably BSCRYNO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Dr.Greenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EdbLitlelfridi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edberter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report submission by

TJ 17:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both users seem to have only edited the same page in rather questionable ways (which on their own approach vandalism), apart from vandalising the user pages of those who got in their way.

Have only edited Joe Guse, mainly after article was challenged, and then only to remove AfD template. --Evb-wiki 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Three observations:

1. Freddie Diab corrected a typo on a post by Dr.Greenstein.
2. The histories of five of the six suspected sockpuppets go back no further than 15 May 2007: Dr.Greenstein (08:35, 15 May 2007), Diaz Warren (09:28, 15 May 2007), BSCRYNO (15:52, 15 May 2007), Edberter (18:43, 15 May 2007), EdbLitlelfridi (18:51, 15 May 2007). All are single purpose accounts, their sole edits having concerned Joe Guse and, in most cases, the user pages of those who have been involved in defending the article against vandalism. Indeed, the first edit made by Freddie Diab occured between the debut edits of Diaz Warren and BSCRYNO.
3. 216.80.110.114 is also a single purpose account. All but one contributions has concerned the Joe Guse - the exception being an edit made to Richland, Washington in which Guse's name was added to a list of "famous residents". The name was removed on 15 May by Freddy Diab. Victoriagirl 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If these are not all sockpuppets, they are associated with and/or friends of the puppetmaster. --Evb-wiki 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible that the user IP 216.80.110.114 belongs to Brucesilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as they have often edited each other's edits. --Evb-wiki 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Recognizing the above comment, I will add that like 216.80.110.114, Brucesilot is a single purpose account. As with 216.80.110.114, Brucesilot's only contribution outside Joe Guse has concerned the inclusion of Guse's name in the Richland, Washington article. Victoriagirl 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Looks like your classic self-promoting sock farm. All indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 21 May 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

Numberman3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Numberman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Numberman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Numberman4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_→AzaToth 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All edit summaries are only consisting of rising numbers, for example Numberman3's edit on my talk page had the summary "33"

Comments

No, I know these people. I have asked them to stop. The others are impersonating me. I have a right to leave any edit summary I want provided my edits are constructive. I use numbers to keep track of my edits. I will nominate myself to be an admin with the edit summary 5000. --Numberman3 18:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that.--Bongwarrior 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do think they will stop. Just as further evidence, all of the other three's blocks were autoblocked, so I would be too if they were socks. --Numberman3 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly for you'r case, Numberman1 made edits before Numberman3 :)

If you want to keep track of how many edits you have, there's a much easier way... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why Numberman3 removed Numberman4's comment from Numberman4's talk page: [118] -- The very model of a minor general 21:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting his changes. I got that one by mistake. -Numberman3 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Numberman3 is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:07, 20 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

Report submission by

edgarde 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Rumitoid resumes an edit war by the recently-blocked OneLove1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (identified by others as a SEGA sock) making identical edits in about 10 articles. Examples: [119], [120].

Similar comments ("You know this.", "This is fact."), ignoring discussion concerns and WP:ALBUM#Credits.

OnWIthTheBodyCount blanked User:Rumitoid after an SP notice was added to that page.

Checkuser confirms both users are SEGA.

Comments

This has been discussed with Rumitoid by at least two different editors today; this was also discussed with OneLove1977 prior to that userID being banned.

Conclusions

• Confirmed by Checkuser, blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:52, 20 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

Juddie76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

To add onto this, articles DRJ, Drjudd, and PDRECORDS were created by these 3 accounts.

Comments

I blocked them all for vandalism (WP:CSD#A7) and sockpuppetry (their contributions were all the same). · AndonicO ^Talk 17:57, 18 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Drjudd was shortly created after the user TrafficControl was blocked. Recreated article Drjudd immediately upon user creation.

Comments

• Open-and-shut.--Wafulz 16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Both accounts are already indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 20 May 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

Plz dont ban me lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Plz dont ban me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-HeckXX (G,W,U,V) 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same name, with a "lol".

Comments

Conclusions

• Both indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 20 May 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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Plz dont ban me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-HeckXX (G,W,U,V) 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Basically same name

Comments

Conclusions

• Both indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 20 May 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

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

61.6.221.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.91.90.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.93.143.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.150.209.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Divestment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Yaf 04

21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Giovanni33 appears to be the puppet master coordinating a tag team of 2 puppets for his edits to avoid 3RR violations and to avoid problems in soliciting others to affect consensus through a similar tag team consensus influence peddling effort on the article State terrorism by the United States. Suspected puppetmaster Giovanni33 never exceeds 2 edits per day to avoid appearing to near a 3RR violation. Puppet 68.93.143.57 also makes edits to the article, while never exceeding 2 edits per day to avoid nearing a 3RR violation. A second puppet, 69.150.209.15, then solicits others to affect consensus, leaving a message of:

"==Might be interested==

I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America discussion for deletion. After the article has survived many deletions, you may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

There were 17 of these messages left by this puppet between 17:42 14 May 2007 (UTC) and 18:16 14 May 2007 (UTC) as visible here.

As for the tag teaming of edits to avoid 3RR, see for example:

• 1st revert: 04:28 14 May 2007 by 68.93.143.57
• 2nd revert: 16:36 14 May 2007 by 68.93.143.57
• 3rd revert: 18:34 14 May 2007 by Giovanni33

No 3RR violation, technically speaking, but still a violation of sock puppetry to achieve a POV end while attempting to game the system.

Giovanni33 has a long history of sock puppetry. His prior history on these issues is repeated here for convenience:

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#User.3AGiovanni33_again http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni33_once_again http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni_Part_One http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni_Part_Three

The issue here is more than a simple content dispute. The present article is POV pushing at its worst. Giovanni33 even makes the case that he is writing an attack article against the United States through pushing his POV, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=130877307 .

Coupled with sock puppetry to push his POV agenda, there is clearly a need for something to be done administratively to stop the (continued) sock puppetry to push a POV agenda towards writing an attack article against the United States.

Comments

For the record, I deny the puppety charge and welcome an IP user check as is deemed appropriate by any admin. I've done nothing improper. This user has lost the debate, and failed to gain consensus for his strong POV issues, as is evident on the talk page; Thus his wholesale deletions of sourced material have been correctly reverted by other long established users, and once by myself. The anon IP user has no connection with me whatsoever.

I also note the user has been dishonest, not only with the arguments he had made on the talk page for deleting the sourced material (hence his evolving reasons, a new one being created after each time its shown to be false, and citing a different source than the one actually provided for in the article to claim the statement does not reflect what the source says, etc), but now he is falsely accusing me of saying that I actually made the case that I'm writing an attack piece to push my POV. That is pure nonsense. As anyone can see, I was making the point that our POV's should not enter into consideration (regarding the allegations of US State Sponored Terrorism), but rather we should only be concerned about reporting what legitimate sources claim. Since he shared his POV, I did as well, but advised that we need not concern ourselves with our own personal political povs. To twise this into a claim that I said I'm creating an attack article is just more dishonesty.Giovanni33 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A host of Single purpose accounts seem to be getting created to edit just this one article, in accordance with Giovanni33 styles of editings. They sure look like sock puppets. Yaf 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False. You have only shown the IP address from the same school, which is probably the same person logging in the the school PC using a dynamic IP address. There is no pretence of this anon IP user pretending to be more than one person, nor any connection to myself, style or otherwise.Giovanni33 06:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this how? Arbcom discussions in the past have generally indicated that single purpose accounts that are created during a content dispute which support only one editor's viewpoint are generally considered to be meat puppets and/or sock puppets. Yaf 07:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its common sense. I can look at their edits and its all from the same place. And, no, they are not single purpose accounts just created. The main account has about a thousand edits covering many subjects, so this is a valid member of the community desite what you say.Giovanni33 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the contributions of all these puppets has been on one article, only, definitely single purpose accounts, in support only of Giovanni33. One student acting as a puppet is still a puppet, even if she is in San Antonio during the week (and in Houston on the weekend), even if the puppet master is perhaps controlling remotely via e-mail or cell phone calls. Yaf 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I see here:[121] This user was editing before I ever came to this article, on April 24th. And, I came here on May 15th. This user has edited on many articles, starting last year in Sept.Articles I never have been to. Very little connection at all, in terms of what I see from his edits and mine. If this were a puppet connection it would have shown itself with some history behind it, and I would have called the puppet to help me instead of vise-versa, no? The speculations are not logical. In reality I've long given up any puppetry--its all in my past only. I'm a firm believer in following the rules of WP.Giovanni33 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies on Meatpuppets is contained at: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets relative to them not being considered members of the Wikipedia community. Yaf 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with these policies but they don't pertain to the facts of this situation, unless you argue simply being an IP user means they are not a real user? That is not a rule.Giovanni33 04:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not arguing that at all. Many valid edits come from IP users testing the waters before deciding to get a named account. We never want to bite the newbies. -- For the "vote stacking" IP soliciting support for your view, yes, it does have a prior history of edits, many of which though are on Christian and similar religious topics which you do have quite a bit of history on :-) None of the other puppets have any prior WP editing history, before just showing up in the last few days to be single purpose accounts, with an agenda on editing just the State terrorism by the United States article in accordance with your views. These are all clearly Meat puppets, which by policy are to be treated as if just one individual. By the way, it is generally not considered good form to remove sockpuppet taglines placed on the talk pages of single purpose accounts during the time that a case is open on puppetry charges, as you did earlier tonight; some might consider this to be an attempt at removal of case evidence. Once the case is closed, then, depending on the outcome, removal may then be proper. Yaf 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting for my view? But that was before my view was even known. And, I see no Chritian or related religious article where we crossed paths. In fact, I have no history on any of the Christian related topics that this user made edits on. And, looking at his edits, its not even clear that this user shared my POV on any of these articles--other than this one. Since a user check was done and shown to be not related, also goes against your theory. I don't see any basis for assuming any "meat puppetry" either. I would think its logical to assume given that the other IP addresses which all come from the same place (St. Mary's in Texas) to all be the same person, but I see no evidence that the different IP's even attempt to be different users, either. So, if they are the same, then this negates your argument that they were created as single user accounts--its just the same person at the same school not logging in, or that there is any puppety of any sort going on. I don't think you sticking those tags implicating me in them without any evidence at all (I'd take linguistic evidence even) as good form, until you have something more solid to go on. If you want, I know a very good linguist who has studied my writing patterns and could probably be a good source to convince you that I'm not these other people, if there was any serious thinking that I was. I don't think anyone thinks that except maybe you.Giovanni33 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I note that a user check was done on the above and resulted with a finding of "unrelated." If one does an IP trace it pulls up St. Mary's in Texas. I am in San Francisco.Giovanni33 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A traceroute was only done on two of the original puppets; none have been run since. Yaf 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if the others are checked, they will show no connection as well. I have nothing to fear with any checks.Giovanni33 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The evidence presented here is not strong, and the Checkuser result strongly suggests that the IPs are not Giovanni33. Divestment definitely looks like someone who's already been involved in the debate, but there's no strong evidence to tie that account to Giovanni33, so I'm closing this case with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 20 May 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

FrankJones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

128.208.36.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.231.50.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.32.207.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.101.142.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.56.86.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ibague Student (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128.95.141.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.35.174.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ibague Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ibague Monkey 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ibague Monkey 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ibague Monkey 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ibague Monkey 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Colombia Person 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Colombia Person 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Monkey Trouble 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Damn Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
UP2HHH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MonkeyProblems45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MonkeyOverlord4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Omega Archdoom^Talk 09:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All add the same stuff to the Ibagué (something about evil monkeys attacking). Go to the history of the article and look at the edits they made.

Comments

I know some have already been blocked as sockpuppets of Ibague monkey, but a few haven't, and some of these accounts are quite recent. Ibague Monkey 4 didn't get round to editing the article before being blocked as a sockpuppet of this user.

Conclusions

• All named accounts are blocked, the IPs shouldn't be blocked as their edits are old. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 17 May 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

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

— Indon (reply) — 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits are similar with his other sockpuppet Proudlyhumble07 (talk · contribs)

Should be closed and added to the existing checkuser page - we already have over a dozen confirmed sockpuppets there. Orderinchaos 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to checkuser page. Orderinchaos 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

• Already handled through checkuser. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 17 May 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

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