Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andyvphil (talk | contribs) at 08:13, 2 March 2008 (→Open cases: WNDL42 created the page, but seems to have omitted this step. I'd like to have this cleared up.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:13, 2 March 2008 by Andyvphil (talk | contribs) (→Open cases: WNDL42 created the page, but seems to have omitted this step. I'd like to have this cleared up.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Shortcut

]

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)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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). This has recently been updated and therefore administrators should read over the minor changes that have happened.

Reporting suspected sock puppets

view • edit

Before creating a report at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:

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.
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.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already blocked.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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:Andyvphil

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

70.13.183.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Here Cometh the Milkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

Identical edits here, and here, and here.

Talk page discussion here

<Strangely, same diff as first "identical edit". Andyvphil (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)>

These edits reinforce a previous history of edit warring and tendentious pursuit of POV regarding the "pushing" of stories related to Barak Obama's cultural and religious heritage. Andyvphil has been pursuing this agenda at several other Misplaced Pages articles, and has been shouted down in talk page discussion for heavily POV'd edits.

Accounts show identical, single issue politically tendentious editing and talk page patterns. WNDL42 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the suspected puppeteer could be either Insight magazine editor Jeffrey T. Kuhner (under one of the folowing accounts.

jkuhner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
publishtruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

All three accounts have been trying to coatrack the Insight story angle on the Obama "madrassah" smear.

Repeated problem at a number of sites related to both the scandal and other media properties owned by the Unification Church (owner of Insight via News World Communications)

~~ I've never edited any article on any media property of the Moonies, except Insight. I've provided this link to Wndl42 before, but he keeps asserting I'm a SPA. Andyvphil (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC) ~~

Comments

I welcome a checkuser on this wild assertion. WNDL42 has previously accused ME of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user:JKuhner -- oh, wait, I see he did it again here -- and has repeatedly spammed my talkpage with bogus 3RR and other warnings because of my opposition, across multiple articles (Journalism Scandals; Obama Campaign '08, etc.), to his insistance on strongly implying in Misplaced Pages's voice that Jeffrey T. Kuhner is known to have lied about having a source near the Clinton campaign for the assertion in Insight (magazine)'s that Clinton's opposition research had discovered that Obama had attended a madrassa. In fact, we know that Obama did not attend a madrassa, but we do not know that Kuhner lied about his source, a distinction that WNDL42 refuses to make, since he is insistent in pushing the BLP-violating POV that Kuhner smeared both Obama and Clinton at the behest of Insight 's indirect Moonie ownership. This has resulted in POV atrocities like the Kuhner entry at United_States_journalism_scandals 01:021 March 2008. I am not a sockpuppet (or a Moonie) nor have I ever edited under any other handle or ip since registering as Andyvphil, so it was hardly necessary for me to comment here, and I know all this detail is off-topic on this board, but WNDL42 is a very energetic POV warrior who seems to have more time for this than I can devote, so I could use some help. Volunteer interveners invited. Andyvphil (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don;t think anyone is a sockpuppet but I have also have problems with user:Andyvphil. He always uses weasel words and does not work towards consensus on the page or on talk. I don't really care who he is but I also have problems with his motives, on a regular and ongoing basis. Just check my history and you will see a massive number of edit rv-ing what were often anti-consensus edits by andyvphil, and which were always POV edits. I am not one for admin. action generally but i think his and mine, and wndl42's, histories all speak for themselves. I would just hope that this process would get him to stop, I have no desire to block anyone or see anyone lose their right to edit in good-faith. But andy is in constant violation of a good number of policies, and frankly I am a little sick of it- like using the talk as a pov forum- that needs to stop. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sick of you too, but that's off-topic here. I'd like to ask, however, that when you say something like "always uses weasel words" you provide a diff or, better, a quote. That way anyone interested could take a look at what you're misdescribing and conceivably save me the trouble and aggravation of making posts like this one. Andyvphil (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

well my edit history for the last 2 weeks is essentially devoted to this topic, so I don't think its a big mystery whether your edits exist or not lol. honestly I think you should consider yourself lucky I am not trying harder to get you restricted, and leave it at that. WNDL42 took it to a level I do not operate much, but I think its hilarious to see you getting lecturing on two separate WP talk pages AND two separate admin violation pages, all on the same subject- consensus- which it seems is the one concept you are not in grasp of. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

nb: Still no diffs for "always uses weasel words". And if you think that what is going on on this page is that I am "getting lectured" then what you "are not in grasp of" is any semblance of reality. Andyvphil (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See related checkuser report on jkuhner here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/jkuhner WNDL42 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Denied, unfortunately. Andyvphil (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, as the Scots say, "Not Proven". Andyvphil (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My evidence is that both Andyvphil and the new user "Here Cometh the Milkman" have identical tendentious editing patterns, and both are warring over the same section of the Bill Moyers article. Also, the diction and casual offensiveness and aggression are identical. ► RATEL ◄ 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:BringDaPain

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Whatsthebignew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pinkpowerranger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--neonwhite user page talk 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Persisant vandlism on the same article

and

and made the same disruptive redirects here and

and

User:BringDaPain and User:Pinkpowerranger making the same edits.

Comments

Conclusions

None of the accounts have been blocked for disruption. The editing looks like pranks, and seems to have subsided since this report was filed. I recommend filing a request for checkuser if problematic activity resumes. These account could be one user, or they could be friends working together. RFCU will help clarify the situation, and may expose more socks. However, a request at this time would be denied as stale. Jehochman 15:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangina2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Orangina2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Orangina3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

robwingfield 00:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Orangina2 was given an indefinite ban for many months of disruptive edits - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#User:Orangina2. The vast majority of his edits were on football articles. User:Orangina3 appears to have carried on where Orangina2 left off. Edits such as this (where perfectly valid parameters have been removed) and this (where the infobox timestamp hasn't been set) are examples of continued disruptive edits of the same nature as Orangina2.

Comments

Conclusions

It's pretty clear that these are one and the same. Indef blocked for evading a ban. Scarian 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Willdakunta

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrclark (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Jrclark (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

- - Update #2 - - 'Willdakunta' mistakenly posted as anonymous '47.234.0.59,' one of the above suspected sockpuppets. Jrclark (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

- Berkshire East Ski Resort - Continued edits under different user names/anonymous IPs
- - Update - - Willdakunta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrclark (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- - Willdakunta
- - Freeskier328
- - 71.181.48.130
- - 71.168.80.203
- - 71.181.62.191
- - NHguardian

- Pocumtuck Mountain - Continued edits under different IPs and past user name
- - 47.234.0.59
- - 71.181.51.206
- - NHguardian

- Was suspended for 31 hours after 3RR violation and removing content for administrative discussions regarding 3RR. Conducted some above edits under IPs and possibly under alternate username during suspension period.

User_talk:NHguardian#response - Another user suspected an earlier instance of this user of sockpuppetry

- Was previously reported as a Vendetta account

Plenty of other examples in related articles can be provided if needed.

Comments

User's contributions have almost exclusively been vendetta related. Thank you for looking into this. Jrclark (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree I have been following this for some time and I second this claim. This user has been using socks to systematically attack User:Jrclark and to engage in controversial edits with the intention of coming into conflict with Jrclark. This user has not demonstrated any other interest in Misplaced Pages. Talk page and edit summary rhetoric by all of these socks matches, as does singularity of purpose. See also where user begins a post editing from ISP 47.234.0.59 and ends his post editing from Willdakunta 1 1a. An even more damning similarity is the exposing of personal information of other users as punishment for disagreeing with him, here most recently on my talk page as Willdakunta 2, here as Isp 71.168.80.203 3 here as Nhguardian, 4, and here as Isp 71.181.68.181 5. This alone justifies blocking per Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Protection "disclosing personal information."--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also attempts to disguise username with pipes "|" as was done here , , . --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note Also reported on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Per WP:DUCK, I am blocking NHguardian (the oldest account and thereby the sockpuppeteer) and all of the IPs for one month for sockpuppetry and blocking the other two accounts indefinitely as obvious socks. If NHguardian would like to choose one account, s/he may, but there is a clear intent to elude detection and that needs to stop. Jrclark, you may wish to pursue WP:OVERSIGHT for the personal info revisions but, be warned that your activity (sprinkling links to your own web site around) combined with public records do make your personal information fairly easy to discern. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:2008x12

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 2008x12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Hono718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 24.218.242.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Blueboy 96 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The IP blanked cited material from Gail Lese on December 18 (); a check of the blanked material determined that there was no justifiable reason for removal. On February 28, 2008x12 blanked it again in his first edit (). It was reverted, and only minutes later Hono718 blanked the material again ().

Comments

Hono718's blanking was on a different day, friend. Scarian 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Appears to have ceased action. Feel free to make a second report at the applicable time. Rudget (?) 13:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VegardNorman

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Chaldean (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Disturbing edits that seem to be very similar on the same page; VegardNorman: ] ] Nabuchadnessar: ] ] ]

Comments

Also different IPs suspected as well; ] ]
]
]
]
All seem to be coming from Sweden.

This is possible, I suppose, but I don't see a smoking gun. You might try a checkuser request to see if the IPs are the same. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know my IP? Does wikipedia share IP's without people's permissions? And it's obvious that it's wrong as I'm in the UK. These allegations are frivilous and I won't waste my time answering any more of them. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Inconclusive. Not enough similarities between the two, and they appear to be originating from different IP locations (I may be wrong about that however). Case closed without further action. Rudget . 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nbiapubs

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Nbiapubs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Incubators (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ArcAngel (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Comments

My post for the National Business Incubation Association was deleted as advertising and my username (nbiapubs) was blocked. In order to change the entry, I created a new username. I'm not trying to be a sockpuppet, I'm just trying to fix a post!

Could the report submitter please provide diffs? Rudget . 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be closed, I jumped the gun on this. So sorry to all involved. ArcAngel (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

ArcAngel, you're correct. Don't mind me! :) Both have been blocked. Rudget . 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kahmed

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

71.210.253.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.17.164.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
205.212.74.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

M1rth (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:22holberg

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 22holberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Ledgers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 78.150.23.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 78.145.145.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Roleplayer (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User reported for adding poor quality images to Malcolm McFee and George VI of the United Kingdom repeatedly without responding to requests to stop. Since then another user has started doing exactly the same thing. All users have no other edits.

Comments

I have deleted the two image files loaded by these users, both have inappropriate copyright tags and lack source information. DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There's more: Image:Rgi.PNG, Image:Dfs.JPG and Image:XFH.PNG, all uploaded this morning. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: User was listed at WP:AIV for ignoring final warning in uploading unlicensed images however listing was removed at 04:28 with no further action being taken. Last user on list still active at Malcolm McFee as of 11.03 this morning. I have listed for a checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/22holberg as although the behaviour of the above users is convincing there is no firm evidence of sockpuppetry. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Update: At Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/22holberg sockpuppetry has been confirmed. -- Roleplayer (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

User:Ledgers blocked per checkuser. - Evil saltine (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
IPs haven't been blocked due to them being continually changing (dynamic). Closed. Rudget . 22:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Blueberrypie12

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Blueberrypie12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Untileveryoneisfree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Johnhamfull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Triwbe (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Very simmilar edits after recent previous blocks. On animal rights pages, photo uploads, subjects.

Comments: This is clearly the same editor. I have been holding back from blocking because I think the editor is a good source of material, but their I seem to be spending have my time these days cleaning up their POV edits. Moreover, the person is beginning to get bolder and has begun reverting those efforts. I am about this close from blocking them again for sock puppetry and block evasion. Rockpocket 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Socks have already been blocked per Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Untileverycageisempty. Master blocked indefinitely. Rudget . 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bella1111

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bella1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Busta777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nadinemeyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yoyomamayoyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Botbotb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The Nicole Lapin article has had a long-term sock puppeteer. This is the latest set of accounts. Bella1111 was created at 6:04 on the 25, the first edit at 6:10 was to revert the article to a previous version in the process removing tags, removing cited material, and readding material that was not cited by the sources provided. Bella1111 then removed most of the talk page messages of the article ( ). Bella1111 made their last edit at 6:23. User:Busta777 was created at 6:27 and made their first edit at 6:28. On the 26, Busta777 reverted the article to same version that Bella1111 had done the day before. Busta777 also removed WP:PUI tags on two images ( ) and then in a series of edits removed the entries for these photos on PUI page ( ). Busta777 made their last edit at 4:03. Nadinemeyers was created at 4:06 and made their first edit at 4:07. Nadinemeyers made their last edit at 4:26. Yoyomamayoyo was created at 4:37 and made their first edit at 4:43. Yoyomamayoyo made their last edit at 4:56. Botbotb was created at 5:03 and made their first edit at 5:06. BlueAzure (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I have filed an accompanying request for checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bella1111. BlueAzure (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser has confirmed that above accounts, as well as some others, are one editor. BlueAzure (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocked per RFCU evidence. Rudget . 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Randall O

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Randall O (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Better1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.19.117.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Michael White 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Three days after I submitted Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson for deletion (AfD) and notified User:Randall O with a message on his talk page, he participated in the discussion at the AfD (here is a diff because he didn't sign his comment), saying Strong Keep. Then, three hours later, User:Better1 posted an additional Strong Keep. This user has made no edits other than to the AfD. Additionally, User:66.19.117.40, who has made no contributions other than to Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson and Talk:Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson, the supposed daughter of Hutchinson, edited Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson, removing a source I had added, an hour before User:Randall O reinserted unsourced statements. This is part of a contentious discussion where he repeatedly adds statements that Elizabeth (Andrew Jackson's mother) is Hutchinson's daughter, which is not genealogically verified. See Talk:Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson.

Comments

I'm not saying that, in the case of the IP, he didn't simply forget to log in. --Michael White 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment My sister became a member last night. Which is her right. What is wrong with that? Michael White states i have not written any articles on this site. Which is a plain lie. Just look at Arthur Stanhope M.P. and to many others to list. This Mr. White has removed many of my links and references i put on articles. All he gives for his support is one genealogist. He also has failed to look at the three pbs.org documentary films, in the last twenty years on Andrew Jackson, which mention his aristocratic ancestors. 66.19.114.161 (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Randall O

Let's see a source cited then! And that's called meatpuppetry, it's frowned on. And I did no such thing as state that you have not written any articles, I was referring just to your "sister's" account. --Michael White 13:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Subsequently, the article in question was deleted. Please remember that newcomers may not be aware of Misplaced Pages policies, so they must be dealt with kindly, even though they may have made mistakes. No further action is required. Jehochman 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Buggerhed

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Reggie Yoof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gollumfanclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.16.118.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cephalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Traditional unionist (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

edit war by suspected puppetmaster, followed by edits by Reggie Yoof, and preeceeded by Gollumfanclub. None of these users have edited more than two mainspacepages. All three Young Unionists, two (Buggerhed and Reggie Yoof) Traditional Unionist Voice, with the Gollumfanclub only having edited Young Unionists. The IP address has a similar edit history, although much before the other three. I am less sure that this is the same person as the other three, but it may be. ADDED Celphus appears to be the IP address when logged in.

Comments

I have an interest to declare - I am a member of the UUP. I believe that there is sockpuppetry at work here owing to the similar edit histories. This is the first time I have written one of these, so apologies for any deficiencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs)

There's not enough to block anybody yet, but there may be enough to file a request for checkuser. Jehochman 14:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Given what's been tangentially discovered already, can I suggest you guys convert this to a RFCU request and mark it for my attention? There's more here than meets the eye and the fact that RL identifying has been involved means it should be treated as a serious matter - Alison 12:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I just found this request here now and this relates to an issue which occurred yesterday. It is

Confirmed by checkuser that Gollumfanclub (talk · contribs) had an account that was used abusively to reveal personal information regarding another editor. Both accounts have now been blocked indef. No comment as to the other accounts here - Alison 12:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Editor652

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

67.86.197.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
166.217.23.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
166.217.171.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
166.217.42.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.118.13.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
166.217.107.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-- LaNicoya •Talk• 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User and both IPs contribute to the same pages, Honduras-related and Airlines. All have vandalized the same pages with the exact same numbers and percentages see:

Edits by Editor652:
Edits by 67.86.197.182:
Edits by 166.217.23.4:
Edits by 166.217.171.175:
Edits by 166.217.42.119: ( )
Edits by 69.118.13.10: All vandalism on his contributions page.
Edits by 166.217.107.91: All vandalism on his contributions page.

Comments

Conclusions

What you need here is a WP:RFCU for IP check. Two separate IP ranges, with several IPs. 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jbpadgett

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Jbpadgett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Jive01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Jive01 appears to a sock of banned user User:Jbpadgett based on edits only made to Jeffery Padgett and Inacronym.

Comments

Conclusions

The fact that Jive01's repost of Inacronym was a carbon copy of Jbpadgett's post clinched it for me. Jive01 indefblocked, Jbpadgett warned. Blueboy 96 09:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Only reason I didn't indef Jbpadgett is that he hasn't edited since February 26. Blueboy 96 09:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Boomgaylove

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Boomgaylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 24.180.37.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 67.169.63.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Icamepica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Cholga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Umiumitooti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Carritotito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Qrc2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); HeebieJeebies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Admitted sockpuppet: 71.142.64.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Blocked for sockpuppetry: Nonolip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Blotto adrift4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Stinging P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Discharging P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Belicia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

jonny-m t 03:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The first IP above started editing on February 24 (a couple of days after User:Boomgaylove was blocked indefinitely), immediately starting in on the user's former haunts, including J Stalin and Talk:Potrero Hills. The editing style is startlingly similar and includes ipa queries, removal of non-controversial content citing BLP, nit-picking about accents on Spanish-language words, and arguing Boomgaylove's position on Potrero Hills.

The second IP only has a handful of edits starting on February 23, but the most telling is the addition of a helpme template to User:Boomgaylove's talk page, and the renomination of the J Stalin article for deletion.

(from the AN/I report) On the editor admits to sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry in response to dividing 8RR edits up among the IP and logged-in accounts, saying that he/she "didn't do it all myself. other people use this computer and i aked them to edit for me." (sic). (added by Wikidemo (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)) After boomgaylove was blocked, this IP sockpuppet of boomgaylove returned to one of the articles to make a contentious edit. Wikidemo (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It was just pointed out to me that the first IP address above made this edit adding an AfD notice to the article Cypress Village, Oakland, California, which was in turn started by Icamepica (talk · contribs). Given that only the creator of the AfD would know that it exists and that the creation of the AfD and the addition of the tag share a timestamp, it seems safe to say that Icamepica is also linked to this IP address, which I believe is in turn linked to Boomgaylove. This irreverant edit notwithstanding, this request on User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous is also suspiciously similar to this edit on User talk:SqueakBox. (added by jonny-m t 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
- This comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cypress Village, Oakland, California confirms the connection. --jonny-m t 10:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, clearly 24.180.37.2 and Icamepica are the same. Between them they have been edit warring, canvassing, forum shopping, and engaging in some of the same quirky editing and obscure issues as boomgaylove and some other unnamed parties. They have also taken up editing many of the same articles as boomgaylove now that boomgaylove is blocked, including Kyburz, Kyburz, California, Potrero Hill, San Francisco, California, Point Isabel (promontory), and of course J Stalin and Cypress Village, Oakland, California‎. Wikidemo (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some connections:

Cholga=24.180.37.2. Note last four revisions here, and then this in sequence of this edit war.
Icamepica=24.180.31.2 - see above (which already means the same user is using three alternate accounts to edit war the same set of articles).
24.180.31.2/boomgaylove/71.142.64.177=cholga/24.180.37.2/Icamepica - I'll get to that in a little while but the articles edited, technique, language, and positions between these two sets of sockpuppets are the same.

- Wikidemo (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This diff alone proves the connection between Cholga and 24.180.37.2 (one past the diff linked to above). --jonny-m t 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

On Feb. 28, after about 3 months of inactivity, Cholga suddenly made 120+ edits in one day, taking up the work of boomgaylove and icamepica. On that day the editor nominated 2 three articles for deletion including yet another Oakland high-crime black neighborhood., participating in icamepica/boomgaylove's articles of interest and AfD efforts (example) definitely fits the pattern of editing bay area geography articles, nominating articles for deletion, and mens' gay and gay sexuality related articles (not wrong and not proof in itself, just a connection) Wikidemo (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added Umiumitooti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Carritotito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the report. Although neither have edited in a month or so, given the level of sockpuppetry that seems to be occurring, I think it is best to go ahead and ferret out all the confirmed accounts.

Umiumitooti's first edit was creating the Pasatiempo, California article , in which they specifically noted that pasatiempo means "passtime" (not "pasttime") in Spanish. Not surprisingly, they soon participated in the edit war at Potrero Hills, supporting the position of Boomgaylove both there and on the talk page. They are further linked to User:Icamepica by this diff, where Icamepica makes an identical claim about the Spanish meaning of pasatiempo, misspelling and all.

Carritotito is linked, not surprisingly, through Potrero Hills, where they supported Boomgaylove's position in the edit war here (complete with personal attack) and here. It is also worth noting that their first edit was a redirect of an article. --jonny-m t 16:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

HeebieJeebies was accused of being a sockpuppet of Cholga in 2007. See User talk:HeebieJeebies.

Comments

Please see this archived ANI thread for the discussion that led to the indefinite block. --jonny-mt 03:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've added another IP address to the report. --jonny-m t 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been a new resurgence of contentious edits by a variety of editors. At least two of the articles boomgaylove was trying to gut are now up for deletion again and people have flocked to those discussions. Some of these editors are behaving suspiciously like boomgaylove but I'm not sure I have enough to publicly accuse them of sockpuppetry. What's next? A checkuser request? I'm pretty sure it would be granted given that the user has already admitted to sockpuppetry. Wikidemo (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(follow-up). This series of edits is certainly interesting. Perhaps a fine line between meatpuppetry and a concerted but misguided attempt by several editors to join forces to oppose me. I have no stake or interest in the subject matter, just trying to help the project deal with disruptive editors. I guess the bottom line is, are these people for real but simply misinformed, or is boomgaylove among or behind the group, which makes the rest of them editors in support of a blocked user. Wikidemo (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: user:Icamepica has just nominated two more Oakland-related articles for deletion including Acorn, Oakland, California, and Campbell Village Court, Oakland, California (this second one may in fact not be notable). If this user is a sock we should try to figure this out quickly because it is taking a lot of effort to keep up with all this. Wikidemo (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agenda driven, disruptive, evasive replies. . . redirects a page on first day of editing--smells like a sock to me. R. Baley (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I just got confirmation of sockpuppetry on Icamepica and at least one other account. Do you think I should disclose that now or wait to see if he/she leads us to other accounts? Wikidemo (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you think best . . .I'll email. R. Baley (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

this edit at User talk:Wikidemo, mentioned by jonny-mt as an "irreverent edit" above, appears to me to be a clear admission of sockpuppetry by Icamepica. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that comment seems to me to be a bit of a red herring--based on their behavior and respective histories, I seriously doubt that all of those users are the same. I'm certainly not discounting it as an admission of sockpuppetry in general, but neither am I planning on putting all of those names up here. --jonny-m t 12:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point we're fairly sure (based on conclusions below) that Icamepica is one of a group of related sockpuppet accounts. Is that enough to block him/her? The current block expires in a few hours. I gave a notice to Qrc2006 because they had been accused here and added two now users, Nonolip and Blotto adrift4, now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. I also started compiling a list of blocked sockpuppets who seem to have something to do with this. The commonality among the troll clusters so far is: (1) trolling on the J Stalin deletion nomination, (2) improper use of administrator templates; and (3) posting phony reports of "harassment" and "vandalism" on AN/I and other administrative locations against users who are on to them. Wikidemo (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts re. tying the boomgaylove cluster to the Cholga cluster. A few patterns

Interest in Bay Area, California geography articles

Attaching fact and citation tags

Grammatical errors and typos

Wikigaming using strained and often bizarre interpretations of policy

Claiming BLP, NPA, AGF, vandalims, harassment, stalking against people who catch them, filing reports (often in wrong place) of same

Creating policy forks, canvassing

Wikignoming (often contentiously and edit warring) on matters of capitalization, punctuation, etc.

Interest in projects, drugs, crime, and Oakland, California (deleting content that seems to portray people of color, poor neighborhoods, housing projects, etc., in bad light)

I would amend that to "interest in articles about places in Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin Counties, in the Bay Area, California"; she (self-described as that gender) has edited dozens of articles on places there. I've been following (and tangling with!) this editor pretty closely for about a year now, and have been convinced for some time that all of the named editors are sockpuppets (I originally encountered her as "Qrc2006"; she then morphed into "Cholga", then most recently into "Boomgaylove". In all cases, her editing patterns are so distinctive as to be a dead give-away.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Interest in gay male sexual issues (including sex-related user names)

Careless (or deliberate) leaving of clues, e.g. making IP and logged in edits in quick proximity; admitting to things that reveal sockpuppetry

Articles with Spanish names and pronunciations

Cholga (talk · contribs) just made this edit to Potrero Hills, which completely ignores the discussion on the related talk page. I've since reverted it. --jonny-m t 01:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Carritotito? I think this is one of this editor's socks (it's in the list of suspected socks above), and I noticed an edit by it today here. Fits the pattern on two counts (questions about words in Spanish at the language reference desk, and on sexual subjects). Shouldn't this one be blocked as well? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This account was listed as "likely" under the CheckUser case, which I assume means it has a similar but not identical IP to the rest. From my understanding of how autoblock works, though, I would expect him to get caught if it is in fact Boomgaylove. I guess nothing to do right now but watch their contributions for blatant socking activity. --jonny-m t 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions: There's some serious socking going on in these; I'm working through them and blocking obvious connections. Will update this later. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To expand, there appear to be two groups of users;

Stinging P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Discharging P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Belicia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and perhaps others form one group that is geographically separated from the others. I haven't yet managed to link Icamepica (talk · contribs) to Boomgaylove (talk · contribs) but it looks more likely. There are a number of other socks as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note I've just blocked Icamepica for 24 hours for disruption; this is aside from the possibility of any socking. Neıl ☎ 12:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added Umiumitooti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think the combination of their contribution history and that of User:24.180.37.2 add some serious credibility to the Boomgaylove/Icamepica connection, as both of the first set of accounts link to both of the second set of accounts. --jonny-m t 17:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Further: Icamepica (talk · contribs) and Umiumitooti (talk · contribs) are the same person. Furthermore, it is quite possible Carritotito (talk · contribs) is also the same person: they edit from the same nation and I find it unlikely that two people from there have the same interests in Californian topics, but there is no definitive connection. Furthermore, Icamepica appears to have edited from that nation in the past but is now editing from US addresses, making the link to other users more likely. Qrc2006 (talk · contribs) and Cholga (talk · contribs) are also Icamepica. No definitive connection yet to Boomgaylove. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm for you (apart from IP checks, that is) that Qrc2006, Cholga and Boomgaylove are one and the same person editing under different pseudonyms. I've crossed swords many times with her (she stated her gender as female on some discussion page here some time ago). Of course, it's possible that they have access to more than one computer, but I'm sure a checkuser will reveal at least a close proximity of the IP addresses used. But there's no doubt in my mind that they're all one editor. Same grammar, spelling, capitalization, etc., mistakes (in general, extremely sloppy use of English), same topics edited (the Bay Area place articles and the gay stuff, fisting, etc.); even the same questions posed to the language reference desk here, mostly on meanings and usages of Spanish words. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove which confirms most of what has been discussed here. In particular Qrc2006, Cholga and Boomgaylove are all now indef blocked for abusive sockpuppetry, along with a slew of other socks. It looks like Cholga is the oldest account. Gwernol 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Angela from the Blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Jehochman 16:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the same editor. What makes you think they're related to this set of socks? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was the vandalism and targeting of articles related to homosexuality. It looks like this is about to be cleared up at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, although given the complete lack of subtlety in their edits I'd be surprised if this account was related to Boomgaylove. --jonny-m t 02:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jordanjames

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Victoriagirl (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Almost all are single purpose accounts focussing on Orville Lloyd Douglas and, in some cases, his article “Shades of Blackface” and its presentation in A Might Heart. Each has a tendency to make numerous edits to the same article within a small period of time. None of the accounts in question provide edit summaries.

Edits made by each are similar and often identical. This includes the insertion of unreferenced claims concerning Douglas former publisher:

Jordanjames
99.227.102.249
99.227.105.104
99.227.109.13:

All but one have repeatedly removed templates without edit summary or discussion (examples are not comprehensive):

Jordanjames
99.227.105.104
99.227.109.13
99.244.13.233
99.244.55.136

Three of the accounts have blanked Orville Lloyd Douglas:

99.227.102.249
99.227.105.104
74.111.248.48

These accounts share still more similarities. If requested, I would be willing to add more information.

In the interest of openness, I add that on 19 February I received an email from concerning the Orville Lloyd Douglas article from Jordanjames. I have chosen not to respond. Should an administrator feel that this email is at all relevant I would be willing to share its contents.

Comments

Edits such as this and this are highly offensive and obviously POV. Also, the person recently blanked the page again. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that the two offensive edits are not supported by Orville Lloyd Douglas' NOW article, as 99.227.109.13 asserts, but are based on words contained in a recent piece Douglas' posted on his blog. I add that the edits in question are two in a series of eleven in which 99.227.109.13 provides unreferenced detailed personal information of supposed dispute between Douglas and York University. I am not the first to suspect a conflict of interest. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have added that the edits in question were made after the filing of this report.Victoriagirl (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence of sockpuppetry is very strong, particularly regarding the identical mentions of "Nurjehan Aziz the publisher of TSAR Publications" (note the same upper-case pattern) by Jordanjames and IPs. - Neparis (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Since the problematic editing seems to have stopped, no action seems necessary at this point. If disruptive editing resumes on this article, semi-protection may be a faster way to address any problems--you can request this at WP:RFPP. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:StuartStewart

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Celtus (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

StuartStewart edits exclusively articles relating to the surname Ferrer and the history of the name. Until recently all his edits were unreferenced, and have been challenged. Almost all this user's edits have been consistently pushing a certain POV that is either unreferenced and poorly referenced. Jeanarmand is a new account, and also a single purpose account with the same POV as StuartStewart. This new user is his/her first 3 edits to wikipedia has attempted to avoid the content dispute by spitting the article (which is only 2 paragraphs and a list) but doesn't add any statement of his/her own or any new references - . Making it clear that the reasoning behind the split was to avoid the original content dispute. The fact that this new user uses content summaries, splits an article in the user's first 3 edits but contributes no new text to it, removes the same content from talk pages as StuartStewart, and uses the same wording, language and tone as StuartStewart makes it clear that these 2 accounts are being run by the same individual.

- User:StuartStewart removes criticism of his unreferenced edits about the Ferrer surname, claiming the criticism is a "personal attack".

- User:Jeanarmand's 8th and 9th edits are removals the same criticism of content. Both times User:Jeanarmand claims they are a "personal attack".

- User:StuartStewart has edited on only 2 talkpages and the similarity of this user's style and choice of words is exactly the same as User:Jeanarmand has used on my talkpage - . Its the tone more than anything. Everything combined makes me think they are one-in-the-same but the new user account is pretending to be a separate individual on my talkpage which is obviously dishonest.
- Similar quotes between the different accounts that instantly catch your eye.
  - User:StuartStewart - "Dear Snowolf,"
  - User:Jeanarmand - "Dear Celtus,"
  - User:StuartStewart - "I still believe reinserting the information under "Ferrer" would be beneficial;"
  - User:Jeanarmand - "I think they would be beneficial to the ongoing discussions;"
  - User:StuartStewart - "Kind regards,"
  - User:Jeanarmand - "Kind regards,"

Comments

Not having experience from Wiki investigations, I am unsure as to the correct format of reply - but will proceed as best I can. I beg the reader's indulgence for any mistakes in this regard.

The Charge

User Celtus has charged me with writing under two different identities, namely StuartStewart and Jeanarmand. In order not to test anyone's patience, let me begin this statement by freely admitting that this is so: after having edited since (as far as I can see in my edit history) June, 2007, under the name of StuartStewart, my last edits have borne a different name - Jeanarmand.

As I understand sockpuppetry (a term - and a crime - of which I had never heard until User Celtus placed the accusation on my talk pages), it consists of assuming a different/false Wiki identity for destructive/negative/evil purposes. As already stated, I admit to having assumed a different/false Wiki identity - but I absolutely deny having done so for destructive/negative/evil purposes.

Naturally, I do not expect any one to take my word for this; therefore, I must try the readers' patience with a somewhat lengthy background explanation.

Background

As stated, I believe I began editing in June, 2007. User Celtus states that I have been editing Ferrer material exclusively, which is almost correct; if anyone cares to check my list of contributions (as User Celtus has done with great interest), there are a few edits concerning Scottish Dress (in July, 2007), the Clan Lindsay (in September, 2007) and the Thematic Apperception Test (in October, 2007).

Being a new user in June, 2007, I read a little background material concerning Wiki practice - the Manuals, as it were - but quickly decided on learning by trial and error, trying to read relevant material as I went along.

So I was editing, which actually consisted of adding information as I gathered it, and watching the articles grow with no ill effects or counterediting. I felt no need to consult the discussion page behind the Ferrer project page, wherefore I was - until recently - happily ignorant of User 82.242.236.21's remarks about the Ferrer article being labeled as "profoundly erroneous" and six minutes later as "nonsense". I did, of course, notice the call for references on the project page itself (the only one I was interested in), with which I agreed, deciding on adding them as time permitted, but also proceeding to add new material as it came.

I believe that the time I started checking the Discussion page must be around December, 2007 - because my writings disappeared overnight, as the article was converted to a "Ferrer (surname)" article by Celtus, and the existing material replaced by a (duly referenced) two-line quotation from a home page dealing with surnames.

After reinstating my original text, but in attempted accordance with Celtus' new format, and by expanding (not removing) Celtus' inserts, a series of doings (mainly by me) and undoings (mainly by Celtus) began - leading to tre present state of the article, which I suspect of being the most heavily referenced name article in Misplaced Pages, with a reference added for every single sentence.

Celtus is quite correct in explaining that I have on two occasions removed the anonymous entry due to my perceiving it as a personal attack, and explaining to me after his last undoing that being told that references are needed does not constitute a personal attack. I fully agree with him on this, and am in no way insulted by the request for references, which I find entirely beneficial (yes, a favourite word of mine); but I take exception to an anonymous person - with no user page where one might politely request a slight reformulation - labelling my writings as "profoundly erroneous" and "nonsense". In preparation for this statement, I have studied the various Wiki forms of uncouth behaviour, and found that this does not constitute a "personal attack" but - in Wiki terminology - "incivility". Furthermore, since I had at this time begun referencing my writings, this case of "incivility" was now obsolete in stating that my writings were unreferenced - and for this reason I believed it appropriate to remove this comment, since it was now both misleading and uncouth - as well as being a bad example to other inexperienced editors of proper dialogue.

When looking at the "Ferrer (surname)" article, it appeared to me to be short enough to belong rightfully on the "Ferrer" main page rather than as a subpage, wherefore I tried to move it back - without, I wish to stress, in any way removing Celtus' additions. This attempt was immediately undone, and I had a brief exchange with User Jonathan and Admin Snowolf, who were concerned that I was involved in vandalism, but quickly accepted my explanation that this was not the case - undoubtedly because they could see that I had not tried to remove any writings nor add graffiti or anything of the sort. Snowolf kindly suggested taking the matter up with Celtus, which seemed like a good idea. Celtus was by now somewhat familiar to me, because of his activities in regard to the article - including a very sharp and intelligent analysis and criticism of some of my references. Again, this analysis is fully agreeable to me - except for a few points. I wondered at his questioning the choice of Spanish-language references per se (strange, given the fact that Celtus prides himself of a certain knowledge of Gaelic, and the the fact that Celtus himself finds it hard to believe that the family might have non-Spanish origins). I also noticed that he was very much opposed to the idea of a single progenitor for the Ferrers in Spain - but that he has not done any editing on the Stewart page, where there is explicit mention of "The progenitor" of this family, although Stewart is also an occupational surname - from Old English sti(g)weard, meaning the person in charge of the household, the team of workers - or the pen! Thus, it is quite likely that there are, in fact, several Stewart progenitors.

These slips in an otherwise very fine analysis made me suspect that without knowing it, I had become involved in a trench war. I decided, then to discuss the situation with Celtus - and after reading his Talk page, came across the fact that apparently, Celtus had been involved in several, not uncodnitionally pleasant, altercations with different editors: with family article versus surname article as the common denominator! This confirmed my suspicion that a trench war was going on, and I must confess that I entertained little hope concerning the possibility of a constructive dialogue with Celtus.

At this point then, I decided to create the Jeanarmand account - and to follow the advice Celtus had given other opponents: to split the article into a surname article and a family article. Anyone reading the present article will notice that it is divided into two paragraphs with (roughly) two subjects: one concerns the surname, the other the family. Thus, as I have tried to explain to Celtus, my purpose was to clarify things for other readers - not to damage anything or to "dodge" an issue, as Celtus believes. In evidence I offer the fact - as Celtus himself has explained above - that while dividing the article, I did not insert a single new sentence, which I might have done, had my purpose been trying to escape from the need to reference my writings.

As Celtus then proceeded to make a creative, de facto undoing of this, I then tried - in my new persona - to engage in a dialogue with him. As this sockpuppetry case itself illustrates, I have failed abysmally in this purpose.

In the cold light of reason, however, I find this understandable. However positive my intentions, I DID, indeed act deceptively towards Celtus by pretending to be someone else. And - although I did not intend to do so - I unwittingly insulted his intelligence by not immediately realizing that he would understand the ploy.

Exodus

In order to summarize: I did engage in assuming a false identity. As I believe I have explained, however - and as my entire contribution history will serve to corroborate - I have at no point performed any damaging action to the Misplaced Pages project, nor have I done anything but add information. My lateness in adding references was not due to ill intent, simply to ignorance; and my adding references does, in my belief, attest to my good intentions also in this regard.

Thus I must now rest my case; whatever the decision upon the consequences, I shall obide by it.

If this means that this will be my last entry in the Misplaced Pages project so be it; but then I must take this final opportunity to apologize unreservedly to Celtus: for trying to deceive him (no matter the intentions) and for unwittingly insulting him.

I shall be awaiting the ruling.

Jeanarmand/StuartStewart StuartStewart (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi StuartStewart, thanks for the apology. I don't think there is any chance at all of you being banned, especially since you were so forth coming which i believe is sincere. At most the other user account might be blocked. Anyways there are no hard feelings on my part. I don't have a problem with the roots of a particular Spanish family, but your edits assert that the Spanish surname and 'the family' are one in the same - i thought it was misleading mainly because of the weak refs. The main Spanish language ref seems to come from a website that lets users upload their own content and definitions - not a reliable source WP:SOURCES. You made a very good point about the Stewart article. The only reason i noticed the whole Ferrer thing was because you had added Ferrer as being a recognised branch or sept of Clan Stewart in several articles - which i certainly can't find any evidence of. On following to the Ferrer page - i saw that the info was unreferenced, and noticed that the anon user had challenged it all. I figured the surest way of going about things was use info from a certain website which cites a book on the origins of surnames published by Oxford - which i think is the easiest way to quickly find the origin of a name. So i removed all unreferenced material and tried to make it like other surname articles covered by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy. I don't think any action should be taken against StuartStewart, and i hope he stays with Misplaced Pages and works on any articles he wishes.--Celtus (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I also apologise for not being as easy to work with as i could have been. I do not want to be a reason why someone chooses not to contribute to wikipedia.--Celtus (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Celtus,

after the initial shock of receiving the sockpuppetry charge - and familiarizing myself with the "notes for the suspect" - I had certain dark visions of what might be facing me when I had the opportunity, after having presented my situation, to view this page again: anything from formal excommunication to a torch-and-pitchfork scenario had, actually, entered my mind.

Thus, I must try to communicate my delight at being greeted by your truly friendly, gentlemanly and downright gracious input, ending in an actual vote of confidence! I am very happy that you bear me no grudge, and although your counter-apology was unnecessary, so much greater a gesture it was - and it is deeply appreciated!

Thank you also for sharing more of your considerations, with which, once more, I find myself mainly in agreement; I might add that the reason why I have, after my reference hunt began, refrained from reinstating several of my original inserts is precisely because I consider the few points of reference I find to be inadequate. Still, I would be grateful for your continued analyses of the merits of subsequent references I dig up and insert - two screens see better than one, as it were.

At the moment, I am looking at the Ferrières angles - the French Connection, if you will pardon the pun - which may add another country to the list. Apart from that, I expect to be going back to other areas outside this subject (which has, indeed, taken up more of my time than I originally intended it to do) - so if I appear inactive from time to time (unless, of course, the Admin ruling - which I consider myself hounour bound to abide by - goes against further efforts from me) this will be the reason and no other. Again, your comments above have made me feel most welcome and comfortable once more in the Wiki project, and it is likely that I will seek to draw on your expertise from time to time.

Kind regards,

StuartStewart StuartStewart (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Looks like I've picked an interesting case to review for my first foray into the administration of SSP! Anyway, I've read all of the contributions and looked at the history, and I am struck by the sensible way in which both users have handled this affair.

At the end of the day, however, there has (for whatever reason, and however minor) been a breach of policy. I think that a sensible outcome is that the User:Jeanarmand account be indefinitely blocked, and the talk and userpages be redirected to User:StuartStewart. I was mulling over a token 13 minute block for StuartStewart, but to be honest, given the nature of this incident, I don't really think he merits having even a token block in his block log. _GB 13:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Gretske

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

CoachBrad08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

edg ☺ ☭ 05:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

New editor CoachBrad08 edit-wars in an article which Gretske has previously been warned about edit-warring, deleting sourced, unflattering information from W. Thomas Smith, Jr. claiming sourced statements are "defamatory". Minutes after CoachBrad08 reaches 3rd revert, Gretske jumps in.

This article has previously been subject to tendentious edits deleting well-sourced material. (See Talk:W. Thomas Smith, Jr. and its edit history.) Gretske is a SPA whose edits consist entirely of edit-warring (deletion-warring, mostly) in this article. New account CoachBrad08 has two token-looking edits on unrelated articles.

Common behaviors include deletion of unflattering information, and claiming simply (and without evidence) sourced information is false.

Comments

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that these are sockpuppets. They've both edited the same article on Feb. 23 after little (CoachBrad) or no (Gretske) previous history. Block the newer account indef; for the older account, use discretion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Both blocked. Seems pretty clear. Rudget . 22:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Miamiboyzinhere

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User was banned for one week at 16:51 on 22 February 2008. by user C.Fred for violation of policy regarding categories for deletion. Suspected sock puppet 74.163.223.240 began making edits within two minutes of ban time in nearly identical categories as Miamiboyzinhere.

Contributions of Miamiboyzinhere:

Contributions of 74.163.223.240:

Contributions of 72.153.219.204:

Contributions of OrlandoLogic:

Contributions of 74.225.169.82:

User was banned again, this time for two weeks, at 22:26 29 February 2008 for identical infractions.

References

Comments

The user appears aggressively hostile to consensus and policy and repeatedly makes abusive, belligerent comments. Believes that his or her interpretation is the only correct viewpoint. Whoville (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked OrlandoLogic (talk · contribs) as another obvious sock. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
All of the above IPs make the same edit to a load of pages. See any one of the contributions for an example. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This user has been discussed several times on WP:AN/I (all now archived):

Whoville (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that Miamiboyzinhere is no longer blocked, he may go back and vandalise the same articles the IP addresses have done. Momusufan (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The user continued on 4 March 2008 with repeated reverts at Epcot, Downtown Disney (Florida), Florida International University‎ and Sunset (there may be more). Most of these articles were protected for an extended period due to a rapid-fire edit war amongst editors and the revolving IP addresses; many of the protections were lifted on 3 March 2008, and just as well, the revolving IP addresses returned. The articles have mostly been protected for 1 week, but may be extended. Recently, as experienced with 72.153.219.203, it has become nothing more than vandalism. seicer | talk | contribs 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

74.163.224.123 is spamming the talk page of everyone who ever reverted the "Bay Lake/Orlando Area" edits...'nother sock for the drawer? 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legotech (talk • contribs)
Just added one, User:Finefox771 based on a few pieces of evidence 1) This accounts first action was to create categories (priorly CFDed) based on "Visitor attractions in XXXX" where XXXX is a suburb of Orlando. Also, the user then proceeded to stalk Vegaswikian, who is an admin who has been involved in cleaning up Miamiboyz's mess. This seemed to quack quite loudly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked User:Hydrogen iodide and added to list above. Clearly the same person as Finefox771, who himself was clearly Miamiboyzinhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

All appear to have been dealt with by admins, others are dynamic and blocks were redundant. Case closed. Rudget . 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Si2scs

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Si2scs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sff2scs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sfi2scs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Isisg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tvesuvius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jorfer (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar names for the first three and all are newly created users editing soley the article Bible Prophecy in a POV nature since February 18.--Jorfer (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Have they violated WP:3RR if their edits were considered to be a single account? If so, file a request for checkuser. Those with the same name are fairly obvious. The others are less obvious. Jehochman 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't say for certain, but I think so. Jorfer has been in an ongoing edit war with this group of accounts, which is why he reported the case here. (I haven't checked the diffs, but the edit summaries make it clear.) Whoever this guy is, he should be using only one account, and the others should be blocked, because this is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts.

Note that Isisg, who has made only one edit, cannot be assumed to be relevant to this case. The others are probably the same person. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Disruptive editing seems to have stopped, so I don't see a need to take action. If sockpuppeting resumes, please post another case. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Aesyr

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Aesyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Datzilarious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wisdom89 _{(_T / )} 07:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

According to contributions, both users seem to be acting synergistically for WP:POINT and violating WP:BLP. Wisdom89 _{(_T / )} 08:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on this comment by User:Aesyr, he appears to know his edits are inappropriate, expects to be blocked for them, and intends to IP- and/or sock-hop to evade and continue editing. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Both accounts have been indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TomPhan

URGENT ASSISTANCE REQUESTED FOR THIS ONGOING PROBLEM

Suspected sockpuppeteer: TomPhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) already confirmed/indef blocked as a disruptive puppeteer.

Confirmed sockpuppets/sockpuppetry: Sockpuppetofbannedtroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); ~~SteveMancarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~ NOT a sock of TomPhan, IMHO. This was a mistake in the original checkuser.; VandleBlaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 68.166.64.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 70.19.125.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 88.191.47.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 128.120.178.17‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 151.32.202.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 203.68.89.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 207.195.244.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 208.58.73.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Texsaxet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 31 hr block for vandalism; Texasaxet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) If this isn't a case of sockpuppetry, I don't know what is. This account was created minutes after being blocked for Texsaxet

Evidence

It has become clear that a certain user is wikistalking me and reverting all changes I make to any/all pages. Citing all the diffs is pointless as it encompasses the vast majority of every IP's recent edits including (this page). "Miraculously," people in Venezuela, France, Italy, UC Berkley, etc. have all found my edits suddenly objectionable...but not to the point where they continue follow that page. I submit that this person, whom I 90% believe to be TomPhan, is using some version of TOR to evade a block. Upon verification/agreement from an admin, I will take this to the page to request semi-permanent protection.

user:68.166.64.246: Only two edits: follow a continued pattern of disruptive behavior:

The sole edit of user: 208.58.73.71 fits the defintion of sockpuppetry to a T. This may be the work of a separate user, but falls under meatpuppetry.

More by: user:207.195.244.106, user5:151.32.202.218

Request for checkuser denied because of problems in request. Would be happy to resubmit if requested with a limited scope.

Comments

More wikistalking by the same editor: same pattern of personal attacks/comments while ignoring content. His only two edits are to a page of someone with whom he's had a dispute and continued stalking of my edits. For a "new" IP, he sure seems to know a lot about alleged past transgressions... — BQZip01 — 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The list continues to grow, but all recent additions appear to be tor nodes while the originals were in Eastern Maryland/Delaware. Each account seems to be set up with the sole purpose of harassment and has edits exclusively on BQ or random baseless accusations against me. I have no intent to continue to make justifications for each of these additions. Please simply read their edit history of 1-3 edits; stalking/block evasion/sockpuppetry is painfully obvious. — BQZip01 — 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

URGENT ASSISTANCE REQUESTED FOR THIS ONGOING PROBLEM

Blocked and tagged named accounts. IPs seem dormant. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Added response after closing: That is probably because the page in question has been semi-protected and it has been nearly a month since this was first submitted. — BQZip01 — 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Instantnood

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 203.218.45.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

wikistalking Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat edits , he followed me here, and here , and here
continue to be a harpie about a page he wrote having been re-directed a year ago.
running a slow revert war (all the IP editors and Qaka are other confirmed socks).

Comments

Instantnood is permanently banned from Misplaced Pages by Arbcom for precisely the behavior that this latest IP is doing. The IP is Instantnood, down to the grammar in the talk page commentary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It was Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat who first follow behind my edits. And after all the first and the third example SchmuckyTheCat suggested are related to the ongoing discussion about island countries. I don't know which article SchmuckyTheCat has regarded to be written by me. I don't know who Instantnood is until SchmuckyTheCat revealed at Talk:List of island countries the reason why he keeps undoing my edits. The reason was that he believes I am Instantnood. But he had not provided any evidence. The only reason he brought the issue here is that they are losing support from other users at Talk:List of island countries. Users there do not agree with their drive "island countries" and "countries with no land border" are the same concept. 203.218.45.68 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been going on about this article since 2004. Can we please just make it go away now, in 2008? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Who is 202.61.114.80? Is the current discussion about the definition of island country related to Hong Kong and Taiwan? It is difficult to understand your logic. Why don't you go back to Talk:List of island countries, and convince people why you insist "island countries" and "countries with no land border" is the same thing? 203.218.45.68 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

No recent activity on the accounts listed here, no point in leaving this open. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nationalpb

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Ctx15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.153.53.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—Torc. 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All three are vandalism-only accounts (the IP is only recently vandalism-only, but has some prior history). They edit the same articles within minutes of each other, inserting the same kind of nonsense. Examples of 81.153.53.243 and Nationalpb editing the same article:

Examples of Ctx15 and Nationalpb editing the same article:

Comments

How dare you accuse me of sock puppetry, the ip address 81.153.53.243 and the username CTX15 aren't mine - i have no control over them as 'sock puppetry would imply, so i think you'd better come up with another daft idea like 'sock puppetry' which actually applies to me. Nationalpb (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

i am not sock puppetting i swear! i have tryed to edit better! what is others doing to the articleCtx15 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ctx15 looks like an obvious sock puppet of Ctx1 (as are Ctx's 12,13,14). The IP address 81.153.53.243 appears to be connected with the Ctx's, and there appears to be a connection with the IP 81.76.76.248 who has edited many of the same pages, although that IP has no contributions listed since being blocked for 1 week on 19 January. The account Bnationalp appears to be connected to Nationalpb, and with the 81.153.53.243 IP. Another IP to look at: 84.67.16.178. --Snigbrook 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP 81.153.53.243 may have previously been 81.153.50.244, and before that 81.153.53.161, whose contributions still need to be checked. --Snigbrook 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently undid an edit by Ctx13 on ICM (polling), and the text I deleted has been put back in by 84.67.16.178, an IP I mentioned above. --Snigbrook 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Added several socks per Snigbrook. Although 84.67.16.178 resolves to a different ISP, the address has still edited several disconnected articles back-to-back with the other socks: diff, diff, diff. See also Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ctx6 —Torc. 02:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

137.159.11.132 looks to be another one, either sock or meatpuppet. It's a vandalism-only account, and made the same kind of subtle vandal edits back-to-back with 81.153.53.161 on unrelated topics: diff, diff. They also both used the phrase "bog standard" - 1, 2.

The phrase was also used by Ctx11 who awarded a "bog standard working mans barnstar" to 81.76.76.248, who was blocked at the time (and has not edited since). --Snigbrook 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Ctx11 is already blocked as a sock of Ctx1.) --Snigbrook 03:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: 81.153.53.243 - the IP was blocked at the same time I blocked Bnationalp a few days back, as IP and user demonstrated identical patterns. That block has since expired; should we extend it? --Ckatz_spy 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Ctx16 doesn't seem to exist. Blocked all Ctx accounts, Nationalpb, and Bnationalp. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:82.201.156.201

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Neparis (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

A spammer who is using a large and expanding number of Egyptian IP addresses is repeatedly adding links to three domains electojets.com, elect.awardspace.com/stepper/, and 1lo.info/stepping that have been identified by consensus on Talk:Electric motor#Spam as spam per WP:EL. One of the domains, electojets.com, is identifiable with an Egyptian registration: Abdoh Ali Mohamed, Hay Swesri, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt.

All three domains have been spam-blacklisted on en-wiki, but this is no longer effective because the spammer has started using a url hiding service to beat the spam blacklist, planting disguised links to the domains .

Comments

Nothing to say, because you just don't listen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.156.71 (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what is your relationship to this case, and what is it that you would like to say but won't for fear of being ignored? Are you the person who has been repeatedly adding the links to the above domains? - Neparis (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: 82.201.156.71 is in the same Egyptian-registered IP address range 82.201.144.0 – 82.201.159.255 as several of the spamming IP addresses above. - Neparis (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear of what to do in cases where mass IPs have been used. I'd suggest trying WP:RFCU. If applicable you may wish to add more recent IPs as you go along. Rudget . 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rudget. I'll put in an RFCU, including 82.201.156.71, the commentator above, in the list of suspected socks. - Neparis (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Range too big to block, take to RFCU (which has not been filed as far as I can tell), to sort this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:24.161.211.76

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

— Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Consistently blanking User talk:East718 and replacing the text with 'Fuck you you small penised fuck wit. I hate you. Why are jealous of Corey Delaney?'

Comments

This may never stop unless somebody protects his talk page (or semi-protects)

Conclusions

There isn't really that much point in this SSP case as the talk page is now protected to prevent IPs editing it, and since the IPs are dynamic (continually changing). Could I archive? Rudget . 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sean Leipe 3

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Sean Leipe 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Sean Leipe 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Sean Leipe 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Good Damon 23:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Name appears to indicate a sockpuppeter

Comments

Both accounts look like sockpuppets of User:Sean Leipe, who was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. There is another account User:Sean Leipe 4 - similar name again. --Snigbrook 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Confirmed. Pretty clear cut. Sean Leipe 2 already blocked as a VOA. Rudget . 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Narseenath

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Narseenath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Narseenath punanath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 123.201.4.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 123.201.7.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 123.201.83.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 123.201.83.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 123.201.83.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 123.201.83.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 123.201.7.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Sockpuppetry for purposes of block evasion; see also Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Narseenath and Revision history of Sarsanda.

On Sarsanda (diff); continued the behavior that got him blocked the first time. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Block user for longer than 1 month; block all others indef. — BQZip01 — 12:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Main account's been blocked for a month, and that seems to have stopped the disruptive editing. No further action needed at this time. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:CentralTiger74

Suspected sockpuppeteer

CentralTiger74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Thegraduate96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Reorion (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

I have reverted User:CentralTiger74 edits in many articles, (Arkansas Razorbacks and Dunbar Magnet Middle School). The suspected sockpuppets appeared started reverting the edits and User:CentralTiger74 has stopped reverting on the article edits and starting a edit war with myself and other users who have reverted their edits in the past that have broken Misplaced Pages's guideline. User:Thegraduate96 is interested in the same articles (and the only articles they have edited) that I have reverted edits from User:CentralTiger74. Suspicion started when the time are very close together to when the user edited talk page and then the suspected sockpuppet then reverts the other article within minutes.

Dunbar Magnet Middle School - Reason for my revert: Not notable and not cited

CentralTiger74:
Thegraduate96:

Arkansas Razorbacks - Reason for my revert: Not cited and opinion based

CentralTiger74:
Thegraduate96:

Comments

Sorry if this is a mess as this is my first time submitting a sockpuppet request. The sockpuppet and sockpuppeter has started a small edit war. I believe the user has good intentions, but they repeatedly broken Misplaced Pages's policy and created a sockpuppet without re-editing their edits to adhere to the policies. I have stopped reverting to adhere to the three revert policy and to prevent a more complicated edit war with the user.

-I am sorry for the sockpuppetry. I won't do it again. I was just kind of mad that they wouldn't let me put my article on the pages, but I now realize why they wouldn't. I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CentralTiger74 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Dismiss as long as user continues to work within the rules of Misplaced Pages. WP:BITE. This can always be revisited if it resurfaces. — BQZip01 — 12:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur w/BQzip01, no further action needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Eliko

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Manstorius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SSnormal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Blocked
Ostiferia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Blocked
Partigenary‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Blocked

Report submission by

— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All four puppets have edited almost exclusively on a small number of articles (List of countries by Human Development Index‎, Developed country‎, and List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎), which are articles that Eliko has also edited extensively on.

Manstorius was created on June 1 and immediately began participating in an edit war on List of countries by Human Development Index that Eliko had been involved in (Eliko: , Manstorius: ). Eliko's edit summary indicated that he was aware of 3RR, so I suspect Manstorius was created to avoid that. Interestingly, Manstorius tried to create the appearance of an editor trying to find a compromise between Eliko and the other editors , a pattern which would show up again later.

All four puppets were involved in an edit war on the Developed country article on June 24 in a span of less than four hours, presumably to avoid 3RR limits:

Eliko reverts to his own preferred edit
Manstorius reverts to Eliko
Manstorius reverts again
Manstorius third revert
Partigenary‎ created
Partigenary‎ first revert
Partigenary‎ second revert
SSnormal created
SSnormal first revert
SSnormal second revert
SSnormal third revert
Partigenary‎ third revert
Ostiferia created
Ostiferia first revert

About four hours later, Ostiferia made his second revert , and a few hours after that, Eliko made an actual change to the article which Manstorius later reverted back to twice that day .

In another incident, Ostiferia was reported to for edit warring on List of countries by Human Development Index . Very troublesome is this edit to WP:AN/3RR, where Manstorius shows up to offer the "compromise position", but also to defend Ostiferia by claiming that his reverts of multiple editors is justified because the opposing editor was also reverting multiple different editors, namely Ostiferia and SSnormal. This diff is very interesting, as Manstorius gets himself and SSnormal confused with each other in his WP:AN/3RR message! The pattern of edits starting November 29 is also interesting, as Manstorius usually shows up 3-4 minutes after an Ostiferia/SSnormal/Eliko edit, tweaking it towards a "compromise" . Manstorius has also edited on Ostiferia's talk page to create the illusion of multiple editors . This "good hand"/"bad hand" operation of Manstorius seems to be used as a way of partially achieving Eliko's goals.

All five users share a similar style with respect to edit summaries, often using "." as the complete summary ( ) and talk page comments, with an excessive use of bold text (Eliko, from my talk page ; SSnormal, from my talk page ; Partigenary ).

Most damaging of all is this edit, where Manstorius claims responsibility for all sockpuppets except Eliko. Based on that admission, I have just blocked Ostiferia, Partigenary, and SSnormal.

However, the issue at hand today, is that Eliko in currently in the middle of an edit war with User:CieloEstrellado on List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Yesterday, I protected the page as each of these two editors had been making blind reverts to the list, even after I had warned them both. A discussion ensued on my talk page and the three of us reached an agreement that if I unprotected the page again, the two of them would work on a consensus on a sandbox page and stop the disruption on the mainspace article. The terms of this agreement included a promise that I would block either of them if they edited the main article before that consensus was reached on the sandbox version. After that agreement, SSnormal made an edit to the article , so if it is determined that Eliko is the same as Manstorius/SSnormal/Ostiferia/Partigenary‎, they should all be blocked. I would like another admin to review this and issue any blocks as I am now somewhat involved.

To summarize: SSnormal, Ostiferia, and Partigenary‎ have edited along the same lines as Eliko, whereas Manstorius, at first glance, appears to edit differently. However, Manstorius has admitted to being the puppet master for SSnormal, Ostiferia, and Partigenary‎. Evidence shows that the lot of them operate to avoid 3RR that a single user would (although Ostiferia got reported once), and to avoid blocking. I seek to establish the link between Eliko and Manstorius et. al.

Comments

Eliko's testimony:

I've agreed to avoid editing the article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, and I've been obeying the agreement as far.
I've no connection to any of the users whose versions follow my last version in that article: neither Andrwsc, nor Kekrops, SSnormal, Anrafifi264, Laurens-af, Zaindi87, Nikepatch.
Nor do I have any connection to Manstorius, nor to any of his sock puppets: SSnormal, Ostiferia, Pertigenary.
Really, I've been using bold letters as well as a single dot (the parentheses are not mine but rather are Misplaced Pages's), and Manstorius, too, (incl. his sock puppets) has; but Misplaced Pages is full of such a style usage, and I learnt this style from many other users, not from Manstorius (nor from his sock pupptes). I don't know where Manstorius learnt this style from: maybe from me (note that we edited common articles), maybe from all of the many other users - as I did, but as far as I'm concerned - I know one simple fact: I've never had any connection to him nor to any of his sock puppets.

Having read carefully all of your evidence, I - too - made an investigation (upon your investigation), but before I present here what I've found out - let me say that I'm quite disappointed with the incosistent way you've treated the whole issue: you've blocked SSnormal et al., but you haven't blocked me - nor Manstorius, why? You should decide whether you believe that guy (Manstorius): if you do, i.e. you believe Manstorius's personal testimony about his personal link with SSnormal et al., thus turning your suspicion against SSnormal et al. into a proved suspicion - i.e. into your resolution to block SSnormal et al., then you - as an consistent person - should have also believed Manstorius's personal testimony about me, thus turning your suspicion against me into a refuted suspicion and turning the following fact (below in section no. 1) into a proof for my innocence, i.e. into a resolution stating that Eliko and Manstorius are two different persons. However, you decided, on one hand, to adopt that part of Manstorius's personal testimony which enabled you to block SSnormal et al., but - on the other hand - to ignore the other part (of Manstorius's personal testimony) which could enable you to declare that Eliko is innocent. To sum up: I'm very disappointed with the inconsistent way you've treated the whole issue.
Now, let me present the results of my investigation: You've indicated two articles: List of countries by Human Development Index, and Developed country, which made you think that I am Manstorius (and/or his sock puppets). I've checked them out, and I've found out - as follows:

List of countries by Human Development Index: Really, Manstorius's user page was created while I was involved in a controversy some months ago (in the article: List of countries by Human Development Index). However, as opposed to what you've indicated, Manstorius's first contributions were for another article in which I was not involved, and even when he later contributed to the article List of countries by Human Development Index in which I was involved - Manstorius had never reverted to my version - but rather had a definitely different position than mine! ! As you can see, my version proposed the value 0.919, while Manstorius's version proposed the number 0.922 (which I rejected - as you can see here), while other users proposed other numbers, e.g. Kardrak (here) - who proposed the number: 0.905 (note that I and Kardrak are two different persons and I'm ready to prove that if you just ask me to). I consider that as a clear proof for Manstorius's being a different person than me (even when assuming that you inconsistently avoid believing Manstorius's direct personal testimony about me).
Developed country: Really, in my second controversy three weeks later (in the article Developed country), some users had the same position as mine: Manstorius (and/or his sock puppets) was one of them, but he was not the only one: Also Andrew pmk had the same position - which made Andrew pmk revert back to the same version, as you can see here, and also Mike Rosoft (being an administrator) had that position - which made Mike Rosoft revert back to my version, as you can see here. Note that neither Mike Rosoft nor Andrew pmk is Eliko, and I'm ready to prove that if you just ask me to! Furthermore, when Manstorius reverted in that article (Developed country) - he claimed (in the summary edit) to have reverted to "Mike Rosoft's version", although they are (probably) two different persons (and I'll try to prove that if you just ask me to), so if you're consistent - you should have declared that in the same way as Manstorius's revert to "Mike Rosoft's version" is by no means an evidence about Mike Rosoft's identity, so Manstorius's revert to my version is by no means an evidence about Eliko's identity! Furthermore, if you were consistent then you should have declared that in the same way as neither Mike Rosoft nor Andrew pmk is Eliko (and I'm ready to prove that if you just ask me to) - despite their having shared the same position as Eliko's in that controversy (and despite their having reverted back to Eliko's version), so Manstorius can be another person - despite his having shared the same position shared by the other three! Furthermore: I've found out that when Manstorius reverted back to Mike Rosoft's version (being the same version as mine), I had had just two reverts in the past 24 hours, so if I had really wanted to revert - I could have done that without "Manstorius's help"! But even if I had had three reverts - it would just have proved that I obey the 3RR, nothing else! I shouldn't be blamed for other users' help!

However, you are absolutely correct: I and Manstorius have been using bold letters and a single dot; in the same way as many other legitimate users have. I don't know where Manstorius learnt this style from: maybe from me (note that we edited common articles), maybe from all of the many other users - as I did, but as far as I'm concerned - I know one simple fact: I've never had any connection to him nor to any of his sock puppets.

Eliko (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This case looks pretty convincing, the diffs provided are excellent and do show the majority of comparisons between the five (three of which have been subsequently blocked). I am however, referring the case to checkuser to investigate further. Hopefully this may enlighten this a little further and may also help with the MEDCAB case currently open. Rudget (?) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What "convinces" you? Since the beginning (see secion no. 2 above) - I've admitted that the diffs (in the article Developed country) are really identical, i.e. Manstorius really reverted back to the same version; However, also other users reverted back to the same version! e.g. Andrew pmk reverted back to the same version, as you can see here, and also Mike Rosoft (being an administrator) reverted back to my version, as you can see here, so why did you ignore those diffs? Note that neither Mike Rosoft nor Andrew pmk is Eliko, and I'm ready to prove that if you just ask me to! Furthermore, when Manstorius reverted in that article (Developed country) - he claimed (in the summary edit) to have reverted to "Mike Rosoft's version", although they are (probably) two different persons (and I'll try to prove that if you just ask me to), so if you're consistent - you should have declared that in the same way as Manstorius's revert to "Mike Rosoft's version" is by no means a "convincing case" about Mike Rosoft's identity, so Manstorius's revert to my version is by no means an "convincing case" about Eliko's identity! Furthermore, if you were consistent then you should have declared that in the same way as neither Mike Rosoft nor Andrew pmk is Eliko (and I'm ready to prove that if you just ask me to) - despite their having shared the same position as Eliko's in that controversy (and despite their having reverted back to Eliko's version), so Manstorius can be another person - despite his having shared the same position shared by the other three!
Why did you ignore the clear proof (in secion no. 2 above) for Mansorius's being a different person than me?
The MEDCAB case is not about individuals, but rather about the more correct version which should be used by Misplaced Pages. To sum up: no connection between The MEDCAB case (dealing with a topic) and the current case (dealing with individuals).

Eliko (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Only the two main accounts, Eliko and Manstorius, are not blocked and Manstorius has not edited in almost a month. As there is room for doubt, let's watch and see what happens. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Anibalojeda

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Anibalojeda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: MurderManifest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

JD554 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Looking at User talk:Anibalojeda you will see that the user has been unsuccessfully trying to create an article about he non-notable band Murder Manifest. A new user seems to have been created (User:MurderManifest) to also create the exact same articles.

Comments

I've blocked MurderManifest (talk · contribs) for this and the re-creation of deleted material (including User:MurderManifest) as well as a promotional username. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Everything appears to have been sorted by Wknight94 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Rudget . 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bald Eeagle

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bald Eeagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Prolog (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

These two accounts have been changing references of "Linux" to "GNU/Linux", the naming convention promoted by the FSF and its supporters (see GNU/Linux naming controversy), on the same articles; Linux and GNewSense, as well as revert warring on the controversy article. Accounts have very similar one-edit userpages; User:Bald Eeagle's says "My user page. Under construction.", User:Lightedbulb's says "My user page. In preparation.". Both accounts have attacked User:Thumperward on Talk:Linux and Talk:GNewSense, writing about "the truth" with lowercase "wikipedia",. Bald Eeagle was inactive for two weeks, but became active today reverting to Lightedbulb's preferred revisions, after Lightedbulb had got into several edit wars and was warned about 3RR on his user talk page, and later on Talk:Linux.

Comments

Comment/Agree: I've had run-ins with both Bald Eeagle and Lightedbulb, and have wondered before if they were sock puppets. Both have a tendency to go on and on about why it should be GNU/Linux and not Linux, and to personally attack those that hold a different opinion to themselves. Also, I don't think I've ever seen both users on at the same time. ~~ 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I'm a bit suspicious of Gronky (talk · contribs) being part of this same set. His editing pattern, at least for the last day, is almost exactly the same as Lightedbulb. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that Gronky is part of this set. I think he is just another "concerned GNU/Linux user". ~~ 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Agreed. His recent "per Jimbo's comment" edit spree was not a good idea, but I don't believe he is in any way connected to these accounts. Prolog (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    - I'm disappointed that my partial (less than 5%) rollback of Thumperward's systematic removal of "GNU/Linux" from Misplaced Pages was reverted, but I do agree that putting "per Jimbo's comment" in the edit summary was stupid. As for me being part of any sockpuppet gang, I also agree that I am not :-) and a glance at my comments on article talk pages should easily confirm that my behaviour/style is completely different --Gronky (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment/Agree: The similarities are so blatant; both the accounts are obviously operated by the same person. They edit the same articles in the same style, and post comments to the same pages in the same style. In addition to the evidence above, both accounts have used the same attacking style against Thumperward (Chris Cunningham); personal abuse with a fixation on the fact that he works for Sun Microsystems. A selection: Lightedbulb: Bald Eeagle: . Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment/Agree Their userpages are so similar it's kind of obvious. And does this guy know we're onto him? There's no template on his page. THE KC (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
- Yes, both users have the required sock puppetry templates on their talk pages. ~~ 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I have to agree this is a pretty good case. They have had plenty of time to respond too. Both blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:216.15.87.127

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Chengwes (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Both vandalized Kueth Duany in the same manner. Under "awards" section, sockmaster and sockpuppet list "Darkest Man Alive."

Comments

Also request that Kueth Duany be semi-protected for a short period of time.

Conclusions

No blocks. IPs appear to be dynamic and page is no longer being targeted. Feel free to make a second report when applicable. Rudget . 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Vr

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Delhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dineshdsouza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cbhatia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Banarsibabu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Shonali2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Colin° 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Previous socks: AnneOswald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), KenClarke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and AbdulYasser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Previous Checkuser.

Three of these participated at the deletion review of Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad: Vr, Delhite, Cbhatia
All six participated at current AfD for Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD: Vr, Dineshdsouz, Delhite, Cbhatia, Shonali2000, (see below for Banarsibabu)
Contributions to talk pages and discussions involve the insertion of many newlines and generally use more blank lines than desirable (above diffs and contributions).
Identical spelling mistakes involving letter transpositions. "teh" "thsi" "woudl"
No space after punctuation such as . or , causing sentences to run on.
Previous three sockpuppets were AnneOswald, KenClarke and AbdulYasser (see above). Those sockpuppets had pages saying "I a a doctoral student in mathematics in Texas", "I am a graduate student at Stanford" and "I am a science teacher in Peshawar,Pakistan" respectively. User:Dineshdsouza's page says "I am an author of Goan origin based in the US.". User:Shonali2000's page says "I am a student of Lady Shriram College,Delhi". Cbhatia's wrote to Dbachmann "I am a student from Chennai based in Pune". User talk:Delhite says "I am a Delhi resident and a student of science at the Jawaharlal Nehru University." User:Vr wrote "I am a biochmist holding a PhD.". There's some similarity here (especially Dineshdsouze, Shonali2000 and the two previous socks), plus locations should be possible to confirm if required.
Dineshdsouza has only made two edits, both today. But the user page is identical in format to two previous Vr socks and the AfD contribution has similar transposition typos and lack of whitespace after punctuation. I strongly suspect that this is not the "New York Times Best Selling Author" Dinesh D'Souza, as I'm sure he has better things to do than defend crap books and the user page says "His website:" before providing a link. A bit of a give-away?
Shonali2000 was only created yesterday and has made brief contributions to other AfDs before showing the same command of keyboard skills as the others on the 1000 Scientists AfD.

Common interests:

Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD. All six accounts have contributed to the current AfD. Delhite and Vr contributed to the previous AfD. Previous sockpuppet AnneOswald edited that article's talk page here, KenClarke edited multiple times and so did AbdulYasser. So has Delhite multiple times. Vr has edited it off an on since 2006.
Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad Three accounts edited the deletion review. Cbhatia added Prasad's name to May 10 as a birthdate. Delhite added him to the Rajendra Prasad article in January 2008. Vr added an almost identical paragraph back in September 2006.
John Funder Delhite has added statements accusing Funder of scientific misconduct during August 2006. He added Funder to the Scientific misconduct article, then edited that article with details. Vr started editing Funder's article at the same time and has continued to attack Funder with many futher edits.
List of Kayasthas. Cbhatia has edited once, Vr has multiple times.
Mani Shankar Aiyar Cbhatia has edited twice, Vr has multiple times.
List of figures in psychiatry. Delhite has edited to add Prasad. Vr has edited the list multiple times.

Comments

I have added another obvious sock, User:Banarsibabu. This new account has made a handful of edits today - one of them to the current AfD; another of them was to Dineshdsouza's userpage with a link to "my website" - the sockmaster had obviously forgotten which account he was logged in with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain99 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 February 2008

The userpage is "I am a 18 year old school student in Banaras", which sounds rather similar to the other socks. Colin° 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, true. Actually the first version read "I am a 8 year old school student in Banaras". (The next edit added a decade.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously unacceptable; we have commenting on talk pages with multiple accounts to make his views seem better supported than they are, we have multiple !votes on AfDs and DRVs, and we have the apparent impersonation of a living person. Vr has been warned about the use of socks before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain99 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 February 2008

If confirmed, Vr's sock puppetry has been ongoing for nearly two years, despite previous warnings. His edits involve defaming one scientist and promoting another discredited "scientist". He has used socks to make multiple edits/reverts on articles and to stack !votes on several AfDs, starting with the List of Indians. Impersonating a notable person is the last straw IMO and he should not be let off lightly. Colin° 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In all of these user accounts I see a similarity of interest in (limited) articles, very strong similarity in the edits themselves along with much alikened English language syntax and talk page use, all of which rather strongly hints at sockpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The syntax seems unremarkable to me. What strikes me instead is the proneness to typing errors. (Together with idiosyncratic layout and narrow concerns.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Typing errors too, as with the missing spaces (not hitting the spacebar, or a somewhat broken spacebar) which seems to be common among them. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if these are socks, but at least their comments in the 1000 scientists AfD and DR seem indistinguishable to me. At the very least, they must have gone to the same typing school. --Itub (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I received a rather distressed message from

The evidence is clearly (and I think convincingly) set out at the top of this page. Technical expertise, or lack thereof, isn't an issue: there has been no request for checkuser. But I've dropped you a line on your talk page anyway. -- Hoary (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from teh ones Colin has nted I have made at least 500 edits.I am requesting checkuser-and if found unconvincing,I woudl liek Colin to be warned.(Delhite (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

I think the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry worries outlined above have been put fairly. Delhite, I see less than 100 edits to a very limited number of user, project and article pages in your contribution history. What am I missing? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the deleted edits. Yes, "Delhite" has made fewer than 100 preserved edits. He or she has also made fewer than 20 deleted edits, of which all are to Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad, Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD, Talk:Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD and Zafar Agha. Perhaps "Delhite" was thinking of edits made by some other username(s). -- Hoary (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Without a shred of irony, in assuming good faith that Delhite does indeed remember making "at least 500 edits," the rather inescapable answer would be, most were made with other user accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I note the sarcasm!The fact is that I was editing without registering for about 10 months before I was advised to do so! But I sincerely hope now that user check would be initiated!

(Delhite (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

WP:RFCU should be submitted here to look deeper. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

RFCU found a sock farm. The master and all socks and others blocked indef and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

Reporting suspected sock puppets

Open cases

Archives