Misplaced Pages

:Suspected sock puppets - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KelleyCook (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 8 December 2008 (Remove my own addition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:43, 8 December 2008 by KelleyCook (talk | contribs) (Remove my own addition)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    		 ShortcutsRefresh the page
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Misplaced Pages's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Misplaced Pages editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to requests for checkuser.

    Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry.

    Administrators

    Administrators please see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. for editing here at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP).

    Reporting suspected sock puppets

    view • edit

    CautionBefore creating a report at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:
    1. The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.
    2. You have strong evidence. To learn what can be evidence, see here. If your evidence is weak, then it will be nearly impossible to reach a determination of sockpuppetry. All your statements should be supported by diffs.
    3. The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already blocked.
    4. The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already reported. Look through open SSP cases for usernames frequently associated with your suspect. Both older and newer cases, many of whose accounts are now blocked, show up in the categories for sockpuppeteers, sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets.
    1. Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
    2. Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
    3. Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
      To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry:

      Cases are created on subpages of Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets.
      To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below.
      Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.

      Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled:
      Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)

      Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report.
      After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.

      Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations.


    4. List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
    5. Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}} ~~~~ or similar.
    6. Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
    7. Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.


    Open cases

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

    User:Egour

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Egour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Thisistravis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    User:Thisistravis was created at 16:15 UTC, and created abusive article Buddy Warren at 16:24. I tagged it for speedy deletion at 16:28. Thisistravis made two changes to the article, including addition and then removal of a hangon tag. At 16:35 User:Egour was created, and at 16:36 that user proceeded directly to this article and removed the CSD tag, after which that user created further inappropriate content. The timing strongly suggests to me that Thisistravis created additional user Egour primarily for the purpose of removing the CSD tag while maintaining the appearance of not having violated the rule against removing a CSD tag on an article that one created. Since both users appeared within half an hour of each other and both seem to exist solely for the purpose of creating and editing this one article, I believe them to be the same person, or friends in collusion.

    Comments


    Conclusions

    Clearly sock or meat puppets, and since they're only here to create an attack page, I'm just going ahead and blocking both accounts indef. I've forgotten how to archive an SSP; could someone do the honors? --barneca (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Obroak

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Obroak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Recreation of articles originally created by Obroak (talk · contribs) and identified through an AfD discussion as a hoax, and subsequently speedily deleted. New article creations: 1, 2.
    • Use of same anonymous IP 82.56.152.153 (talk · contribs) during editing (especially malicious editing, e.g. removal of speedy deletion templates}} as used during the creation of the original disputed articles.
    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    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.

    User:Mikoyoxa

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Mikoyoxa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Topic
    Evidence
    • I'm not sure which of these is the puppetmaster, but they all seem clearly linked.
    • I have read Template:tlx, and don't understand how to use it, so I apologise if the links here are all wrong.
    • All the main contributors to Aqua Detox are listed above. All of them have only made edits to articles on this topic (and related elements such as Spa, Chromium, etc; aside from a single edit at Coffea by User:Alljerry - - which inserted an enormous wall of text about the chemistry of green coffee beans, which is stylistically very similar to the content of Aqua Detox and the now-deleted Spa bath.
    • There's been a rash of attempts to get Spa deleted for spurious copyright reasons:
    • Alljerry does it here: and claims to be a lawyer here:
    • Alphamay1 does the same thing here: and backs it up with a load of spurious claims and an attack on me here:
    • IP user 84.154.99.17 does it here: and posts to the talk page with a telling reference to galvano-spa-baths (an issue in Aqua Detox and Spa bath) here:
    • User:Gordonofcartoon points out the links between these accounts here.
    • Comment: agreed with AlexTiefling. This is the same set of SPA accounts who made stylistically identical edits to Spa bath, which was deleted as a POV dissertation based on one journal letter. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spa bath. It's clearly bad faith retaliation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Almost certainly sockpuppets, based on similar comment style and copyvio accusations. However, none of the accounts have edited since December 7. If they come back, you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 17:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Kikbguy

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Kikbguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    Conclusions
    • Agreed with conclusions and evidence - easily passes WP:Duck. Users Kikbguy and Tulaneadam21 blocked as sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet respectively. If necessary I will further block anon IP's. Please come to my talk page to let me know if that is needed.--VS 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Kikbguy2 also indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet.--VS 01:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Thefreakjohnson

    Thefreakjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Known or suspected alternate accounts
    Reported by
    Details of abuse

    Took up making similar edits to DMD (rapper) after User:Chrispole was blocked.

    See also this notification.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comments
    • User is also ignoring warnings, re-created a page minutes after it was deleted, and is generally making it clear that he or she has no respect for other editors and the policies which guide the project. Boston (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    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.

    User:KeepOnRockingInTheFreeWorld

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    KeepOnRockingInTheFreeWorld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Multiple accounts that seem to be intent on reverting criticism of R&R Partners. I think the new account is being created to avoid 3RR sanctions. See and as examples in R&R Partners article.

    Further removal of critical comments about same company in different articles here: and here .

    Both accounts have no other activity - just deleting this criticism. There is also a suggestive similarity in the "style" of the user names.

    Comments

    Sorry made a mistake just trying to correct an attack by a Misplaced Pages user. I am just learning how to use this thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpupjumpupandgetdown (talk • contribs)

    Just to be clear, are you saying that you "own" both usernames or not? Unusual? Quite 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Seems clear to me that they are the same user. If this was a current, ongoing dispute, I'd suggest a Checkuser, but the last edit by any of the three was more than 2 weeks ago (not due to any delay by the filer, but rather due to the extraordinary backlog at SSP). The edit by Jumpupjumpupandgetdown (talk · contribs) above seems to indicate an admission that multiple accounts were being used. They were sort of used sequentially, so I'll bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt, and block KeepOnRockingInTheFreeWorld (talk · contribs) and Vegasgadget (talk · contribs) indef as not-to-be-used sockpuppets, but will leave Jumpupjumpupandgetdown (talk · contribs) unblocked, with an expanded warning on their talk page. Apologies for the delay due to the backlog. --barneca (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:12.76.155.54

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    12.76.155.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Since 4 December, all nine of these IPs have been editing Wisconsin census-designated place (CDP) articles, plus articles and templates referring to or classifying them against the standard for CDPs in Wisconsin, or discussions on user talk pages about others of the nine IP. While no IP address has violated 3RR, if these nine — or even only the seven beginning with 12. — are the same human, there's a plain 3RR violation here. 68. and 69. are currently under a 24-hour block: I blocked 69. after s/he made several personal attacks on RFD's and my talk pages, even restoring them when they were reverted; meanwhile, in this edit, 68. claims to be 69. The person with these two IPs has claimed to be a different person from whoever is using 12.76.152.161. However, it should be noted that all nine of these have begun editing since 4 December: some have never edited before, while the rest have not edited for months. With the exception of two Oklahoma-related edits (both of which were to articles I had just edited), all of these edits since 4 December have been Wisconsin-related or CDP-related or both.
    • Aside from the articles they've edited, 69. and several of the 12. series have both engaged in personal attacks ( and ), and both have frequently blanked their own talk pages: here by 69., while six of the eight edits by 12.76.152.12 and 12.76.155.214 have been to blank talk pages of the 12.-series IPs.
    • One final point: to my knowledge, there haven't been any disputes or even any discussion of CDPs in Wisconsin for the past several months, until this came up in the last few days. I'm not heavily involved in Wisconsin geography (RFD and Royalbroil are more informed on this), but I've not seen any disputes in the histories of any of the Wisconsin CDP articles that I've looked at over the last few days.
    • I will be notifying three registered users of this case, none of whom are at all related to the IPs: RFD, who has been the subject of some personal attacks and has been deeply involved in the actual content edits that they've made; Royalbroil, who has become involved primarily with opposing recent personal attacks; and Bkonrad, whom one of the IPs asked for help, but has not at all done anything wrong.
    Comments
    I do lots of editing with the WikiProject Wisconsin.Being born and raised in Wisconsin, I am very familiar with the State including the government and the political subdivisions.A few days ago an anon editor started to revert changes to the Wisconsin related CDP articles.I responded by telling this edit he/she should go to the talk pages/edit summary of the articles.Instead this editor reverted my edits saying that I gave no reasons for the edits I made.I also knew this anon editor followed myself when I edited the Bishop Loras Watters article and when I left a messege on User Dual Freq's talk page about the 1933 WWisconsin Milk Strike article.

    It has been distress for myself not knowing when this anon editor would come up.In fact I reverted an edit that this anon editor made in the Daniel Brandenstein article and got one of the registered editors wondering what was going on.For that one I did apologized to that registered editor. One more comment-at WikiProject Wisconsin we reached the consensus in the preparing of the Wisconsin county articles and templetes that they were to be rank as:cities,villages,towns,census-designated places and then unincorporated communities and in my own edits I try to follow this consensus that was reached at WikiProject Wisconsin.Finally as I told Nyttend-I feel very strongly that all editors of Misplaced Pages should be require to be register by opening accounts.It gets very stress when you have one anon editor using several IP numbers who does not want nor is willing to register with Misplaced Pages with an account who pops up and engages in personal attacks and you do not know who this person is.Thank you-RFD (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    Could you please state whether you think that these IP addresses represent a single person or not? Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comments by User:Royalbroil
    Certainly the same person is editing the addresses in the 12.x IP range because some have reverted warnings to other IP addresses. Both 68/69.x IP addresses are edits from the same editor, but the 12.x and 68/69.x edits might not have the same editor. I got involved when the 68.x editor placed a personal attack on User:RFD's talk page. The message had a list of things that kindergartners need to do followed by the insult "GROW UP!" . The editor won't discuss anything or work towards building consensus. The editor has been around Misplaced Pages for a while, because s/he left the message "I'll bet that's the first time in history that someone characterized Fulghum's wonderful advice as an attack." on my talk page.
    Wisconsin CDPs and unincorporated communities (UC) have separate categories and both editors seem to be in strong disagreement with this consensus. There needs to be a separation and distinction between CDP and UC. It may be true that every CDP is an unincorporated community, but I'm certain that not every unincorporated community is a CDP. Royalbroil 04:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment

    I have a dynamic IP, and because of that I’m being accused of being a sockpuppet. I have absolutely no control over how my IP appears - my ISP determines that. I am definitely not 69.120.182.161 because my IP never begins with 69. FWIW, Nyttend filed a sockpuppet charge after I presented indisputable evidence that he and RFD were wrong about the status and “rank” of census-designated places (CDPs). This appears to be clear retaliation. Plus, Nyttend recruited his buddy, RFD, to weigh in on the matter. RFD is so biased that he can’t distinguish between my CDP comments and the very sound edits I’ve made. The poor fellow is obviously so blown away by the fact that someone knowledgeable has contradicted him that he’s babbling unintelligibly. Even User:Royalbroil, who I respect a lot more than the other two, cannot distinguish the issue that is supposed to be addressed on this page: Is Nyttend’s accusation of sock puppetry true? This is hardly a fair, neutral, or objective weighing of the facts. It’s a brute force “consensus” perpetrated by a good ol’ boys network. I’m not like some editors who make trivial, technical changes and reverts. I’ve made a lot of constructive and meaningful contributions to WP. Check my recent addition to Roxbury, Wisconsin for just one example.

    "Nothing is more revolting than the majority; for it consists of few vigorous predecessors, of knaves who accommodate themselves, of weak people who assimilate themselves, and the mass that toddles after them without knowing in the least what it wants."

    — Goethe

    "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

    — Bertrand Russell

    "Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power."

    — Kurt Vonnegut
    Question to 12.76.152.230-There is any reason why you yourself am not register with Misplaced Pages with an account?Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Could you put that in English, please? 12.76.155.139 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Why did you not yet create an account for yourself?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Editing anonymously is a perfectly legitimate way of contributing to Misplaced Pages. There is no reason you should be bullying me into creating an account.
    Personally, I think that passing an English writing and grammar test should be one criterion for being a WP editor. Those who can't string together words to form complete, intelligible sentences shouldn't be allowed to edit.12.76.129.243 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment — please leave all further notes below here
    There are only three relevant questions in this case: are 68/69 the same person; are the 12-series the same person; and is the 12-series the same person as 68/69. Given that 68 claimed to be 69, and given that the 12-series notes that the 12-series is the same person, we only need to address one more question here: are 68/69 and the 12-series the same person? Let's leave off the previous conversations: they've only a little bit looked at this question. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Okay-I look at the Roxbury, Wisconsin article and made some minor changes-space/bullet/Black Hawk War templete.I look at the history of Roxbury, Wisconsin and 12.76.152.230's contributions to the Roxbury, Wisconsin article. I noticed an entry at 6:27 for December 7, 2008 12.76.154.63 and 12.76.154.63 did blanket the various warnings. A few minutes later 12.76.152.230 came on the scene with the edits to the Roxbury, Wisconsin article. I am not sure if I am answering this question or not but I feel the edits in the Roxbury, Wisconsin article today-12.76.154.63/12.76.152.230 were of the same individual.Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, we have a statement from the 12-series that it's the same person; the question is whether the 12-series and 68/69 are the same person. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    FWIW, This edit by 69.120.182.161 states that they made this edit by 12.76.154.71. Nothing is wrong with those two edits, but 69.120.182.161 is one of the IPs in question here and this shows some connection to the 12 series. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment

    What is this all about? The day before yesterday I got accused of being someone I’m not, and my protestations to the contrary, was blocked by Nyttend. Today I’m accused of being a sockpuppet. This is absurd! I have only one computer and only one connection to the Internet. How can I be a sockpuppet? I checked some of the edits of the other IPs I’m accused of being, and it turns out that I apparently agreed with something one of those IPs said, so now I’m stuck in the middle of a dispute that Nyttend and RFD are involved in with someone else. Please leave me out of your silly edit war!69.120.182.161 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    You were blocked for personal attacks, as noted above; and although you only have one Internet connection (something I'm not questioning here), your computer plainly used at least two IPs — whether or not you are the same person operating the 12.-series. Furthermore, if you want to dissociate yourself from the 12.-series, you might want to refrain from the derogatory comments, such as "silly edit war", that both 69. and the 12.-series have been making. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    A dynamic IP doesn’t qualify as a sockpuppet, especially when the only issue is one of disagreement with other editors. No registered user has weighed in on this except those involved in the dispute. The IP has made many good edits. There’s no point in a rangeblock. Let it rest. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.28.1 (talk)

    • What we have here is a user who is allowed to edit anonymously, who will show up on different IPs through no fault of their own. For our purposes, the IPs on this report look like they might be treated as the same editor (I'd want to double check before applying any blocks.). If we do that, and the editor's unified behavior merits a block, one can be applied. I am not going to block them now because anything that happened is already stale, and they appear to be acting in good faith. They aren't trying to use multiple accounts. That's just a consequence of how they access the Internet. Please let me or any other administrator know if any of these IPs engage in disruptive behavior, individually or collectively, and provide a link to this page. Jehochman 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Balloholic

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Balloholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by
    Evidence

    User has a group of single-purpose IP editors that seem to appear whenever one of his articles are sent to AfD and support him with "keep" !votes as exhibited in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eamonn Kelly (priest) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dessie Larkin (2nd nomination). The host name of these IP addresses is the exact same as Balloholic's as he accidentally revealed when he edited his user page without logging in here. (That same IP address then went on to edit a number of articles that Balloholic frequents.)

    Comments

    Excuse me, but I am not a sockpuppet. I already stated on your talkpage that I wasn't. This address is used by various people and I am not held responsible for their edits. You state, "The host name of these IP addresses is the exact same as Balloholic's as he accidentally revealed when he edited his user page". This is untrue, I did not accidentally reveal anything. In fact I didn't reveal anything as I am not a sockpuppet. --Balloholic (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment - I find it odd that 2 random anons just happened to find an deletion discussion on an obscure articles on en.wikipedia. Its not exactly easy to find and suggests the person(s) involved knew where to go. Anyway, if Balloholic is innocent as he claims then checkuser will prove that. Snappy (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Referring to checkuser. Trusilver 18:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Referred to RFCU. Closed. Black Kite 22:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Francine Rogers

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

    User:83.254.21.226

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    83.254.21.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Consist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Plantsurfer (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Self-proclaimed as "Consist, presently at 83.254.21.226" Has abused multiple IP accounts promoting his own personal research and point of view

    Comments

    This report is backward. This IP should be counted as a sock of Consist. —C.Fred (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    Apologies, mea culpa. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

     Confirmed. User:Consist was blocked on July 14, 2008 for vandalism, and User:83.254.21.226 has confessed to being a sockpuppet. Please block the IP and close this report. —BradV 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Munish.sharma.82

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Munish.sharma.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    70.112.6.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 09:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Characterized by deletion of same text prior to ban

    Comments

    User:Hkelkar is the sockpuppeteer here, and User:70.112.6.56 has already been blocked as his sock. User:Munish.sharma.82 has only made two edits, which really isn't enough evidence to convict. —BradV 21:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    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.

    User:KosovoParliament

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    KosovoParliament (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence

    This appears to be a serial hoaxer who's edits relate to ficticious political parties of Kosovo.

    • KosovoParliament created the article Ashkalli which was speedily deleted, Virgjin recreated the article, which was redirected.
      • In this edit KosovoParliament added a whole bunch of supposed political parties that get no Google hits outside of Misplaced Pages (e.g. "New Kosovar Party", "Alliance & Leagues of Kosovo", "Former Yugoslav Alliance within Kosovo Party")
    • Virgjin has created half a dozen extremely dubious article relating to Kosovo (all of which I have nominated for deletion).
    Comments
    Conclusions

    This report checks out. I will tag all the accounts and block the named ones. Jehochman 15:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:ExtremeTube

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    ExtremeTube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    RapidSet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    63.92.217.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    69.227.164.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

       SIS  18:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Making the exact same promotional edits to Concrete

    Comments

    I reverted edits to the article Extreme sport by 69.227.164.90 that tried to insert the extremetube link as spam and shortly after 63.92.217.42 and User:ExtremeTube started adding the same site to the article. Should the two IP addressed be included in this case as well? Regardless, User:ExtremeTube should at least be blocked for having a promotional username. Themfromspace (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, the IPs should be included. I've added them. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Spammers. Dont'cha love 'em? Banninated, site blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    User:Fadulj

    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 sock puppeteer

    Fadulj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets

    122.3.*.* is a dialup ISP in .ph.



    Report submission by

    -Freqsh0 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Note: This report is still somewhat of a work in progress. There is a lot to dig through and I'm spending way too long on this :)

    It appears I've come across a massive campaign of sockpuppets, possibly with some meatpuppets, participating in a shameless, widespread self promotion campaign on wikipedia. There are several accounts and articles involved, and it's taken me quite some time to gather these notes, so please excuse if I haven't properly organized/formatted some things. I tried to make it as coherent as possible, let me know if something should be formatted differently. Also, I may have missed a few evidence links for some of the puppets, point out any that need further justification.

    These accounts have all been associated with the promotion of an individual named Jose A Fadul, including creation of the original article, inserting references to this article throughout wikipedia, and referencing the individual, his work, or his personal websites. When one of these edits are challenged, another account always comes to the rescue. The editing patterns strongly indicate teamwork and knowledge of when edits are being made. I first became aware of this when trying to maintain the List of child prodigies article, when it appeared several users with a strange level of interest began revert warring against me, while I was genuinely trying to invite discussion on the articles talk page, which went ignored. When a bunch of redlink accounts posted on my talk page telling me I am making poor editing decisions, I decided to fully investigate. It should be noted that the user that created the Jose Fadul article is actually named User:Fadulj.

    • A) User:CosmicAnthropologist appears to be a single use account only to revert a few of my edits that the others were also reverting, and back the others up. See his contribs.
    • E) User:MCLeander claims he was Jose Fadul's teacher and knew Jose Fadul as a child. 1, 2,
    • T) A user discusses the possible based on the suspicious creator username/article name for Jose Fadul. Fadulj says he is unrelated and the name is coincidence. 1
    • U) Contrary to User:Fadulj claiming that he is unrelated, he uploads an image created by Jose Fadul, seen on his gallery here 1, and says "I, Jose A Fadul created..." it. - 2.
    • I didn't upload this artwork, though it is mine! Someone else keyed in "I, Jose A Fadul created ... " and not me! (Could it be that someone hacked my password or something?)
    • AC) Milagros D. Ibe is tagged speedy delete, User:Fadulj responds saying that she is notable in the phillipines - 1. Also note that Jose Fadul has a painting of her on his personal site 2.
    • AH) User:Fadulj uploads an image of Jose Fadul, pretending he is not him. He still names the image Fadulj.jpg however. He claims he took it from Jose Fadul's website and cropped it. 1
    • AP) User:MCLeander added external link to a painting by Jose Fadul to the Cockfight article. 1
    • AQ) Storefront page for Jose Fadul's lulu books includes his contact info. His email address is listed as fadulj@dls-csb.edu.ph, same username as User:Fadulj who claims to not be him. http://stores.lu lu.com/fadulj (remove space - url is blacklisted for spam).
    • AS) User:fadulj avoids a WP:COI accusation by saying he is an American from San Diego, of Lebanese descent, vacationing in the Philippines. 1. While vacationing he claims to have found a namesake and created an article. This is obviously a very poor lie - all of his contribs are either specific to Jose Fadul, inserting references to Jose Fadul, or specific to Filipino culture. Some examples to show that he is obviously Filipino, besides his whole contrib history, are 2, 3, 4, 5
    • AU) 5 of them try to team up on my talk page to speak out against my removal of Jose Fadul from List of child prodigies. 1 - Also note that 3 of them make the same mistake of forgetting to put a space between the last period and their signature.

    Known external URLs to check for spam:

    Emails:

    • fadulj@dls-csb.edu.ph
    • jose_fdl@yahoo.com

    Other things possibly of interest:

    1. 12:16:30, Fri Mar 14, 2008 en:user:PFlores3 <-> lulu.com (0%/0%/0% - Added link: www.lulu.com/content/913264 (Monitored rule: \blulu\.com - reason for monitoring \blulu\.com: Automonitor: reported to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam (diff)) - en:Jose_Fadul - diff - COIBot UserReport - en:Special:Contributions/PFlores3.
    1. 19:17:21, Sat Mar 01, 2008 en:user:Melayts <-> lulu.com (0%/0%/0% - Added link: www.lulu.com/content/850247 (Monitored rule: \blulu\.com - reason for monitoring \blulu\.com: Automonitor: reported to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam (diff)) - en:Jose_Fadul - diff - COIBot UserReport - en:Special:Contributions/Melayts.
    1. 2008-03-14 08:16:30: User PFlores3 (talk - contribs; 14) to Jose Fadul (diff) - Link: www.lulu.com/content/913264.
    1. 2008-03-01 14:17:09: User Melayts (talk - contribs; 17) to Jose Fadul (diff) - Link: www.lulu.com/content/850247.
    1. 11:51:59, Wed Mar 19, 2008 - user:Fadulj - user talk (contribs) on page Jose Fadul (diff) -> calculated overlap Fadulj <-> Jose Fadul (U->P: 83.33% - P->U 66.66% -> ratio 55.5%)
    1. 12:16:30, Fri Mar 14, 2008 - user:PFlores3 - user talk (contribs) on page Jose Fadul (diff) -> Added link: www.lulu.com/content/913264 (Monitored rule: \blulu\.com - reason for monitoring \blulu\.com: Automonitor: reported to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam (diff) (U->L: 0% - L->U 0% -> ratio 0%). Link: lulu.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com .
    1. 19:17:21, Sat Mar 01, 2008 - user:Melayts - user talk (contribs) on page Jose Fadul (diff) -> Added link: www.lulu.com/content/850247 (Monitored rule: \blulu\.com - reason for monitoring \blulu\.com: Automonitor: reported to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam (diff) (U->L: 0% - L->U 0% -> ratio 0%). Link: lulu.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com .
    1. 11:31:40, Wed Mar 26, 2008 - user:Fadulj - user talk (contribs) on page Jose Fadul (diff) -> calculated overlap Fadulj <-> Jose Fadul (U->P: 83.33% - P->U 66.66% -> ratio 55.5%)
    1. 11:29:38, Wed Mar 26, 2008 - user:Fadulj - user talk (contribs) on page Jose Fadul (diff) -> calculated overlap Fadulj <-> Jose Fadul (U->P: 83.33% - P->U 66.66% -> ratio 55.5%)
    Comments

    I am Hunting Tarsier. I am a Filipino, a civil engineer by profession. I am not a sockpuppet of Dr.Jose Fadul although we happened to have graduated in the same high school and university. HuntingTarsier (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    This is User: "Cosmic Anthropologist" and I am not a sock puppet of Jose Fadul either. I am using one of the computer terminals of College of Saint Benilde, that is why I may be registering the same IP address as the other Misplaced Pages users and editors. I am responding to the serious accusation of sock puppetry. CosmicAnthropologist (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


    This is User:FadulJoseA who is the same Jose Fadul in the Misplaced Pages article. I am not User:Fadulj who mentioned that he is an American of Lebanese descent and happened to have the same name as I have, down to the middle initial. (My middle name is "Arabe", he did not mention his.) User:Fadulj mentioned that he was the one who created the article about myself which is fairly accurate, in fairness to him and the rest. I have not touched that article for obvious reasons. But now, since it has led to a commotion and serious suspicion of sockpuppeteering I would like to have it deleted. To all those who seem to be "a little obsessed with me" including my former schoolmates and students and whom I remember to be my teacher some thirty years ago, please do not undelete it. FadulJoseA (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    • I believe points U, AF, AH, AS, and AT prove otherwise. Aside from these specific points, the fact that you both work on all of the same articles around the same time, and seem to have the same depth of knowledge on yourself, proves otherwise. Furthermore, you are seen promoting yourself, or editing articles that promote you, with this User:FadulJoseA account in several examples listed above. It's also interesting you knew he is an american of lebanese descent, when his statement to that only appears on other users talk pages, and never on an article you have edited. It is also strange that someone supposedly knowing all details about you, extremely obsessed with you, edits many articles with you yet you have never written on each other's talk pages. -Freqsh0 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't own a computer. I have been using the computers in school, and in the nearby Cafe for internet access. I'm sorry if you have the impression that I am a sockpuppet. I am not. Neither would I employ one. Some people are just uncontrollable, and please believe me, I'm trying to contain the matter. FadulJoseA (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


    I apologize for all the troubles that I may have caused Dr.Fadul and the rest. I am not a sock puppet of Dr.Fadul. And I don't think he is a sock puppeteer not engage in sock puppetry. Joe, I'm so sorry. I respect your decision but rest assured that you'll always be remembered by me and by all those whose hearts you have touched and inspired.MCLeander (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    • I don't buy this charade either, though even that would be a longstanding, blatant abuse of wikipedia. It's guaranteed that at least some of you are sockpuppets, but I have more fairly compelling evidence that all of you are, which I'll post later on when I get time. In the mean time, I suggest you stop using your puppet army to try and create the illusion of consensus against other editors who, unlike yourself, are attempting to abide by[REDACTED] standards and maintain articles, and stop sneaking references to Jose Fadul and his websites in other articles. -Freqsh0 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    I'm Pedro Flores III. I was Fadul's classmate and much later, one of his students. That doesn't make me a sockpuppet, does it?PFlores3 (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    • You are not allowed to modify this report. Do not remove your name from the list of suspects. You may present your defense here in the comment section. When this report is complete, the evidence, and your defense, will be reviewed by other editors and administrators. If your actions are free of misconduct, you have nothing to worry about. If it is found that your usage is abuse, the administrator will take the appropriate action. -Freqsh0 (talk)
    • The 'evidences' presented herein are no multum sed multa ("not much, but many") and can be all coincidences. Some (or many) innocent people can, and are getting hurt. Dr. Fadul is a very decent person. PFlores3 (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You are not allowed to modify this report. Do not remove your name from the list of suspects. You may present your defense here in the comment section. When this report is complete, the evidence, and your defense, will be reviewed by other editors and administrators. If your actions are free of misconduct, you have nothing to worry about. If it is found that your usage is abuse, the administrator will take the appropriate action. -Freqsh0 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    I am not a sock puppets of User:Fadulj cuz this IP/computer is in the Philippines and not in other countries. To the User who suspect that I am a sockpuppet: "What the hell! This IP address is used by several people. Investigate first before accussed! You are a big shame in this site" --202.57.48.69 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    Bunsoy here. !!@!@!@$#@$#@##$^$^$#$#$#$%^*(&&*%^%%!! Grrr! I deny being a sockpuppet! --BunsoyBunsoy (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

    This is Melayts. Independent of the others, I likewise deny being a sockpuppet. (talk)119.111.86.75 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


    Conclusions
    FadulJoseA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    CosmicAnthropologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Bunsoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    HuntingTarsier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    MCLeander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    PFlores3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    JDGloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    are all  Confirmed to be the same user.
    (Not the same user, but all used the same computers in the DLS-CSB campus!FadulJoseA (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC))
    Melayts (talk · contribs)
    BlockCtwoD (talk · contribs)
    are  Stale, but behaviorally consistent.

    In addition, all IPs are related to the sock farm but have legitimate users. If they are blocked, make sure they are anon-only to avoid needless collateral damage. — Coren  02:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

    Sockmaster blocked for 3 months for abuse of alternate accounts, and named sock accounts indefinitely. I have left the ip accounts alone, as they are from an educational facility and per CU edit other articles. As the target article may be a hoax, and therefore a candidate for deletion, it may be that the subject need not even be semi-protected - which would be the other way of stopping this disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Dswan123

    Dswan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Known or suspected alternate accounts
    Reported by
    Details of abuse

    Sock puppet of blocked user

    Comments

    Need more info here. Any evidence? What is the other account(s) involved? Cirt (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    No further info, closed. Black Kite 23:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Jean Girard

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Jean Girard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    JeanGirard55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    JavaTenor (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Creating same page as other sockpuppets. Name is a bit of a give-away, as well.

    Comments


    Conclusions

    Blocked. —BradV 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Fnr Kllrb

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Fnr Kllrb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Sock created to evade most recent 48-hour block. The sock was created at 20:33, 3 December 2008 after Fnr Krllb (talk · contribs) received their latest block and edits the same pages (namely Tatars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) using edit summaries suggestive of ongoing involvement . The sock's name is also the original user name reversed.

    Given the master account's history of disruptive editing and now block evasion, I think an extension of the initial block may be in order.

    Comments

    Umm, yes, I'm Fnr Kllrb. I had no idea that this was prohibited :D Please delete both these accounts, but first tell me when should I return. I want to make a fresh start with a new username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brllkrnf (talk • contribs) 12:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    Blocked; closed. Black Kite 23:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Supertramper

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Supertramper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets

    Report submission by Xymmax So let it be done 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence
    Comments


    Conclusions

    All users blocked --Chris 10:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:66.186.184.193

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    66.186.184.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    SartBimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.179.96.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    MuZemike (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Clear case of block evasion (due to vandalism) by creating an account to work around it. The same comments to request deletion for Scrutinizer (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scrutinizer) —in which user is not the author of — are made and .

    I am also adding another IP as a possible sock of the puppeteer as both IPs come from Maine and as shown by a similar threatening comment here.

    Comments

    Ridiculous, but do whatever you want, it won't affect me. I'm not wasting my time on this. That's my one and only comment, so enjoy, boys. And no, I'm not the same user. -76.179.96.184

    Conclusions

    Already dealt with and now apparently stale. Closing. Black Kite 23:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Three Musketeers

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Three Musketeers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Kiano123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    ~~ 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Almost identical username to indef blocked sock Kiano1234 (talk · contribs) and also this edit - 1 - arguing about Strictly results like the sock Kiano1234 did

    Comments


    Conclusions

    All users blocked --Chris 10:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    User:Weareallone (2nd)

    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 sock puppeteer

    Weareallone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence

    Following the indef block of User:Mmmovie, which was self-identified as an account of Mark Bellinghaus, an account which had been dormant for eight months, User:Weareallone, was reactivated. User:Weareallone removed sourced material from Mark Bellinghaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and added unsourced material about Bellinghaus' rivals. The account was indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mmmovie, for block evasion.

    New user User:Mendocinocap reverted corrections that had been made to make the article agree with sources, and then removed a reference, removed a paragraph containing unflattering but sourced information, and added material about Bellinghaus rivals. New user User:TerpischoreMuse made a series of edits inserting new material about Bellinghaus and his business partners, again focusing on Bellinghaus' rivals.

    Please see the earlier sockpuppetry case - this may be associated users working together. Please also note that following this rather poisonous and protracted ANI discussion, I am voluntarily refraining from editing Mark Bellinghaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), so none of the edits listed above have been reverted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Adding User:JustLikeThatMM and IP User:76.168.70.147 who made the same reverts (within minutes) of Mark Bellinghaus to replace COI-involved edits made by Weareallone: & . Note that User:JustLikeThatMM refers to a particular source as a blog, just as Mendocinocap does in this edit summary. The source is clearly not a blog, so it is odd that both users would refer to it as such. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    The IP 76.168.70.147 has identified themselves as Mark Bellinghaus here on my talk page. The writing style is consistent with statements made by self-identified Bellinghaus accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comments

    I am not a sock puppet.--TerpischoreMuse (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions
    The ip and User:JustLikeThatMM were previously blocked, and I have now blocked the other two sockpuppet accounts; I find that they both edited to the same end, yet on different days (no overlap), as the other socks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Bolly Nickers

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Bolly Nickers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Previous discussion was at . I'm not even sure which one was the original account. I'll go with Bolly Nickers because it was one that was caught and banned. Over several weeks in April and May of this year, this individual's dozens of sockpuppets were caught and banned. A number of them had made threatening and harrassing statements to me and other users, and most of that abuse had to be removed by Misplaced Pages's oversight process. I don't have much specific evidence of the connection here, but these sockpuppets mostly edit articles related to license plates in the United States, often creating graphically manipulated images of historical license plates that never actually existed, then inserting them into articles in some elaborate campaign of misinformation against Misplaced Pages (why, I have no idea). Some of these socks that have not yet been banned include User:Battersea Bosco, User:Campbell Showing, User:Mr. License Plate, and User:Yuck Flu By Road for a comparison of their user contributions with these new sockpuppets. User:NJ Plates, specifically, added the same unsourced content as these most recent sockpuppets have been re-adding recently. I can try to be more specific if necessary, but, unfortunately, I'd venture that more of this puppetmaster's contributions have been oversighted than not. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comments
    Conclusions

    Tigerdude Plates and Issuenews are almost certainly sockpuppets of each other and probably of Bolly Nickers, though I'm not 100% sure of that. Afcx... does not have enough edits to conclusively prove sockpuppetry. However, none of these accounts have edited since December 3. If they come back, you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Fraberj (5th)

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Fraberj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by
    Evidence

    SPA account editing two of the articles Charles Collins is so obsessed with. Special:Contributions/71.114.33.233

    Please also semi-protect the articles
    Ralph Merkle
    Robert Freitas

    Comments
    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.

    User:71.28.210.204

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    71.28.210.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Blanking of Jenkins, Kentucky by Dynamic IPs registered to Windstream, which provides telephone and internet service to the city. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Last two diffs by same IP today.
    UPDATE: This blanking happened today and is by another Windstream dynamic IP. Willking1979 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comments
    Conclusions

    Likely the same person behind these dynamic IPs. There were 5 blankings over a period of 11 days, no more blankings since December 6, so hopefully he's gone away. In case this vandalism continues at a high level, semi-protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. --Oxymoron 17:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Highfructosecornsyrup

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets

    See also accounts from the checkuser case cited below:

    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    Whoa, hey, Cirt? Highfructosecornsyrup turned out to be a sock of Wikipediatrix, who was duly chastised for it and had the sock indef-blocked. She apparently liked arguing with herself. But I seriously doubt she'd do it again. --GoodDamon 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Well, after further review of the editing history on all accounts, I'm very chagrined. This really does look like sockpuppetry; the editing styles are very, very similar. I'm striking my previous comments, and now support this running its course. I'm just shocked that the puppeteer, if there is one, would tip his/her hand by editing at the High-fructose corn syrup article. --GoodDamon 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

    I did edit in Dianetics recently. And got attacked for adding a reliable source by an editor who seems to fulfill the WP:SPA description (99% scientology edits). A little research and I ended up on the Shutterbug/ArbCom page. Cirt's reaction confirms what I said there. Shrampes (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

    Note the edits to the article "High-fructose corn syrup", combined with the same POV and Scientology-focus as Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

    You are overdoing it, but I feel that there is nothing I can do to show you how wrong you are. Did the other editors get notified as well? Shrampes (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

    Terryeo (talk · contribs) is already indef blocked. Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs) has been inactive for a while, but I posted a notification to the user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    "...inactive for a while"? Wikipediatrix last edit was just under a year ago, and had not previously edited for a few weeks. The only activity on her talkpage for the rest of the time, with one or two exceptions, is Cirt notifying her of AfD's and image removal regarding scientology related subjects. The other stale editors also stopped editing years ago. I see Shrampes has edited one cofs related subject (Dianistics) and also another - amongst many related subjects - that has a similarity to one of the suspected sockpuppet usernames... It appears to me that this fishing line is being stretched ever so thin to entangle one account that participated in a cofs related afd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    I beg to differ. I think it highly implausible that another user that was also inactive and came back to editing after a while would share the same motivation on the Scientology-related articles, and also edit pages of the article "High-fructose corn syrup" (read: username of Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs)), and be able to find the WP:AE page. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Obviously you differ, I read your rationale before commenting - but I am noting that the "connections" you are offering require considerable leaps of faith, and I make no suggestion whether they are good or bad. You will note that the page is titled "Suspected sock puppets", and it permissible for arguments to be made against the claim as well as for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Of course. I must say LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), I thank you for being so respectful in your tone. I suppose we simply respectfully differ on the interpretation of the evidence presented and the connections given. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    No problem; after all, you may be correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Isn't it time that someone makes a conclusive observation? Or how do you want to proceed? Shrampes (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Sometimes WP:SSP takes a while. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    I know some time has passed since Wikipediatrix has edited, but can't you still ask for a Checkuser? The evidence here is always going to be too circumstantial to be certain about it, in my view. Jayen466 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, I thought a Checkuser is being done now? Shrampes (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Yes that may be a good idea. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Per AGF, the only conclusive observation (or determination) is "proven" - unproven does not mean that anyone is or isn't a sock, just that a case has not been made. It can be that there is a result of "definately no", but it is rare that you can prove an absence (and that can be proven wrong anyway). I wouldn't worry about it; Cirt has made a good case, I have noted my reservations, SunDragon34 below has commented, and at some stage an independent reviewer will consider the evidence and opinions presented. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    I've been looking at it...and I can't find a connection using my usual tactics, except that both Shrampes and HFCS/Wikipediatrix edited the Dianetics article, and that Shrampes started editing at about the same time that Wikipediatrix's editing tapered off. Although Shrampes did edit the HFCS article, s/he also edits a lot of other articles on complex molecules, like polyurethane, tetrachloroethylene, and polyfluorene. Honestly, I can't say that Shrampes is a sock of Wikipediatrix...if s/he is, then she's been incredibly careful about it. For now, I'd say to let Shrampes off the hook and wait until time tells us more. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    "except that both Shrampes and HFCS/Wikipediatrix edited the Dianetics article, and that Shrampes started editing at about the same time that Wikipediatrix's editing tapered off" - this, combined with the edits to Dianetics and High-fructose corn syrup, combined with the post to WP:AE which is not an easy page to navigate to find and be familiar with, are too many connections to be coincidence. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Note: There is now an addendum on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup case, so let's wait on further developments here in case there is additional technical information provided. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    Checkuser came back stale/inconclusive. Given the time passed since many of the accounts edited, I don't believe there is anything to be done here. Closed. Black Kite 09:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:189.106.*.*

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    189.106.*.* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    1. first vandalizing revert
    2. second
    3. third
    4. possible puppet with different IP, with strange reasoning.
    5. fourth or fifth
    • A page protect is asked for at this point, since only IP addresses are reverting to sourceless version.
    1. suspected single purpose account, warned
    2. same revert, different suspected single purpose account, warned

    Extra evidence after first report:

    1. speakspeed-o edit
    2. JJJ9 edit
    Comments
    Conclusions

    Blocked the accounts some days ago. The IPs are dynamic and only used for a couple of hours, no point in blocking them now. Semi-protection is currently not justified due to low rate of edits. Rangeblock would be overkill (>10 constructive edits every day).

    Procedure: Report obvious sock IPs that are active (edited < 1 hour ago) and accounts to WP:AIV with link to this page, they don't need a warning (already received enough), block IPs for a couple of hours/single purpose socks indef. In case this user persists, semi-protection can be considered at WP:RFPP or my talk page. --Oxymoron 16:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


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

    User:Jobxavier

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by

    -- Tinu Cherian - 05:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a banned user . See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jobxavier and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jobxavier and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jobxavier. jobxavier (talk · contribs) have being persistently trying to inject anti-christian POV into Misplaced Pages with newer and newer IP and user sock accounts. The edits of this user Purkunna (talk · contribs) is very similar to jobxavier (talk · contribs) and today he started personal attacks on me. The user name Purkunna is itself an abusive word in the regional language Malayalam, which may be translated if requested.

    Comment

    "The user name Purkunna is itself an abusive word in the regional language Malayalam, which may be translated if requested." This is very funny. I hope the editor is not trying to be extremeny offensive on purpose. Purkunnath is a respected ancient Catholic family in these areas. Ignorance is bliss? Purkunna (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Purkunna (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

    Stop Trolling. Your username is a combination of Pur and Kunna which is a slang for male& female reproductive organs in malayalam. I see that you have been already booked by a CU admin as a sock of Jobxavier. 08:02, 2 December 2008 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked Purkunna (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Jobxavier.) -- Tinu Cherian - 04:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    All users blocked --Chris 09:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Scholar58888888

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Scholar58888888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    Conclusions

    Even if the same user, no real sockpuppetry occurred here such as !voting in each other's AfDs, indeed the second account's only edit is to create an AfD. Might even be a case of a user creating a new account, then logging out and forgetting the password, so creating a new one. Regardless, neither has edited since, so closing this. Black Kite 10:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:BreakEvenMatt

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    BreakEvenMatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • BreakEvenMatt removes image disruptively claiming hidden offensive message. Repner1 removes same image citing the same rubbish a few hours later.--SpinningSpark
    • I have added HoboJones to the suspected socks since he is also clearly perpetuating this nonsense. The image is completely free of messages by any method of examination at my disposal - all pixels have the same value. Not really needed since HoboJones has posted in this discussion, but here are the diffs;-*SpinningSpark
    • I have also added Windymager as a suspected sock. This is the uploader of the alleged suspect image. Although I do not believe the image is problematic, given the short space of time between the upload and the start of this trolling, I am now suspecting Windy of being a sleeper sock. SpinningSpark 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comments
    • I have only one account. I can clearly see the image displaying the word "bitch" from an angle, and it's more clearly shown when the contrast is turned down. These accusations are ridiculous Repner1 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I've found that when you are looking at the image alone, when it's in full screen, it's harder to notice since it's higher up on the screen. If you want to check it, it's best to do it on the "Nothing" page instead. It's definitely there though, and this BreakEvenMatt user is just another user who found it, and that's how I noticed the vandalism in the first place. I've checked on Firefox, Google Chrome, and IE7, and it came up with the same results Repner1 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I've found another method to try. Copy and paste the image onto Paint, or another graphics program, and use the fill tool on the image to turn the rest of the image a different colour. I've found the word appears twice in the image. It's a possibility that that fact I might be using a different graphics card to SpinningSpark allows me to see it in a different quality when on the site Repner1 (talk)

    Note: User:Spinningspark now says "I now agree that the image does indeed have some hidden vandalism." He has also escalated this matter into a checkuser: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt--HoboJones (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Spinningspark, were you going to do this to everyone who collaborates to this debate? You even added the person that placed the vandalism we tried to deal with. Where's the logic in that? All HoboJones clearly did is see this debate, checked the image for himself, and saw the word. Even you're agreeing now, and your still keeping these accusations up. This isn't funny Repner1 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • In response to your Checkuser page. The word was very visible (although faint at first) from my PC. I rarely even edit on Misplaced Pages, and only use the account to make changes whenever I see a mistake, or (as in this case) vandalism. I couldn't care about trying to build a good reputation Repner1 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Please note that User:Balloonman, who is admin coaching the editor who filed this report, has characterized this incides as such: "When an established editor (meaning me, HoboJones) approached you about it, and confirmed that he saw the vandalism as well, and provided a link, you included allegation that he was a potential sock as well." Here is the diff. Also, please not that the phrases: "ARGH!!!" and "I hate to say it, but you messed up my friend" were used to describe this situation. Again, I say that this SSP request is bizarre and should be denied, along with the related checkuser request.--HoboJones (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Since my name has been invoked, yes, I question this SSP/RFCU, but was hoping to let Spinningspark respond to my comments first---unfortunately, Spinningspark doesn't have access to the internet from Mon-Thursday. There is no way that HoboJones should have known this, but I expect his comments tonight.---Balloonman 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Completely uninvolved here, I came across this matter while checking on a SSP case I filed. I'm afraid I see nothing here to corroborrate the SSP allegations here. User:Windymager, with what appears to be his/her first edit in 18 months uploaded a vandalized file. The others simply attempt to fix it. I see no link between the others and Windymager at all, and recommend refusing the case. Cross posted to WP:RFCU. Xymmax So let it be done 14:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    information Note: Due to lack of any evidence of impropriety, the checkuser case has been no Declined -- Avi (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    As the nominator here, I wish to withdraw this case as I am completely mistaken and have apologised to all on their talk pages. I would have done this yesterday but mistakenly thought the comment above had already closed the case (sorry another mistake). I now agree the image was vandalised and accept that all attempts to correct it against my opposition were good faith. Once again I apologise to everyone for the stress I have caused. Would anyone reviewing this case please note that my statement of evidence at the top of the page no longer makes any sense because it has (presumably accidently) had a chunk edited out by user Repner1. SpinningSpark 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Complainant has withdrawn case; no further action is needed at this time. Hermione1980 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mississippi123

    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.

    Mississippi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Known or suspected alternate accounts
    Reported by
    Details of abuse

    Different forms of Vandalism on Memphis Group since at least Nov 26th, some quite obvious , others more discreet . Since a lot of small edits were done, the article even was contaminated after reverting . After User:Sideek was blocked on Nov 27th, several anon IPs and new accounts continued his work . Note the clear vandalism by the anon IP to disguise the ones done earlier with a sock puppet account.

    Comments

    Sockpuppets only exist for edits on Memphis Group. User:Sideek & User:Sideek123 are blocked already. User:Sidhantseth seems to be the last incarnation. The latter blanked this entry on Dec 7th .

    Conclusions
    The ip's are too old to have blocked, and I checked and found that I had already blocked the various named accounts (for block evasion) back on 7th December; damn I did SSP even before I got here! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Finderskey

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Finderskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence

    User:Finderskey has been continuously vandalizing the Elie Hobeika article (see numerous warnings on his Talk page), for more than a year, recently focused on adding a lengthy eulogy section to the article. Featheresse , Fecklesse and Franckoise are all SPAs who have recently appeared and edited just the Elie Hobeika, to edit war and revert back the same Finderskey edits, including add the same eulogy: , , ,

    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).

    CommentI would like to draw attention to User:Mirvate and his/her sockpuppets who repeatedly vandalized the Elie Hobeika article before being banned from editing. User:Finderskey was active with editing the article in the same period, March 2008, as Mirvate and sockpuppets. Thuresson (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

    Is anyone watching this? The sockpuppetry is obvious, and has now expanded to Lebanon bombings and assassinations (2004-present), as well. NoCal100 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. Was about to do the something myself but wasn't sure how to proceed. Apparently we should include User:Mirvate as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment by EdJohnston

    I have blocked Finderskey one month for abuse of multiple accounts and blocked the other three indef. Mirvate was already blocked in April, but you can add his name to the list if you wish, since the behavior is very similar. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    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.

    User:Bakutrix

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Bakutrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Bakuben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Omnigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Message from XENU 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    only contib from sockpuppet is to User talk:Bakutrix

    • Omnigan (talk · contribs), a newly created account, has only been editing to talk pages of the same articles that Bakutrix has been editing.
    Comments

    suspect is blanking this page. Message from XENU 15:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    Omnigan has been blocked indef for abuse of editing privileges, including personal attacks. Bakuben's only contrib, as noted above, is to Bakutrix's talk page. While suspicious, that in and of itself is not enough to conclusively indicate that it is indeed a sockpuppet (and has not violated the policy on such). Additionally, neither Bakutrix nor Bakuben have edited since December 4. If they come back and abuse the multiple accounts, you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wikipéire

    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 sock puppeteer

    Wikipéire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments

    Eh no, I don't change the links, I pipelink so that the correct name is shown per WP:IMOS. Your facts and the warranty of your reverts are all over the place.213.202.131.89 (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

    My facts include that you have identical editing patterns as the blocked Wikipeire, leading to suspicions that you are a sockpuppet. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    That is beyond the point. The edits done are factually correct and are NPOV. Do you deny that?213.202.131.89 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, Ireland refers to the whole Island including the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom, as Ireland as a country ceased to be before the player's articles you changed they aren't born in Ireland, they are born in the Republic of Ireland. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, listen to you and your British political POV spewing onto footballer pages which are meant to be NPOV. From the page about the country called Ireland:
    Legally, the term Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the description of the state but Ireland is its name.
    Can that be any clearer? So there's no country called Ireland? You better go the United Nations and the European Union there's an impostor in their ranks!213.202.131.89 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    This is all irrelevant as this case is to determine whether you are a sockpuppet of wikipeire who was blocked for the same distruptive behaviour, not a history lesson of Ireland. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    No the point is how is it disruptive if its completely accurate and a good edit? So you can push your POV? Why else would you do this? You want to wiki lawyer your way around the facts so that your political POV is shown.213.202.131.89 (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    It seems unusual that such a new IP would know what a POV is. –Juliancolton 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    My ip changes all the time; that's the way my router works. What's funny is that the issue involving Republic of Ireland should now be over as the page has been moved by an administrator. It really proves the point at this stage.213.202.131.89 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions
    Whatever the strength of the case neither of these ip's have edited since 30 November so the matter relating to them is STALE, while the purported sockmaster is already indef blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Lord Mordley

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Lord Mordley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    LordMordley82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Lord Mordley23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Two Three SPA accounts with almost identical names. It doesn't get any more obvious than this.

    Comments

    Yes, which is why there's no point in opening a report in cases like this. Two accounts who are obviously the same new user, but no abuse. More than likely it's a newbie who forgot the password to his first account.--chaser - t 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

    I'm restoring and refiling this so another admin can have a look. Removing the AFD tag is more abuse than I initially saw, but I expect these accounts to all go inactive by the time the AFD closes. Block? Or just leave them tagged?--chaser - t 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    It has become very clear during the course of the AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jen Aggleton, the article these accounts created and edited, Jen Aggleton, is a deliberate hoax article, carefully constructed to appear as a legitimate article. This seems to me to qualify as vandalism and deliberate disruption. I think that all three LordMorley accounts should be indef blocked. Nsk92 (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • It was suggested at the AfD that this is a returning banned user, but I'm not sure what that was based on. Even if it is, they will probably move on to another new name, if they haven't already, seeing as they've been "caught". On the other hand, I don't see any harm in simply blocking all three and seeing if they ever bother to come back and appeal the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The article Jen Aggleton has been deleted as CSD G3 (vandalism). I still think it is a good idea to indef block all three LordMorley accounts, as a preventive measure, so that they are not used for further disruption. Nsk92 (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Not too concerned about the "sockpuppetry" itself, but due to the creation of what is clearly a hoax article, and the unclear relationship with User:Boshinoi (who appears to be a banned user or an imitator of a banned user, and who showed up to comment at the AFD), I think it prudent, per Nsk92, to block all three indef as vandalism only accounts, to prevent further mischief (at least by these three accounts) later on. --barneca (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    To clarify, blocking indef is valid even if there is no relationship to Boshinoi; but the possibility of a relationship is a reason to bother to go thru the motions of blocking inactive accounts, rather than just leave it alone. --barneca (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:ColourWolf

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    ColourWolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    TheShiningStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    DeathTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Blocked by Nancy
    Report submission by

    Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    TheShiningStar has focused specifically on Singaporean Arts & Entertainment pages, namely, the page on Li Nanxing, which has received some vandalizing edits from ColourWolf's socks lately. TheShiningStar has been reinserting disputed information, despite warnings to stop.

    As for DeathTruth, he has been vandalizing my infobox. ColourWolf's socks have often vandalized my userpage and my talkpage. Also, the account has the name "truth" in it. ColourWolf is obsessed with that, apparently.

    Comments
    Conclusions

    Fairly obvious. Blocked; closed. Black Kite 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:122.108.85.125

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    122.108.85.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Both users edit in the same manner, moving away from the WP:FOOTY manual of style. While browsing recent changes, I saw the IP edit warring, but then before a third edit, Lucrab came and made the same change, and that struck me as probably the IP attempting to edit war without being caught.
    • I came across this at Central Coast Mariners FC
    • Lucrab criticized the IP on the IP's talk page for making precisely the same edits he was making.
    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    Conclusions

    Most likely a sockpuppet - reverting to the same exact version on Melbourne Victory F.C. almost certainly confirms this (see this diff for the IP and this diff for Lucrab). However, neither account has edited since November 29. If they come back, you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 15:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:DrJamesX

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    DrJamesX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets

    Less recent activity




    Report submission by
    Evidence

    (Note from Uwishiwazjohng) Please check the history of this page. User Switchintoglide removed text here that confuses the context. The identified themselves, saying they had edited the David Bowie page and saying that they could not be DrJamesX by using personal information.

    Switchintoglide also said "I have also never made a legal threat towards you or anyone else, so that evidence is false."


    Switchintoglide (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

    I have removed the false statement that User_talk:Switchintoglide since I was mistaken. The person who called my addition libelous appears to be, as she admitted on User_talk:DoriSmith, her boyfriend User_talk:Quotseeky. She also claims not to know User_talk:DrJamesX but in the same sentence identifies him as a man twice her age. She claims that she also has worked on David Bowie's page. She has in fact made 2 edits, compared to the 20 she made to David Ferguson (impresario). Her first edit was to remove all requests for more/better citations. Her membership started on November 22, which was during the time that an edit war was brewing on this page. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hello,
    His name is "DrJamesX"; James is a man's name.
    He said he was a biographer of Mr. Ferguson; I don't know many biographers my age!
    I think my assumption is reasonable.
    Switchintoglide (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    I think we can both agree now from the talk on other pages that your charges are out-dated.Switchintoglide (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following ] shows that User:Switchintoglide added a citation from 'Lecture Catalog (1974/1975) - David Ferguson Lecture agency'. The likeliest way the user would know about this source is by being personally acquainted with Mr. Ferguson. This source was self-published by Mr. Ferguson, is not searchable on the internet, and was not widely distributed. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Email admin@ifuc.org for inquiries about citations. I was interested in the work of Vaughn Bode and how he was affiliated with Ferguson and emailed a request for more information. I received a nice reply with information about the lecture catalogues and other wrk of the IFUC. I would say that this is "the likeliest way" I knew about these sources. Thank you for your concern!
    Switchintoglide (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


    Uwishiwasjohng has already let me know s/he made a mistake

    "Switchintoglide, I see that you are trying to get help and that you are worried that I'm going to get you in trouble. When you stepped into this mess, you came in the middle of an edit war between DrJamesX and I. I can see that you are sincerely trying to appeal to admins.

    Let's be adults about this and fix it ourselves. Let's do what we can to make reasonable edits. I want to work *with* you, not against you. I want this to be article to be accurate.

    What do you say? I propose we continue to discuss the edits on the talk page and try to make the edits together.

    Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)"

    I did this to try to de-escalate. Please note that I made no admission of wrongdoing, because I don't believe I'm wrong. Actually, I wanted to see if the user would work with me. The reaction further convinced me that the user is a meat-puppet. It did nothing but spur another suspected meat puppet into action. Now User:Melrosechoc who suddenly has started contributing to other articles. This is similar to what User:Switchintoglide did. Note that User:Switchintoglide asked me to remove my accusation for her, her admitted boyfriend, User:Quotseeky and User:Melrosechoc. Now, User:Melrosechoc is making similar edits, removing the Legal History section and adding page citations Uwishiwazjohng (talk)
    I don't know Melrosechoc, but s/he appears to be trying to improve the article with citations and I think you need to leave him/her alone to do what you have expressly said to be your intention. If you keep making problems for people who try to improve the article, can't you see that users will read something into your intentions? Just lighten up! Not everyone who contributes is "against you" and I don't think that all of the users you have accused deserve to be treated this way! Switchintoglide (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    As a matter of fact, User:Melrosechoc is making contributions that indicate to me that she has information that only those on the inside of David Ferguson's organization would have, such as the fact that IFUC is now a private organization, and that CD Presents in now an EU company. Your adamant defense of the user makes me more convinced that you know him/her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.56.73 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    I have no idea with whom User:Melrosechoc associates, and mentioning a name is not being "adamant" as you assert. An example of being adamant is your obsession with all things David Ferguson. It looks like you spend hours at it, whereas I spent 5 seconds mentioning his/her name in saying that you may have been unfair to him/her. Contrary to what you may think, this is not a conspiracy against your edits.Switchintoglide (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    Quotseeky

    I am not a sock puppet of James. It should be clear to anyone who visits this, that uwishiwasjohng has simply accused everyone who has ever been to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quotseeky (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

    This accusation is untrue. There were a few accounts that weren't WP:SPA and I didn't include those. I include User:Quotseeky of being a sock/meatpuppet because the only action they had committed at the time was to vandalize my Legal History section, which at least 4 different users did within a few days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs) 04:15, December 16, 2008 (UTC)

    Comments by EdJohnston

    This report is quite implausible. All I see is that David Ferguson (impresario) has been the scene of many disputes; that there seem to be COI-affected editors here and there, that there are WP:UNDUE weight questions about how much to emphasize his legal troubles (an ongoing penalty of $10.85 a day is unlikely to deserve space in the article, and in fact the whole Legal section appears to be small potatoes); there is quite a lot of indignation and there are people who write at great length. Geolocating the various IPs, which anyone can do, shows that there are editors from New York City, from Stanford University, and from Montreal Canada. It is hardly credible that User:DrJamesX is the controlling mastermind of such a diverse empire. I see nothing that merits even a Request for Checkuser. There could be some policy violations in the editing of the article, but I encourage the users to open an article WP:RFC if they want to bring in outsiders to help with a specific question. In my opinion, the sockpuppet report should be closed. I'll let it rest for a day or two to see if any other comments come in. There is also quite a bit of good-faith editing going on, and a lot of people who are trying to do the right thing, although they hold very different views of what that might be. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    Closed with no action, per my comment above. If anyone can get some new data that is more persuasive, open a new SSP report and mention this one. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/68.249.44.78

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

    User:Xlaer

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Xlaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    KeepRecoome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    125.237.95.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Seems extremely suspicious than a "new' editor would come by and remove all the warnings off this editor's page. Both show an interest in Dragon Ball, with Xlaer uploading the image used minutes later by KeepRecoome in the Recoome article. Both show the same tendency to edit war over false and misleading information added to articles as well. The IP is self admitted -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comments

    Yes this is me, I don't use the Xlaer account any more. But when I wanted to upload an image I wouldn't let me. I'm never going to use the other one again. And duhhh, I said the IP was me because I forgot to log in. User:KeepRecoome

    So you deliberately returned to using an old account to get around the restrictions on your new account? And why switch accounts? Are you attempting to away from the vandalism and questionable editing on the old account? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Confirmed by KeepRecoome, though as the accounts did not edit at the same time (except for KR and the IP - assume that that was honest forgetfulness), they were not violating policy. Also, none of the accounts have edited since November 27. If the accounts start being used against policy, you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:96.247.37.61

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    96.247.37.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    • The case for Sgt dizzle guy being the same as the IP user is, I think, quite clear. The case for LouPepe being a sockpuppet is not as clear but the associations among all the accounts show that that user is involved somehow. All the users involved are at least superficially familiar with Misplaced Pages procedures and policies and engage in systematic, disruptive vendetta editing. --Killing Vector (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • She has followed me around for some time -- undoing my edits -- the problem begins at Dave Zirin and an edit war there. Here are some IPs she has used to attack my good faith edits:

    Editor437 (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    likely. While the IP doesn't seem to be used any longer, both user accounts are editing the same set of articles and trying to establish "consensus". Recommend checkuser to confirm. BradV 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

    Agree, checkuser will be useful to make sure we find all the sleeper accounts. I will transclude this case there. Jehochman 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:FLHWEB

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    FLHWEB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    70.174.124.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    96.249.235.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    StarM 03:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    See recent contribs (including deleted) of the user, as well as the IP especially as they relate to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/FrancisLightHouse. Blanking and recreating pages repeatedly, especially FrancisLightHouse2 which followed the salting of FrancisLightHouse. I've blocked current appaent master as sock. Key diffs: here, here and here StarM 03:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comments

    Pretty clear case of repeat socking StarM 03:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    Almost certainly sockpuppets of each other. Key evidence: They all routinely misspell "do" as "due", for one thing, and all vehemently declare IN ALL CAPS that they have nothing to "due" with FrancisLightHouse. FLHWEB and 96.249.235.100 are blocked, the former indefinitely and the latter for three months; 70.174.124.30 has not edited since November 26. If the accounts return (96... after the block expires), you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 01:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Simpsonj3

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Simpsonj3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • I believe there is extremely strong evidence that SimpsonJ3, IP address 71.190.203.37, and Kansas 7474 are all sockpuppets of each other, and I also believe that, based on the entries they are editing, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that they are somehow affiliated with the companies listed in their "contributions" section, whose image they are apparently trying to bolster. For further evidence of sockpuppetry, consider that Kansas has made changes to the "Vector Group", "New Valley", and "Lebow" pages. SimpsonJ3 has also made changes to these groups as well. These are not popular subjects, and it is unlikely anyone not acting as a sockpuppet would direct nearly all of their comments in Misplaced Pages to only these companies.
    Comments
    • Suspected sock puppets notified.
    Conclusions

    All accounts blocked (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kansas7474. —BradV 04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Angelmypal

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Angelmypal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by

    Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence
    • The three users have edited only one article, Refusenik, in the last couple of days, attempting to add the same material, see , in spite of the addition being challenged at the article's talk page and the User:Angelmypal having been warned, at their talk page, to first seek consensus for additions at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    Comments
    Conclusions

     Likely. All accounts are single-purpose accounts and they all stopped editing after this report was filed. —BradV 04:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Airwolfe31

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Airwolfe31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Web_marketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Peterson Tractor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Aislas105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    134.154.163.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    134.154.163.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    134.154.161.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Rgoodermote  08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    The account has the same exact edits as the Web_Marketing account which are all advertising to the same company which is Peterson's Tractor or something else with Peterson in the title. An admin will be the only ones able to see the edits to the Web_Marketing account. Additional evidence Airwolfe31 is also uploading the same images as Web_Marketing.

    Comments
    I have just added User:Peterson Tractor, which has created articles on the same company, as another likely sock. User:Airwolfe31 is protesting his innocence on his talk page. Lankiveil 00:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC).
    I have added Aislas105, another account which seems to be primarily interested in these articles, as well as three IPs that were used. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    Addendum: All three IPs are associated with California State University, Hayward ... good geographical proximity evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    Per statements from Airwolfe, that is the University he is going to. So I do believe he is a student. Rgoodermote  01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Per User talk:Airwolfe31#Unblock my account, these are not sockpuppets; rather, they are all students in the same class. Additionally, none of them have edited since December 1 (about the end of the semester, coincidentally). No further action is required at this time. Hermione1980 01:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    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.
    Resolved – All accounts blocked indefinitely. —BradV 04:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    User:Karen Spain

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Karen Spain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Luke Farrelly-Spain. MER-C 03:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    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.

    User:Reidzy

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Reidzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    82.109.90.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    User Reidzy creates Televisinet, suspected sock removes CSD of newly created page.

    Going through suspected sock's contribs, I see this , which is an edit promoting Quazinto. Looking through talk page of Reidzy, he tried to create that page mulitple times, it's also mentioned in the Televisinet article.

    Comments

    While these may be the same person, it doesn't constitute a violation of policy as the multiple accounts are not used for disruptive or deceptive purposes. —BradV 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    Evidence is inconclusive. The IP could be a sockpuppet, or it could be a different editor who just happened upon the article. Either way, the accounts have not edited since December 9. If they come back, and you still believe they're sockpuppets, you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Diva industries

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Diva industries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Diva industries is indef blocked for link-spamming, for example this diff. Aa arquiza is spamming the same links into the same articles, for example this diff.
    Comments
    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.

    User:Tandon1

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Tandon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • User Tandon1 created a new article about a possibly NN company (at AfD now). After it was submitted to AfD, and the AfD warning was placed on that users page, the IP made it's one and only edit removing the AfD template. Soon after that the user Scott1111 was created, and that user's only edits so far have been to the same article. The original user has not made any edits since the IP made it's.
    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    Conclusions

    Likely sockpuppets; however, none of them have edited since December 5. If they come back, you will need to file a fresh report. Additionally, if you do file a SSP report, you need to make sure you notify all suspected sockpuppets (Granfalloon9 and MohamedH were not notified). Hermione1980 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Saurabhmadan

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Saurabhmadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Jasonaviet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Nikhilagarwal7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Blowdart | 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Editing habits on Europe Asia Business School match the habits the original user exhibited on ZCBI; removal of notability tags, addition of the same sorts of non-notable material.

    Given that the two suspected socks are SPAs editing Europe Asia Business School in the same manner (an article itself which has, to my mind, notability concerns) and reintroducing marketing materials it smacks of the same person.

    Comments


    Conclusions

    The users do appear to be sockpuppets based on a review of their contribs; however, none of the accounts have edited since November 27. If they come back, you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Icepick 47

    Icepick 47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Known or suspected alternate accounts
    Reported by
    Details of abuse

    Obvious abuse of multiple accounts

    Comments
    Conclusions

    Yep, this is Runtshit. Both accounts indef-blocked. -- zzuuzz 14:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:134.219.153.207

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    134.219.153.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    166.102.104.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    166.102.104.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Pizza With Cheesy Crust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    87.205.208.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    97.106.51.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    DonGui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    All of these users have harassed TheRedPenOfDoom in nearly identical ways. All of them edit war on south park episodes, (see their user contributions) and insert Original Research.

    Most of these users also blank their talk pages/remove warnings and personally attack RedPen.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)



    Comments

    Some of these MAY be Meatpuppets because they are often "backing each other up."--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


    I am NOT Pizza with Cheesy Crust or the other IPs. What a thing to say. My IP is totally different. You're the Meat Puppet. I don't even know the other IPs and I don't give a shit about them.


    Chill the fuck out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.51.95 (talk)

    I have nothing to do with any of the other adresses or accounts- i think the reason we all look so similar is that theredpenofdoom is such a cock that many users respond in the same negative way to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    Adding suspected sockpuppet:

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

    account created apparently solely to harass TheRedPenOfDoom, supported by puppermaster. DMacks (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    • I am not certain that this is a case of sockpuppetry per se - where an individual is actively hiding behind one or more IP address/ accounts. Rather it may a case of one (or more WP:BEANS) individuals lashing out in inappropriate ways and perhaps forgetting to log into newly created account. Is there a another forum that might be more appropriate to address the behavior related issues? -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    ] This proves that 134.219.153.207 is DonGui.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    User:DonGui already blocked; I have also blocked User:Pizza With Cheesy Crust as a harassment-only account. The other IPs are dynamic and not worth blocking given the age of this SSP. Closing. Black Kite 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:128.97.75.167

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    128.97.75.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • User is a revenge puppet account of an (dynamic?) IP user. I filed a report at wikiquette here and Jaysweet recommended to file a report here. It took me a while to find the abusive "master" IP since what s/he left on my talk page didn't really add up but now I know as a fact It was all about this edit. J.delanoy reverted but I gave the IP the warning for it which triggered him/her to create an account (after 3 days) to place a "scrambled" insult on my talk page.
    Comments

    You might consider it stale for the moment but I assume s/he'll be or is back under a differrent IP or user name, holding the Theplaintruth account as a back-up. You decide what action to take if any at all. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    Given the level of incivility from the sock, I see no reason to keep it around and I've blocked it indefinitely. No point in blocking the IP now, as it's dynamic. Closing. Black Kite 23:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Fairmont-m19

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Fairmont-m19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • User Fairmont-m19 created a new article (which has been taken to AfD), and then has stopped editing. Since then the two IPs have edited only either the article, or the AfD entry. Appears to be the same person using socks to agree with him/her/itself and/or protect his/her/its article.
    • User:45euniversity modified Illinois Terminal then proceeded to edit war over inclusion of links for Illini Shuttle which is operated by Suburban Express. That user and two Champaign, Illinois area IP addresses were blocked. As soon as the 3rd sock was blocked, User:Fairmont-m19 was created and created articles for Illini Shuttle and Suburban Express. At best, only one article would be needed for those two topics.
    Comments
    • All accounts seem to be making the same bad–faith attacks, including

    MuZemike (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


    Yes...she was working on it and someone deleted it and it upset her. She didn't understand why people kept vandalizing her constructive changes. She didn't understand why people kept vandalizing her constructive changes and blocking her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.173.49 (talk • contribs)

    Conclusions

    Socking certainly occurring, but given the length of time now passed and the fact that no further issues have arisen since the AfD was kept (indeed, the main account hasn't edited in four weeks), I think we can close this. Black Kite 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Klaksonn

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Klaksonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Phonelabel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Alirezaabbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    82.194.62.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    82.194.62.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    the Ogress smash! 00:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence
     Additional information needed Please provide evidence. OhanaUnited 06:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Klaksonn focuses his reverts on Islam issues, reverts changes made by Enzuru and, secondarily, by me, rarely uses Edit Summaries (and, in the past, used them primarily to level coarse and anti-Ismaili slurs agaist Enzuru and myself). This same pattern of abuse is already appearing... he reverts only edits by Enzuru or myself, he does not discuss, he focuses on issues of Islam (Aqidah and Ismailism - note the {{dubious}} edit replacing citations)... He's done this a few times, the pattern is evolving at its usual rate. the Ogress smash! 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Amusingly, he immediately began using edit summaries after I posted the above... the Ogress smash! 17:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Can you give specific evidences (provided with links) that can help speed up the process? OhanaUnited 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence sounds good. Here we go.

    Those points should lead us to the conclusion that the person running these two accounts are the same. Now, let's continue.

    • On my talk page, the following edit was made, where Alirezaabbas noted my e-mail address. I put my e-mail address incorrectly purposefully on Emily's page is mevboob, but he correctly noted it as merboob. Klaksonn knows my e-mail address.
    • User Phonelabel called Emily a tranny, and also used the same smiley face. Klaksonn is known for using this insulting phrase against Emily.

    As we can see from these two points, both of them showed information that only Klaksonn would know, and as proven earlier, these two people are the same. So we have evidence linking the two accounts, as well as linking the accounts with Klaksonn. If you cannot accept the latter point, at least please accept the former. --Enzuru 23:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    In regards to the IPs Emily put, this is a different but similiar character. I believe they are different because their vandalism not concerning us is in different areas, and when they do vandalize Emily and I, they vandalize us in completely different ways. Klaksonn tries to legitimately prove his point, while the IP just calls me an "ismaili vandal" in his edit summaries. More about this character can be found here. --Enzuru 04:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comments

    I see very little evidence to support Phonelabel as being a sockpuppet. Klaksonn was blocked back in August, and Phonelabel just joined Misplaced Pages two days ago and has made a total of 12 edits. The only way to see if they are related with little evidence to show would be a checkuser, however I don't think you even have enough evidence for that. Have there been any confirmed accounts used by Klaksonn after he/she was blocked? I would encourage Phonelabel to defend them self against these claims. DJS --DJS24 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    There have been several accounts he has used since he was blocked, including but not limited to User:Enforcing Neutrality, User:NAccount, and User:FiveRupees. Also, many IP proxies as well, without an account, as can be seen by the reverts done here. --Enzuru 23:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    After reading this evidence, I would say the Ogress has a case now. The fact that you have similar grammar (smiles and Tranny) and the fact he/she corrected your email address would show in my opinion that we have a sock. DJS --DJS24 02:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Based on the sudden cessation of editing after the report and the last posts of Phonelabel the case seems proved. I have now blocked both accounts so we can close this one. Spartaz 16:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Goliebsc

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Goliebsc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Xstevee89x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Metalfreak999999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Emondnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Two WP:SPA accounts, both with similar names to the person in the WP:VSCA article they have been editing, Steve Golieb . The second one popped up right after the first one was warned for creating autobiographies. Also, the article indicates Mr. Golieb was born in 1989, hence "stevee89". And now a third SPA has come forward to praise Mr. Golieb some more. And now there's four of them. This is getting really ridiculous. Note that each of them initially started editing moments after the one before stopped. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comments

    The sockpuppet case and the AfD of the autobiography seem to have had the desired effect of stopping the socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    See above, looks like I was talking to myself on this one... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Baseball Card Guy

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence


    Comments

    You can add Nettles 2000 and Wrong Glad to the list for precisely the same edits. Libro0 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    I can confirm that the edits by User:Nettles 2000 and User:Wrong Glad exactly match the editing patterns of recently indef blocked suckpuppeteer User:Baseball Card Guy. Both accounts started today, and immediately went to the Topps articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    • You think you could silence Tecmobowl? You are wrong. Yes I am Baseball Card Guy. I use my laptop to leech off of people's unsecured wireless connections. I use proxies. I use libraries. You don't know how many accounts I have. Your blocks, I laugh at them. You'll just wind up pissing off people who don't know what I am doing. You can't silence me! You haven't silenced me! You will never silence me! 72.229.126.142 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Verseradio has joined in as well. Libro0 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    All blocked as confirmed sockpuppets. —BradV 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Osli73

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Osli73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • I've realized there is a pattern in anon's behaviour. Anon from Scandinavia is editing just two articles: Bosnian mujahideen and Alija Izetbegovic. Osli73 also edits those two articles very often (just take a look at his contribution Osli73 (talk · contribs)), but obviously he has changed his strategy. He started to edit those articles anonymously, with the great help of User:Philip_Baird_Shearer. You can see here how Osli73 is asking Phillip to protect articles he wants: Alija Izetbegovic, Mujahideen. Interestingly Phillip protected twice Bosnian mujahideen. First time, he protected anon's version for a month , saying he is just protecting the current version . However second time he didn't protect the current version, first he reverted to anon's version and then protected the page . According to user's block log he had been blocked once because of sockpuppeteering, and I think there is a reasonable doubt to start this case. I also intend to start Incident case because of Phillip's behaviour, but for now let's resolove this. Kruško Mortale (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Comments
    Conclusions

    Red X Unrelated 64.72.116.208

     Confirmed Everyone else. Blocked Erikarver (talk · contribs) indef. IPs change frequently. Blocked range one week. Tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Ananny

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Ananny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    333faulkner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.12.181.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.12.182.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.12.182.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.12.183.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.14.120.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.14.121.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.14.121.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.14.121.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.14.122.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.14.123.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.14.123.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    74.14.135.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.152.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.153.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.153.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.154.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.154.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.155.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.156.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.159.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.159.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.159.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    76.64.159.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    CanadianArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Canadianlibrary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    SunnySkies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Lithoderm (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Exactly the same habit of spamming List of Canadian artists, List of Canadian painters, Naive art, and other lists of Canadian people. Also see Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse#The Terry Ananny Spammer (User:Ananny).

    Comments

    All the contributions of all of these users have been deleted, and according to the LTA report terryananny.com has been added to the blacklist. This can be considered stale, if not resolved. —BradV 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Edits did not appear due to wrong use of template, fixed this. --Oxymoron 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Nothing new, accounts all blocked ages ago, website is listed at the global spam blacklist. In case they resume, please request semi-protection for the usual targets at WP:RFPP, protection worked in the past. --Oxymoron 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Voice of the Walk

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Voice of the Walk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments

    Yes its me. TFD is now listed by the way. Though how this related to your attempt from the New World, to try and violate the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the French Republic (against the laws of these countries) by creating WP:FORK's for outsider pressure groups is beyond me. - Che Sell (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Germany is not the New World, nor does maintaining NPOV at Misplaced Pages violate any countries' laws. But sockpuppetry and POV-pushing does violate Misplaced Pages policy, and is liable to get you blocked. —Angr 12:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    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.

    User:AlexLevyOne

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by

    JohnInDC (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence
    See WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne
    WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(2nd)
    WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(3rd) and
    WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(4th) for more details.
    Comments
    WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(4th) is now closed. JohnInDC (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, here's a list of his sockpuppets that have been blocked on the French Misplaced Pages so far. They haven't yet got round to his Italik and ANGGUN accounts, but I suppose that he feels that it's only a matter of time, so he'd better create a new one now. Personally, I think we've reached the "block on sight" stage with this user (if we could find an admin willing to carry out the blocks). Deor (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    Oops, I notice now that Italik and ANGGUN have, in fact, been blocked at fr.wikipedia; they just haven't included those accounts in the list yet. The blocking there of ANGGUN is no doubt what led to the creation of the new Alex Levy account. Deor (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    I've added User:Alex Levy to the list at the top here, just to make sure it doesn't get missed. Deor (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    And User:Alex Levy has now started editing—characteristically, by recreating, under a different name, an article that has been deleted as a result of an AfD. Deor (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    He is editing from an IP address, User:81.64.4.162, the first edit being to restore a wikilink to the foregoing (twice) deleted article. I've added the IP above. It's the same address previously suspected to be his. See WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(4th). JohnInDC (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    Active again, this time as User:Blum41. Account created November 23, five days after block below of User:Alex Levy. Although this new account's edits are few, the (obscure) subject matter interest overlaps substantially with that of prior puppets. Compare, edits of Inglourious Basterds by blocked puppet WALL STREET and puppet ANGGUN with Blum41's creation of a page about Brad Pitt's character in that movie, here. The nature of other edits (e.g., arbitrarily removing redlinks) is consistent as well. See here. JohnInDC (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Adding User:Johnny Rockfort, for the sake of (continuing) completeness. The account was active from October 29 through November 4, abandoned after a 48 hour block for vandalism. "Johnny Rockfort" is the name of the one of the user's puppets on French Misplaced Pages, linked again here for convenience, and the edits show the typical overlap with the various puppets here. JohnInDC (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Alex Levy a fairly obvious sock--indefblocked. Blueboy96 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Can we get resolution on User:ANGGUN as well? JohnInDC (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    And User:Blum41 as well, who it's now perfecly clear is the same person? Deor (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    Well I'm convinced by the weight of evidence. I've indef-blocked ANGGUN and Blum41, and hard-blocked the IP address for a week, but as long as no-one objects, I'd like to leave the new User:Splendide Hasard for a day or so to see how it develops.  —SMALLJIM  23:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'm glad you also noticed User:Splendide Hasard and are leaving the report open for him. I do think it's the same person but I also agree that waiting a little longer is a good idea. JohnInDC (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    I'll block that one based on this edit. Jehochman 16:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Rocco15FN

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Rocco15FN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Saloob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Cfrisemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Euqueria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Blowdart | 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Controller creates non-notable, spammish article Spreed. 3 new SPA accounts continue to edit, with User:Euqueria adding spam links to education articles consisting of "*eLearning Spanish Tuition via spreed.com"

    Comments
    Conclusions

    I agree with the suspicion that these are socks. I would like to see another admin/editors view and if the agreement receives further concurrence then a blocking of the final account (Cfrisemo) as a sock should in my view take place. If you need my assistance for that block please let me know at my talk page.--VS 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Cfrisemo has not made any further edits since Spreed was deleted. There is no reason to block without evidence from deleted contributions. I think this is resolved. —BradV 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Cfrisemo made one edit to the deleted page. It's an obvious (though minor) puppet account, so I've blocked it too to remove any temptation. For completeness we should also mention User:Spreedmeeting, blocked as a spamusername. I agree that this is over (for now at least) and am closing.  —SMALLJIM  22:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:Emetman

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Emetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)


    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by
    Evidence


    Comments
    • Listen, Administrator, editors who have not yet touched this page, please, take a look rationally. See passed the "credible sources" and the solid references. Understand that just because a reference is valid doesn't make the placement on Misplaced Pages right or acceptable. Mosmof says she or he is just being a good Wikipedian, but likes to put in "valid references" that show the downside and other bad issues. This user has become as obsessed with Torossian as the single article IP addresses users seem to be. Maybe the best course here is to take the page down. Maybe there is no need for Torossian to have a page. It is not unbiased, it is awful, and the editors seems to take great pains to make "valid" edits that show a history of bad, while the fact that the company and the CEO have clients, have staff, are well regarded by the hundreds of clients who use them should be worth something, yet the editors who destroy this page and the 5W page seem to think that 5 years of history is summed up by Jeff Goldberg and FailedMessiah - footnotes, not features. Footnotes my friends, not features.TLVEWR (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • In my case, have simply added relevant content from 2007 and the same NYT Article. What makes it sockpuppetry to do so ? Unless Mosmof believes negative content is ok but sockpuppetry is positive content ? Is that what he is saying ? Mosmof seems to be a sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    There appears to have been sock puppetry. The above RFCU case came back  Possible. The edit patterns of the checked accounts seems to indicate that it is either sock or meat puppetry. However, the accounts stopped about a month ago. Perhaps they got the message that socking was not allowed. How about we tag all the accounts as suspected socks and leave it at that. Jehochman 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:The Account

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    The Account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    DellLaptop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    My Account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    StarM 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    The choice of editors that DellLaptop chose is completely different from the users that My Account interacted with. The only editor I can see with common interactions with C. Fred, Star Mississippi, and myself is Yoelmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've nominated some of his hoax articles for AFD, C. Fred got involved with the Lohan ones (I think ... I can't see deleted contributions, but that's my memory of events), and Star Mississippi pulled the trigger on two of them.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    You're right on all counts, though I don't see any obvious connection between possible hoax, at best CRYSTAL song articles and political userboxes. The only other interaction I recall with C. Fred is a long time ago, and I can't think of any obvious interaction between Kww and I, apart from the one he mentioned above and recent related talk page discussion. No idea why I'm a target. Julian appeared to have some previous polirtical UBX removal but I never had any. StarM 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    Comments
    I don't Understand this.DellLaptop (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    I read what a sockpuppet was. I'm not a sock puppet I don't even know the other people you think are sockpuppets. And Kww said he couldn't see a connection between me and the other people, then starM agreed with him. I did put the Boxes on those pages, but I didn't understand the rules of[REDACTED] I'm still new. Sorry it caused such a problem. DellLaptop (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    When I added those userboxes there was no connection between you three I just put them on your talk pages randomly. But still I'm not a sock puppet of User:The Account. DellLaptop (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to believe that you chose three random users including one whos political userbox had already been vandalized and one who has in no way revealed his or her political affiliations on wiki. StarM 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    Think this is worth a checkuser? I agree with you that DellLaptop is most likely a sock of somebody, but I'm far from convinced that The Account is the puppeteer. I'd put Yoelmo, The Account, and DellLaptop all up on the same request. The question is whether this account's editing rises to a sufficient level of disruption to bother with.—Kww(talk) 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Well, sorry I'm late! I think the link with Yoelmo is a red herring (incidentally Yoelmo was blocked indef on 15 Nov. for DE). But the evidence does suggest to me that the other three accounts were run by the same person. I've indef blocked The Account and My Account to remove them from temptation. However, it looks as if DellLaptop is now trying to help the project, so I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt - please stick to this one account, OK!  —SMALLJIM  22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Philscirel

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Philscirel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    71.72.81.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Mastercasper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) confirmed to match 71.72.81.230
    Report submission by

    Adoniscik 05:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    After being permanently blocked for evasion of the same, phiscirel is back under an anonymous IP to vandalize his favorite article, Fethullah Gülen. (I had reverted it to the last version before he came.)

    It's pretty obvious that we are dealing with a sock because this purportedly new editor is already citing site policy on 3RR and vandalization--after only a dozen edits. Plus (s)he uses philscirel's common refrain that "this issue is discussed already in the discussion page". Never mind the fact that the consensus (now archived) is that the article is a steaming pile of trash, thanks to his "efforts".

    Comments

    I have nothing to do with other users.. Fethullah Gulen discussion page is full of evidence that Adoniscik is misusing his experience to alienate new users and other contributors so that he can push his version of the article. His edits are evident that he would like to

    • Delete external links relevant to the page .
    I recommend he cite them, as appropriate. I moved the linkcruft to the talk page, as is my practice. --Adoniscik 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    You did not recommend. You ruled and insisted on deleting the external links from the article. You deleted the list many times. Do you need evidence from the history page? Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Push his version of the article without discussion , instead of the current version built up by many editors, by consensus. Please see the old discussion pages archived by this well experienced, sneaky editor.
    It's not "my" version. It's the last version that was up before philscirel wrecked it. --Adoniscik 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    That is plain wrong. Here is how the current version has initiated and worked on afterwords. Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • By blanking the archive, he is trying to hide the fact that the article is written by many and by consensus. Not surprisingly his article blanking follows immediately his discussion page blanking.
    That's called archiving the talk page. It's something I did as a courtesy. --Adoniscik 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    Or you got a chance to claim that the version worked word by word was not written by consensus? Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Trying to sell his version as the un-vandalized one, although the history page indicates otherwise. He would like to instate and make his version be dominant.
    • He is blanking the article and huge set of relevant information.
    Are you talking about the whitewashing philscirel posted, or did I miss something? --Adoniscik 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    You are missing a lot. If you keep blanking the article others will miss the important information as well. Editors did not create 100s of sources, they just cited them. You are deleting about 60 links. It is called vandalism and page blanking. I am afraid the most important thing you are missing is the philosophy of Misplaced Pages: Producing a free source of information in a neutral tone together. Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Blame other contributors do not agree with him as being sockpuppet of others. It seems working a great deal, by the way. Please check the discussion page archived by him.
    Please do. You will see that consensus agreed that the existing state of the article is thoroughly biased, to the point where I felt that a mere template was insufficient. After waiting several months, I reverted it to a somewhat better state.

    --Adoniscik 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    You should not template the page as you wish. If you do so, you should also specify and locate where the problems are. In the talk pages you hide you are asked many times but you did not specify the problems. I myself asked them too, and got only vague comments. You should learn separating your POV and Misplaced Pages standards, not only about the external links, in all other issues including NPOV, etc.
    • Claim article ownership implicitly.

    As a person know the topic well, I would like to contribute to this and on other articles of my interest in Misplaced Pages.

    Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Compare "As a person know the topic well, I would like to contribute to this and on other articles of my interest in Misplaced Pages." with "i am a new user, trying to contribute[REDACTED] about a topic i feel like i know a lot" from philscirel's previous nomination. --Adoniscik 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    I have read most of the history and related pages including other editors you made sick of Misplaced Pages and left. The quote is only an indication of the consequences of your tricks you consistently use to have them leave the project. Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    Like who? Name some names. My "tricks" have left a trail of reliably sourced articles. What have you done? Debating with you is pointless. Your edit history speaks for itself. You have not changed. You have not contributed to any other article. Why should we give you a break? You have nothing to show for yourself. --Adoniscik 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    I mentioned you being an experienced editor above. But unfortunately a sneaky one who are using his experience to alienate other editors he disagree with. Phil was apparently one of them. He listed already the IPs you are using to show your real face. But your tricks and your gangs dropped the case from WW:SSP page . Now your new target is me. Keeping the other editors in the project who may have more valuable contributions would be much better, I think. If you really like to see my contributions, you should be nicer to a new editor. Pushing people quit the project, blaming on other new users with their contributions is not a way to go. It does not seem to be a nice trail of personal record. Mastercasper (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    By the way, it is also clear from the link that Phicarel does not actually have sockpuppets. He sincerely explained that he just evade the block, not in purpose. He gave the IP's he is using. He is still blocked by someone indefinitely without a decision made systematically through WP:SSP?!... He is blocked for block evasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    I created an account. Please see my comments about the actions of Toddst1. Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    In addition, Mastercasper is refactoring my comments and continuing editing the article. See the edit history to see my deleted reports. Can the admins please wake up? --Adoniscik 17:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    No, I don't. I did not have an account. Now, I created one. I explained it above. It is inappropriate to add my name as a sockpuppet. But I know what you are trying to do, from Phil's case. It worked fine before, right? I will definitely keep editing according to the policies and philosophy of Misplaced Pages, as far as I have a chance to do so. I know why that bothers you? Mastercasper (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, you are persistently removing my comments. What bothers me is having to deal with fanatics like you. Everybody else can see the article is whitewashed. --Adoniscik 18:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

     Likely. Philscirel is indef blocked, the IP has a 3-month block on it, and Mastercasper served a short block for edit warring in late November and hasn't edited since. The article in question has been relatively quiet since then. So rather than apply a longer block to Mastercasper, which at this stage would be punitive and not clearly preventative, I'd prefer to believe that the user has taken a break and if he returns will edit in a "more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Please relist if necessary.  —SMALLJIM  20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Combatsurvival

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Combatsurvival (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by


    Evidence
    Comments

    We are now getting a meat/sockpuppet overload at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commando Krav Maga (2nd nomination) 7 single edit IPs (and Jackal2119) and rising. --Nate1481 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    I have goggled a bit and found out the combatsurvival is a registed trademark(TM) Alexnia (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


    We did not create multiple Misplaced Pages user accounts to vote on the subject of Commando Krav Maga. Commando Krav Maga is a widely practiced reality-based self defense system and we were asked by many of its practitioners and instructors to create the article. The original article contained advert content without appropriate referencing but after Misplaced Pages administrators informed us, we removed the advert content and referenced all factual information. Like the word Karate, Krav Maga is a generic hebrew term for contact fighting. In Misplaced Pages, different forms of Karate are all listed as they all have significant historicval context, such as Shotokan, Isshin-Ryu, Kenpo and so forth. As such, Commando Krav Maga is quite different in its approach to self defense from other Krav Maga systems. Although there are some similarities to the Krav Maga taught by other organizations, most of the elements are quite different. However, Misplaced Pages administrators were still going to delete the Commando Krav Maga article. We then informed Commando Krav Maga practitioners that the article was going to be removed.Combatsurvival (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Combatsurvival has been blocked for username policy violations. Can we also get the other registered user blocked as a meatpuppet? Rami R 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'd let the user keep the other name & see if they edit productively before hitting them with a block, maybe a standard puppet master block of 24 hrs but that's almost punitive.--Nate1481 09:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    This seems to have run its course. Nothing from the other user since, and the articles seem to be well patrolled so it seems likely that if similar problems arise they'd be quickly spotted. Please relist if this happens.  —SMALLJIM  18:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:116.68.99.91

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    116.68.99.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    116.68.90.-99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    -- Tinu Cherian - 13:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Continued Vandalism and POV pushing by banned editor User:Jobxavier and his sockpuppets. See also Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jobxavier . A range blocking may be needed.

    Comments

    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jobxavier is also somewhat relevant here. I see that since this case was listed, User:Purkunna has been indef blocked as another sock.  —SMALLJIM  16:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusions

    This is old news now. If 116.68.99.231 was a confirmed sock, I have no doubt that 116.68.99.91 was too. I've flagged both accounts appropriately. Regarding a rangeblock, it looks to me as if an effective one would cause too much collateral damage - see the guidance at WP:RANGE.  —SMALLJIM  16:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Xgmx

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Xgmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence

    Similar IP address range as in the first sock puppetry case at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Xgmx. All the above users have been canvassing at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Gaming Tour. The registered user in the bunch originally signed with Xgmx's name and then was noticed and changed later by another user (diff of signature, diff of change to unsigned template).

    Similar editing patterns include changing other users' comments in the AFD discussion to keep ( and ) and similar SAVE comments ( and ). Finally, this is also the exact same IP range as the other IP addresses that were blocked in the original sock case.

    Comments

    Given this, it's clear that ZeroFanMission (talk · contribs) identifies as Xgmx (talk · contribs). There's quite a bit outlined at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#User talk:Xgmx. — Scientizzle 16:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    I have requested for CheckUser at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Xgmx to see what can be unearthed. MuZemike (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    CU confirms that Xgmx and ZeroFanMission are the same. MuZemike (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    I added four more suspect IPs to the list above. One of them, 4.245.78.170, identifies as xgmx in this edit summary. Most recently (some 10 hours ago) as 4.245.74.198, he made new attempts to spam links to his site, here and here. 4.245.74.162 added the same link to another article, here. 4.245.16.43 added links to at least two sites that are connected to xgmx (xgmx.net.tc and igtour.pro.tc), here. --Bonadea (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    And now 4.245.74.136, asking about the SS Free site (as if he were a 3rd party) here. SS Free is a site founded by xgmx (as stated in this talk page comment). --Bonadea (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Reported this mess to WP:WPSPAM. If no action, then I will take this to ANI again. MuZemike (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    On second thought, since my first report to WPSPAM a couple of months ago did nothing, I will give ANI a shot now. MuZemike (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    These are all pretty obvious socks, as are a couple of more recent ones, 4.245.75.87, for instance. Bonadea has been diligently reverting edits by these IPs as they pop up. While the user continues to edit from dynamic IPs I reckon that the standard practice of monitoring the IP range and the relevant pages and reverting where appropriate, as well as blacklisting any new spam links, is the way to proceed. Eventually the user will either realise that he's wasting his time here and leave or, preferably, reform and become a valued contributor. Unless anyone has any further comments, I'll close this in a couple of days.  —SMALLJIM  15:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Ebeing

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Ebeing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Wikibeing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    72.91.101.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    97.102.107.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    209.173.137.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Mfield (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    User:Ebeing currently blocked for 1 month for WP:POINT campaign using anon IPs as well as username . New user Wikibeing's first edit is an exact match for previous edits of Ebeing. Not to mention that usernames are suspiciously similar

    Comments

    I have blocked Ebeing. This one was patently obvious. Perhaps, Mfield or someone else who has been keeping track, we could get a master list of this guys socks and IPs. If this continues, in the future, we should consider filing an checkuser request to root out sock-farms, or possibly institute some form of rangeblock or something. I don't think its gotten there yet, and so far we've been able to keep up with him just playing whack-a-mole, but it would be most helpful to have a complete list of this guys socks and IPs in one place; incase we need it in the future... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    The 72.91.101.162 is an obvious sockpuppet, that you also blocked I believe. It was the original IP that Ebeing started logging out and using and has a comprehensive contributions history to back it. Mfield (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    Ebeing has previously sockpuppeted as 97.102.107.120, but this IP has not been used since 30 September 2008 so may be out of date. Again, the contributions history is conclusive and the history of this IP's talk page also shows warnings for vandalism. Charlie Tango (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Another IP to watch - 209.173.137.84. Just made two edits to same articles, removing external links, in one case incorrectly. Mfield (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Whois turns up different ISPs for all 3. Two locate to northern virginia, and one locates to Cincinnati Ohio. Given this suspicious difference in ISPs, I have submitted all 3 for open proxy scans. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    Closed. Confirmed sockpuppets have been blocked. —BradV 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Orson20

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Orson20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    92.40.191.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    92.40.212.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    194.201.64.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    92.40.147.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    92.40.175.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Apron Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Kirsty Welles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Leon Ousby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    87.86.0.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    92.41.71.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    StarM 23:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    See this MfD, wherein it was claimed the subject wanted deletion following two AfDs:

    The subject has never been proven to be encyclopedically notable and its incessant re-creation my multiple editors has not proven notable. It's current incarnation at User:Leon Ousby is a BLP mess with the drug and alcohol section. One of these editors, re-created after !voting for deletion, so there's definitely something fishy here. This article has been re-created in so many "independent" user spaces that it's fishy at best and a sock farm at worst.

    Re-creation locations:

    There may be more, those are the ones I've found StarM 23:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comments

    Please see this post to my talk where one of the parties may explain it. StarM 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) In the mean time, please see his contributions to anyone and everyone this evening. Not constructive or making his case for why he's using multiple accounts to avoid what has been deleted by consensus multiple times. StarM 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    See also this edit, which resulted in my adding the last IP. No one is going to find that thread randomly. StarM 03:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

      • Reported I have reported you to[REDACTED] for slander. An email was sent on Monday out-lining proof of deliberate slander and embarrassment. You have jumped on a bandwagon along with other trolls and judging by your history pages the subject is not the first to be part of harsh backlash comments from you and other editors. This is a community site. You appear to be enjoying the ridicule. Whack the mole??? You should NOT be authorised to represent this company. T-J Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.71.39 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    It's hard to imagine that anyone coming to edit WP for the first time would chance upon this article (especially at User:Orson20/Leon Ousby), unless they already knew of its existence. So there's strong evidence of sockpuppetry and/or team editing here because each of these accounts has made at least one edit related to that article, with little or no prior editing history.

    However, blocks are meant to protect the encyclopedia, not to punish users. Since there has been no significant activity by the "accused" for over a month now, I think it's sensible to close this case with a reminder to all those named here to read and follow our policy on sock-puppetry; and a warning that further recreation of an article on this person (unless his notability can be shown), or other disruptive editing, will probably lead to blocks being applied.  —SMALLJIM  22:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:211.143.190.162

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    211.143.190.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • This one editor using three IP addresses to avoid 3RR. All IP's re-add the same exact information to the same exact article after they are removed. See all contrib histories.
    Comments
    • For some reason, when I attempt to notify it comes up as a redlink, and I am holding off placing the notification until I figure out what's wrong (yes, I replaced "PUPPETMASTER" with the IP).
    Conclusions

    A likely case of socking, probably editing through proxies - 211.143.190.162 and 85.218.22.10 are DNSBL listed. But stale now - no point in taking any action on these. I also note that Arybella popped up on 8 Dec to make similar edits.  —SMALLJIM  14:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Griot

    Confirmed sock puppeteer

    Griot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)


    Confirmed sock puppets 12


    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by


    Evidence
    Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns & Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008
    (cur) (last) 15:18, 8 February 2008 Griot (Talk | contribs) (54,474 bytes) (rv eds by now-banned editor) (undo)
    (cur) (last) 16:45, 9 November 2008 71.139.23.95 (Talk) (24,557 bytes) (→Controversial statements: retrieval date) (undo)

    Pieing (The article List of people who have been pied was CREATED by Griot)
    (cur) (last) 11:05, 6 February 2008 Griot (Talk | contribs) (8,211 bytes) (→History: invalid link) (undo)
    (cur) (last) 00:05, 27 October 2008 71.139.23.95 (Talk) (9,200 bytes) (→History: ed for clarification) (undo)

    Ralph Nader
    (cur) (last) 17:04, 4 February 2008 Griot (Talk | contribs) (43,568 bytes) (rv; vandalism) (undo)
    (cur) (last) 17:02, 7 November 2008 71.139.23.95 (Talk) (49,505 bytes) (→Controversial statements during 2008 presidential campaign: requests for retraction) (undo)

    Matt Gonzalez
    (cur) (last) 17:13, 31 January 2008 Griot (Talk | contribs) (35,049 bytes) (Boodles, these criticisms are all sourced as I showed you on the Talk page.) (undo)
    (cur) (last) 22:45, 13 November 2008 71.139.23.95 (Talk) (42,797 bytes) (past tense as candidate; votes in SF in 2008 presidential election) (undo)



    Comments
    • This will be the 13th sock puppet employed by this indefinitely banned user.
    • I am not a puppet of any kind, but someone who is contributing to this online encyclopedia. Someone has objected to my editing is all. I have explained at the article why I made those edits. I challenge these people who accuse me of this to address the edits insteadof engaging in this action, whatever it may be. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    EagleScout brought me to the attention of Billy Fried because he objects to my edits at the Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008 article. I entered a description of Nader's use of the term Uncle Tom on election night, and EagleScout objected to this being in the article. He has consistently tried to dilute this passage. He has called all my edits to this passage "POV." He has not answered any of my queries as to why he objects to my edits. I note as well that EagleScout only joined Misplaced Pages two weeks ago and that he has edited only articles that I edited. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hmmm. BillyTFried put the template on your talk page, yet you say that EagleScout18 accused you first. To help resolve this case, please confirm which IP addresses / accounts you have edited under.  —SMALLJIM  12:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    My name is Clarence and I am a recently retired pipefitter in Oakland Calfornia. My AT&T Internet Protocol number is 71.139.26.240. I do not use a dynamic dial-up connection. 71.139.26.240 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    The named users are all stale. The IPs change often and have a fair amount of traffic from different users. I suggest short term IP blocks or page semiprotection if problems continue. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:LaRaikousei

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    LaRaikousei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Backdash Forwardash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    GumdropHarvest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Full-Metal Alchemist '99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Making the same vandalistic edits to the various Cardcaptor Sakura articles.

    Comments


    Conclusions

    I blocked all three indef as VOAs, so it's pretty irrelevant whether they're socks or not at this point. Although they probably were. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

    Considering the timing, and the personal insult, I'm guessing Full-Metal Alchemist '99 is another one. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    Another admin just blocked indef. We may want to start a Checkuser request in case there are other sleeper socks, and put a rangeblock in. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    Good idea...and done-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    Result  —SMALLJIM  12:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

    User:PONDHEEPANKAR

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Bake1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Avruch 13:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    Evidence

    Identical editing style on specific caste articles such as Nadar (caste)

    Comments

    Diffs please? That would make the assessment easier to do/quicker. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    It's not on PONDHEEPANKAR's range. Don't know if he switched computers or anything. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    Conclusions

    The result is stale, or inconclusive. You choose. Jehochman 00:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    User:Marco1990

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Marco1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Both users have been making same edits to Venice Marco Polo Airport. They also both come from Italy. User:S marky 90 was blocked indefinitely but he may be the same person now editing under the username User:Marco1990. Majority of the edits to Venice Airport in Italy are both of these users and both have not been using edit summaries.
    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    • The previous user have had problems communicating in English. The new user has not presented the same problem and has stayed away from the previous problem, until now, as seen in his reverts. HkCaGu (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Both users are serial uploaders of copyrighted images the very few images not found to be copyvios have been taken with the same camera type - a Panasonic DMC-FZ8. User Marco 1990 was created two days after S marky 90 was blocked. User may have moved on to use User:MarcoS31 created today (within ten minutes of Maro1990 blanking his user and talk page) with two edits to Venice Marco Polo Airport. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    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.

    User:Reliv1908

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Reliv1908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    Defense
    • Unfortunately, you are completely wrong on this accusation of the proverbial sockpuppetry. Here's the deal: both Boberedmustlive1 and Cardsfan06 are the same person, named Sam Schwarm, who helped create the term Bobered and helped write the article. He was forced to change his username due to the fact that sockpuppetry would be obvious - that I would have created this account simply to back my belief that Bobered should stay on the site. Thus, the Boberedmustlive1 username can be completely shut down from this site, as it no longer serves a purpose for my friend. You may be able to understand why my friend would back the article about the word Bobered - he helped coin the term - he has a vested interest in its spread and survival. And to prove my point - if you knew anything about central Illinois, you could clearly tell that we are not one and the same. My account is reliv1908, a phrase meaning relive the year 1908, the last time the Chicago Cubs won the World Series. Sam's username is Cardsfan06, implying his passion for the Saint Louis Cardinals and their 2006 World Series championship. You, most likely not having ever dabbled in the art of sports, may not know the insane rivalry between these two teams. I can honestly say I would rather commit suicide before supporting something that in any way connected positively to the Cardinals. Oh and by the way, let's not refer to these accounts as sockpuppets unless we have clear-cut evidence. Because we know what assuming does to you right? It makes an a$$ out of you and me. Case in point - your move, monsieur. Reliv1908 (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


    Conclusions
    • Admitted meatpuppets, but stale now. Boberedmustlive1 indef blocked as a sock of Cardsfan08. Please re-report if further suspicious activity occurs.  —SMALLJIM  10:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)



    Bot Reported

    Archives

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Uwishiwazjohng
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets Add topic