Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DRTllbrg (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 9 September 2007 (Adding report for User:Bucketdude. w/TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:39, 9 September 2007 by DRTllbrg (talk | contribs) (Adding report for User:Bucketdude. w/TW)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The administrators instructions list for this page has been rewritten due to the archival bot's presence here. Administrators, please have a read over the new instructions as it will help with the bot's tasks. Also, the new process for the bot is at the talk page.

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 and 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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian is in fact a sock puppet. The conclusion of the discussion can be one of following:

the user has engaged in sockpuppetry (in a manner disallowed by Misplaced Pages policy on sock puppets)
it is not evident whether the user engaged in sockpuppetry (and is sent to Requests for checkuser (WP:RCU))
the user is legitimate and has not engaged in sockpuppetry

The process of reporting a suspected Sock puppet can be found below.

Please familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages policy on sock puppets (WP:SOCK) before opening a case.

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.

Closed archives

If you are looking for an old case that is no longer here, please check the subpages and archives.

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:Bucketdude

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

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

Report submission by

► DRTïllberġ ◄ 04:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Same drivel about Chewbacca as several recent vandal edits by User:Pailman

Bucketdude edits:Skull Metric system Taco Bell Azerbaijan Potato Androgenetic alopecia Pi Pi

Pailman edits: Pi Asbestos Tire iron Fire extinguisher Root beer MacGyver

The usernames are plays on one another -- one is a bucket, the other is a pail -- the vandalism by Pail ended at Pi and about the same time the vandalism by Bucket started at the same page. And they are writing about the same thing -- Wookies and Chewbacca. It seems pretty obvious that the bucket account was created to continue vandal edits while avoiding a block on the older Pail account. ► DRTïllberġ ◄ 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be interested to know the rationale behind the delay in acting on this report.► DRTïllberġ ◄ 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please try and provide some evidence (e.g. diffs) of these supposed edits so we can see a more clearer version of what's going on with these two. Sebi 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bucketdude Diff and Pailman Diff

Same text:

The average Wookie knows pi to one hundred and fifteen places; Chewbacca knows it to five hundred and twelve, because he is very smart.

Thedjatclubrock :) 14:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

With the diff, this is obvious. Bucketdude is indef blocked, Pailman is blocked for 1 hour, and is welcome to make constructive edits if he wishes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Auno3

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Auno3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

P.W.Lutherson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar edits at Miscegenation, especially the need for "balance" by inserting a photo of accused murdered Bobby Cutts, Jr.

Similar edits at Human evolution

User:P.W.Lutherson on August 31
User:Auno3 on September 2 , ,

Similar edits at Societal collapse

User:Auno3 on September 1 (compare with User:P.W.Lutherson at Human Evolution on August 31)
User:Auno3 on September 5 , , , ,
User:P.W.Lutherson on September 6

Tag-team editing, especially while User:Auno3 is banned

On August 29, User:Auno3 commented on fact that User:KillerPlasmodium, an editor with a philosphy similar to his, had been blocked
User:Auno3 made no edits on August 30 and August 31
User:P.W.Lutherson was registered and made edits on August 31
User:Auno3 made edits on September 1 and September 2 and was blocked on September 2
User:Auno3 made edits on September 5 and was blocked again that day
User:P.W.Lutherson made edits on September 6, September 7, and September 8
The only edits made by User:Auno3 after September 5 were at User talk:Auno3

Comments

I spent 5 minutes looking at this, thinking I'd help out, only to discover that it was already resolved back on the 8th: . Live and learn; next time, I check the block logs first. Anyway, I hesitate to put the {{tl:sspa}} tag on a report that doesn't have any conclusions by an admin on it, but this can be tagged and archived. --barneca (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Already dealt with. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

User:151.199.250.29

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

192.122.250.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Leman123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Patrick Vo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
151.201.156.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

orlady 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

This is a group of persistent vandals, focused on Madison University and its talk page, who appear to be the same person. Note: The choice of account to list as puppetmaster was completely arbitrary. Evidence of their relatedness is the similarity (yea, even identical nature) of their edits. Furthermore, the three IPs are all in Pennsylvania (one is a corporation, presumably a workplace, and the other two belong to an ISP). The purpose of these accounts seems to be to annoy/harass other wikipedians (i.e., me), but they also aim to remove negative statements to the effect that Madison University has been called a diploma mill.

Some diffs from the article (there are many more like these):

most recent edit of the article (removal of sourced content), by 151.199.250.29
identical change, a few hours earlier, by 192.122.250.250
in-article complaint about the article content that most of the other edits are concerned with, by 192.122.250.250
similar edit to the above, by 151.199.250.29
in-article complaint about the same content, but with different wording, by Leman123456
edit on 14 August, to modify the same statements that most of the other edits are concerned with, by Patrick Vo
earlier edit to article, similar to many of the others, by 151.201.156.180

Some diffs from the talk page:

first comment in response to my creation of talk page, signed Exmarine, not signed by actual contributor, posted by Patrick Vo
reply by 151.199.250.29 - Interesting features are removing "Patrick Vo" from my comment and addition of some paragraphs that later were added to article
Extensive revision of the "Exmarine" comment originally posted by Patrick Vo; also adds text (same text later added to article by multiple users) to the effect that the user had made a phone call to determine that the article's source is wrong, by 151.199.250.29
Removed "Patrick Vo" from my comment, by 192.122.250.250

Comments

There have been several additional edits to Madison University by User:151.199.250.29 since this case was started.--orlady 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: User Patrick Vo apparently has changed his name to Patrick Vorkapich --Orlady 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

It's reasonable to think that all of these accounts were used by the same person, but since the activity is stale, I don't see much point in blocking. If disruptive activity resumes, then blocks would be an option, but semi-protecting the article might also help. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Danny Daniel

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Danny Daniel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

LKSJND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kaghsd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pokasfs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Calahjas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yngvarr 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Kaghsd created on September 6, 2007. A total of four non-productive edits performed on List of characters in Camp Lazlo. Two reverts, and two warnings were placed on User Talk:Kaghsd with no response. Diff in question, after my revert:
User:LKSJND created on September 7, 2007. Performs identical edits to List of characters in Camp Lazlo. Diff after my revert: . No discussion attempted. Also, while I was in the process of creating this submission, user created Where's Raj? and Edward vs Lazlo, following said pattern.

Comments

User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel contains a history of this puppetmaster, and edits for the above two users follow the same pattern: incorrect information is added to articles, but written in such a way to keep spambots from noticing; non-responsive to attempted discussions.

I've recently noticed that a new user named User:Sikjhad recreated the hoax De-Animated, which was originally created by a Danny Daniel sockpuppet. The page was recreated three other times by other Danny Daniel socks. I've also reported the incident to WP:ANI. I believe that it is too early to tell whether this is a sockpuppet or if this is just an impersonator who just happened to read some of the Danny Daniel hoaxes. I am waiting until the user makes more edits, and if those edits fit the editing style of the typical Danny Daniel sockpuppet, I will request a block. Pants 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: The page has been deleted again and the user has been blocked as a sock. Pants 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding Pokasfs: I am adding User:Pokasfs based on Special:Contributions/Pokasfs. This one isn't as obvious as the previous, but the operation is similar enough for me to suspect it and add it here. Two of this editor's newly created arts have been posted to AfD, but as I said, these edits got my attention. Yngvarr 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding Calahjas: Adding User:Calahjas, again, based on Special:Contributions/Calahjas. Two edits to a Camp Lazlo article, adding hoax material. Created School_Hero. All fits the pattern. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All the named accounts have been blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Yidisheryid

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

Suspected sockpuppets: IndependentConservative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); RabbiAdam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yossiea 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User seems to be a sockpuppet of YY. He follows YY around just to vote on AFD's that YY is against. IC's page was also edited by YY and this just seems to be a creation to stack votes.

To Codify Further:

Both IndependentConservative and RabbiAdam appear to be SPA accounts, and are new users whose only contributions are to AfD's.
AfD Debates in which IndependentConservative and RabbiAdam take the same position as Yidisheryid:

For RabbiAdam Diff (Only contribution)
For IndependentConservative, these diff's: , and .
However, IndependentConservative has made these contributions to AfD's in which Yidisheryid does not appear: , .

Just my two cents --Bfigura 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I strongly deny this accusation, i never follow nobody, and i request this user to be warned not to spread false acusations against me--יודל 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we do a checkuser to clearly and easily see if this is the case? This is a suspected case, not a certain case. I suspect you, that doesn't mean that I believe with 100% certainty. That is why we have this process. Yossiea 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that suspecting evil in others with a false unfounded accusation that i follow another user around, is indeed against the assuming good faith wiki principle and i would like u to be warned so that we can take your contributions in full perspective. Thanks--יודל 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Warn me for what? In addition, isn't odd that you post a welcome message on two users page and the only contributions from these brand new users are votes that you are following? Yossiea 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A warning not to disrupt wikipedia to make a point, and to assume good faith, and to sieze reporting for the admins as somebody who must be blocked, due to edit wars while i was not at any time involved with any user in an edit war, i do use the talk pages, and overall seize your constantly unfounded accusations on me on my talk page which i erase, i may take down unfounded warnings from my talk, if its not from an admin and with blatant unfounded accusation, It is also a lie that i welcomed 2 users, i sent 4 welcomes to suers i saw the talk red, some of those are long standing some of those are new. Yes did i recognise their red ink to a vote page, absolutely. I post welcome messages to everybody i am interested to get them invested in our project. Thanks--יודל 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This does seem slightly odd to me. Usually new users don't jump straight into AfD's, and the fact that all of those AfD's follow Yidisheryid is odd. Not sure that it's enough to request a checkuser, but then I'm not too familiar with that process. Full disclosure: I've particpated in AfD's with Yidisheryid before (although I haven't consistently help the same opinions in said AfD's). --Bfigura 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Those afd's involve was evidently heated and there is more then one user who voted there as their only edits in a very long time, this only says that we can consider allot of people sock or meat puppets, this does not in any way raise suspicions against me, i would like my name to be cleared of this by all means.--יודל 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

this user has apparently been editing the Yiddish WP since June 20, 2007 DGG (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is RabbiAdam (talk · contribs) also a sockpuppet maybe? IZAK 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it would fit the pattern described above (in the sense that it was a new user who's page was only edited by Yidisheryid, and who has only participated in debates with Yidisheryid. No real proof there, but it is suggestive. --Bfigura 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Again i have edited more then this 2 users pages, the reason was simple i did not like the red color their vote represented, it should not make the impression of one side against the other side, i believe a check user on my name should be done against all fellow voters not only those 2 mentioned above, and if i am found to vote 2 times block me from ever entering this project for life.--יודל 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that no immediate responses are to be expected over the Sabbath. DGG (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea, it is rather ridiculous that you've lowered yourself to this lame form of action against people who support Messianic Jews. That's what this really is about. You dislike Messianic Jews and you're trying to discredit all who support them. I am not a Messianic Jew. I am a Christian who runs the blog http://www.independentconservative.com/ see my bio at http://www.independentconservative.com/about/ . Notice my blog name matches my user ID. I am not a "sock puppet" of a Messianic Jew although I love them as brothers and sisters in the Lord. That Lord being the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. God who was on earth in flesh, born of a virgin, died for the sins of mankind and resurrected to sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. All who beleive on Him shall be saved.IndependentConservative 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

RabbiAdam I am me, and no one else on this board. I was previously registered on here, but I suspect the management deleted the registration when they sided against the real CTOMC (http://ctomc.info) with the people who attempted to hijack the organization and presented the management with faked legal documents to support their case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RabbiAdam (talk • contribs)

Evidence to the contrary By accused user YY

Since all names involved have already proclaimed their innocence and have declared this argument of following others around as faulty and unconvincing i will try to proof why this whole accusation is happening and the motives of who reported it to show that User:Yossiea is indeed the puppet here who has opened a witch hunt against me and this report he submitted here is indeed garbage and has no merit and part of his bigger agenda to disrupt wikipedia with personal unfounded unlinked attacks on other users:

He constantly attacks me personal

His accusations against me has no links

it seems that YY is going against any chassidishe sect that is supposedly supportive of the State..
Regardless of your attacks against myself. Guess what i have never ever attacked him that's why he has no links.
here he starts a deletion process of an article i have writn just by saying: Not in accordance with WP:BIO while i labored days and nights to create that, here u have it the last version since a gentile user deleted it on his word.

And its usually plain and simple lies

Enough already! Your continuing to claim that you address the issues does not make it so.without discussing it on the talk page . By all means, look at the talk page. I don't really see you "heavily" using the talk page as you claim . Furthermore, he keeps claiming that he does utilize the talk page. I haven't really seen that . -->Guess what i have addressed every singe detail ad-homonym on that talk page.
ruined this article with your edits, if i ruined it how come nobody has any problem with and nobody wants it changed?
from articles that you have created yourself' guess what i never created that article all i said was that its not a speedy deletion since he is indeed notable!

He is actively involved and most of his edits is busy deleting articles i have heavily edited

he does not even feel important to say one word just delete and finish . # # #
doesn't even bother to say what he thinks is wrong, just piles up on other users to delete it.
while i labored day and night to address all concerns here is the last verison.
Doesn't even feel important to say one word just piles up and says per above--יודל 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just reverts everything that i edit

in silence
or just screaming reverted stupid edits
or simply calls my edits vandalism .
or edits are extremely controversial

Even though other user agrees with me

He spams wikipedia pages with comments to other users

calling me a vandal to get me blocked or Please see the article and talk page for yidisheryid's edits and POV pushing . user yidisheryid is trying to push his POV across and I've had to have the page protected twice already . I think YY just has an axe to grind with anything that smacks of any chassidishe sect supporting Israel . -->simply because i don't agree with him,

doesn't do anything else here lately but follow me

only reverting by his robot some minor edits.

Support messages other wikipedians have left me during this ordeal against me

My Conclusion

I don't want him blocked i believe his POV if we deal with it, (and i am ready and able to handle him) and balance it can contribute greatly to our encyclopedia, but i want him exposed for what he is, and take his accusations with a grain of salt. and perhaps a check-user on me and on him will show all his names to block them as seen fit which names he was a puppet under. --יודל 15:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence to the contrary is not evidence to the contrary. Yossiea 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

wait a day and i will finish providing all my evidence, its hard and very long process, but i will expose u in the end.--יודל 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The goal of this is not to expose me but to defend yourself against the sockpuppet claim. Yossiea 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct but one of the means to achieve this goal is to see what lays behind this accusation and its background, and everything will be crystal clear, that is i will be exonerated and cleaned and u may not be blocked but definitely exposed in the end of the day, so your future accusations will be taken for what it is worth.--יודל 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself, but attacking me is not the way to defend yourself. Yossiea 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not attack u i just bring your words be my guest in deleting offensive language, i don't hate u and i do not love u i just believe your actions here has a lot to with the case at hand.--יודל 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea has to be the liar in all of this. Because I am not a sock puppet, but Yossiea has falsely accused me of being one. It appears I am not the only one who has been accused and had to note the assertion is false. Yossiea is upset that YY has supporters who have come to verify his (YY's) group, because it is more significant a cause than Yossiea cares to admit. I think for his false accusations it would be appropriate to block Yossiea. Because Yossiea has obviously begun a biased effort, that even results in false accusations against new Misplaced Pages users and that does not promote the growth of Misplaced Pages. I'm all for a "check user". It will show the ISP I use and I will be happy to submit the bill from that ISP with my real name at the top, upon request from Misplaced Pages administrators. I've already e-mailed Misplaced Pages once in opposition to the false claims that I'm a sock puppet. That e-mail also shows the ISP that I use, given it was sent from my e-mail account with that ISP. I'll even submit a cheek cotton swab, to have my DNA compared with YY's to prove we are not the same person. I've got nothing to hide, but as a new Misplaced Pages user I feel people who make these false claims and debased efforts against innocent groups should not be tolerated and such people like Yossiea should be blocked. Given my earlier comment was made on the Sabbath, it should only further prove I'm not YY.IndependentConservative 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also ready to submit my online dsl bill for every admin who seeks to finalize this. And i also am urging and requesting a check-user be done on my name, and i would further request a check-user be done on Yosia's name although i disagree on the action, he should not be blocked if he was found to be a sock puppet, since he is an asset to our encyclopedia, and evidently is active here, but he should definitely be exposed for his vendetta against me, so like this new users will not be afraid of any shenanigans if they would see what lays behind it. Thanks beforehand.--יודל 12:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Clear meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. Yidisheryid is blocked for 24 hours, the other accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all clear. As 2 other admins have not reached this conclusion, case closed as consensus not reached.--יודל 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WOverstreet

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Cmprince 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The IP and the account WOverstreet have been editing the University of Florida article with substantially identical content. The accounts have been used to "back-up" each other's edits:

(IP reverting to and supporting edit of WOverstreet)

(WOverstreet reverting to and supporting an edit by the IP)

First suspected when after warning the WOverstreet account for ignoring Manual of Style guidelines, the IP started to make the same edits:

(WOverstreet style edits)

(My warning to WOverstreet about the MoS)

(IP reverts after the warning)

Furthermore, both WOverstreet and the IP have replaced the User talk:WOverstreet page with identical nonsensical text:

(IP) (WOverstreet)

Comments

Full disclosure: I have warned the WOverstreet account for perceived violations of WP guidelines, and have been involved in content disputes with both accounts. Cmprince 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by outside non-admin: Very obvious sock. Edits to same obscure biographical articles, and very similar, very odd disruptive behavior on User talk:Cmprince and User talk:WOverstreet today; seems they're no longer trying to hide anything. I've stuck my nose in and left what I consider a "final warning" on WOverstreet's talk page, about this sockpuppetry, but also personal attacks and impersonating other users. Further misbehavior is, I'm quite confident, going to result in a block. However, an admin may come along and review this and issue a block anyway, for the sockpuppetry. --barneca (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Yes, the IP is clearly the same user. The IP was already blocked for 24 hours by another admin. Given the wide range of misbehavior exhibited by User:WOverstreet, I've blocked the named account for 24 hours as well. If there are ongoing issues with the IP, the block there could be extended. MastCell 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MultimediaGuru

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Bellagio94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WelshAspie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MikeBourne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Buridan 12:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

These nicks have been constructing some interesting relationships between jonathan bishop, social network service, and social network. when asked to document them properly for verifiability, a new nick appeard bellagio94 and reverted. bellagio94 may be attempt to irritate another user bellagio99, who works on social network and social network services.

on social network's history the nicks MultimediaGuru and WelshAspie coordinated to continually revert changes removing undocumented references in regard to jonathan bishop and circle of friends.

These users may in fact be Jonathan Bishop or close colleagues promoting an unsupported pov that promotes Bishop in an unverifiable manner, which would be al WP:COI issue.

Comments

I am not Welsh Aspie, though I felt the Bellagio94 edit was humorous. I think you'll find the histroy of Social Networking is taught to many students like me at Gloucestershire University and I feel its a shame I've had to get embroiled in this battle when I originally joined Misplaced Pages to edit pages on contemporary media theory. I know I am right about the Circle of Friends and Web of Contacts, would Gloucestershire lecturer Nina Reeves be lying to her students? --MultimediaGuru 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Possible, but I don't see severe enough disruption to hand out blocks. Activity seems stale anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

((Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Zuminous (3rd)))

User:NORDKAPP (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Reikon 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kalisthenics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.102.220.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.102.248.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kalimocho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Huthillor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vent del Pla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Continuing with Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Returnofthevogons and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/NORDKAPP. I already asked for a more acurate investigation and the solution proposed was to ask for a page protection. However, Barcelona has been blocked for 2 weeks and not long after finishing the block, 2 new users continue vandalizing the article. This users have just 1 contribution, so they are created specialy to vandalize. And every day they there is a new user... I will ask also for the block of the page, but I'm affraid (s)he will continue attacking just after finishing the new block, and it's a pitty that, for just one vandal, nobody else can contribute in the article.

Comments

After suggestion in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection#Barcelona_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29, it has been made a Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/NORDKAPP.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

After the checkuser, which came back as "likely", WJBscribe blocked all the named accounts except for Kalimocho and Vent del pla. These editors, with three edits between them, don't pose any kind of a threat, but I'll ask WJB to block them for the sake of consistency. Shalom 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

After the checkuser, TV3 (Catalonia) is still being attacked. It seems the range of ip's weren't blocked to create accounts (and I think this is the most important thing). So, I ask to 1) Protect TV3 (Catalonia) for newbies 2) block the new account Andromina kick her out (talk · contribs) and 3) Block and not allow to create accounts to the 2 range of ip's involved (80.102.220.xxx, 80.102.248.xxx) 4) Block NORDKAPP indefinitely: as I have repeated several times, this account is just "one more" of the several accounts created by this two ip's, not a sockpuppet master. Therefore, it should be blocked also as all the other "ghost" accounts. Thanks.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All the named accounts are blocked. I'm reluctant to do any kind of range block on the IPs, since there's a good possibility of collateral damage. TV3 (Catalonia) is semi-protected now, if that doesn't moderate the edit warring then we'll have to see what we can do about a range block. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Cgkimpson

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--JForget 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The account, as well as User:Ckimpson, is a block evasion of User:Cgkimpson who was blocked indefinitely for providing incorrect and false information or modifying correct information into incorrect ones in weather related articles (no National Weather Service or other weather office sources supporting it - often overestimating the Fujita/Enhanced Fujita Scale of a tornado). The initial puppet (Cgkimpson) was blocked but then User:Ckimpson was created and did similar editing to several weather-related articles (in July) and was temporarily blocked indefinitely before being unblocked. However, then came in August User:CamKimpson who've made this edit thus modifying again a sourced element into incorrect info without providing a source for his change. It was reverted later by another editor as vandalism and the user also made what look like test edits in the December 20-21, 2006 Colorado Blizzard article which was reverted also. Of course, the biggest suspicion about the account is the user name that is very similar to the initial puppet and that both users have edited Colorado weather-related articles as well.

The two accounts also share an interest in That's So Raven (see this edit by CamKimpson; various articles about "That's So Raven" appear frequently in the Cgkimpson logs). --orlady 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I originally went to CamKimpson's talk page (before ending up here instead) to post a complaint about the addition of bogus references (using pseudo-URLs) in the article Columbia Middle School(Aurora, Colorado) (currently an AFD); see the last version of the page as created by CamKimpson before anyone else touched it. I concluded that the references are bogus because they are about a school with an International Baccalaureate curriculum, but this school does not have an International Baccalaureate curriculum.--orlady 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

While the accounts are clearly one person, he cannot be labelled a sockpuppet by any of our definitions, just a user with an annoying habit of vanish and reappears after a few weeks and with a new account. He cannot be called a sock puppet since he never 2 accounts concurrently. Besides, I warned him twice upon his returns. There is no "suspicion". Circeus 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious block evasion; CamKimpson is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Strothra

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Blublublub 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The following diffs show that the user Strothra and sockpuppet have been tag teaming on the Princeton University article. Strothra has engaged in an edit war, but each user name has made the exact same revert exactly 3 times in 24 hours to avoid the 3RR. Strothra has also accused me of 3RR (an accusation which has been resolved, since I have been trying to reach a consensus on the article talk page, and Strothra not) and both user names have edited my IP user page and the 3rr case page. The diffs are below.

Princeton University revert diffs by sockpuppeteer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154909224 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154930023 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=155035486

Princeton University revert diffs by sock puppet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154786156 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154850686 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=155148330

This is clearly avoiding the 3RR. Also, although it is only circumstantial evidence, both user names have also edited the following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:68.49.28.218 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:68.49.28.218_reported_by_User:Strothra_.28Result:_24_hours.29

Comments

In the interest of full disclosure I am the IP who has been constantly reverted by this user and his/her sock puppet. I created an account to have access to making this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blublublub (talk • contribs)

This is absurd and a clear violation of WP:POINT potentially on a slippery slope to becoming harassment. User is trying to get some sort of revenge for a 3RR report made against him for which he was blocked only to be unblocked because the article was subsequently protected (per my own request). User:Dcandeto and myself are established editors on Wiki and have long contrib histories, neither of which are related in substance or topics. Further, I could hardly be the puppeteer when I was the one who stepped into the preexisting edit conflict between Dcandeto and the unregistered user. My edits came second. Note that simply because two editors agree on inclusion when you are the only dissenting opinion does not make them sockpuppets, but simply that consensus is against you. This editor, being new to Misplaced Pages, should realize that such accusations are offensive to established editors with positive contribution histories. The internal disciplinary processes of Misplaced Pages are not intended as conduits for revenge. Such use is an abuse of Misplaced Pages.--Strothra 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have opened up a checkuser request at in order to deal with this expediently. --Strothra 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If it fits the suspicious behavior of sock puppeteering, it should be looked at. And two (or one?) against one is hardly a consensus, especially when one of the "consensus" admittedly goes to the school the article is on and has a clear bias. You were constantly making reverts and showed no willingness to discuss the issue. If you are not sock puppeteering you have my apologies, but you can hardly blame me for suspecting considering the evidence. 68.49.28.218 20:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Two editors cooperating on a single article are simply in agreement - not sockpuppets particularly when their edit histories are quite different. That's where the WP:AGF policy kicks in. You might want to use your registered username to edit Misplaced Pages from now on. Editors are generally far more acquiesced to discuss edits with registered editors than with anons. --Strothra 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, but after six reverts with no reason or willingness to discuss the section it seems reasonable not to.68.49.28.218 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You were constantly reinserting text that served no purpose but to push a particular point of view. Accusing me of being a sockpuppet is laughable. I'd like a CheckUser, but it looks like neither Strothra nor I can request one to show that we aren't the same person. Stop violating WP:POINT and other policies. This is why we can't have nice things. dcandeto 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The text served just as much purpose as any other ranking included in the article, and was relevant to the section it was in. It had been there for months (including before and after a major re-organization of the article). There is nothing POV about the text. There is something POV about removing it or editing it with false information. I was open to discussion, but instead you just reverted it constantly and added false information to the article. You may want to review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The sock puppet dispute is resolved, all parties have commented, this isn't the place for the discussion you're trying to start. sirmob 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification - this is not resolved so much as everyone has commented. My main point was that this is not the place for a POV discussion. sirmob 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser was denied and dcandeto isn't speaking here, so I will in his defence. While I cannot assert that Strothra is not a sockpuppet of dcandeto, having never heard of the second person before, I can certainly assert that dcandeto is not a sockpuppet but a honest-to-god flesh and blood human being who I consider my friend in the real world - which you could have discovered by looking at his and my user pages! And as Strothra has thousands of edits, the good money is on him existing as well. What you describe as "sock puppet" behavior is probably the result of a habit I have seen in dcandeto of erring on the side of "okay, I'm just going to fix this" when he is busy and/or when a change seems obvious. "Obvious" is admittedly subjective! I can only hope that the parties accused find this as hilarious as I do - but this is doubtful. Whoever resolves these things - this is ridiculous, resolve it please. sirmob 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Ivy leaguers have friends? Preposterous! --Strothra 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He should not be erring on the side of "okay, I'm just going to revert this and add false information with no discussion" just because he is not comfortable with the facts presented in the text. That is not "fixing it." 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT discuss the article and that dispute on this page. I wasn't excusing the behavior, I was describing to try to legitimately respond to your sockpuppeting concerns, which are what this page is about. sirmob 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

There is no evidence of sockpuppetry here. Strothra and Dcandeto are long-term editors with lots of edits. Sockpuppets with such long-contribution history would be expected to have supported each other in past discussions or share characteristics like similar misspellings or phrasing particularities. No such evidence has been presented. Based on the evidence here, the only evident conclusion is that two editors are in agreement about the same article.--Chaser - T 07:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Centstrust

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Mavericks12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Sebi 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

They both edit roughly the same articles. Centstrust tends to make his edits more profane and abusive ( ), and Mavericks' edits are mostly just " were here" or " pwns" ( , , ). But in this edit in a series of edits to Jagex, Centstrust adds rather offensive language ( , ) and then ends with "Love, Mavericks and SgtBodyBag", which is often mentioned in many of the other edits. Sebi 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Seems pretty blatant to me. Basically admitted in the diffs shown. -- Anonymous Dissident 07:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling this "SgtBodyBag" guy will register an account soon, I'm keeping watch of the new user logs. Sebi 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

I've blocked both accounts as vandal-only. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Seaver11171944

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Seaver11171944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jimfandango (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gullucum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ZimZalaBim 02:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

IP has longest history of introducing uncited and erroneous content to University of Notre Dame, University of Michigan, Joe Montana and other sports related articles. User seems to be switching between accounts, all with the same MO.

Comments

Remark: Should be noted that the SSPs and the suspected sockmaster have each made edits to various other articles. -- Anonymous Dissident 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimfandango and Gullucum seem to be sockpuppeting as Notre Dame football fans (a WP:LAME edit war, but that's neither here nor there). Seaver has not made the same edits. I'll ask Durova if she wants to indef-block Gullucum, who has been blocked once before and has caused nothing but problems for Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, I think the status quo should hold. Shalom 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimfandango (talk · contribs) is most likely an attack on my user name. I have run into these accounts in the past and do believe they are problematic. JmFangio| ►Chat 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Dealt with already. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:YourLord

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

edg ☺ ★ 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

All these IP addresses have edited within the past 2 weeks, except for 82.27.103.3 (last edit 2007-07-13) and 81.157.172.208 (last edit 2007-06-20). All but three have edit histories of over 8 months.

Several of these have their own tendentious edit histories, and all appear to be YourLord, a banned user evading block. YourLord acknowleges (post-ban) a history of IP editing.

81.152.188.27

Contacts me self-identifying as YourLord. Asks to have {{socksuspect}} template removed from other IP address Talk pages since he is no longer re-creating deleted pages.

While not capable (as an anon) of the behavior he was banned for, he is currently resuming old tendentious behaviour around restoring removed (and improper) article categories (something he's been warned about )

Implies this is a static IP.

81.157.172.208

Identifies this as the 2nd IP address from which he currently edits. Implies this is a static IP (not sure about subsequent addresses).

81.145.240.57

Self-identifies in the above message while posting from this account.

YourLord edits subjects relating fictional characters with super powers. Distinquishing behavior is adding certain categories to none-too-appropriate subjects, typically continuing to do so after others' objections.

82.27.103.3

This IP self-identifies as User:YourLord to defend similar categorization to the article Stewie Griffin. ]

81.151.200.60

This IP performed the edits defended above. Categories are "Fictional bisexuals", "Supervillains", "Fictional dictators"

81.157.172.208

Defense of above categorizations. While not self-identifying as YourLord, continues to advocate/rant for YourLord's obsessions. Then restores same defense from IP 82.27.103.3 (see above) with odd signature ]

81.145.240.65

Troll-ish remark on same Stewie Griffin argument. Edit history is atypical, less dominated by comic book style subjects, but general resembles YourLord if avoiding such subjects.

81.145.241.148

Edits previous YourLord comment in Stewie Griffin . Edit history, while including typical YourLord topics, branches out into British media, sport and music subjects, which are common on the two IPs with atypical edit histories (81.145.240.65 and 81.145.241.241, immediately above and below).

81.145.241.241

Also avoids usual comic book style subjects. Typical YourLord categorization, again with Stewie Griffin.

81.145.240.39

Self-identifies as YourLord, continues request to have {{socksuspect}} notices removed. Current edit history for this IP address resembles the two "atypical" histories above.

81.145.241.75

Deleted purported YourLord comment from this page. Similarly disruptive edit history, albeit with mostly UK topics rather than comic book topics.

Comments

I think the report is correct. If YourLord were innocent of sockpuppetry with these IPs, he would not have edited to say "These are not me" in a very suggestive tone: he would simply have ignored it. These IPs are guilty of many instances of vandalism and trolling.

Only two IPs are sufficiently active as of this writing to warrant blocks, and since I'm not an admin, I can't block them anyway. But if they flare up again, please do block them. Shalom 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Shalom darling I stated that the suspected sockpuppets were not me because I didn't want people thinking they were. Notice that only two of them were me and I actually admitted that they were. Now if I'm the dishonest scoundrel that you#re making me out to be, why would I do that? Furthermore I am not a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet is a person who maintains several ccounts simultaneously. I maintain no accounts. I just per chance have two IP addresses. Believe what you will. And just to set the record straight I am not actually a comic book fan. I just have an interest in fantasy and science-fiction among other things. I don't want you thinking I'm some sort of comic book geek. In any case I'm going to stop editing now until my block is annulled if ever so this shall be my last edit. Cheerio.

User:YourLord - (just signing my name like that so you know who I am) 17:412 07/09/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.143.88 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Some self-admission, and it seems quite possible that all the IPs were used by YourLord. Since he's indef blocked, this is block evasion. However, the IPs are dynamic, and don't appear to be currently disruptive. At this point, blocking would prevent constructive users from contributing. Keep a watch on articles that have been affected, and report back if disruptive activity begins again. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Basketball fan24111

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Basketball fan24111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

64.229.16.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
We hate Iran and India (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

The Evil Spartan 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

This clearly shows that this user is 64.229.16.238: he picked up an autoblock on the IP. The same shows the same IP is We hate Iran and India. It's quite obvious that the edits by the IP are by the same person who is We hate Iran and India, as evidenced by their style: a simple perusal of their short number of edits will confirm as much (e.g., use of all caps and exclamation marks, as well as using the terms gay and fat ass). However, it seems equally obvious that the IP is the same person as Basketballfan. Basketballfan has edits almost exclusively to articles about basketball players (not surprisingly)... as does the IP. The IP has vandalized Yao Ming, which Basketballfan has edited. Basketballfan has shown a proclivity for poor editing patterns and grammar that seems to be common among young people, with whom vandalism is equally common. What's more, no one has edited from either this IP or either of these accounts before a few days ago, making it highly unlikely it's a shared address. To be honest, I was fairly annoyed that anyone granted this user an unblock at all for the autoblock; I don't think users should be able to get away with vandalizing under other accounts, and then having a good cop account against it (please note baskeballfan handing out "warnings" to users for vandalizing the same article that the IP vandalized). The Evil Spartan 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I spent about fifteen minutes looking at this case. I agree with the sentiment behind The Evil Spartan's report. It is plainly obvious that "We hate Iran and India" is the same as the IP, and it seems likely that the IP is the same as basketballfan, and that this is not a coincidence of an IP domain - but I cannot be certain enough to recommend an indef-block. Unfortunately, because the suspected IP address is already known, we probably cannot do a checkuser.

Regarding the comment that the autoblock should not have been lifted: it was not an obvious case of sockpuppetry, and with the volume of unblock requests I think the admins made the right decision. That being said, the request for unblock is the strongest available evidence that basketballfan might have created an indef-blocked sock. Shalom 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am a sock. I am here to come clean. I am going to reveal everything I am hiding since April. I did create those sock and used the IP. I am a sockpuppet of Brave warrior which is a sock of Busy Bee which is actually a sockpuppet of Safwwefe(and all the suspected socks of Safwwefe and more. But, Safwwefe wasn't even the original sock. There are several socks before Safwwefe. I been on Misplaced Pages since March 2007 and has since created about 20 socks and used the Ips as a sock. I mainly caused disruption and was lying about my sockpuppetry. However, I once realised that this is causing disruption and made over 800 positives edits on this account, Brave Warrior and Busy Bee. But, I got bored and decided to vandalise using a bad hand account again. I am revealing everthing I am hiding and I am Safwwefe and there was accounts before Safwwefe. You administrators can give me everything I deserve and block all my socks. I just want to come clean today because I really want to tell the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketball fan24111 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All blocked. There's an ANI post about this somewhere. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eauilwehnfsajkl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Adsfgbdfyjsdg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.240.55.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rgsgsefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Loopla 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Edits by each of these accounts are very similar. Each of these accounts have received one warning, therefore user seems to be avoiding a block by starting new accounts. Diffs by users: Diff1, Diff2, Diff3, Diff4.

Comments

Conclusions

Probably sockpuppetry, but no edits from these accounts in a week, so I doubt blocking would accomplish much good. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SummerThunder

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Tastetrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bastrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sxme12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Poelmean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maigad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Dynaflow babble 05:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Edits match MO of problem-user and sock-puppet edit warrior SummerThunder per his LTA subpage at Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. High degree of similarity between each of the listed accounts' edits and previous SummerThunder socks. Gestalt from all the contribs lists looks and sounds like a duck. For some relevant diffs, see ANI thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible new SummerThunder sock (long-term abuse case).

Comments

Sxme12 and Tastetrees seem like obvious socks to me, so I've blocked them. Bastrain blocked by C.Fred and Poelmean blocked by Ginkgo100. Maigad is not so obvious to me, so I'll let another admin have a look. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All accounts are blocked. Shalom 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:CrossCrusader

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Gallant Ninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); The Norse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

New account immediately starts revert warring on identical topics, with the same reverts. Potentially a few more, but not sure about them.

Comments

Conclusions

Checkuser linked all three accounts to the same IP. Crosscrusader and Gallant Ninja are indef-blocked, and User:CBM has decided to give The Norse a second chance. Shalom 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:70.143.68.157

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Gtown05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bmccarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
209.233.180.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 67.175.73.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Special:Contributions/70.143.68.157

Special:Contributions/Bmccarren

, ,

Special:Contributions/Gtown05

, , ,

this account continues to edit in close proximity (time wise) to 70.143.68.157 Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/67.175.73.93

Posts to User talk:Jmfangio

and both show significant signs of "similarity" both in content and in location. Each was added at the top of the TP and not the bottom. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential others: These are others that have shown at least one similar edit - but show signs of significant contributions elsewhere.; Special:Contributions/209.233.180.44 - this edit

Methodology: Multiple accounts used for edit warring.

Comments: All edits are related to inserting statements about Michael Vick and the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation and almost all users edit Clinton Portis, Deion Sanders, Stephon Marbury and a handful of others.; Defense - I have no idea who those other guys are. This is completely ridiculous. It's clear that other people think that those statements belong on these guys' profiles. Just because you are in the minority here now you are going around starting sockpuppet cases against people... totally ridiculous. Face it: these statements belong on these guys wiki pages. You are in the wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.68.157 (talk) 21:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Defense from the Other - I have done no edits to Clinton Portis or Deion Sanders. Your kindly allowance of a mention of Marbury's defense of Vick, on Marbury's page now, is cited from MSNC from Newsweek and is incomplete. I got my info from the Associated Press, the full quote as it appeared in the Sports News section of my homepage. Sorry if I wasn't familiar with "sockpuppetry" but I did improve your edit and then you removed the content altogether. Now it's back and incomplete. You should mention that Marbury retracted his statement the following day if you care about factual. Look at the story on AP. Never again will I copy and paste my own well written FACTUAL info back into a page; I'll just re-write it. That is something I learned from this ridiculous episode at least. Your accusation of me as a "sockpuppet" is out of line. Michael Vick has been a d*ck in my book since he flipped off the Atlanta fans. He's never been as good as expected and now we know where he was diverting his attention.Bmccarren 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All these athletes who support Vick's actions, especially now that Vick has admitted to EVERYTHING, deserve to have this note, particularly due to the the bits about electrocuting and hanging the dogs, on their Wiki pages. Keep crying wolf about sock puppeteers but some people are passionate about animals and sports and that's all they care to comment about. As you obviously did not notice, this "story" has created quite a bit of interest in the country. . Bmccarren 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this one could use a trip to WP:RFCU. --B 05:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Seems possible, but activity seems to have died down. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Myth1727

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Myth1727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Edcolins 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Same types of usernames, same types of interests in articles relating to UN officials, UN-related articles or Cuba (Davide Stefanini, Bruno Geddo, Skye Wheeler, David Gressly, Rana Jawad, Eliane Duthoit, Head of the OCHA Office, Central African Republic, Cut and Paste Officer, Marie-Sophie Reck, Dominique Ferretti, Jean-Charles Dei, Manuel Aranda da Silva, Oluseyi Bajulaiye (deleted and re-created), Nicolas Rost (deleted and re-created), Bhutan Travel Bureau, Stuart Poucher, Breshna Orya, Versailles (café), Oxford International Forum - and deleted article: Yuanita Yuanita).

Disruptive multiple votes in Afd: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Davide Stefanini, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marco Tronchetti Provera and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laetitia Zonzambé. ~~Disruptive creation of articles with disputable notability.~~

Disruptive personal attack in Ylva Lindberg : "In 2006, Lindberg revealed that she was a lesbian, along with fellow hockey player Erika Holst. This clarified, a decade later, why she never accepted the advances of many male students during her times at Oxford.".

Maurizio Giuliano may possibly be an article about the contributor himself. It seems central in the contributions...

Possible lack of neutrality: , , , , Centre for Social Studies (CESOC), Centre for American Studies (CEA) ...

Further evidences:

Rogerh38 creates the article Ehud Bandel (# 14:32, September 7, 2007 (deletion log) (Restore) . . Ehud Bandel (←Created page with 'Rabbi Ehud Bandel is the leader of the Israeli Masorti movement.'). The article is deleted. A complain about the deletion soon comes from Copy328 and the article is re-created by Copy328 .

Comments

I know some of these subjects related to Oxford and Cuba, and there may be some degree of possible "lack of neutrality", but the information is accurate and I think mostly relevant. Anyway, please note that the alleged "personal attack" (lesbian issue) was added in August 2006 by User:Tabercil, and not by any of the above suspected sockpuppets. So, the above issue only concerns the fact - in my view - that among the creation of numerous good articles, in good faith, the suspected sockpupeeteer has also created a small number that may be of little relevance or poorly referenced. CCorward

This user has only seven edits, all made on September 11, 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Myth1727. --Edcolins 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I know the sockpupeteer, which explains my interest in some subjects as I mentioned above, but I am not the same person. There is more than one person involved in Oxford and Cuba and using Misplaced Pages, and I am also interest in Judaism like the sockpupeteer. -- CCorward 18:34, 12 September 2007

Wrong, the sentence "This clarified, a decade later, why she never accepted the advances of many male students during her times at Oxford" was added by Upon237 on September 6, 2007, see . The personal attack did not consist in adding that she is presumably lesbian (I have removed this first assertion due to the lack of multiple reliable sources for supporting it, not because it was a personal attack). The personal attack consisted in adding the second, above unsourced statement (and somehow original research) which may indicate a personal link with the person, and is, IMHO, quite inappropriate on Misplaced Pages.

The issue is not the notability of the articles (which can always be discussed - I have now removed the sentence above about the notability issue which is not really the matter here, indeed), but the use of several accounts for advancing a cause, and the personal attack. --Edcolins 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that using multiple accounts is not only disruptive and wrong, but also confusing in many ways and detrimental to the user community, and we must find a way to stop this practice. I suggest that sockpupeteers should be forced to come out of their shell and use just one name, if there is a way technically to enforce this. On the issue of personal attack, the sentence which you clarified above, seems to be very inappropriate and irrelevant but not a personal attack, so I suggest you re-word it to "inappropriate sentence" or something like that. If sockpupeteering is solved, I think the other issues are therefore resolved or surpassed. -- CCorward 18:34, 12 September 2007

Conclusions

I haven't looked at all of the edits by all the accounts listed here, but it's clear that there's sockpuppetry here. The accounts seem to have been abandoned, however, and since they're mostly throwaways I don't see the point of blocking them. If any of them return to editing disruptively, or if new accounts begin similar behavior, then it would be entirely appropriate to block. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

:Suspected sock puppets - Misplaced Pages