Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

ScienceGolfFanatic

ScienceGolfFanatic (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceGolfFanatic/Archive

[edit] Report date July 5, 2009 (12:28 UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• GregoryGirls61 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Bababababababababybel62 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Naidgmgienr63 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Pdrooop64 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Admimistrator65 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ashorthurry66 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Bsmileroad67 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Cpianoclear68 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Dtotalswung69 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Eaboutspots70 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Fgoodslarge71 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Gjokesongs72 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Hwagonthey73 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ireferspoke74 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Jheardused75 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Kreviews76 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Lpointeager77 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• MagginUa78 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ntownslabel79 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Odayscoach80 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Peckrate81 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Qatzalnak82 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Reameager83 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Stabletrade84 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Tshorrocks85 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Vroomdown86 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Uasbcoavlee87 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Soap

First off I apologize for probably formatting this incorrectly because I didn't know what template I was supposed to subst and Im in a hurry and can't read the instructions now. Above are the two users I've found which I'm sure are SGF socks. I would like to ask, as someone not very familiar with this part of the wiki, why is it that SGF is able to return again and again despite being banned whereas most vandals are blocked once and seem to be unable to return? Is SGF using a very dynamic IP that can't be autoblocked the way the others are? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I admit, I'm another sockpuppet. This is my 81st account. And by the way, the reason I'm able to evade my blocks is: Sock puppet accounts are like bombs. You set up the account, and then escape before the administrator detonates the account, causing an autoblock. Peckrate81 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

• Added {{rfcu}} template. Can we get a rangeblock please? → ROUX ₪ 18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Added a few more accounts: numbers 65-71, which I've found in the user creation log, and 61-64, which have already been blocked and have probably been checked, but are not in the archive (65, 69 and 70 have also been blocked for inappropriate username or vandalism). It looks like most of the edits from these accounts have been useless redirects from project namespace to articles, also some of the accounts have been created in groups of five or six within a few minutes. snigbrook (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Added a few more accounts (82-87). snigbrook (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. → ROUX ₪ 18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed - Tiptoety ^talk 20:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

I think I have blocked all of the IP ranges. Please let me know if any more accounts pop up. Dominic·t 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Miceduan

Miceduan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 6 2009, 07:17 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• 69.172.115.69 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Biker Biker

Over the past few days I have reverted a number of external link additions by Miceduan. These have been, in my opinion and that of others, spam links intended to promote a commercial company Au Group Electronics. Earlier today Barek (talk · contribs) removed a number of Miceduan's links following my report of Miceduan's activities to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam - all of which were subsequently undone by Miceduan. Shortly after this, and over a very short period of time, 69.172.115.69 reverted a number of my edits made over the past couple of days - seemingly for no apparent reason. Although one should assume good faith I am drawn to the conclusion that this IP address was used by Miceduan as I cannot think of any other editor that I have upset by my anti-spam or anti-vandal actions. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Tnaniua

Tnaniua (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 5 2009, 14:03 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Hysohan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Sbw01f

• Hysohan was created shortly after Tnaniua was blocked for two weeks for edit warring. Hysohan immediately began editing in two articles that Tnaniua was involved in: South Korea and Developed countries. Moreover, his second edit was a revert, the same revert that Tnaniua was blocked for. Diffs:[1][2]
• Both accounts have attempted to remove or replace the same image from the same four articles. Tnaniua diffs: [3][4][5][6] Hysohan diffs:[7][8][9][10] Sbw01f (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

WriteINGWell

WriteINGWell (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 4 2009, 22:44 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Be Cheerful (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I've been patrolling some of the User:Bambifan101 target articles and I've found these two accounts editing much the same articles in much the same way. Lots of image copyvios, lots of edits to the article spaces on Disney movies and Australian television, no interaction with other users or acknowledgement of the concerns of others. I don't think it's Bambifan101 but a similar user; BF at least uses edit summaries and talk pages. This individual does not. I hear the unmistakable sound of quacking. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ruled anything in or out, but based on a time analysis, they do not appear to be in even the same continent, let alone the same time zone. MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Twospoonfuls

Twospoonfuls (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 4 2009, 05:38 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Hygestone (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Number36

After a number of edits over a long period of time starting on the 21st of March 2008 [11], here; [12], here; [13], and so on, where he would revert anybodies edits that formatted the page into sections, which he didn't agree with, and a discussion on the talk page where this user made it clear that he felt ownership of the page Eurymedon vase, here [14], and then afterwards he unilaterally declares the discussion closed, [15]. Not to mention being very uncivil throughout the process of trying to resolve the problem, such as here for example; [16], where he ends with "This "argument" (if I can dignify it with that Aristotelean term) would be more palatable if it wasn't an attempt to peddle arrant nonsense. And as much as I would be delighted to put forward a counter-argument I can't, because no argument has been posited in the first place. De gustibus non est disputandum. Seriously, go and find some thing useful to do.". Anyway this culminated with him saying he was going to just treat everybody else's edits as vandalism from then on, and reverting the page. I left off editing the page at the time because it all seemed too much trouble over a minor thing, until recently when I noticed via having placed the article on watch, that an editor had introduced sections again and Twospoonfuls had reverted it as vandalism. Mistakenly I felt that since he was using a false edit summary that it invalidated his own reversion as bad faith, and reverted it, using the summary to inform him of the fact that you shouldn't call good faith edits vandalism and this was actually against the relevant guidelines. Well he kept right on reverting the changes as 'vandalism', and after that had happened a few times, it occurred to me to review the rules on 3RR and edit warring, which I found we were in violation of, so I stopped editing the article, informed him of this and posted a report of the situation at the 3RR board. He kept reverting in the mean time until an admin acting on my report gave us both 24hr temporary bans for the edit warring, and the unregistered editor who had just previously introduced sections came back and apparently not realising why his edit had been undone went ahead and reintroduced the sections. Now a couple of days later this new editor Hygestone shows up, and having no other edit history [17], goes straight to this small obscure article and reverts the addition of sections? [18] That multiple, independent editors had introduced before, and only Twospoonfuls had objected to, and been oddly adamant about it, considering the relative non-controversial edits he's objecting so strongly too are the addition of section heading for readability. Well it makes me more than a little suspicious, and then edits again without changing anything [19], presumably to make sure the last edit summary that comes up on peoples watch lists doesn't show that it was a revert. Apparently from this edit on his talk page [20] he considers the whole getting banned for edit warring, and editors wanting to introduce section headings, to be 'horseshit', motivated by people being impressionable and getting over-excited by the subject of whether homosexual relationships in ancient Greece were all hand-handing and flowers or not, so I'm really not sure where he's coming from in all this. Anyway. I followed the directions on how to post one of these reports as best I can, so if I've done anything incorrect in the linking to difs or not included something necessary, let me know. Cheers Number36 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't know where to begin with thhat catalogue of confusion and misrepresentation above, so I'll confine myself to the relevant facts. I don't have any other accounts, I have had a static IP on my PC since 2005, I have not asked anyone to intervene on my behalf. And nor would I ask anyone to do so, my argument remains that in deciding between stylistic preferences it is precident not consenus that determines priority: as in the case with BC/BCE disputes. My position is consistant with that laid out in the MoS. A point I've been unable to impress on Mr Number36, who I've suggested he take the matter to mediation or arbitration if he disagrees with the Manual of Style, but who seems to prefer edit warring and game playing.

Further it is not "rather obvious" Hygestone is me (which is certainly not the case), any more than it is obvious that 74.9.140.66 is user:Blue_Danube. Indeed there is a much stronger circumstantial case for the latter rather than the former. Blue Danube shares the same editing history (i.e. James Bond) with the anonymous user, the traceroute resolves to the north east US, and the user has been explicit in citing IP addresses in his claim of consensus opinion. However that does not make it "obvious" to me they are the same, I've already asked an admin to run a checkuser on this and I'll have to come back to the matter when I have the opportunity.

Lastly I had to learn about this allegation from the links page at Eurymedon Vase, is this furtiveness also evidence of "good faith"?Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Looking at Hygestone (talk · contribs)'s contributions, it's rather obvious that they are the same user as Twospoonfuls (talk · contribs). That said, Hygestone seems to be an editor that has been here for quite some time, since 2006, so I might recommend blocking the sock, a 24 hour block for the master, and a curt warning that further socking will result in an indef block. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Tngah

Tngah (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 3 2009, 06:34 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• 68.173.95.177 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 69.86.6.163 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 69.201.156.82 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Che829

This user abused sockpuppets to violate WP:DE, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EW, WP:TE

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=300349345&oldid=300347139
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=300325243&oldid=300258568
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=299902890&oldid=299902081
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=299780197&oldid=299778055
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=299064000&oldid=299063498
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=298974884&oldid=298968943

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&action=history
03:59, 5 July 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=300347139&oldid=300325243
17:09, 4 July 2009 Tngah (talk | contribs) (31,829 bytes)
15:27, 2 July 2009 Tngah (talk | contribs) (31,829 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&oldid=299902081
22:54, 1 July 2009 69.86.6.163 (talk) (31,829 bytes)
22:25, 1 July 2009 69.86.6.163 (talk) (31,829 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&oldid=299778055
21:57, 1 July 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes)
03:48, 1 July 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes)
21:41, 30 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes)
21:37, 29 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes)
17:15, 29 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes)
17:10, 29 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes)
16:45, 29 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes)
03:01, 29 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,829 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&oldid=299236820
03:41, 27 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (31,371 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&oldid=298874628
22:21, 24 June 2009 Tngah (talk | contribs) (31,371 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&oldid=298448588

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Argentina&action=history
01:32, 2 July 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (34,756 bytes)
22:55, 1 July 2009 69.86.6.163 (talk) (34,306 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Argentina&oldid=299782733
22:36, 1 July 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (34,306 bytes)
21:58, 1 July 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (34,756 bytes)
04:05, 1 July 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (34,756 bytes)
21:41, 29 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (34,306 bytes)
18:49, 29 June 2009 68.173.95.177 (talk) (34,306 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Argentina&oldid=299360317

This discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&action=history
edited by Tngah, 68.173.95.177 pretend to be someone else on behalf of him/herself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&diff=299631325&oldid=204412203
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARacism_in_Argentina&diff=299750617&oldid=299631513
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&diff=299806272&oldid=299750617
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&diff=299806957&oldid=299806272
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&diff=299807168&oldid=299807011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&diff=299824492&oldid=299807168
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&diff=299901126&oldid=299824492
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&diff=299901763&oldid=299901357
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Argentina&diff=299921284&oldid=299901763

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tngah Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to White American. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.173.95.177 Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page White American has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the page Racism in Argentina appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Stop creating mistakes with the direct translation of Juan Bautista Alberdi as seen at this page. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism in Argentina. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on White American. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.86.6.163 Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to White American, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JForget 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronology
04:34, 5 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (68.173.95.177)
04:34, 5 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (68.173.95.177)
04:20, 5 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (68.173.95.177)
03:59, 5 July 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
17:15, 4 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
17:09, 4 July 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (Tngah)
17:06, 4 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (68.173.95.177)
16:09, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (Tngah)
16:08, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (Tngah)
16:06, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (Tngah)
16:04, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (Tngah)
16:01, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (Tngah)
15:56, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (Tngah)
15:27, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (Tngah)
15:24, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
15:21, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
01:47, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (Tngah)
01:46, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (Tngah)
01:45, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (Tngah)
01:41, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (Tngah)
01:32, 2 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
23:21, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:69.86.6.163 (69.86.6.163)
23:19, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (69.86.6.163)
23:13, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (69.86.6.163)
23:11, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:White American (69.86.6.163) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_American&diff=299785048&oldid=299247970
23:10, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:69.86.6.163 (69.201.156.82) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.86.6.163&diff=299784936&oldid=299784705
23:08, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:69.86.6.163 (69.86.6.163)
23:06, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:69.86.6.163 (69.86.6.163)
22:55, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (69.86.6.163)
22:54, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (69.86.6.163)
22:36, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
22:25, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (69.86.6.163)
21:58, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
21:57, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
04:09, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
04:09, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
04:09, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
04:05, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
04:02, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
03:48, 1 July 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
21:41, 30 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
21:41, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
21:39, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
21:37, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
18:54, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Anti-Italianism (68.173.95.177)
18:53, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Anti-Italianism (68.173.95.177)
18:53, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Anti-Italianism (68.173.95.177)
18:52, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Anti-Italianism (68.173.95.177)
18:49, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Racism in Argentina (68.173.95.177)
17:15, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
17:10, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
16:45, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
03:01, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
02:44, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
02:33, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
21:42, 28 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
20:44, 28 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
20:39, 28 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
19:39, 28 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
15:14, 28 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
04:55, 28 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
17:20, 27 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
03:41, 27 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
22:21, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (Tngah)
22:17, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (Tngah)
22:14, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (Tngah)
17:18, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)
18:20, 23 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (Tngah)
18:18, 23 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (Tngah)
17:57, 23 June 2009 (hist) (diff) White American (68.173.95.177)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk note: Probably the same, but what abuse has occurred? Looks like an editor that has forgot to log in occasionally, but if you have evidence of problematic behaviour, please state it. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Striking per the introduction of new evidence. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blippy

Blippy (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date June 29 2009, 12:47 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Burberry southsea (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 207.58.129.52 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 213.253.135.119 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by KillerChihuahua

Blippy edits Australian articles, reincarnation articles and Ian Stevenson; suddenly Burberry southsea (sounds Brit, doesn't it?) showed today and edited Reincarnation research until he got 3RR warned and then started "supporting Blippy's consensus version" on Ian Stevenson. Call me cynical, but its looks fishy to me. Burberry is certainly not a newbie; looks like he might be a sock of Blippy. OTOH, I'm not all that good at identifying socks unless they're Gastrich or Awbrey; so I submit here. Evidence is more or less Special:Contributions/Burberry_southsea en toto. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by suspected parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Ummmm... sock puppet eh? Not entirely sure what that means, and I'm not entirely clear on how to defend myself. I'm assuming those with better understandings will resolve this happily - although if there's anything in particular I can do to help, please let me know - I'm still fairly inexperienced with WP. Addressing the, uh, accusation (?) above, KC has edited the Stevenson page and one of the pages I started recently on the Berry Street charity (thanks BTW - I forgot how do do those Ref things properly at the end). I'm not sure if this implies that he too is a sock puppet? It sounds kind of cute though... maybe the kind of thing a killer chihuahua might attack!! Fair enough. Anyway if there's anything serious going on here I'd appreciate a heads up before anything drastic happens. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering how long these things normally take? I noticed that Burberry southsea seems to have vanished - and only recently joined - so it seems KC's intuitions are reasonably well tuned. I wrote to Bs but haven't seen a response yet - I guess they may be busy elsewhere... or scared off! Anyway I'm assuming this all comes down to IP logs etc. but will be happier when it's resolved. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Blippy nor 207.58.129.52. I am editing from 213.253.135.119 and the entry on Verbal's page was me, but there seems to be some dispute whether this IP was ever used by Davkal [21]. In fact, there seems to be some dispute about whether, or to what extent, Davkal ever existed or whether the name is simply (now) a patsy which certain groups regularly wheel out to ban editors and IPs from Wikipedia. Google davkal and you'll see what I mean (E.Dramatica).Burberry southsea (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Welcome back Burberry southsea! I'd begun to think you'd vanished into the ether. I'm disappointed to hear you're not me, there goes that extra cash opportunity... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not much happening here... oh and a minor inaccuracy in the evidence above, I haven't edited reincarnation pages. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

• I added an IP that supported and made the same edits, for completeness. Verbal chat 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding a second IP that just "warned" me regarding this article, apparently an IP used by banned editor Davkal (talk · contribs). Verbal chat 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • dif of warning KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Alex West

Alex West (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 1 2009, 03:33 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Filmbotboy (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Bigharley (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Foreign-aid (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• USC Film School Grad (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• HKD (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 71.107.9.225 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Delicious carbuncle

All named accounts primarily edit film or model related articles, the vast majority of which are relevant to Scott Shaw. A number of dynamic IPs (Verizon) which geolocate to Los Angeles, USA, also seem to be involved. There are literally hundreds of articles linking to Scott Shaw which seems oddly out of proportion to his status or achievements. I included the IP in this report to show the addition of Shaw to a template listing modern Dharmic writers. Scott Shaw · Alan Watts · Thich Nhat Hanh ...which one of these things is not like the others?

Both Alex West (talk · contribs) and Filmbotboy (talk · contribs) have !voted in the AfD for Zen filmmaking, an article about Scott Shaw. Although the two accounts have different editing and commenting styles, they share some features which should be apparent to anyone used to dealing with sockpuppets. There are obvious similarities in these recent responses to questions on their talk pages - Alex West: [22] & [23], Filmbotboy: [24] & [25]. This seems to me to be a clear case vote stacking with sockpuppets, and very probable long-term COI editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

I've looked over this case quite closely, and call it a "gut feeling", but after reviewing a poor man's checkuser, it seems more likely that these users simply have similar interests. The style of editing of Alex West (talk · contribs) demonstrates a knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, for example, adding a fair use rationale that wasn't provided by Bigharley, and detailed rationales at AFD. The user comes across as someone who has knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and seems to me to be a user in their own right. I feel it's highly unlikely that any of the above "socks" belong to Alex West (talk · contribs). Whether or not they are a sock of someone else is another matter, but, in the unlikely case they are socks, I see no abuse, so no administrative action required. You may wish to refer this to the Conflict of interest noticeboard, however. They may be able to help you there. That said, this looks like a case of separate users, with similar interests, editing similar articles, rather than the same user creating a sockfarm. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I'm not sure why you assume that knowledge of wikipedia policy has any relationship with sockpuppetry - it doesn't. Did you look at the talk page discussions I linked for Alex West and Filmbotboy? Another user has provided an additional clue here, if the actual words weren't enough. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, but demonstrating a clear knowledge of how Wikipedia works, and it's policies, is a way to rule out that they are not another user, who has a clear different editing style. The fact that they edit similar topics doesn't make them the same user. I've taken another look at the evidence and user contribs, and there just isn't enough evidence to come up with any other answer other than the one I've provided. I've asked for the opinion of another clerk, and they have come to the same resolution. It's an unusual case, but from what I can see, it appears to be more than anything, two or more users that have a common interest in the same topic. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

• Bambi89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression bambi|teletubbies. The portion that matched was Bambi.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string bambi|teletubbies is often associated with sock puppets of User:Bambifan101 (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101) HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Deebeelondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was Deeb.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string hubris|deeb is often associated with sock puppets of User:TheNewHubris (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TheNewHubris) HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Who killed bambi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression bambi|teletubbies. The portion that matched was bambi.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string bambi|teletubbies is often associated with sock puppets of User:Bambifan101 (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101) HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• DeeB121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was DeeB.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string hubris|deeb is often associated with sock puppets of User:TheNewHubris (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TheNewHubris) HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• DeeBianchetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was DeeB.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string hubris|deeb is often associated with sock puppets of User:TheNewHubris (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TheNewHubris) HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noobhunter12123132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the literal pattern noobhunter.

• This report was delayed until the user edited. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Goth Bambi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression bambi|teletubbies. The portion that matched was Bambi.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string bambi|teletubbies is often associated with sock puppets of User:Bambifan101 (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101) HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mr Hollaback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression holl(a|er) ?b(a?)ck. The portion that matched was Hollaback.

• This report was delayed until the user edited. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Lilbambii1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression bambi|teletubbies. The portion that matched was bambi.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string bambi|teletubbies is often associated with sock puppets of User:Bambifan101 (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101) HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Deebo09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was Deeb.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string hubris|deeb is often associated with sock puppets of User:TheNewHubris (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TheNewHubris) HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy

Arab Cowboy (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 2 2009, 20:06 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Nefer Tweety (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wolof359 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by User:Supreme Deliciousness

There has been a lot of arguing between me and 98.195.180.144 for a long time now over Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles. It started out over the first line of the article, He wants it to say that she is Egyptian. User 98.195.180.144 registered a couple days ago, his nickname is now Arab Cowboy.

an RfC was created on the Asmahan talkpage, Everything here below was posted in about 2 hours. Everything can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asmahan&action=history

Arab Cowboy started talking about: "15:48, 2 July 2009, is agreed." Meaning that, that article edit is "agreed", It was not agreed, it was not some kind of "final status" article, no one ever suggested that, only him, and he kept on repeating this phrase. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299906677&oldid=299900447

HelloAnnyong is a 3O mediator, here Arab Cowboy asks HelloAnyone "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299908784&oldid=299908041

HelloAnnyong responds: "It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299909115&oldid=299908784

Here Arab Cowboy says "Nationality in the lead aside" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299910820&oldid=299910277

Here Arab Cowboy starts talking about it again: "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299913353&oldid=299912822

In the RfC, Arab Cowboys lists 5 points, three of them are: "The article should not be neutral to her nationality." "neutralize her nationality," and "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further.". This post can be found at the RfC: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asmahan&oldid=299929090

About one hour later a user named Nefer Tweety, shows up and says: "This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009. And I believe her Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead. Nefer Tweety (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299927707&oldid=299917101

The mediator HelloAnnyongs response: ":Your first edit on Wikipedia is commenting on an RfC? A rather suspicious start... I hope someone isn't puppeting... " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299928709&oldid=299927707

No one ever mentioned this: "15:48, 2 July 2009," phrase before, except Arab Cowboy.

Nefer Tweety later posts "A suspicious start"? Why? I find it interesting to read the debates going on here about various topics. I never participated in one before, and I am not sure I will involve myself into this "edit warring". When I saw you opened RfC, and I read the options typed above, I thought of contributing by stating my opinion, and what I typed above was what I strongly supported from the very beginning. I was going to support either of the options anyway. If I had supported SD's point of view, would I have been considered SD's "socpuppet" by Arab Cowboy? What a disappointment!Nefer Tweety (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299944919&oldid=299929090

The guy registered a new account to make a comment on RfC while he could easily have made one without an account. "I find it interesting to read the debates going on here about various topics." So he have been reading on wikipedia for a while. How come he registered now? There is something very strange going on. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Yesterday I was blocked for 24 hours, a user named "Wolof359" showed up and starting editing the exact same articles I have been involved in using the exact same language. I think it was Arab Cowboy trying to fool people that I had created a second account to get me banned from Wikipedia.

This is his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolof359

At the Sea of Galilee article, I had written "Golan is not Israel." he wrote "also Syrian too because Golan Heights is not Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Galilee&action=history

At the druze article he did the same revert as me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300029523&oldid=299739268

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300097056&oldid=300032507

At the Mount Hermon Ski Resrt article I had written "not in Israel.", he wrote "not in Israel." :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Hermon_ski_resort&action=history

At the Golan Heights article he did the exact same revert as I had done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=299954291&oldid=299950868

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=300116308&oldid=300032437

I am involved in these four articles right now, but there was one article that he did not touch, and that was the Asmahan article, the same one that me and Arab Cowboy are arguing over. He let it be like Arab Cowboys edit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

• Just wanted to chime in and point out that Nefer Tweety made a point of gloating on Supreme Deliciousness' block in this diff. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• This could also be under code letter E. Supreme Deliciousness believes (see this post at ANI) that Arab Cowboy used several sockpuppets during a 24 hour block. Sancho 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Sancho, no, Wolof359 is the only user name that showed up during the block, those others are older.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Additional information needed - Please provide a code letter. Tiptoety ^talk 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Mikerichi

Mikerichi (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 3 2009, 11:06 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• 69.253.207.9 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 68.45.109.215 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 72.56.25.58 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Andy Dingley

This relates to the Steven Wells article, with some relevance to Sons of Ben (MLS supporters association) / related AfD and crossover with Modena F.C. & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasputin's penis

Steven Wells was an English ranting poet and music journalist who was highly notable within his niche, but whose WP article was poorly sourced and so not obviously so. In recent years he was a journalist in the USA and had some connection with soccer, particularly his local Philly team. He died very recently.

Deletions were attempted within minutes after the article had been tagged as a recent death:

• prod by 72.56.25.58
• Afd by Mikerichi

There appears to be some grudge on behalf of user:Mikerichi related to Philly soccer, leading to an agenda that led him to try and delete the Steven Wells after his death, as "death doesn't confer notability". This was sufficiently bizarre that it started UK press coverage "Wikipedia kills legendary journalist" that wasn't complimentary to the project, if not actually harmful. Fortunately wikiprocess appears to have worked well here. Talk:Steven Wells is where most of the story is, but check back through the history and watch for section deletions.

There's now an irate IP user:69.253.207.9 who is removing any comment on this from talk pages, inc. user talk pages, in a seeming attempt to defend the honour of user:Mikerichi. That smells a lot like sockery.

• talk:Steven Wells
• talk:Steven Wells
• user_talk:Andy_Dingley

As far as article mainspace goes, common sense seems to have prevailed. AfD refused, article improved by referencing, all is good. As far as the "personal attacks" go, then I would judge these to have been fairly detailed and restrained, focussing on actions not ad hominem - but then I would say that, as much of those were my own edits. If any Admin-types want to pass comment here, and on my own actions, then you are of course free to do so. If I've stepped over any line, then please point it out.

Now though we have an IP deleting any talk: comment they dislike, and it looks like a sock. This is a disruption that is moving beyond the tolerable, so I'd appreciate intervention by the higher echelons.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Author in question, user:Mikerichi nommed a page for deletion Steven Wells that had been tagged as lacking references for about a year and only had one reference at the time of the nomination. Andy Dingley and one or two others attacked that author on the talk pages for Andy Dingley, User:Mikerichi and Steven Wells assuming bad faith on the part of User:MikeRichi. I have deleted the personal attacks when I've seen them. Note that all of the deleted content involves talk pages and not actual articles. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, this "anon IP" is a public WiFi spot, although AFAIK I'm the only person who's used it to edit Wikipedia. All of the recent edits are mine and this account has never been tagged with any sort of warning about vandalism, etc. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )

Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Clerk note: - User:69.253.207.9 appears to be an internet cafe, allocating to New Jersey. The other, User:68.45.109.215 appears to be a static IP that geolocates to Philadelphia, and 72.56.25.58 is a dynamic IP for Sprint PCS (mobile phone). Based on that, I am not sure there is much that CheckUser can do here nor am I positive that sockpuppetry is taking place. Tiptoety ^talk 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

TreadingWater

TreadingWater (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date June 29 2009, 18:33 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Benny winston (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• BaseballCap (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• MMBBTT (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 21st century Susan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• CurrentHistoryMatters (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Certain days like that (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• MindyJohnson (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wendy 2012 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 65.255.212.115 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 76.173.85.156 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 67.115.155.138 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 98.229.178.41 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 67.243.30.122 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_Boom_Generation&diff=299420831&oldid=299394160 )

Evidence submitted by Unitanode

• TreadingWater (talk · contribs) has spammed wikilinks to the article Generation Jones across multiple articles, with no (or poor) referencing to support most of them. When I attempted to cull some of these (not all) yesterday, he began mass reverting me. This led me to investigate the article history at GJ, where I discovered some serious problems at the AfD from a month or so ago. Except for TreadingWater, the above users all have minimal edits, of which participation at the AfD is amongst them.
• Benny winston (talk · contribs)'s fifth edit was to the AfD, and came only 46 minutes after the account's first edit.
• BaseballCap (talk · contribs) made his third edit ever to the AfD, which occurred only 26 minutes after his first edit.
• MMBBTT (talk · contribs) made his fourteenth edit ever to the AfD, just under one week after his first.
• 65.255.212.115 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), has only made one edit in its entire history.

Unitanode 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, Benny winston mysteriously showed up after a two week absence, supporting TreadingWater's declared intention to edit war, made at my talkpage after I made an edit to a page where discussion had established that TreadingWater was a minority of one.

Unitanode 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• After further reviewing the article's history (back all the way to the beginning), it's my view that there may well have been rampant sockpuppetry for quite some time there. I'm not sure how the tools a checkuser employs work, but it may be worthwhile to compare at least some of the older IPs to the newer accounts, as well as the newer accounts to each other.

Unitanode 23:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Furter evidence:

  21st century Susan (talk · contribs) -- older, but similar style (particularly in edit summaries) to the above users.

  CurrentHistoryMatters (talk · contribs) -- ditto 21st century Susan.

  Certain days like that (talk · contribs) -- not nearly as old, and also very similar (and equally misleading) edit summaries mentioning "accuracy" and "accurate version" and such as that.

  Wendy 2012 (talk · contribs) -- less than 100 contribs, supported TW in GJ disagreement, accusing others of bad-faith.

• These users are all very similar in style and tone of edit summaries. I'm not very experienced in reporting such matters, but as Arthur Rubin said, there could be more than one sockfarm found here.

Unitanode 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This is outrageous. I am in no way a sock puppet, meat puppet, or any other kind of puppet. I don't know any of these other users. I have not been recruited, or in any other way solicited by these users, or any other users. I've looked at many Wikipedia pages for a long time, but only opened my account relatively recently. I didn't "mysteriously" just show up today, I regularly watch certain pages, including the Boomer page. When I saw that Treading was getting ganged up on, I jumped in to help today. I regret that I was busy this weekend and didn't look at these pages, 'cause it looks like Treading was given a tough time. Now I will start paying more attention to these pages, and will strenuously defend myself against this baseless claim.Benny winston (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad faith attempt at retaliation by user Unitanode. I will quickly address it now, and in more detail later: I am not a sockpuppet. I only edit as “TreadingWater” (whether I’m at this IP address or at any other IP address). I did have other accounts in the past, but none of them are in use now (I am under the impression that it is OK to stop using one account and open another. At least twice in the past, I stupidly forgot my password, so I just stopped using the old account and opened a new one). I do not know the other users that Unitanode accuses of sockpuppetry. I just looked through this list, and believe Unitanode’s claims are ridiculous. Five of the nine user names he cites aren’t even current users. One of the other users only edited on one day. That leaves two other users in addition to myself. I just looked through those two users’ contributions and don’t see any basis for this claim of sockpuppetry.TreadingWater (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Benny Winston's revert at Baby Boom Generation follows 3 [26] [27] [28] by TreadingWater. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment to initial clerk comment; there could be more than one grouping of sockpuppets; or some of the IPs could be not-previously-noted anonymizers or open relays. Further, I, at least, have telnet and rlogin privs at my alma mater, so I could use their IP addresses if I wished to have IP socks. I admit it's less than 100 miles away, but others probably have similar access. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comment to TreadingWater; That the accounts are inactive is not relevant; they could be single-use throw-away accounts. In an unrelated sock puppeting case, over 40 1-use sock puppets were blocked. Furthermore, I don't really think that they're you. I think that most of them are the other party, from behavioural analysis. You always use the same false edit summary, and the others all use misspelled edit summaries. Still, I've seen good hand/bad hand sockpuppeting before.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: C  + D (Vote stacking affecting outcome and 3RR using socks)

Current status - Unknown status - please fix!    Requested by Unitanode 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk endorsed (partially) As of right now, it' seems reasonable to run a check on the following users, given the evidence:

• Benny winston (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• BaseballCap (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• MMBBTT (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 65.255.212.115 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

However, Additional information needed for the rest of the users. I don't see any evidence linking the rest of the users together. Also, while the first three IPs geolocate to California, 98.229.178.41 geolocates to Massachusetts, so I think it's unlikely that 98.229.178.41 is related. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

• Likely Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates the following accounts are very likely related:
  • TreadingWater (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • Benny winston (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • MMBBTT (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Inconclusive Currently available technical and behavioral evidence is inconclusive regarding the following account; it is possible, but there are enough differences to forestall the {{Possible}} tag:
  • BaseballCap (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

-- Avi (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stale These users are too old to check, but I agree their contribs are a basis for justifying a check:

• 21st century Susan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• CurrentHistoryMatters (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Certain days like that (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wendy 2012 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

As for the users Avi reports on, I corroborate his findings. ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Update

• TruthPrevailsAgain (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser) is Confirmed as a TreadingWater sock. Account needs reblocking/retagging (it currently got caught in an autoblock) if a clerk would be so kind. Leave this open for a bit, not seeing a good rangeblock yet. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Blonde field (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser) has been blocked as sock of TreadingWater by Arthur Rubin based on behavioral evidence. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bsktblldn619

Bsktblldn619 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 6 2009, 02:29 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Tjr26 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Kilervogel5 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Bsktblldn618 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Rodrigo Lopez (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 68.46.2.253 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Kurt Shaped Box (talk)

User is creating multiple accounts to insert copyvio images from Commons (which he has apparently uploaded there under false free licenses) to baseball-related articles. See here for details. Also impersonation of User:Killervogel5. I've already blocked all these accounts and the IP - requesting checkuser to find any sleepers and to determine if there are any other underlying IPs that may safely be blocked to prevent further disruption. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the user has blatantly evaded his/her block by using 166.137.132.40 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser) to blank this investigation page and the user/talk pages of the master account (see contribs). Including this IP for checkuser, if possible. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Kurt Shaped Box asked me to drop in and give my comments. This user previously uploaded a set of non-free images to Commons under a PD license. A Commons admin, Tabercil, deleted all of the original set of images claiming copyvio. That was my first exposure to this user, who was uploading under User:Bsktblldn618 at the time (see the diff from CommonsDelinker). This happened over several pages on my watchlist with identical edit summaries, so I went back to check everything over and I had therefore seen all of the copyvio images before. Previously, the user had uploaded to Commons as Bsktblldn618 (same user name as en:WP, so when I saw that the second set of uploads was from Bsktblldn619, I obviously figured it to be the same user, although the picture insertions were done by an IP address (see User talk:68.46.2.253's history for the deleted warnings, etc.). Since that point, I've seen usage of all of the above listed accounts on the article Rodrigo López (baseball) (see the history for more details). Commons admins/users may be advised to watch out for other incarnations of this user; he's already used two usernames there and they should probably be blocked as well (the user was evading his original block to begin with—see here for more info). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed - Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

PoliticianTexas

PoliticianTexas (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date July 6 2009, 03:45 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• ABQStyle (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 216.135.172.188 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Tiptoety

• Please see the evidence presented at this AN/I thread. Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Not sure where I should put this, but...

• I've added an IP address above. Given that that IP claimed just last week to be PoliticianTexas, I thought it might be of interest.
• If it's useful to someone, the history of this puppeteer can be found here. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Self-endorsed by clerk for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed - This user has a long history of socking and often has large sock farms. Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• @ CheckUser: I am aware PoliticianTexas will be stale, but I am aware that Nishkid64 may have kept some technical evidence as well as Alison (who may need to be contacted via email). Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, seeing as Dori just added some very helpful information it appears we do have a more recent account to go off of. Tiptoety ^talk 04:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Wiki-11233

Wiki-11233 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233/Archive

[edit] Report date July 5 2009, 17:16 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• 83.109.101.16 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 88.91.12.183 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• Wezzy.Baby (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Kww

83.109.101.16 continues to insert the false information that 83.109.100.230 was blocked for. Obvious extension of the range. WHOIS shows it all as a part of a bit /16 range. Checkuser might be able to identify a smaller range that can be blocked effectively. At the very least, Wiki-11233 needs his block extended.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Added 88.91.12.183, as it has taken up the cause, and is also in Norway.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wezzy.Baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) has begun restoring edits previously reverted as block evasion, as in this one.—Kww(talk) 18:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 17:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed - Tiptoety ^talk 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

TDC

TDC (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC/Archive

[edit] Report date July 4 2009, 19:22 (UTC)

The following should be checked against CENSEI as well based on their timing of "showing up" and their edits

• AppreticeOfBarneyFife (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• BarneyFifeApprentice (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• KcoSweNdnarB (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Axmann8 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Noting how each has edited their own user page and talk page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The following was one of the many impostors of Axmann8 noted in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Axmann8/Archive

• Axmannate (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Those impostors were trying to add a ban to the indef block of Axmann8. I would ask that they be looked into as possible CENSEI socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Icestorm815 • Talk 19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk note:

• I moved the comments above from the previous open case to this one, so things won't get so cluttered up and so it's easier to figure out which evidence points to which user.
• Clerk endorsed I'm endorsing a check on these users given the behavior of the users. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Unrelated to CENSEI. -- Avi (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No action taken. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.

Bambifan101

Bambifan101 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive

[edit] Report date July 3 2009, 18:34 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mnbvcxz9000 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Gossip--girls-xoxo (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 89.100.109.174 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!

Bambifan socks contributions same Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed. Standard check for sleepers/rangeblocks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

• Confirmed Currently available technical and behavioral information indicates the following accounts are related:
  • Mnbvcxz9000 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • Adgjlkhfs (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • Peanutbutter37 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • 89.100.109.174 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• Unrelated Currently available technical and behavioral information indicates the following account is not related to those above:
  • Gossip--girls-xoxo (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)

-- Avi (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk notes:
  • All confirmed sockpuppets indef blocked;
  • All confirmed sockpuppets tagged;
  • The IP in question is currently serving a two week block;
  • In regards to Gossip--girls-xoxo (talk · contribs) I will leave a note on the blocking admins talk page.

Tiptoety ^talk 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.