Botnet

Welcome to Sockpuppet investigations (SPI). Please see the sockpuppet policy for detailed definitions and descriptions of what sockpuppetry is and is not. This is the place to seek help when a user is likely to have violated that policy, breached restrictions (eg blocks or bans) using multiple accounts, for any requests where multiple accounts or underlying IP needs checking, or for any requests via the CheckUser tool.

Skip to: Submitting an SPI case • open cases • cases awaiting CheckUser

If the evidence is sensitive, privacy is needed, or if it involves sock puppetry by an administrator, seek advice by email from a Checkuser or the Arbitration Committee first. Private information, emails, logs, etc, may not be posted on the wiki; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first.

CheckUser

CheckUser is a tool that allows authorized users to look at technical information left when a user/IP makes an edit. This technical information can help determine if a single person is using more than one account. Use of the checkuser tool is governed by policies on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation levels. For more information, see the Foundation policy, the local policy and the Foundation privacy policy.

When not to request CheckUser

There must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for checkuser without evidence will be declined, because CheckUser is not for fishing. CheckUser is also not magic pixie dust, and should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry, Stale account(s) that have not edited for many months, or cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter (see also the duck test).

Making Quick CheckUser requests

See #Quick CheckUser requests. This page may also be used for other CheckUser requests unrelated to sock abuse, such as:

• Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, and an IP block is needed
• Collateral damage checks for proposed IP range blocks
• Purported suicide notes and threats of harm (try IRC first in an emergency, either at #wikipedia-en-spi, or via your browser)

Evidence and SPI case guidelines

You need to provide evidence showing the accounts or IPs are likely to be sock-puppets and acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner, which other users will then assess. If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks. Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts or IPs concerned. This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected.

Some general guidelines when making your SPI case:

• Remember to always assume good faith when possible.
• After submitting a case, consider notifying the suspected accounts by adding {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talk pages. Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection.
• Do not use any section headers ("===") on case pages as this will break the report templates and mess up the formatting.
• Keep it simple. Simple, concisely presented evidence leads to a quickly resolved case.

• After administrators and/or checkusers have reviewed the case, it will be closed and archived by an SPI clerk. (Administrators may mark a case closed using {{SPIclose}}.)

Submitting an SPI case

Create the case by replacing "SOCKMASTER" in the white box below with the user name of the oldest account, or the previous case name, and then clicking the button under the box. Note that these buttons may be used either for creating a new case or reopening an old one. For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the white box, and then click the button under the box. You will be taken to the next page, where there is a form to fill out giving the details of your report.

Administrators' instructions

If you wish to help out at SPI, but are unsure how to get started, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions. If you need help with anything, please ask one of the active SPI clerks.

See also

• SPI clerks and clerking
• List of indicator icons used at SPI
• Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser – predecessors to SPI which both ceased as of January 2009
• The SPI bot's edits.

MidnightBlueMan

MidnightBlueMan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

18 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• LemonMonday (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by HighKing

There's a host of sock accounts on this issue and it's difficult to uncover most of them as they appear to be very expert at covering their tracks. LemonMonday has been dormant for months, but in the last week has become active once again, with the same POV and editing styles as the other editors. If it had stayed dormant, I wouldn't have filed this, but note that it also appears to fit with the modus operandi of whoever the sock master is. It may even be that there are more than one Sock Master. All the accounts are basically SPA's editing on "British Isles" related topics, all sharing the exact same POV. I've focused a lot on the timelines of creation and first editing as they strongly show an undeniable relationship as follows:

• 25th July 2008 at 11:28 - MF account created. Edits on 25th and 26th.
• 25th July 2008 at 11:08 - User:Blue Bugle created. This account was reported as a sock of LemonMonday by me at the time but the evidence was inconclusive. (shows a link to BB and MF)
• 29th July 2008 at 11:38 - LM account created. Edits on 29th.
• No Edits for either in August 2008
• No Edits for either for nearly all of Sept 2008. Maybe they were away on hols?
• 30th Sept 2008 8:23 to 8:33, 10:02 to 10:08, LM edits British Isles and Talk page.
• 30th Sept 2008 16:35, Blue Bugle edits for the first time (shows a link to BB and LM) and reverts me on Radio Luxembourg (English), Doyle, Rainforest, and Alexander Thom.
• 30th Sept 2008 17:55, 19:58, 20:00 to 20:09, 21:05 to 21:56 - IP address 86.0.92.239 edits on British Isles, as well as reverts me on Tide, Gildas, Glowworm, Alexander Thom, and Carleton S. Coon.
• 30th Sept 2008 22:56, MBM account created (Possibly acknowledged as IP address 86.0.92.239). Edits same British Isles Talk page. (shows link to BB MBM LM)

The evidence surrounding the creation dates and initial edits are pretty conclusive in their own right. But there's also additional evidence in their editing. If anybody believe the above isn't enough and wants to see more, I'm happy to provide it in detail. For example, same behaviour of "serial editing" in that at no time, among all these editors, were they ever editing at the same time. They never have intermingled edits where one is replying to another, etc. For example:

• 7th October 2008 - LM edit at 08:09, 12:29, 13:52, 15:07. MBM edits 17:09, 18:49, 19:02
• 10th October 2008 - LM edits from 13:52 to 14:20. MBM edits 16:36, 16:47, 18:10 and 22:02

The most recent occasion where they edited on the same day was

• 12th October 2009 - LM between 11:38 and 12:29, MBM between 20:21 and 20:41. Both edited the same articles - Epinotia immundana and User talk:Black Kite HighKing (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Talk about a witch hunt. Time would be better spent debating the inclusion or exclusion of British Isles at WT:BISE instead of making SOCK allegations against editors. It is also ashame as the editor in question has been more constructive over the past 24-48 hours, following the rules there and even changing his signature so its easier for us all to read.  :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The evidence at LemonMonday's Talk page puts a completely different perspective on what you'd call "constructive". It's always hard to lose a buddy, but don't think of it as just LemonMonday, think of it as the 5 or 6 socks already uncovered and all the disruption caused. --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think the above is rather obsessive, you clearly spent some time on your report. This whole situation with midnightblue is sadly just a direct result of the crusades and we all know how that started. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Always best to check on this subject BW on either side , especially with a disruptive editor. We saw the same pattern with the Midnight Blue socks - disruption, warning followed by better behaviour for a bit then the whole pattern started again. Also after a year of "crusades" to remove BI we are now dealing with a crusade to insert it so I suppose its balanced. And no behaviour justifies or explains sock puppets--Snowded ^TALK 11:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not even be debating this matter right now if it was not for the crusades that started long before i arrived in this dispute. It was the systemic removal of British Isles from articles across wikipedia that created a need for a taskforce to be set up to try and resolve it. I do not consider what is taking place on BISE to be a crusade right now, we are attempting to clean up some of the mess from the crusades which has led to core geographical articles missing important information simply because people do not like the term British Isles. The crusades are why we are all here now, and its why someone like midnightblue breaks the rules. Of course it does not justify rule breaking, but we should accept and acknowledge what came first. Now that we have a formal process in place to prevent the unjustified removal of BI, it might be worth considering trying to bring this SOCK issue to a conclusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And part of that process is clearing out socks and punishing personal attacks and soap boxing. I'd also suggest you stop using the word crusade, Those who have proposed removal of BI in general do so because they think there has been casual use of inappropriate terms. Those of you attempting to insert it think you do so for similar high motives. Those of us who wait for the proposals and then respond case by case would just like the name calling and accusations to stop and all sock puppets cleared out from either side. There is no valid reason that explains or justifies sock puppetry. --Snowded ^TALK 11:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have agreed not to use the word crusade on the WT:BISE to avoid bringing up the past but i see no problem with the term, the crusades seem a reasonable way to describe what happened over many years, long before i arrived on wikipedia. It is clear sometimes British Isles is used incorrectly, such cases should rightly be changed. But it is not an "inappropriate term". So removals of it with edit summaries like "removing political pov" and other such things are totally unacceptable, but it happened during the crusades. I agree and i said in my previous post, nothing justifies rule breaking although there is that WP:IGNORE. All i am saying is the crusades created something like Midnightblue. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

BW let them take responsibility for their own actions and not allow them to blame others for them breaking the rules. Bjmullan (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions yes, but i can not just ignore the cause. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

'Tis best to clear up any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the result, the Irish accuser has little credibility. Has he not done the same himself in the past?

It is all just more political gaming in his campaign to remove the words "British Isles" from the Wikipedia

which is creating an unhealthily oppressive atmosphere where snooping, snitching and insinuation rules.

--Triton Rocker (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

TR, I realise that it's quite a challenge for you to string more than a couple of sentences together in a civil fashion, but for the record, I used an alternate account for 4 or 5 edits. None of which on articles I had edited on previously, none of the edits were deemed disruptive, and were used for a very specific purpose. The investigating admins fully cleared me. If you bring this up again, or attempt to slur my name again, I will report you. --HighKing (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything happening about this? Seems like the suspect has gone to ground. Bjmullan (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What you need to understand is that at the time HighKing was embarking on his campaign to remove British Isles from Wikipedia a host of new editors came in to try and do something about it. HighKing has now got to the point where he claims just about any editor who goes against his POV and edits in the British Isles area is a sock of just one master editor; quite ridiculous. LevenBoy (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Or just one editor with a host of sock accounts. Take your pick. --HighKing (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But apparently not in this case.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:DUCK doesn't require CU evidence. Given the strong circumstantial evidence, I'd say it's pretty likely. I'd also add that I didn't post any evidence involving the actual editing patterns. These days, technically knowledgeable editors have little trouble hiding their technical tracks and avoiding a CU hit, but behavioral evidence is much stronger and can't be masked or hidden for very long. --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So a person should be punished because they have been involved in the same dispute with yourself. That hardly seems like solid evidence to justify labelling someone a sock and indef banning them. 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)BritishWatcher (talk)

LoL. No, unlike your attempts to topic ban anyone who disagrees with you based on non-existent and imagined slights to the now-dead great British empire, this evidence is based on creation dates and timings. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have supported you being topic banned and indeed the community over on WP:ANI voted to apply sanctions to you to stop you from adding or removing British Isles again, although for some reason those sanctions were not applied. And then straight after you got off that time, you went and removed British Isles from another article. I do not know what the British Empire has to do with this, the British Isles was around long before the British Empire. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the crusades certainly dragged many editors into this dispute. Most would rather be getting on with other things, but when facing something thats a bit like 1930s book burnings, its understandable why some may make most of their contributions in this area and need to take breaks. We all get a little tired of this at times. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The pro-BI crusade has always been the disruptive and abusive problem. --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It was the endless crusade to remove British Isles from articles all over wikipedia, including attempts to even move British Isles itself that has led to this dispute. I would not be here talking about this matter right now if it was not for the crusade to remove British Isles from articles. I have better things to do than go around inserting British Isles on different articles, but sadly i can not ignore removals of British isles which is censorship, simply because some editors do not like the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

LoL - right. And you can't be having that! That must be why there's a need to ignore policies and sock till you drop. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of something too? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Phew, glad that's cleared up (see clerk findings). GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious. One clerk states Behavioural evidence does indeed look very convincing. The other states I was also surprised by the strength of the behavioral evidence. But the CU is marked as "Technically Unlikely". I'm assuming that's based on the normal criteria used, where the ISP IP address is a strong indicator and given most weight. But with the widespread prevalence of VPN's, and the ease at which one can set up VPN's or use freely available VPN networks, it'll be very interesting to see how much weight behavioral evidence is given in cases like this. I spent a long time on a previous SPI case compiling very compelling evidence which I sent to the closing clerk but I didn't hear anything back - oddly enough it is also relevant to this SPI case. If this case is closed based solely on the CU evidence, I wonder how much more behavioural evidence would it take before a WP:DUCK is acknowledged, because it really is very strong. It's notable how the last couple of SPI cases have also gone quiet when the case is open - there are reasons for that also.... --HighKing (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone should not be indef blocked just because the two editors have been mostly involved in the same dispute as you. The crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia has dragged many editors into this dispute. Clearly you want to take out as many editors as possible that have opposed you, you mention yourself this is not the first time you have started an SPI case. If there is no technical evidence, the editor should be given the benefit of the doubt and not hanged simply for having the same interest in combating the crusade against British Isles use on wikipedia. There is nothing against the rules about having long periods of inactivity whilst people get on with other things in their lives. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At a recent ANI, and at the WT:BISE page, editors have been warned for disrupting a topic by bringing up inappropriate points, not assuming AGF, and accusing editors of have a "campaign to remove British Isles from all of Wikipedia", and you've accused me of having a "crusade". You constantly disrupt administrative threats by attempting to justify the actions of other editors on the basis that they are battling evil-doers, and that core policies should be put aside for those editors. You accuse me and others of motives which are untrue, and despite being asked numerous times to stop, you continue to make these accusations. Stop now. --HighKing (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think i have anything i need to stop. The problem on the ANI was it was specifically about Tritons actions and i got told not to discuss other matters, which i did stop although i do not accept my actions were disruptive there and it is the first time ive been involed in a debate on that page where such restrictions have been demanded. In the BISE page, there was an open atmosphere there where people use to speak their mind, the rules there have since changed. Since being told not to mention other editors motives or use the word crusade, or mention book burnings there, i have complied with that rule, ive also had to ask others there on several occasions to do the same.

In this case it is important to point out that many editors have been involved in this dispute so people have the facts and background, not just see two editors with similar involvement in one dispute in a list of edits which can easily be taken out of context. There has absolutely been a campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia, this is clear from the history and the whole reason why we are all here today. You accuse me of being disruptive, i do not consider my actions here or anywhere else to be disruptive unless we are talking about disrupting a certain outcome that some may wish to see. I do not think an editor should be given an indef block simply on the grounds of being involved in the same dispute as yourself and having long periods of inactivity. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and I and others are getting tired of you accusing any editor that disagrees with you as being on a crusade or engaging in a campaign. It's disruptive, untrue, and a breach of AGF to make accusations, and it's grossly insulting to state that my reasons for highlighting a SOCK is simply because the editor was involved in the same dispute. It's equally tiresome and disruptive to make these accusations in matters dealing with 3RR, ANI, or SPI, as a way of justifying the behaviour being examined. You may believe, in your opinion, that there is a campaign. But that doesn't mean that you can and should accuse others, in public, of engaging in this behaviour, and continuing to do so is disruptive, and off the point. You've been asked in two placed now to stop because it is off-topic and disruptive. Continuing to drag your accusations across Wikipedia to different places has to stop. --HighKing (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but there is clear evidence there has been a crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia. I am not going to hide that fact, when asked not to mention it on the BISE page i have complied, but that request was specifically for that talk page. I believe crusade is an accurate description of what has taken place and this whole situation is because of it backed up by a huge amount of evidence. When i get told to stop doing something i do stop. I was asked not to mention Crusades or book burnings on BISE, i accepted that and have not mentioned it since. I got asked not to mention other incidents in the dispute on the specific ANI debate about Triton, i accepted that and have not done so since. I am sorry if you are getting tired of my actions, some of us are tired of other editors actions as well. Its the price we all pay for being involved in this silly dispute, which was caused by the removal of British Isles from articles across wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Can we have any indication on which way this is likely to close? --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• There might be some data available for MidnightBlueMan (last edit was early June). Behavioural evidence does indeed look very convincing, but considering the two previous blocks and unblocks, I'd prefer a checkuser take a look before I make a judgement on this. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Technically Unlikely, though I admit I was also surprised by the strength of the behavioral evidence. — Coren ^(talk) 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy

Nableezy (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

27 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 208.54.7.139 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Jiujitsuguy

I have reason to believe that Nableezy (talk · contribs) is trying to circumvent a topic ban imposed on him by Stifle by using IP 208.54.7.139 (talk · contribs). The ban forbids Nableezy from editing or commenting on the Golan Heights and all areas of Israel and its environs including cities, settlements and regions.[1]

The IP in question geolocates to Chicago [2] and the edit in question is consistent with Nableezy’s POV. Prior to the instant edits, the IP never made any edits to the topic area and the first edit that he makes in the topic area is to The Golan Heights.[3]

Nableezy is also from Chicago as evidenced from his early Trait Page

But there is more. The subject IP also made edits to a hockey article involving players in the NHL.[4] Nableezy has expressed more than a passing interest for this subject as evidenced by this

But the similarities between the IP user and nableezy do not end there. The subject IP made this edit on a very technical subject involving circuitry and electronics.

Nableezy attended Illinois Institute of Technology, a school that emphasizes engineering and IT evidenced by his early Trait List

So now we have an IP who, like Nableezy, comes from Chicago with interests in the Golan Heights, Hockey and IT. The coincidences are too great to ignore per WP:DUCK. The evidence suggests that The IP is Nableezy's sock puppet used to circumvent Stifle's topic ban. Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said that the IP's edit was consistent with Nableezy's POV, it was an extreme understatement. Nableezy and the IP made the exact same edit. Their views aren't just similar, they are exactly the same.

• Nableezy's edit before his topic ban [5]
• IP edit [6]

I don't see how anyone can conclude that these two are not one in the same.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

On both the 24th and the 25th I was at least 120 miles away from Chicago for edits both before and after the IP edits in question on 2 different ISPs (work and home) in a different state; a CU should be able to verify this. I have never, as far as I remember, made a single edit to a single article or talk page about hockey. I also have never made any edits on any page related to circuitry used in telephone systems, a topic that I have no knowledge of or interest in.

My "interest" in hockey is as a fan of a hometown team, as I am indeed a Chicagoan though sadly I do not live in my city. I am not at all interested in IT or telephone networks. The whole relation here is 2 edits on one page. Yes, those 2 edits reflect my "POV", but they likewise reflect the "POV" of at least three other users who made the same revert, largely against a single IP who has since been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Even if I were inclined to sock around the ban, which I am not, I would have had no reason to do so on that article. The material was being reverted by a number of editors, to even risk socking would have been stupid. nableezy - 06:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To reply to Jiujitsuguy's latest edits, multiple users made that exact same revert. I linked to 3 of them above. And the revert you listed isnt even "exactly the same". But here are a two more users that made the same revert as you just listed: [7], [8]. nableezy - 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but are they hockey fans who live in Chicago with a background in IT and topic banned to boot?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont live in Chicago, Im not that big of a hockey fan, and I dont have a background in IT. nableezy - 14:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Trait Page says otherwise on all three counts. You have hauled people before these SPI boards on numerous occasions and have gotten them blocked with a lot less evidence than that which is compiled against you here--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My "trait page" says I am from Chicago not that I live in Chicago. Small difference there. It also says I am from Egypt, would you like to call any IP from Egypt my sockpuppet as well? It also says I attended an engineering school, not that I have a "background in IT". And your only piece of "evidence" for this supposed deep felt love of hockey is an edit to my userpage that only shows I am a hawks fan. There is no evidence here. The actual edits made by the IP have been made by a number of other users. The only thing that connects me to that IP connects all those other users to that IP. The only reason you are here is retaliation over your recent block. nableezy - 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Brew, there is a "stark similarity" between the edits made by the IP and the edits made by Unomi, Malik Shabazz, Zero0000, and a host of other users. The exact same edit as the IP was made by no less than 3 other users, and the exact edit that I made was made by at least 3 other users as well. A large number of users made that exact same reversion. Also, for edits both before and after the IP edits I was editing from a location more than 100 miles away from Chicago, and a CU could verify that by looking at my edits during that time period. Unless you think I have developed worm hole technology it is impossible for me to have made edits from my current location and Chicago within minutes of each other. You also misunderstand the "mindset" at the NoCal100 SPI page, there was actual behavioral and technical evidence for those blocks, and almost all the users blocked were confirmed as NoCal socks by CU. I said I had never edited an article or talk page about hockey, not that I did not make any "Blackhawks related edits", kindly do not misrepresent what I have written. My "main defense" here is that during the time period that I am accused of being in Chicago I was more than 100 miles away from Chicago. And that the sole edit that the IP made in the topic area that I edit in was also made by 5 different users. nableezy - 16:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To cut through the garbage and address the only actual "evidence" here. An IP that geolocates to Chicago made 2 edits to the Golan Heights page. Forgetting for a second that I was not in Chicago at the time of the edits, which can be verified by a CU, the exact edit that I am accused of socking to make was made by Unomi multiple times and by Malik Shabazz and by Sean.hoyland and by other users. The entirety of the actual evidence is that this IP made a revert that multiple other editors made. This supposedly proves that I made that edit. There is no evidence of anything here besides that Jiujitsuguy (and brewcrewer) would like to see me blocked. nableezy - 16:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You can hurl whatever insult, speculation or invective you like. However, it does not negate the fact that the totality of circumstantial evidence against you here is overwhelming and is in fact, much more damning than evidence you had used in the past to have others blocked as socks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I havent "hurled" any insults, speculation or invective. There is no "circumstantial evidence" and a CU can show with technical evidence that I was not in Chicago at the time of these edits. There is not evidence of anything besides how much you would like to retaliate over your recent block. All of your "evidence" is bogus, I do not have a background in IT nor have I ever made any edits to any pages about IT. I am from Chicago but I do not live in Chicago. I like the Blackhawks but that is the extent of my interest in hockey and I have never edited any pages about hockey. nableezy - 16:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Enigmaman and Cptnono, there is one edit here and it is the same edit 5 other users have made on that page. There is no "exact same" edit nor is there a "stark similarity" (though Enigma, there is a "stark similarity" in you using the phrase "stark similarity" shortly after brewcrewer did, that is about as "stark" a similarity as you have here) I realize you may have a bit of an infatuation with me, but this has already been endorsed for a CU so your comments dont add anything to the discussion. I am perfectly happy to wait for the results of the check. nableezy - 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt the checkuser will not link you to the IP, but that isn't really the point here. Enigma^msg 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So then what is the point? If a CU comes back and says that on the days of these edits I was 100-200 miles away from Chicago what then? If I have never edited from Chicago or on that ISP what then? For any CU, my current IP is as close as I get to editing from Chicago and always on this ISP. nableezy - 00:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Couple of points:

1. The IP address at issue here appears to be a T-Mobile cellphone, which effectively renders for naught Nableezy's main defense, that Chicago is 120 miles from where he edits. A cellphone can travel 120 miles.
2. Nableezy states above that he hasn't made any Blackhawks related edits. However, here he decorated his userpage with a picture of the Blackhawks victory parade.
3. There is a stark similarity between Nableezy's edit[[9]] and the IP's edit[10]
4. This edit summary, "1RR violation", indicates that the IP was not just a random IP who happened across the article and decided to revert. The fact that the IP was aware of the intricate and specific rule for the Golan Heights article, reveals that the IP was one of the main editors to the article.
5. Nableezy points out that there were other editors with a similar "pov", but one lives in NY/Washington DC[11] and other other in Thailand[[12], both quite a distance from Chicago.
6. From what I understand, the mindset at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive was that any editor with a certain pov editing from the San Francisco Bay Area was deemed a Nocal sock. This is a a clear precedent for a finding of sockpuppetry in this case. Unless of course, we are to treat editors differently.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   There appear to be some stark similarities in the editing, even if you discount the geolocation. Enigma^msg 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy is fully aware that IPs can game the system as he discussed it last week: "The problem with that is I have seen CU's decline checks because linking an account with an IP address is supposedly a violation of the privacy policy (a reading of the policy that I disagree with), which effectively means that any user can get around a ban by editing only as an IP." The edits being the exact same and the location (a WHOIS shows me as the city of the cable company not the city I am in) raise an eyebrow. I am inclinded to believe someone when they deny it but I believed Stellarkid so what do I know?Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There would have been no reason for nableezy to sock in this instance. There were at least three other editors, myself included, who had reverted this edit previously. One of us would have reverted again had the IP not done so. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. 1/rr, a restriction on editing the article, and a tendency to make such reverts make it logical that he might have even if he didn't need to.Cptnono (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the issue of the edit on Gaza War, which would have a purpose, as the named account is topic banned. Enigma^msg 21:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you arent in the habit of backing up your accusations, but what edit on Gaza War? The IP has no edits on that page. nableezy - 00:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you aren't in the habit of being civil, but I'll answer anyway. I meant Golan Heights. Forgive me for confusing the articles, because I am not in the habit of referring to or editing them. Enigma^msg 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@Malik. "He's too smart to do that" is not a valid defense and would collapse any justice system if utilized. Besides, it would be ridiculous for Nableezy to assume that you would violate the 1rr rule and get yourself blocked.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

brewcrewer, my last edit to the page was on August 18, so reverting on August 24 would hardly have been a 1RR violation. And the argument that nableezy is "too smart to do that" is a valid defense against silly and baseless accusations such as this one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever credibility you had for this SPI is now lost, in my opinion. No offense intended. You may think that Nableezy is too smart to sockpuppet, but the strong evidence presented here is clearly not "silly and baseless."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. But I'm disappointed you can't see this SPI for what it is, Jiujitsuguy's cynical attempt to exact revenge against nableezy. As I wrote, silly and baseless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not saying that Jiujitsuguy is doing this totally for altruistic purposes. He was probably made aware of this sockpuppetry because he was watching Nableezy carefully because of what Nableezy did to him. However, the sockpuppetry should not be whitewashed because Jiujutsuguy's intentions may not be 100% pure. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Nableezy also have an in-depth knowledge of the musical "Cats"? Does he enjoy movies starring the Rock? Has he previously mentioned a zombie invasion of Burns Heights? If it is him, I'm impressed that he can carry on a conversation about hummuswhile editing an entry on a fake zombie invasion. I guess a CU will tell but the evidence isn't compelling. Sol Goldstone (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

120 miles broadcasting range for a cellphone? Have they figured out how to get cellphones to bounce signals off the ionosphere?     ←   ZScarpia   02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

ADD Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Good day to all, I am very much interested by this SPI since on August, 7th that IP repeatedly undid my edit in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre article (I reported it as a possible vandal and immediately Nableezy contacted the Admin. which took up the case) and subsequentely Nableezy tried to have me blocked [13], it has been suggested that the IP could be a SP, I then thought of requesting an SPI (although since I had already reported it I wasn't too sure I could initate a new investigation without being accused of 'harassment') but anyway have been too busy the following week to do so. Still I did not seriously (AGF...) suspect Nab otherwise I wouldn't have let it go. Well now that I see a pattern emerging it makes me reconsider my opinion about him! Please add this to the SPing suspicion to circumvent a topic ban, thanks Hope&Act3! (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comments

Let me just elucidate and simplify some points.

• Fact: Nableezy was topic banned from editing Golan Heights
• Fact: Just prior to IP208.54.7.173’s edit, Nableezy was involved in a heated exchange with two users regarding the subject of the instant edit in question. He also gripes about sock puppetry and the ability of IP’s to circumvent scrutiny [14]
• Fact: Nableezy’s edit to the article prior to his topic ban is nearly identical to the IP’s
• Fact: Though the IP’s edit history reveals very few edits, it is clear that he is well-versed in Wikipedia’s rules judging by his comments where he acknowledges an intricate 1R rule specific to the article. This IP is no novice and is certainly not a random user.
• Fact: As noted above, both the IP and Nableezy have connections to Chicago.
• Fact: As noted above, both the IP and Nableezy have a level of interest in hockey.
• Fact: As noted above, both the IP and Nableezy have technical backgrounds.
• Fact: As noted above, both the IP and Nableezy share the exact same POV.
• Fact: The only difference between Nableezy and The IP is that Nableezy is Topic Banned and the IP is not.

The nature and quality of the evidence compiled in this case in its totality is clear and convincing. This case screams WP:DUCK--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fact: A CU has said that technical evidence shows I am not the IP. nableezy - 10:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the frequency with which you appear on these boards, I’m fully cognizant of your knowledge of Checkusers and of your ability to evade same. That is precisely why I did not ask for a CU and that is also probably the reason why you took an unusual step by soliciting Avi on his Talk Page to ask for one. As others have pointed out in this thread, a CU in this case would be pointless [15][16] and you yourself have pointed out that “CU can not ‘clear’ somebody.” [17] This case should be based on the DUCK test and you passed with flying colors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Administrator note: Checkuser will not publicly link an IP to an account. TNXMan 11:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both sides give convincing arguments, and the IP does indeed look suspicious. While I don't expect CheckUsers to publicly identify any relationships, it would I believe be helpful for them to take a look and handle it themselves (if they are related). PeterSymonds (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Unrelated As an aside, other IP tracers have that IP geolocate to the center of the US or possible WA. Either way, in my opinion, Nableezy's editing on August 24 and 25 is such that he is not the IP for both technical and behavioral reasons. Another checkuser is welcome to review my findings. -- Avi (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

– This SPI case is open.

02 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 208.54.7.133 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.134 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.136 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.138 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.139 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.140 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.164 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.168 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.170 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.171 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.173 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.174 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 208.54.7.175 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Brewcrewer

An SPI on Nableezy was recently closed finding no sockpuppetry, but the closing admin said that other CU’s are “welcome to review [his] findings.” [18] I request that the closure be reviewed, especially due to the important and comprehensive new evidence now submitted, including twelve IP addresses. In addition, as we are told mockingly by the suspected sock, a “dynamic IP address from T-Mobile and is about as traceable as AOL.”[19] Thus, I am opening a new SPI instead of adding the evidence to the previous SPI. Technical evidence will be submitted, but due the inconclusive nature of the IP addresses involved, WP:DUCK may have to be utilized for a finding of sockpuppetry. This sockpuppetry is conclusively established by behavioral evidence as well.

Nableezy knows how he will “get perma-blocked”, but it remained a “secret.” [20] The following evidence will prove that Nableezy has been violating Wikipedia’s sockpuppetry rules by editing from IP address in order to avoid various topic bans.

BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE

In the last six months, Nableezy was placed on two article topic bans. An analysis of the contribution history of IP address along a 208 208.54.7.x range [hereinafter known as “208”] reveals that during these bans, 208 has edited articles that fell under the article bans. 208's contribution history also reveals that 208 did not make any edits to I-P articles that Nableezy himself could have made, either before he was placed on his topic bans or after the bans expired. The evidence will show that 208 was strongly familiar with Wikipedia policy and specific Wikipedia users. The evidence below will show that Nableezy had previously edited all of the I-P related articles edited by 208. The evidence will show that 208 made reverts on articles consistent with Nableezy's concurrent arguments on the article talk page. The evidence will also show that Nableezy and 208 wrote strikingly similar edit summaries and made strikingly similar edits, including times where 208 reverting to a Nableezy version.

April 16 2010 topic ban

On April 16 2010, Nableezy was topic-banned from I-P articles for two months.[21] In the following articles, 208 pops up during the topic ban and makes edits that Nableezy could not have made under the topic ban.

• Islamism

on April 15, 2010, Nableezy made three edits to the article. [22] [23] [24]

On Aptil 16, Nableezy is topic-banned from I-P articles.

On April 17, a 208 makes almost the same revert as Nableezy did two days before the topic ban was in place. [25]

• Richard Goldstone

Richard Goldstone authored a controversial report on the Gaza War, and was clearly included in Nableezy’s I-P article ban.

On May 27 2010, a 208 reverts on Richard Goldstone page, which concerned the 2008-09 Gaza War.[26]

At the same exact time, Nableezy is making an argument on the talk page supporting its removal. See Talk:Richard Goldstone/Archive 3#controversy again

• Falafel

The Falafel article is a perennial hot button issue in the I-P conflict.

Nableezy has previously made edits to this page: [27]

On April 21, five days after topic ban is in place, an 208 IP begins edit warring, removing the same information 5 times on one day [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Similarly, Nableezy was found to be edit-warring three times in the last 17 months.[33]

• Arab Capital of Culture

Nableezy made 18 edits to Arab Capital of Culture. [34]

208 reverts on May 18[35] and May 21.[36] Nableezy had made arguments consistent with 208's reverts at Talk:Arab Capital of Culture#Flag of Israel or PNA.

• Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan

On June 8, while Nableezy is under a topic ban, a 208 removed information.[37]

In his edit summary, 208 uses “or” to mean original research, revealing familiarly with Wikipedia rules.

• Palestinian political violence

Nableezy has made 27 edits to Palestinian political violence.[38]

On June 14, while Nableezy is under a topic ban, a 208 edits: [39]

• Beitar Illit

Beitar Illit is a city in Israel and included in the topic ban. Nableezy had previously made 6 edits to the page, [40] including adding content about its illegality. [41]]

On April 21, 208 adds the same exact information previously added by Nableezy.[42]

• State of Palestine

208 reverts.[43]

Nableezy previously made 54 edits to the article,[44] including a similar edit to 208’s edit.[45]

Plus, 208’s edit summary, “not what this is about drork,” reveals a strong familiarity with a nemeses and his editing style. Nableezy had submitted numerous SPI allegations on sockpuppets of Drork. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork/Archive

• Susya

Susya is an area in the Samaria region of the West Bank and included in Nableezy’s article topic ban.

Nableezy previously made edits to the article: [46]

On April 20, while Nableezy is under a topic ban, a 208 edit-wars in the article. [47] [48] [49] [50]

The edit summaries “the book is published by a university press it is a rs” and “the book is published by univ of chicago press” appear similar to another Nableezy edit summmary: “rv, this is a reliable source published by Cambridge University Press.” [51]

Similarly, Nableezy was found to be edit-warring three times in the last 17 months.[52]

July 27, 2010 topic ban

July 27 2010, Nableezy is topic banned for two months from editing articles pertaining to geographic locations of the I-P conflict [53]

Again, 208 pops up and begins editing articles from which Nableezy is banned:

• Jerusalem

On August 4 2010, while Nableezy is under the geographic topic ban, a 208 makes a revert to Jerusalem.[54] Nableezy has made 37 edits to the article.[55]

The edit summary "revert troll" reveals that the IP is an established user familiar with Wikipedia lingo.

Also, Nableezy employs the “troll” edit summary when reverting terminology related edits.[56]

• Nablus

Nablus is a city in Israel and included in the geographic topic ban.

Nableezy previously edited the page.[57]

On August 6, while under the geographic location topic-ban, 208 makes a revert.[58]

• Church of the Holy Sepulcher

Church of the Holy Sepulcher is in East Jerusalem and included in the geographic topic ban. While Nableezy is under the ban, a 208 makes a revert regarding the territory of a Church in Israel.[59]

At the exact same time, Nableezy is arguing for the same term reverted by the IP at Talk:Church of the Holy Sepulchre#Israel.

• Golan Heights

Another geographic location in Israel from which Nableezy was topic banned on July 27.

On July 18, before the ban, Nableezy reverts terminology.[60]

On August 24, with the topic ban in place, a 208 makes a strikingly similar revert: [61]

On August 25, 208 makes another revert.[62]

The edit summary “1rr violation” demonstrates that 208 is not a random user, but someone familiar with the intricate specific rule pertaining to that article.

Throughout August 24-25, Nableezy is heavily involved in a discussion at the article talk page, where he takes the position of 208. See Talk:Golan_Heights#Protected 7 Days

TECHNICAL EVIDENCE

All the 208 IP’s are from a T-Mobile[63] cellphone that is operating from somewhere near or within the Chicago metropolitan area. So much is revealed by this tool: [64] [65] [66] (this is a sampling. all the IP’s above geolocate to Chicago)

Two geolocate tools provide an address in Bellevue Washington, [67][68], but that’s T-mobile’s legal address,[69] so that means nothing

Another geolocate tool gives a Wichita, Kansas location.[70] That is literally the center of the United States, and from what I understand is meaningless as well.

In addition, a vast number of edits from all the 208’s listed above pertain to subjects connected to the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Among them:

• [71][72] Burns Harbor, Indiana is a 42 mile drive from Chicago,[73] far less as the crow flies.

• [74] Jason Avant was born and raised in Chicago

• [75][76][77] Kingsley Junior High School is in Normal, Illinois, a 130 mile drive from Chicago. [78] Far less as the crow flies.

• [79] John F. Kennedy High School (Chicago, Illinois) Obvious.

• [80][81] Sherron Collins was born and raised in Chicago

• [82][83][84] Chicago Overcoat. Obvious

• [85] Brother Rice High School (Chicago, Illinois). Obvious

Nableezy is from Chicago[86][87] and implicitly admits to editing from the vicinity of the Chicago metropolitan area.[88] His claim that he is now editing from over 100 miles from Chicago is most likely true. However, the Chicago metropolitan area is “a 200 mile radius in every direction.” See Chicago metropolitan area#Chicagoland. Thus, it is likely that Nableezy is editing from the vicinity of the Chicago metropolitan area.

CONCLUSION

The following can be concluded based on the evidence presented above:

1. Nableezy was topic banned twice in the last six months
2. While the topic bans were in place, 208 edited articles that fell under the topic bans
3. 208 evidenced a strong familiarity with both Wikipedia rules and Wikipeda users
4. Nableezy and 208 made similar edits
5. Nableezy and 208 wrote similar edit summaries
6. Nableezy was blocked for edit warring 3 times and 208 edit-warred
7. 208 did not make any edits to I-P articles that Nableezy himself could have made, either before the topic bans or after they expired
8. 208 made reverts on articles consistent with Nableezy's concurrent arguments on the article talk page
9. The 208 range geolocates to Chicago
10. Nableezy is from Chicago and most likely edits from the vicinity of the Chicago metropolitan area

REQUESTED RESULT

Nableezy/208 knew how he will “get perma-blocked”, but it remained a “secret.”[89] The secret is now out. Nableezy/208 mocked Wikipedia how he can’t be caught.[90], but those days appear to be over.

Nableezy is a problematic editor.[91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98] who has submitted evidence on numerous sockpuppets that resulted in their banishment from Wikipedia.[99][100][101] It is thus justified that Nableezy be banned from Wikipedia. Thank you, brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Further clarification There appears to be some confusion as to the focus of this SPI, which is undoubtedly my fault, so I will try to elaborate: This SPI is essentially (and unfortunately) behavior based. This is made clear by 208's statement here:[102] 208 is mocking Wikipedians, and future CU's essentially telling them, I am a sockpuppet, but I can't be caught. You see 208 knows what he is doing and in all likelihood ensured that 208 will not match his real account from a technical standpoint. 208 knows this stuff because he probably went to a school like the Illinois Institute of Technology.[103] 208 was perhaps under the impression that if "the CU does not fit you must acquit." I say this partly in jest and partly not in jest, but if Nableezy and 208 are a technical match that may be the strongest argument that Nableezy is not 208's sockpuppet.

What is clear from 208's comment is that 208 is an editor who frequents I-P articles but is using his 208 IP to avoid detection. Almost undoubtedly he is using the 208 to avoid detection because he is blocked or banned or topic banned. The overwhelming evidence points to Nableezy. The 208 edited I-P articles solely during Nableezy's topic ban and did not edit I-P articles when Nableezy was not banned. There are other striking similarities between 208 and Nableezy elaborated on above that I don't have to go through again.

The technical evidence is supplemental to this SPI. I can't really say where Nableezy edits now or where he ever edited from. People make up all kinds of stuff about themselves on Wikipedia. The one thing I am pointing out is that Nableezy says he is from Chicago and 208 is from Chicago. But from what I understand, 208's internet is being accessed via a cellphone, which I further understand comes from satellites. How that effects geolocation, I don't know. Perhaps the geolocate tool says its from Chicago because that's where the phone was originally purchased and it will say its from Chicago even if the cellphone moves from Chicago area? I don't know, I did not attend any sort of school with the word "technology" in its name. Again, if the technical evidence supports a finding a sockpuppetry, so be it. But if the technical evidence does not support a finding of sockpuppetry, the behavioral evidence is quite clear. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Brew, the edit to your talk page was a joke, something I thought you knew. None of the IPs listed are me and I dont edit anywhere near Chicago except for the occasional weekend. 37 edits to Jerusalem, an article with literally thousands of edits, is almost meaningless, as is almost all of your "evidence". I realize you are upset that the CU did not come back the way you wished it had, but these IPs are not me. I dont make edits to Chicago area high schools, nor did I attend a Chicago area high school (or a junior high school in Normal IL). I dont know what the hell "Chicago Overcoat" is or means, I have no interest in anything to do with Jason Avant or Sherron Collins (well, Collins is a hell of a player, but that is about as much as I know or care to know about him) and Burns Harbor, IN is about as bumble as bumble gets as far as I am concerned. There are a large number of users, banned or unbanned, who have made the exact same edits as me or the exact same edits as the IPs listed. Those IPs are not me. The end. This is more of the same BS as you were pushing in the SPI above. I am not the bogey man. When I get a topic ban I patiently wait until it is over to make any needed reverts. You write that I have made "strikingly similar" edit summaries and list one edit summary that has any similarity at all. I have never edited the article Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. I have made 2 edits to Susya, one of which is changing reflist to reflist|2. The Golan "evidence" has already been responded to above where it was shown that a large number of users made that exact same edit. On the Church page, likewise a number of users made that exact same edit. On the Islamism page, I was dealing with a particularly annoying sock puppet from a different article and you can see that I havent made any edits since then, topic ban or no topic ban. I dont think I have made any edits about the categories in Falafel and in fact when I intentionally avoided even discussing the issue, instead trying to focus on whether or not any national cats should be included, not whether or not the Israeli cat should be included. You have a collection of articles that a collection of IPs have edited. You take that collection as "conclusive" proof that those IPs are me. I could do the same with a large number of users, including you. Anything outside of the topic area is the typical nonsense, nonsense that first Jiujitsuguy and now you have attempted to pretend is actual proof of something. Your case, while voluminous, is horseshit. For every single argument of mine that you say supports the IP a number of other users were making the exact same argument at the exact same time. The only thing you have conclusively proven is your zealousness in your attempt to get my banned from WP. I am not those IPs, I dont even have a T-Mobile account. I edit from a consistent set of IPs from a consistent set of locations. Work, home, and a place not too far from Chicago on the occasional weekend. Thats it. I would be willing to bet that the total number of IP addresses I have ever edited from is less than 5, or at the most 10. All on one of 3 ISPs, none of which are in the range of these IPs or on a T-Mobile connection. Your last line is the most revealing in this "case", you are upset that a number of your "friends" or "allies" have been blocked based on my SPI cases against them. That is understandable, you like having your crew be protected. That I have successfully helped to uncover a large number of sockpuppets does not in any way support the idea that it is "justified" that I be banned from WP. nableezy - 04:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer also brings up the number of blocks that I have had as proof of my troublesome behavior. My question is this, if I were so willing to sock dont you think I would have used these socks to avoid being blocked for edit-warring? nableezy - 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• As Brewcrewer correctly points out, your IP208 puppets commenced their extensive editing when your topic bans were in effect. If you would have edited those articles yourself, while the bans were in effect, you would have secured yourself a lengthy block or even a perma-block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You clearly dont understand the plain English in the comment above. But try to not edit in this section. nableezy - 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The similarities here are trifling. One of the IPs knows what an RS is and says so in an edit summary. That is being used to link me to the IP. Any user that has been here for any amount of time knows what an RS is and has made similar comments in their edit summaries. A huge number of users also have used the term "troll" in their edit summaries. This is not evidence of any link, this is only evidence that the IPs have knowledge of Wikipedia. Not every IP that has knowledge of Wikipedia is me. Two users who have lobbied long and hard to have me blocked are now throwing every tenuous and, for the most part, non existent piece of "evidence" they think they have against me. Those IPs are not me. I have never edited through that ISP. In fact, the closest T-Mobile store to the city I live in is almost 60 miles away in another state, I dont think they even have coverage in the area that I spend the overwhelming amount of my time. I dont live anywhere near Chicago, and on nearly every weekday and most weekends I dont come anywhere near Chicago. There are many other people who share many of the same views that I do, some of them may even live in Chicago. nableezy - 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, some of the articles the IPs edited I have never edited. This is true for both the Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre pages. On the Falafel article I had only made 2 minor edits prior to the IP editing the page, though I have since made a few more edits to the page. On the Goldstone page I made a total of two edits, one of which was a minor copyedit. The IP made the exact same edit that no fewer than 4 other users made on that page. A few of the articles listed here I have heavily edited, such as the State of Palestine article, but for the most part I barely touched the articles the IPs seemed to be focused on. nableezy - 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On the Church page I am accused of socking to remove the word "Israel" from an article on a place not in Israel. I was indeed active on the talk page. However, on a similar page with a similar problem, Old City (Jerusalem), I made edits to the talk page about the issue around the same time as I was commenting on the Church talk page. See here. Another user made the needed edit (here). When an IP re-added the disputed phrase I again went to the talk page and another user made the needed revert (here). If I had been socking about this issue why would I have restricted my comments to the talk page there, as I did on the Church page? On the Golan page, Chesdovi made a number of edits while I was topic-banned that I disagreed with. I discussed the issues with Chesdovi and Chesdovi made the needed changes, I didnt sock around the topic ban to just revert Chesdovi. See the discussion here and Chesdovi making the edit here. A set of users who have a long history of wishing to have the ability to push a certain POV, as evidenced by brew's remarks about x settlement being a "city in Israel" or the church being "in Israel", be unopposed are now attempting to link me with any IP that reverts any of their edits. Those IPs are not me. And Jiujitsuguy, repeating the same falsehood does not magically make it true. My "domicile" is nowhere near Chicago and I did not make the comment made by the IP that you attribute to me. nableezy - 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Hang on - so after the CU from a few days ago said that the .139 address was not linked for both technical and behavioral reasons, it gets filed again, with more added? Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. There is some good evidence. But maybe it is just time for an AE on him if this evidence is inconclusive. It certainly is just as strong of a case as he has brought about others but I am wary of seeing anyone not being able to edit based on what is only questionable (unless a check user says otherwise of course). How many times does Nableezy come up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles? I was going to give a count but it was too challenging with so many appeals, amendments, special privileges, and chances given. Seriously, Ctr+f through it and see. He even had two ongoing sanctions in August. Who gets that? It is silliness. Maybe an SPI will come up with something. I doubt it. Maybe a RfC will do the trick. I doubt that as well. Maybe it is time just to pile on evidence at AE. Unfortunately it will turn into a he said she said mudslinging contest with bans all around and everyone knows it.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several proofs in this SPI case that conclusively and overwhelmingly link IP208 to Nableezy. I’d just like to highlight a relatively small fraction of these because Nableezy seems to downplay their significance.

• This edit summary, “Not what this is about DrorK,” by IP208 evidences a knowledge of another editor (DrorK) with whom Nableezy had long running disputes. Ultimately, Nableezy had this user blocked.

• In this edit summary, “then remove the blog, the book is published by a university press it is a RS,” the 208 makes a statement that is strikingly similar to comments, edits and edit summaries that Nableezy had made in the past that emphasize publishers. See [104] as well as “the publisher is what counts”, and “The book cited is published by Indiana University Press”

• Here IP208 states “revert troll” in his edit summary. Nableezy employs similar language in this edit summary [105]

I'd also like to add that the community owes Brewcrew a nod for bringing Nableezy's extensive sockpuppetry to light.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor nableezy. Don't let the ankle biters get you down. Look at it this way, if they are wasting thier time lodging false SP allegations at least they aren't inserting thier POV into articles.

Seriously though, there are a lot of behavioral differences in edits. 208 for instance seems to go after American football related articles. Nableezy doesn't. NickCT (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@NickCT. Nableezy stated that he had nothing to do with the Chicago related edits that Brew mentioned in his report. The Chicago edits are noted only to point out that the IP's are from the Chicago area (Nableezy's domocile), and not that he necessarily made those edits. Obviously, as Nableezy himself pointed out here in mocking fashion, we are dealing with a dynamic range that is used by multiple internet connections.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• PeterSymonds, this new evidence is significantly more rich than the original filing. The behavioural and timing evidence alone is quite damning. --Shuki (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am at a complete loss to understand this decision. When I brought my SPI agains Nableezy, my evidence was significantly weaker than Brew's yet you stated then that I presented a "convincing argument." Brew's SPI is about 100x more convincing. He compiled lot's of evidence establishing links and patterns. I implore you not to dismiss this case with such haste but to carefully examine the evidence compiled by Brew. Nableezy has gotten several editors blocked based on a fraction of the evidence presented here. I am truly baffled by this decision.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there certainly is a lot more evidence but is it particularly damning? As in the first case, edits were happening while Nableezy was posting on Nableezy. It's not impossible that he was using his T-Mobile whatever device while working on other content but that's some dedicated multi-tasking. The edits by the IPs do seem to match nableezy's political slant but they also match many editors political slant. They aren't very significant edits nor are there very many of them. If nableezy had a deep love of musicals then this would look suspicious. Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Sol. We’re not just talking about matching political slants (and that is certainly a factor to consider) but timing, nature of edits, phraseology and geolocations as well. The IP208 edits appeared almost exclusively during periods when Nableezy was topic banned. As noted above, Nableezy employs the same phraseology as the IPs in edit summaries. Also as noted above, the IPs seemed well acquainted with editors with whom Nableezy had quarreled. In some cases the edits are identical to Nableezy’s and both the IP’s and Nableezy have a strong nexus to the Chicago area.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While it's certainly possible that multiple IPs have the same POV and similar interests to Nableezy, what's most troubling is the timing of the edits. It seems suspicious to me. A lot of work was evidently put into this report, and taken as a whole, it seems to indicate something going on, if a bit long-winded at making the point. Enigma^msg 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

the IPs seemed well acquainted with editors with whom Nableezy had quarreled Come on. Anybody who edited articles related to Palestine or Israel during the period he was active is familiar with Drork. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Malik. You focus on a single aspect of the case. The evidence must examined in its totality. The case rests on many pieces of evidence that when viewed together, present patterns and similarities which all lead to Nableezy. So while you may have an explanation for a single coincidence or similarity, when you’ve got coincidences upon coincidences, all of which bear Nableezy’s fingerprint, his explanations ring hollow.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I think you're too caught up in the whole "Institute of Technology" thing. It is just an archaic term meaning vocational. It actually comes from a Greek word for "art" or "skill". They used to use terms like that back then. My cousin went to Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University but she couldn't inseminate a pig to save her life. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So your now depracating Nableezy's intelligence? --Shuki (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get that from. Is it because I used the word "vocational"? --JGGardiner (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But since we're talking about it, can anyone explain to me why an experienced Wikipedian, one who frequents SPI and is perhaps tech savvy would use an exposed IP as a sockpuppet when he could just as easily register a username and conceal the shared locale? --JGGardiner (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

JGGardner. You need to look at the evidence in its totality. Don’t focus on snippets. Please note the following:

1. Nableezy was topic banned twice in the last six months.
2. While the topic bans were in place, 208 edited articles that fell under the topic bans.
3. 208 evidenced a strong familiarity with both Wikipedia rules and Wikipedia users, including users with whom Nableezy quarreled.
4. Nableezy and 208 made similar edits and in some instances, identical edits.
5. Nableezy and 208 wrote similar edit summaries and employed similar phrases.
6. Nableezy and 208 placed similar emphasis on publishers and publishing houses when evaluating RS.
7. Nableezy was blocked for edit warring 3 times and 208 edit-warred.
8. 208 did not make any edits to I-P articles that Nableezy himself could have made, either before the topic bans or after they expired.
9. 208 made reverts on articles consistent with Nableezy's concurrent arguments on the article talk page.
10. As noted above, the 208 stated in mocking fashion that he was well aware that the IP was dynamic and could not be linked to the master through conventional CU techniques.
11. The 208 range geolocates to Chicago.
12. The 208s have made numerous edits to Chicago related articles evidencing a further nexus between the 208s and Chicago.
13. Nableezy's nexus to the Chicago area is well established.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the allegations in total. But the total is the sum of its parts and in this case the parts are "snippets". I worry about a Gestalt outcome that blends real evidence with apparent coincidences and mere chance to create a sum that is greater than its parts. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And I should say that Nableezy and 208 might have both edit warred but they are, ahem, not the only edit warriors in the room. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is "edit warrior" the correct term? I've used it before but it always sounds awkward. I've been thinking for a while that when the I/P edit war is over, we should honour the winning side with a Monument to the Conquerors of Namespace. I think for now I'll replace edit warrior with that term. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit warrior appreciates the humor. NickCT (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to JGGardiner 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC). Good question, but I assume that 208 thinks he is anonymous while posting from a place either public or not in his usual environment (home or work). I doubt it is a coincidence that multiple people are using the same ISP in the 208 range to edit I-P articles, and we can assume that they usually all belong to the same person. From what I understand, ISPs do not give static IP addresses to 'private' customers and one address is merely allocated temporarily each login. IPs are not only designated to one specific area either. I know for a fact that I've visited blog sites sites with the cute locator applications which think I am visiting from somewhere within 200km of my ISP headquarters, and sometimes even in Europe. Now, to get into the smart criminal mind, a static login name substantially increases risk since one might forget to logoff that username and make even one fatal edit exposing the SP, and someone who has exposed multiple SPs based on a lot of circumstantial info, knows that the 'sinker' is that one golden screwup edit. Using two usernames is definitely doable but seems to me very challenging to maintain. Anonymous IPs are also best since anyone else making anon edits on these adds to the confusion and totally unrelated interest areas. Nableezy certainly would not simply logoff from his regular name and edit and instead, surfing at a friend or relative's house for a quickie edit. --Shuki (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• CheckUser won't be able to help you here; these IPs are all on the same range as the first one, which was technically unrelated to the reported user(s). Pursuing this won't change the result. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not taking any action here; please pursue this via dispute resolution, as it doesn't appear to be a matter of sockpuppetry. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Checkuser is only one tool. The evidence brought above is behavioral not technical, and when I said "IP for both technical and behavioral reasons" it was based on the timings of the specific edits that could overlap. What is being suggested above is a pattern of behavior which needs to be investigated on its merits, and not ignored solely due to a lack of technical evidence. As I maintain in almost every check I run, behavioral evidence is more indicative than technical. Hopefully, it should be relatively easy for one of our experienced admins to judge the strength or weakness of the evidence above. -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Evidently my comment was not clear enough: My reading of every case is always behaviourally-based unless it is necessary to do otherwise. The comments here, while comprehensive, seem circumstantial at best. However, I will read through it again, including all the diffs and links, to double-check. I'd also like all clerks who may be watching to do the same. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I have requested some of out most experienced checkuser/spi experts to look at this. I hope they can allay everyone's concerns quickly. -- Avi (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

AZ8196

AZ8196 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

30 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• TJ13090 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Aj4444 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Az81964444 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Robertp6165 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• $1LENCE D00600D (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken

Az81964444 created the article Border War (1910-1918), and he and I had some conflict after I edited it, which included what I interpreted as an attack on me, after what was determined to be incivility on my part – all discussed on on AN/I – which resulted in the editor retiring. I've continued to watch the article, and editor $1LENCE D00600D did some edits to it today. I reverted one of them and left a message on their talk page. The editor's response on my talk page indicated that he was the author of the article. This picqued my curiosity, and I looked back into the history of these editors. What I found is a pattern of a user who edits for a number of months, almost always on articles related to battles – frequently including the Battle of Ambos Nogales, which was created by AZ8196 (other IDs have created other battle articles) – and then drops the ID and starts another. I have tracked the editors back to AZ8196, although they may go farther back than that.

• AZ8196 – created: 30 January 2009 last edit: 26 February 2009 – 62 edits, 25 pages
  • (considering the gap between the end of February and the beginning of May, I may be missing an ID here)
• TJ13090 – created: 2 May 2009 last edit: 1 June 2009 – 746 edits, 127 pages
• Aj4444 – created: 5 July 2009 last edit: 30 August 2009 – 2701 edits, 412 pages
• Az81964444 – created: 13 September 2009 last edit: 31 July 2010 – 9334 edits, 1250 pages
• Robertp6165 – created: 5 April 2010 last edit: 27 July 2010 – 36 edits, 2 pages
• $1LENCE D00600D – created: 1 August 2010 most recent edit: 30 August 2010 – 943 edits, 247 pages

The pattern seems deliberate: note that IDs are dropped near the end of a month, and are usually created at the beginning of a month. There's one gap, which I noted above, but otherwise the move from one ID to another is direct and almost immediate. There's only one ID (Robertp6165) which overlaps, and that ID only edited two articles, First Battle of Dragoon Springs (created by TJ13090) and Second Battle of Dragoon Springs, so it may have been created specifically for that purpose.

Wikistalk results for these six editors show considerable overlap, even considering their focus on military-related (actually, battle-related) articles:

• 1 article (War of 1812) edited by 5 of the 6 (all but Robertp6165)
• 5 articles (United States occupation of Veracruz, Battle of Picacho Pass, American Indian Wars, Action of 18 March 2006, First Battle of Dragoon Springs) edited by 4 of the 6 (in 2 different combinations)
• 53 articles edited by 3 of the 6 (in 5 different combinations)
• 185 articles edited by 2 of the 6
• 244 articles in common overall

This is in the context of the 6 IDs having edited 1753 unique pages in their editing careers. (2063 total "unique" pages less 310 overlaps). This means that these 6 IDs have overlapped on about 14% of all the articles they have edited, a high percentage, and unlikely to be the result of coincidence.

I have no evidence that the edits of this editor have been disruptive, but the pattern of starting IDs and then dropping them, without acknowledging the connection, is a concern, since it looks like avoiding scrutiny. If the editor has a legitimate explanation for doing so, that's fine, but if not they should probably be asked to pick one of the IDs to edit from and the rest should be indef blocked, and the user told not to continue to create new accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified all the accounts listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that of all these IDs, only one has a block history: Aj4444 has a 24 hour block for personal attacks and harrassment. However, also note that the latest ID, $1LENCE D00600D, has left a rather uncivil message on my talk page in response to my notification of this report, in which he again confirms his identity as Az81964444. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looking a little deeper into this, Az8196 created one article, Battle of Ambos Nogales. After the ID stopped editing on 26 February 2009, that artice was subsequently edited by TJ13090 and Az81964444. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• The next editor in line, TJ13090 created 8 articles:

1. Battle of Galveston Harbor (1837)
2. Battle of Brazos Santiago
3. Battle of Brazos_River
4. Battle of Bear Valley
5. Battle of Puerto Plata Harbor
6. Battle of Columbus (1916)
7. Traditional Arizona
8. First Battle of Dragoon Springs

With 7 out of these 8 articles, after TJ13090 stopped editing on 1 June 2009, there were multiple edits made by Aj4444 and Az81964444 (with the last also having multiple edits by Robertp6165). The exception is #6, which had multiple edits from Az81964444, but none by Aj4444. Clearly, these IDs are all the same person, continuing to work on the articles they created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Next, Aj4444 created 17 articles:

1. Battle of Albuquerque
2. Battle of Taku Forts (1860)
3. Battle of Taku Forts (1858)
4. Bombardment of San Juan del Norte
5. Battle of Fatshan Creek
6. Battle of the Pearl River Forts
7. Action of 15 October 1917
8. Bombardment of Ancona
9. Bombardment of Fort_Stevens
10. Action of 17 November 1917
11. Battle of Rio de Oro
12. Battle of Taku Forts
13. Action of 4 May 1917
14. Bombardment of Fanning (moved to Fanning Raid by another editor)
15. Bombardment of Madras
16. Battle of Trindade
17. Ernest Martin Jehan

In all but one of these articles, after Aj4444 stopped editing on 30 August 2009, the articles were edited, sometimes extensively, by Az81964444. The one exception is Fanning Raid, a stub article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly, Az81964444 created 96 articles (which I will not list here), and from looking at the Wikistalk results for the two IDs, it seems as if the latest ID, $1LENCE D00600D, has edited most, if not all of them.

  Once again, we see this editor using a new account to continue working on the articles they created with a "retired" account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm requesting CheckUser, despite the clear behavioral evidence, because I may have missed an ID, and I'm not sure how far data goes back, so I don't know if staleness is an issue or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding XavierGreen's comment below, there was indeed some conflict between Az8196444 and myself, which I noted in the very first sentence of my evidence, including a link to the AN/I report on it. (Here it is again, for those who might have missed it: [106]) However, I didn't go looking for this, it fell into my lap when $1LENCE D00600D admitted on my talk page that he was the editor who created the article (that is, Az81964444), and I went and looked into it. If that had been the end of it – an editor retiring after some conflict and then returning for a "fresh start" – I would not have filed a report, since this editor appears to me to be basically productive, if a little touchy, but the pattern going back at least four other editors was really too much to ignore.

But, even if this was "retaliatory" in some way (and it's not), the evidence shows what the evidence shows, it's pretty undeniable. The easiest thing would be for $1LENCE D00600D to make a statement admitting their behavior, giving a reasonable explanation for it, and pledging not to do it again. I'd be perfectly happy with that, as I'm sure most people in the community would be. I'm not seeking to have this editor blocked or sanctioned, just to put a stop to a rather disruptive, apparently scrutiny-avoiding pattern of behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk endorsed - AZ8196 is stale. However, if a CU acts soon TJ13090 will still be fresh, and in any case the rest are giong to be fresh for a few more months. It looks quite suspicious, and it's possible there is another one or two. I'm not sure on the motive regarding socking though, apart from minor incivility they seem to write well. (Although in the same style) CU would help clear this up. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember some malicous comments exchanged between Beyond My Ken and the editor with multiple accounts. I suspect the creation of this invesitgation is retaliatory action taken by Beyond My Ken against the editor in question.XavierGreen (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've responded in my section above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Whether or not this is a 'vendetta' per se. (Which it doesn't appear to be) there is a large amount of evidence indicating that this is the same person. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Stale:

• AZ8196 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• TJ13090 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Aj4444 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Likely:

• Az81964444 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• $1LENCE D00600D (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Possible – similar articles but different physical location:

• Robertp6165 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

–MuZemike 04:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Carvoeiro

Carvoeiro (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

30 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• McKewenstreet (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Gammonsteak (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Shakehandsman

I realise the previous investigation was inconclusive but a further likely sock has now appeared and the edits are becoming quite tiresome now.

All three accounts created recently and exclusively edit the article Vera Baird. All accounts make similar edits, watering down sections of the article (for example the section on attempting to claim for Christmas decorations on expenses, second home information, and criticism of a judge) and remove referenced material. All accounts seem to have extensive knowledge of Baird and her more recent activities. All new material added is always unsourced and all three accounts edit for 30-45 minutes minutes.

Two of the accounts also seek to water down the section on the dog fouling incident and speeding offences, most notably trying to emphasise that Baird was somehow abused by the woman who reported her to the police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=378699151&oldid=378614086 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=378453229&oldid=375457153 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=381164644&oldid=381160313 Shakehandsman (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Highly Likely that Carvoeiro (talk · contribs) = Gammonsteak (talk · contribs);
• Possible That McKewenstreet (talk · contribs) is related.

Tiptoety ^talk 05:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DjJosh

DjJosh (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

02 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Steveantonio89 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Naturalorganic65 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by WayKurat

Continuous recreation of the sockmaster's self-created article for his internet radio station Salt&Light Radio. Both sockpuppets edited the article tediously. One sockpuppet even made a workaround by creating the said article from another title then requesting admins to move it to the original title. WayKurat (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Suspected socks are Confirmed as each other; DjJosh is Stale, but I think a connection to him via behavioral evidence is easy to do. –MuZemike 19:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

MileyFan1990

MileyFan1990 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MileyFan1990/Archive.

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

02 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• UTS Tech SysQ (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Netdir (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Utwaffe (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• VladTheBusker (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Fæ

Continued serial SPA account contributions on the same talk page. QUACK applies. Fæ (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

• ID908237835 (talk · contribs), which was identified as a MileyFan1990 sock in the last check, has edited in the same area at the same time with a similar purpose/style as these other accounts. I'll ask Ironholds what he meant about an OTRS case. Orderinchaos 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Checkuser In progress. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Confirmed UTS Tech SysQ. Still need to take a closer look at the other two unblocked accounts. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've sent my conclusions to the checkuser list for review. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

After review, we have

• Confirmed
  • MileyFan1990 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
  • DavidLetterman35 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
  • UTS Tech SysQ (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
  • Utwaffe (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Possible
  • VladTheBusker (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Inconclusive
  • Netdir (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

TNXMan 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dmerkurev

Dmerkurev (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

04 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Getsdeny123 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Compare the following:

• This edit by a sock
• This edit by the suspected sock

Given that they are edit warring just as the original master did, I believe this to be a pretty WP:DUCK applicable case. However, I would like to request a sleeper check, as well as finding if a rangeblock is possible. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Getsdeny123 (talk · contribs) = Youlittle (talk · contribs) = Ucsdlifeis16 (talk · contribs). The link to Dmerkurev can only be a judgment call. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

Pastorwayne (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

Please also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne.

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Magdalenamutzharding (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 99.18.183.223 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Occuli

Similarity of articles edited and editing style. Also similarity of name to other PW socks: eg User:Magdalenamutz and various Hardings. The i.p. is editing in tandem with the user (populating categories created by the user). Occuli (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Confirmed:

• Charleshenryharding (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Naomiselmawilhelmena (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Naomaestherscott (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Magdalenamutzharding (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Underlying IPs blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Light current

Light current (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• I NEED A SOUL (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• WeeklyPedian (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• JuicyBellend (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 77.102.151.95 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by 1234r00t

Following post at WP:AIV. ([107]) Mr. R00t ^Talk 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Roux

Also reported as vandalism/UAA. Almost certainly Light current, CU needed to fish out sleepers. →ROUX ₪ 18:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

• Comment - We're not the same user. Also, it's just a proxy, block away my friend 77.102.151.95 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Juicy is a euphemism for one of LC's fixations, and Weekly is a variation on similar ID's used by LC. More to the point is that they were created months ago and lay dormant until today. Might be time to bring out the Electrolux. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Inconclusive on technical evidence (doesn't mean said block was not warranted, and this is only from technical evidence):

Possible as each other; will not go into detail per WP:BEANS - very recent developments:

• I NEED A SOUL (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Deflaught (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Confirmed:

• RectalCavity (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• ColonAbuser (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• JuicyBellend (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• WeeklyPedian (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• MassiveCox (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Daveylonghair82 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• SuckMyMango (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• AceFarker (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• TriadDweeb (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• PageMangler (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• BambiRaptor (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• ZitLicker (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• MasterOfTools (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• WhereTheSunDontShine (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• OvereggedPudding (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• CrokoShite (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• BlockyVader (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• HardCard (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• SpasticColon (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• BrianSturgeon (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• JyzzCannon (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• SkunkSpunk (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Daisychainer (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• WeeklyPedo (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• FeedMyTrollPuppet (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• FoulEmission (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• BottomProber (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• BentRoller (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• BootJacker (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• FarTraveller (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• KnobblyHorn (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• PopMySocket (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• BunnyShooter (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• WabbitPunch (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• LongTimeUser (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• WaxyTaxi (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• NygaDyk (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• FrictionPleasure (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• FloppyChest (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• RampantButtocks (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• SmellyRear (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• StenchPipe (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• RampantHomo (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Bellwelder (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• SonarDome (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• DeepFried4Skin (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Underlying IP range behind most said confirmed accounts blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

KissmeKate

KissmeKate (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Dehli555 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Hekerui

looks like block evasion - global contributions conclusive, had article on glwiki deleted because local admin came to the same conclusion about sockpuppetry and promotional activity Hekerui (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Confirmed

• KissmeKate (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• SwissLawyer (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• TheRightEye (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Fotografenauge (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Dehli555 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Technically, Kinglear (talk · contribs) is Unrelated; I'll leave it to an independent admin to determine if unblocking is warranted due to the behavioral evidence given in the previous SPI. –MuZemike 21:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Mikemikev

Mikemikev (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

06 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Rafrye (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Maunus

To verify if Rafrye is a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Mikemikev, banned for disruption at articles related to Race and Intelligence. Indicia per WP:DUCK strongly suggests that Rafrye is a sock of Mikemikev, the user registered shortly after several IP socks had been banned and the user is preoccupied with the same topics and has the same POV's as Mikemikev and the same style of posting - right down to using "boasian" as a pejorative and selfidentifying as a genetician.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

·Maunus·ƛ· 00:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Unrelated –MuZemike 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Azviz

Azviz (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

06 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Inniverse (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Macpl (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Moorsmur (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by MuZemike

All three accounts have been engaging in the same serial de-PRODing as Azviz and socks have done back in 2009. This includes similar edit summaries and now even similar articles. These accounts seem to have a knack of going straight to ANI after disputes with other users in which nothing normally happens. Requesting a CheckUser look into this for a connection (I will not act in an admin capacity as I have been involved in the past in this SPI case as a filer back in 2008 and 2009), as Cool Hand Luke has made a possible connection (but not definitive) in the previous CU request. –MuZemike 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) –MuZemike 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser comments: Likely that the following three accounts are socks of each other, based on checkuser data and behavioural evidence:

• Inniverse (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Moorsmur (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Macpl (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

I will leave it to checkuser clerks or other administrators to block as they see appropriate. Risker (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk note: At a minimum, the connection between Moorsmur/Macpl is essentially confirmed. The fact that they are quite clearly intending to deceive leads me to place an indefinite block on them both. However, I note that Inniverse has some interesting history both in the block log and archive of Azviz's SPIs. We need to figure out the history of this before proceeding further. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

– This SPI case is open.

JD Caselaw

JD Caselaw (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

03 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Agradman (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by GregJackP

The userpage of JD Caselaw shows that he is a law student at Columbia University and a member of WikiProject Law. The userpage of Agradman shows that he is a law student at Columbia University and a member of WikiProjects Law, U.S. Congress and SCOTUS. Both the talk page of JD Caselaw and Agradman show that they are both on a Wikibreak. JD Caselaw has done "cleanup" editing of Agradman's talkpage [108] and [109]. Agradman has extensively edited JD Caselaw's user page (too many diffs, see page history instead. Both accounts have voted in AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa, both in support of each other. Wikistalk shows interesting results here. Writing style and edit summaries of both accounts is very similar. See also comment here by Agradman about watchlisting an article created by JD Caselaw. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• On this SPIs talk page, AGradman also mentions that he has used AConcerned Chicken as an account, although it hasn't appeared to be used abusively. This alternate account is labeled as belonging to AGradman, but there is no like declaration on AGradman's user pages. GregJackP Boomer! 15:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Admin. I don't have a problem with closing it, but with a warning that it will not be tolerated in the future, and that all accounts are declared, including accounts that are not identified above, if any. What brought it to my attention was the way the prod was handled - not abusive, just suspicious. It appears that the abusive use was in the past, and everyone makes mistakes. This one should not be one that ends his Wiki-career. GregJackP Boomer! 03:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

• This is Andrew Gradman. (The account is user:Agradman but I have always signed with my full name, Andrew Gradman.) Lately I have been editing with my JD Caselaw account because WikiBreak Enforcer is enabled on my user:Agradman account until December. That's probably how GregJackP noticed my two accounts (i.e., GregJackP's PROD notice at user_talk:Agradman was promptly followed by user:JD Caselaw cleaning up user_talk:Agradman and responding to the PROD).
• Prior to today, I don't think I've ever positively stated that I own both accounts, but Wikipedia:Sock puppetry permits that:

Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages (see below). They can also redirect the user and user talk pages of that account to their main account. Do not use undisclosed alternative accounts without very good reason. If you must, do so only with care. ...

Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions they do not want their real name to be associated with ...

• My "very good reason" is that I make contributions that I "do not want [my] real name to be associated with". As to whether I have done so "with care," User talk:GregJackP identifies two suspicious AfDs, from August 2009 and May 2009.
• Regarding the AfD for Leonardo Ciampa, I used Agradman to vote, and JD Caselaw to make a comment under someone else's vote. Ordinarily, that would still be sockpuppetry, but in that instance I had a special justification: During the AfD, another editor indicated that he had been stalked by Mr. Ciampa himself for voicing a criticism of the Leonardo Ciampa article:

Note. I am recusing myself from all further discussion of this article and removing it from my watch list. In the past 24 hours, I have been accused of sockpuppetry, had my real name and physical location listed, and Leonardo Ciampa has tried to contact me personally. This is not worth my time (especially considering that the article receives so little traffic) and it's definitely not worth the aggravation and lost sleep. Life is too short.THD3 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• So, once I had voted for delete as Andrew Gradman, I felt frightened to continue to use that account on that page. Clearly this concern was on my mind at the time: I wrote, "The partisanship of the Keepers is creeping me out. try not to take this personally."
• Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.: I admit that on this one occasion I violated the sockpuppeting policy. And I know that that is really, really bad. But I think it's important to note that this behavior occurred in May 17 2009 -- fifteen months ago, one month after I joined Wikipedia, and before I knew wikipedia's sockpuppeting policy. The JD Caselaw account was four days old and the Agradman account had made its first substantial contributions only one month prior, in April 2009. (Prior to April 2009, Agradman had made only 32 edits; prior to 2009, only 16.) Since then I have never sockpuppeted, and I have proven to be an exemplary editor (nearly 9,000 edits, nearly 1,000 new articles, two DYK's, gave a lightning talk at the NYC WikiConference, and I've befriended many Wikipedians, online and offline, who will attest to my civility and fairness).
• And that's all there is to respond to! Now my hope is that this investigation will be addressed and closed promptly. Frankly, it's making me lose sleep. JD Caselaw(talk) 06:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

At WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chysky_v._Drake_Bros._Co., you explicitly state with your JD Caselaw account that you are not Agradman. You may not have known about the Wiki sockpuppet policy, but you didn't know not to lie? It seems to me that given your history you should not operate multiple accounts, regardless of your intentions. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I did lie. It was immature and disrespectful to Wikipedia and to Wikipedians like you, and it was unethical. Tampering with the trust of this community was horribly shortsighted. I could be so shortsighted only because, at that time, I did not yet know how much I would come to cherish that trust.
• Since then, I have been an impeccable and upstanding editor. I have made Wikipedia a part of my life -- heck, it's a part of my resume. Some of the people I admire most in the world are editors who I met in this community.
• As Jimbo puts it, "The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors." This quote comes from Jimbo's essay during the Essjay controversy. Two paragraphs up, Jimbo also asked Essjay to resign his Admin position, stating, "these positions are not appropriate for him now." I think the "now" in that statement is important. It acknowledges that certain mistakes can render people unworthy of trust, but it also acknowledges that these same people can earn that trust back.
• The trust of this community is of awesome importance to me, and in the last fifteen months I have striven to earn it. I don't underestimate the gravity of this discussion. I am available to speak on the phone with anyone who asks to do so in an email to my user:Agradman account.
• -Andrew Gradman, blocked by Wikibreak enforcer, editing as 128.59.179.250 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I must point out it was one mistake, a helluva long time ago. If CU results come up as negative (or is there any use, since he's admitted it) I think we should let this one slide. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see the point of checkuser either. They're declared alternate accounts. Even the single misuse was harmless--the opinion the accounts supported was overwhelmingly endorsed by the community. At this time, though, I do not see the usefulness of maintaining two accounts. Nor do I see the usefulness of bringing this spi in the first place when there is no ongoing problem. FWIW, Agradman suggested I come here--I do not normally check this page.) DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree to all points stated by DGG and was also led here by Agradman. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agradman asked me on my talk page to comment on his sockpuppet case. I have collaborated with Agradman on various projects for WP:LAW and I think he is one of the most knowledgeable and productive editors of legal topics on Wikipedia right now. He admits above that the JD Caselaw account is his, that he shouldn't have used it in a dishonest manner, and that he regrets doing so. Given his otherwise positive track record both before and since this incident, his use of a sockpuppet account early on in his time on Wikipedia should be considered a forgivable error of judgment. Productive editors with expertise in a professional field are not easy to find, and banning or suspending Agradman for a mistake he made more than a year ago (which is eons by Internet standards) deprives Wikipedia of the type of contributor we need, and provides virtually no countervailing benefit. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Give him a break. He's losing sleep over something that happened a long time ago and for which he's now taken full responsibility without qualification. No need for checkuser. This case should be blanked at its conclusion since he is editing with his real name and he has a professional reputation associated with his name. I think this could have been handled with a little more sensitivity toward an editor using his real name. Communication is often all that is needed to solve problems; the punitive route is not always well advised. Minor4th 03:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Administrator note: No need for a checkuser at the moment, given the admission. There appears to be several instances of multiple account misuse:

• Talk:Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co., claiming to be "classmates";
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., double !voting and claiming to be "classmates" again;
• this mess and the associated block;
• The Leonardo Ciampa AfD, pointed out above.

All of these, however, are more than a year ago, and I don't find more deceptive uses since then. All things considered, I'm inclined to close this with no action, conditioned on JD Caselaw (talk · contribs) being positively identified as an alternate account of Agradman (talk · contribs) on its userpage. Comments are welcome. Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@This question: The history of misuse here makes it preferable to link the two accounts so that the misuse will be easier to see; besides, this SPI case sorta blew the whole cover, don't you think? Even without this case, it takes only 2 minutes of study to figure out the link - if you want to use an account to make edits that you don't want linked to your main account, it really isn't a good idea, at all, to use that account to edit your main account's user and talk pages. Really. Now, if you really, really want to use an alternate account for this purpose, I don't have objections to you making a new one, provided that you disclose the account privately (by email) to arbcom. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support the proposed remedy. Blocks are not punitive, and given the admission, ineffectiveness of the past actions, and recent track record, I concur that the case should be closed, the accounts identified formally, and the editor be admonished that future multiple account misuse will (and must) be dealt with without any assumption of innocent mistake. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with JClemens. A close on these terms is more likely to help the encyclopedia than to endanger it. JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support As long as the accounts are identified formally and it is made clear to the editor that multiple account misuse will lead to action, this should work. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

David1287

David1287 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David1287/Archive.

– This SPI case is open.

27 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 174.61.35.159 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Fezmar9

David1287 is in violation of his ban for edit warring and not complying with Wikipedia's policies on verification and reliable sources. This IP address was mentioned in David1287's previous two SPIs and ANI but no action was taken. I assumed this meant there was no way to block an IP address, however I am pretty sure this is not true. This IP continues updating singles charts or general single information using questionable sources, if any source is present at all, just like David1287.[110][111][112][113][114][115] The IP has received multiple warnings for the exact same issues on his talk page since his main account was blocked. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Marquis de la Eirron

Marquis de la Eirron (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

30 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 81.110.220.68 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 129.234.252.66 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by PBS

contributions by Marquis de la Eirron and contributions by 81.110.220.68 Show a tendency to add titles to English/British people without any attempt to present any sources that such titles are correct. eg [116]. What alerted me to the similarity between the edit of these two accounts was two edits to List of regicides of Charles I the first by "Marquis de la Eirron" on 19 August 2010 and the second 10 days later by "81.110.220.68" both added "Sir" to names in the list of regicides and in the case of 81.110.220.68 to the underlying article as well. After checking the sources for the articles there is no evidence that these men were knighted and neither of the accounts offered supporting verification.

The damage this is doing to the project is considerable because vandalism of this type is hard to spot (unless spotted immediately) and if different editors not knowing that it is vandalism assume good faith for the edit and check its validity then a lot of time is consumed by editors checking sources and reversing the edits.

One article that has been almost exclusively been edited by the accounts "Marquis de la Eirron" and "81.110.220.68" is Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom that has in the last few days also been edited by 129.234.252.66 Like "81.110.220.68", "129.234.252.66" has received two requests not to add unverified content to an article about British politicians. PBS (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From this edit to this page we can infer that user:Marquis de la Eirron admits to using 81.110.220.68 as a sock puppet. As does the statement below "The funny thing is i added the title of "Sir" to Robert Tichborne" because those additons were made with the IP address 81.110.220.68 -- PBS (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

user:Marquis de la Eirron follow the link WP:Duck for an explanation of the term "duckish". This is not an investigation into the worth of the edits you are making but the fact that you are using more than one account and editing the same articles. Please read the policy on WP:SOCK. Now that you have admitted using more than one account for editing, and now that it has been pointed out to you. If you use more than one account in future expect you accounts to be blocked. The only question left open is are there any other accounts that you use? -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

The funny thing is i added the title of "Sir" to Robert Tichborne because it clearly states in the wikipedia article that in 1655 he was knighted therefore he aquired the title of Sir, becoming Sir Robert Tichborne so i didn't even make it up as it is historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de la Eirron (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whereas the accusations from Yworo come from their narrowmindedness of not reading articles about the person fully, as in most articles it clearly states that the politician in question is LGBT and was known to be either gay, bisexual or had been caught in homosexual act. In some cases they actually resigned their seats because of the acts or in later life became involved with gay rights or gay groups. Therefore my adding in of politicians is actually correct due to their known status and all over the internet it tells you their sexuality so citations be damned as everyone seems to know this to be true except Yworo who can't be bothered to look hard enough but believes he is right all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de la Eirron (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Yworo shouldn't be deleting things about LBGT British Politicians as Yworo is an American and therefore it is non of their concern as they have no idea about most of these people and don't even know who they, at least i know who they are and i know that i am right about these details also i'm a under-graduate at Cambridge University so i don't know who you think your calling Duckish.

Comments by other users

Seems quite duckish to me. The first IP keeps restoring uncited entries added to List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom by Marquis de la Eirron. Yworo (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Jimmy McDaniels

Jimmy McDaniels (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

30 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• William Borgenicht (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 75.56.203.166 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Yworo

User:Jimmy McDaniels recently was restricted by a topic ban from editing Jason Leopold and Truthout. (See this RfC and this AN/I archive.) Today, after COI and NPOV tags were removed from the article, they were restored by IP 75.56.203.166, which is in the IP range known to be used by Jimmy McDaniels (see RfC). Shortly after notification of the topic ban was posted to the IPs talk page, a shiny new user claiming to be from Canada is posting to the article talk page ([117]). The user account was created 7 minutes after the revert by the IP. Leopold is known for using multiple sockpuppets on online forums (see the RfC). I think we'd better get a checkuser and nip this in the bud, but if WP:DUCK is enough, that's fine with me too. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite being created 7 minutes after the IP address reverted the removal of templates from the article, the new user waited another hour and a half, until it was clear there was a consensus to remove the templates, before posting on the talk page ([118]). Yworo (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the new user states I would like to begin as well by helping to build a torture section. Note the following:

• From 75.56.205.85 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip) on 23 November 2009: Leopold has done an enormous amount of work on the issue of torture and deserves credit and attention for that work.
• From 75.56.202.96 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip) on 5 May 2010: There is not a single entry on the work Mr. Leopold has done since then, particularly on the issue of torture, for which he has received accolades and awards, to balance this entry out. I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer...
• From 76.246.156.86 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip) on 29 July 2010: Leopold's work on the Bush administration's torture program has been ...
• From User:Jimmy McDaniels on 11 August 2010: I do think a section on torture...
• From 75.56.203.166 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip) on 19 August 2010: I also believe creating a section on torture and ... are warranted since I found media people discussing Leopold's coverage

Having found all these, there's really no longer any need for a checkuser. Yworo (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We are getting closer and closer to proving this is actually Jason. The IP address used by "William Borgenicht" is 74.82.68.16 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip) which is on BlackBerry.net. Leopold uses a BlackBerry as evidenced by his use of ÜberTwitter on Twitter. ÜberTwitter is a BlackBerry-only app. Yworo (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding tha blackberry is used by tens of millions of people in the United States and millions in Canada too. I also see that there have been many accusations by this person that Jason Leopold is actually everyone who has come here to voice an opinion. That's interesting. I ask you, Wikipedia, what have I done wrong? I made a proposal. I have not made any contribution or editing to this or any other entry. I do not see why it's improper, as has been implied, to use a mobile device. Many people use their iPhones and now that the Droid is becoming popular I am sure that will be used too. Would it be better if I provided the administrators with my telephone number and address? I am not attempting to be cute. I am happy to prove that I am William Borgenicht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Borgenicht (talk • contribs) 02:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"I made a proposal. I have not made any contribution or editing to this or any other entry." Yea, thats the thing, when someone comes from nowhere and hasent done anything at all in wikipedia except say the same thing as a guy who just got banned, well, lets just say that we arent stupid. Are we really to believe that in all of wikipedia, you have taken an interest in the *tags* on this particular article? This coming right after the banned editor also wanted to re-add the very same tags? Come on, give us a little credit here, you arent the first person in the world who thought he could get his way by making a new account and pretending to be a brand new person. Bonewah (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also funny that for someone claiming to run an online database of torture cases, your name doesn't get any hits in Canada. In fact, it's an extremely uncommon name, with the most recent online mentions being in archived documents dated 1946 and 1965 in the US. Yworo (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed it is an uncommon name. However, I along with my brother, Louis, have worked tirelessly these last few years in bringing attention to the issue of healthcare professionals involved in torture. I welcome you to call or email Louis, a physician, and a member of the faculty at U. of Utah to inquire about me and our work. William Borgenicht (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not the way we do things here. Obviously, you're not going to ask us to call somebody you haven't already prepared. Yworo (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Louis is a man of the utmost integrity. For you to suggest that I would "prepare" him on such a minor event such as the one I somehow have found myself in the middle of is ridiculous. In addition, to his work at the university, Louis is a physician and an author. Is this how Wikipedia treats all members of its community? If so, I have no interest in participating. William Borgenicht (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, I intend to begin contributing until I am told otherwise. William Borgenicht (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's only how we treat obvious sockpuppets of users who have been recently topic-banned and who create new accounts pretending to be somebody else. The end result of which will likely be an indefinite block for all involved accounts and a possible community ban. Yworo (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you claim I am a sockpuppet? Because of the time in which I decided to voice an opinion? This seems somewhat paranoid. Well, I provided my information and I am available to to provide the evidence necessary to those in charge of this investigation. I am creating a biography for a detainee who deserves an entry here. William Borgenicht (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because your account was created 7 minutes after a long-running abusive user (the history of which you can read here) reverted the removal of the tags on the article, and in your first edit you discuss the removal of the very same tags. Tags are something that new users typically aren't familiar enough with to discuss in a policy context. It's also unusual that you didn't make that first edit immediately upon creating your account, that you waited 2.5 hours for the tags to be removed again before making your comment. If you aren't the same user who has been topic banned, it's clear that you were contacted by that user and asked to get involved with the article. We don't allow that sort of proxying on behalf on an abusive editor either. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a mistake. In my comments I said "I see there is a consensus, however, I choose to voice my feelings that this entry indeed lacks neutrality." I did not edit. I was voting because there was a comment that sounded like someone was seeking opinions. I have not been contacted by anyone. I still do not understand this. I would just like to offer my input.74.82.64.16 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that my presence is being seen as disruptive. That was not the intent I had when I signed up. William Borgenicht (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Hello. I have been directed here. I have left a comment on the discussion thread of Jason Leopold. I do not understand why this happened. But to the accuser I can assure you I am no sockpuppet. I invite the administrators of Wikipedia to check my credentials. Please do check my IP address as well and you will see I live in Canada. I am a human rights advocate. I merely suggested adding material to Mr. Leopold's biography about torture. Being that much of the biography peruses nearly a decade old news file I suggested including the work on torture, which I have followed. I also invite the administrators of Wikipedia to see the Wikirage website. This is where the biography debate has received much attention. Am I wrong for making this suggestion? I would like to make additions to this biography and expand the Abu Zubaydah biography here on Wikipedia too. I do believe the high value detainees deserve a separate biography also. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Borgenicht (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I ask you to check my information. Thank you. I do not believe this is fair. I made a proposal. I am certainly not alone in my feelings about torture nor the work Mr. Leopold has done in this area. Most human rights advocates will agree. As you will see, Wikipedia, I asked this question on the discussion page. Well, maybe another person can add the information on the torture. Why is it wrong to include material about this important subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.16 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Using your BlackBerry while traveling, eh, Jimmy? Hope you don't sprain your thumbs. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Quack! "Since I have collected torture stories and maintain a torture database, I believe I can add a section that would let people know about the fine work Mr Leopold has conducted in this area..." In the first edit ever, "May I vote for keeping the neutrality tag and expansion tags in place?". Either a sock or a meat puppet for sure. William Borgenicht, you came here through Wikirage, huh? I see no terribly recent discussions of Jason Leopold there[119]. Unless I'm missing something, this is just "ducky". Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That happens to be four years old and a search of various websites shows numerous developments since then that would be noteworthy here. --76.246.156.86, I choose to voice my feelings that this entry indeed lacks neutrality. Much of it rlies upon very old news, nearly a decade in some instances. --William Borgenicht. Hmm two different people think wikipedia has no use for information that is 'old'? I doubt that. Bonewah (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

A Nobody

A Nobody (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive.

– This SPI case is open.

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 192.150.115.150 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 172.162.203.244 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 172.130.131.65 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 172.131.111.126 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

• 63.3.1.1 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Flatscan

One user used the first four IPs to comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Characters of Dante's Inferno. Some of them also edited the article List of characters in Dante's Inferno (video game) to add questionable or semi-relevant sources. I think that these IPs are obviously User:A Nobody. These edits are very similar to many examples at WP:Requests for comment/A Nobody, and I especially doubt that an impostor would make the article edits. As an aside, I found it curious that that AfD attracted comment from several WP:Article Rescue Squadron members despite not being tagged with {{rescue}}.

63.3.1.1 has been suspected of being A Nobody in the past: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#How ridiculous do AfD !votes have to be before they're removed? (a few days ago) and WP:Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1 (2nd) (September–October 2008). It overlapped with 192.150.115.150, the first IP, at WP:Articles for deletion/Wheelie (Transformers). I doubt that 63 is A Nobody due to substantial differences in style.

Note: The article under discussion here has been nominated for deletion, with no evidence of the nominator or anyone else voting for deletion having tried to improve the article or look for sources prior to nomination (per AFD instructions). --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the phrases pointed out by Chaser are familiar, but I think that they're very common and not very distinctive. "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" appears to be wording from WP:Notability or its sub-guidelines.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Agreed regarding first four. I dropped a note at Talk:List of characters.... As to 63..., I think that's him, too. All these sound familiar:

• undeniable evidence of real-world notability (same)
• significant coverage in independent reliable sources (same)
• real world coverage

I'd like another admin to weigh in.--Chaser (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007

Breein1007 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Breein1007/Archive.

– This SPI case is open.

01 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 174.112.83.21 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Dailycare

See evidence presented at the AE concerning this IP account: Wikipedia:Ae#Comments_by_Supreme_Deliciousness. Admins handling that AE suggested opening a parallel SPI case as there appears reasonable suspicion that the IP is Breein1007. User Supreme Deliciousness says to be in posession of further information linking these two accounts. Dailycare (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In the first instance, please don't mis-state was was stated in the AE. The admins at AE never said there was "reasonable suspicion" of anything. Those are your words. They simply said that AE was not the right venue for your the claim. Second, Breein stopped editing from his account on June 13, 2010. So even if the IP was Breein, which in any case hasn’t been proven, there is no evidence that he’s using the IP to evade either a topic ban or 1R or 3R restriction. In sum, no rules have been violated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not to find a "sockpuppet". His behavior as an IP would most likely have sanctioned him if he had done those edits from his main account considering his long history of contentious behavior. If we can identify him as Breein here, then we can continue with the Enforcement case. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"His behavior would most likely have sanctioned him?" Are you a fortune teller?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, your comments are unhelpful. Given the user has been sanctioned previously, if the IP was found to be connected, then it's possible that could have a bearing on whether a warning is sufficient, or whether further sanctions are required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, why are you misrepresenting the facts here? One admin suggested opening an SPI because you brought it up at the wrong place, not because there was any reasonable suspicion. And if it is not to find a sockpuppet, then why are you filing an SPI? Why don't you simply notify the IP of the ARBPIA sanctions and move on? You seem to think checkuser is a toy you can use at will. --Shuki (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, given that WGFinley and I are admins, I don't think Dailycare's use of plural was incorrect. Also, the IP has already been notified of the WP:ARBPIA case. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil, I don't think the complaint is with regard to SDDailycare's use of the plural vs. singular, but rather with regards to his false claim that admins suggested SPI because "there appear reasonable suspicion that the IP is Breein1007". Thats simply not true. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

SD? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I meamt Dailycare. I've corrected it - and apologies. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I meant for my text to be read is that two admins suggested opening a SPI, which happened responsive to SD's raising the sockpuppetry issue. To the extent my wording was unclear/wrong, I apologise. Now, shall we move on to the substantive side of this SPI and then return to the AE. Shuki, I haven't requested checkuser. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

As dailycare says above, behaviour evidence has been posted at the bottom here, and I also have personal information linking Breein to this user that I can send through mail if requested. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Per a request from Supreme Deliciousness

I checked User:174.112.83.21's edit history against 500 of Breein1007's past edits.

I didnt' find many matches. Both accounts worked on

Jerusalem - IP, Breein (This comment is added by SD: Removes "occupied" in both)

Ships linked to the Gaza flotilla raid - IP edits MV Mariam, Breein edits MV Mavi Marmara

Rawabi - IP, Breein

User talk:Ynhockey - IP, Breein

Muhammad al-Durrah incident - IP, Breein (This comment is added by SD: Both these two edits are involving "Blood libel")

Gilo - IP Breein (removes East Jerusalem in both) (Added by Supreme Deliciousness)

There are behaviorial similarities in edit summaries. Breein liked using the word "stop" in his edit summaries

Breein1007

"stop censoring things plz"

"therefore stop harassing me"

"please stop now"

"please stop deleting sourced info"

"RV - sorry, it was. stop your edit warring"

"strongly suggest you stop now."

174.112.83.21 appears to do the same

174.112.83.21

"and what part of stop reverting egypt did you not understand"

"kindly stop violating wikipedia policies immediately"

"it is unfactual. stop putting lies"

"and stop reverting egypt"

I think there is moderate circumstantial evidence suggesting these users could be the same, but I'm not overly convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if both users were just agressively impolite, pro-Israel editors. Additionally, IP traces to Canada. I'm 80% sure breein lives in Israel. NickCT (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ill copy some evidence here from the arb page: They both have the same uncivil behavior: IP "wtf are you talking about" Breein: "What the hell are you talking about in your edit summary?" See for example this where the IP makes a comment and Breein continues the discussion: [120] Breein has made posts in hebrew:[121] IP also makes posts in hebrew: [122] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I still do not see what the issue is here. Has the IP done anything wrong? Me thinks that since Nableezy's rep was tarnished with the recent SPI on him, it's time to exact similar treatment with an opposing editor who has not done anything wrong except being an opposing editor to this group. --Shuki (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he has done many things wrong: [123], also look at his comments to the Jordanian guy:[124][125] Concerning Breeins long history, this kind of behavior would have sanctioned him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the case overall, but I do want to point out that the use of the extremely common English word "stop" in edit summaries as behavioral evidence supposedly linking the account with the IP is far from convincing. Behavioral quirks used to identify socking editors need to be quite a bit more idiosyncratic than that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Has the IP done anything wrong? The answer is yes, and the AE will deal with that. This SPI is exclusively about the sockpuppetry allegations, which may turn on the information SD has. Concerning the IP, an individual residing in Israel isn't inconsistent with an IP address that traces to Canada. --Dailycare (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken - Agreed. Edit summaries can be telling, but I don't find many convincing matches between the IP and Breein1007. I'm less than 50/50 that they are the same. NickCT (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with closing this with no definite finding in light of EdJohnston's comments below. --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I disagree with what you just said. Specially given that evidence not shown here establishes a technical connection and if this is not going to be comprehended of-wiki, then the only other solution is that its is revealed on-wiki. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that this SPI should have never been opened in a first place. No matter whom this IP belongs to, neither IP nor Breein1007 have done anything wrong, and they never influenced an outcome of any discussion or whatever. This SPI should be closed as soon as possible.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: [126], an admin explaining why Breeins actions could be sanctionable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just read that AE request, and I see nothing that could have had the editor sanctioned even, if they were Breein1007.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering all the things he did with the Breein account, if he had continued his edit warring and uncivil behavior from it, he most likely would be banned from Arab-Israeli articles, so it looks like he is trying to continue the same disruptive behaviour but without the history of the Breein account, so he can fly under the radar and avoid being sanctioned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Pure speculation and anti-AGF from Supreme Deliciousness. This SPI should be closed and Supreme Deliciousness blocked for 24 hours for making this harrassing and frivolous SPI. --Shuki (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I have sent out some email about this case. Will report back if I get a clear idea of what to recommend. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I received by email the information that SD referred to in a comment above. A negotiated solution does not seem to be available, at least not one that I would accept. If a checkuser is available, I have some info to share privately. I took a look at m:Checkuser policy#Privacy policy. This seems to rule out having a checkuser help us identify this IP with Breein1007 using information from the server logs, but does not say anything about usage of IP information that editors have been able to learn through on-wiki activities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP listed in this complaint has not edited since August 30. I also observe that Breein1007 has resumed editing under his regular account. This suggests the possibility that (if Breein1007 is actually this IP) he may have got the message. It is beneficial if we can close this case without a definite finding about the IP. In a day or two, this might be done if there is no further comment, and if the IP edits do not continue. Please add your comments in the appropriate section if you disagree with this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the suggestion that this SPI filing was frivolous, please note that both PhilKnight and WGFinley (in the AE report) suggested that an SPI be opened. There is more to the story (as submitted by SD) which can't be told here, except by email to admins or checkusers. PhilKnight is also aware of what SD's evidence contains, and if Phil prefers that this case be closed in a different way, I hope he will comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider this to be a frivolous report, and the suggestion that SD should be blocked is absurd. Otherwise, I agree with Ed's proposed course of action. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jackiestud

Jackiestud (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– This SPI case is open.

04 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 187.21.128.77 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Dougweller

Blocked before for using multiple accounts, contributions and geolocation show that this is Jackiestud Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Joehazelton

Joehazelton (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– This SPI case is open.

04 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 76.203.34.132 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 76.202.208.4 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 76.203.17.169 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Goethean

Please see contributions and compare to [127][128][129][130][131] and hundreds of others.[132][133] — goethean ॐ 12:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. Will some one reign in this abusive editor,Goethean,who lacks the temperament and thinks wikipeidia is his own private online sword for all his crazy causes.76.202.208.4 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

76.203.0.0/18 blocked 12 hours for evasion; I dare not go any further with length due to possible collateral damage. Note that this is not a CheckUser block, nor have I run one at this point. –MuZemike 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Ben Lowe semi-protected 1 month. –MuZemike 15:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

– This SPI case is open.

Degmarshall

Degmarshall (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

04 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 4Beauties (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Elektrik Shoos

Previously discussed at this AN/I discussion. Copy/pasted from there:

• Degmarshall has existed on Wikipedia since 2006. His edits have been nearly entirely focused on either the article about him or his band, Staggered Crossing.
• With exception to a few edits to Canadian English, 4Beauties' edit history has been devoted to either Staggered Crossing or David E.G. Marshall.
• 4Beauties had his first edit in late July, where he created a userspace draft. Here's what the page looked like: [134].
• Less than two weeks later, Degmarshall created the autobiography. Here's what that initial page looked like: [135] (Notice how the userspace draft created by 4Beauties is nearly identical to this page.)
• Degmarshall and 4Beauties have never edited at the same time. Notice Degmarshall's edit on July 2nd, and 4Beauties' first edit less than a two hours later. Most of 4Beauties' edits occured on August 4th, with exception to one which occurred today. Likewise, note how Degmarshall didn't edit from August 2 until the 12th. He also hasn't edited since the 26th of August. But 4Beauties has, as I said earlier.

As this seems to be a quacking sock, I don't believe Checkuser will be necessary. I'm bringing this here so that there's (1) a filed case about it and (2) a guaranteed followup, which I've learned isn't necessarily the case at AN/I. elektrikSHOOS 19:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

92.7.76.141

92.7.76.141 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Samlaptop85213 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Alfie66

Special:Contributions/92.7.76.141 →Alfie^±Talk 14:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Beamer103

Beamer103 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• The Instant Kid (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Eagles247

The Instant Kid (talk · contribs) added this to my talk page, and asked who I was talking about on Sandstein's talk page. The only time I have ever talked to Sandstein was about User:Beamer103 (here).

User:Honorboy123 has already been determined to be a sockpuppet of Beamer103. He posted a new section to Tide rolls' talk page entitled ??, which is the same heading he used here. The userpage for Honorboy123 also includes the two question marks as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Eagles

On Beamer103's userpage, he has written "If you are a different language other than: English, DO NOT Contact this user." On The Instant Kid's userpage, he has written "NOTE: I speak Full English. And some japanese. So do not message me if you are not english or Japanese. :3" Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, Beamer103 is a sockpuppet of Robotboy199 (talk · contribs) per this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Jimv1983

Jimv1983 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 98.234.74.77 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Bovineboy2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.234.74.77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimv1983 Edits to Asylum (Disturbed album) are identical, similar edits to Template:Infobox album/doc and Template:Infobox album, and ip has begun similar disruptive edits to other articles BOVINEBOY2008 18:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.
Yes, 98.234.74.77 is me Jimv1983. I have not been going back and forth to cause any deception. Sometimes I just forget to log in. Sorry for any confusion. --Jimv1983 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

92.29.43.107

92.29.43.107 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence submitted by Mister sparky

sockpuppet of User:pesf Mister sparky (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Jakeshapiro

Jakeshapiro (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– A CheckUser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

01 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Bonkers2010 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Cirt

• Same pattern as prior Confirmed socks, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakeshapiro/Archive, namely addition of unsourced info to BLP page. [136]
• All contributions are to same article as the prior socks, J. David Shapiro - WP:SPA behavior, despite the block and user talk page comments left at the main sockmaster account. [137]
• Checkuser will be helpful for technical checkuser data investigation, however a block on the sock can be made by an administrator based on the strong behavioral evidence of socking.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The last time it was discovered that the master account has been engaging in socking, it was blocked for two weeks. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Stale Bonkers2010 hasn't edited since April - this will need to be decided on behavioral evidence alone. TNXMan 14:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, please see note above, this should still be acted upon by administrators, based on the strong behavioral evidence that it is the same sockmaster, again. -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

– A CheckUser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

Xnacional

Xnacional (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

04 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 205.211.213.218 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by EEMIV

Focus on war-on-terror and Star Wars template overlaps with indefinitely blocked user Xnacional. IP has apparently been blocked at some non-English wikis, and "nacional" (rather than "national") hints that maybe this is the same person. Asking for checkuser to verify registered account also consistently active at this IP, and that anon. usage is therefore an attempt to evade block. --EEMIV (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

• 205.211.212.29 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip) from late July also. --Closeapple (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Declined. Checkusers do not typically comment on whether IPs are related to accounts. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

Sschubert

Sschubert (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

15 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Geraldzeng (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Zcwl (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 134.115.68.21 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 124.169.99.245 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 143.238.208.105 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 165.118.1.51 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia

See this discussion for complete details and diffs. A number of students from Murdoch University, and several possibly related Australian IPs, have been removing a POV tag and adding External links to Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), an area ripe for quackery. A google search on information supplied by one of the accounts on her talk turns up a list of student names; those names indicate meatpuppetry is most likely in play here. Two of the accounts appeared to edit from the same IP, or to edit each other's comments (see diffs in link above). Meatpuppetry to sway consensus seems to be apparent, and seems not to require a CU, but the CU may help determine involvement of the other IPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re to Sschubert: no, the concern is coordinated meatpuppetry from a group of students, and whether the IPs are socks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

I've just seen this page. I am not entirely sure what "socketpuppetry is". From a brief look I think that you are saying that I'm editing as the above authors. I do not really feel that comfortable having to reveal the names of the other editors, but it is clear that I am SSchubert (sarah schubert), editor GeraldZeng, is Gerald Zeng, and editor cwl is the editor Dr Chris Lee (initials cwl). All work at Murodoch University, Australia. Dr Chris Lee is not a student. Anyone familiar with EMDR literature would know his expertise in the area, and it can ben seen that he has been contributing to this page for a number of years I believe. I am a clinician, am published in the area of EMDR, and am completing a PhD investigating EMDR also. I hope this is all the information that is needed here. I feel that this may have come about as editor Ronz has different opinions about EMDR than myself, and has largely taken ownership of the page. I believe it is his edits that may warrant investigation.Sschubert (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I'm leaning towards declining this CU request on privacy grounds (i.e. we do not try and link accounts to IPs on-wiki if that is not known), but I'd like to get a second opinion from a clerk on this. –MuZemike 18:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Clerk note: I somewhat agree, but I'm not that familiar with it so I'll leave it on hold. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk declined per Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP information disclosure using checkuser to link accounts to IPs is not desirable. Since this is suspected meatpuppetry, checkuser isn't likely to tell you much in terms of pulling up other accounts (just noting that, although I'm aware that's not what Georgia requested CU for) . Kindest regard, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicolaas Smith

Nicolaas Smith (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

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

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

17 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• PennySeven (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Misessus (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by SarekOfVulcan

Slightly different areas of discussion within Inflation, but much the same debating and editing style. I would like checkuser to confirm this, because the duck test isn't conclusive, in my opinion. (Nicolaas Smith may be stale, but PennySeven is a known sock of theirs.)SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk declined - Actually, all accounts are stale (except the newest). This is going to have to go off behavioral evidence alone. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

Russ.lienart

Russ.lienart (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

20 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ilov90210 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 76.173.185.174 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 198.172.203.176 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Cirt

• Russ.lienart (talk · contribs) -- At article, Knight and Day, repeated pattern of disruption, including removal of sourced info in violation of WP:LEADCITE [138], and again at [139], and addition of unsourced and poorly sourced info, [140], combined with complete refusal to participate in talk page discussions [141].
• 76.173.185.174 (talk · contribs) -- At same article as above, Knight and Day, same exact pattern shared with master sock account, of adding poorly sourced info [142], combined with zero participation in talk page discussion [143].
• 198.172.203.176 (talk · contribs) -- At same article as above, Knight and Day, disruption, adding back same poorly sourced info ([144] and previously [145]).

Note: Use of IP, combined with above-listed account (possibly other IPs/accounts have been used as well) in order to continue disruption at the page, obfuscate, and continue addition of poorly sourced info, removal of sourced info, and refusal to participate in talk page discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk declined - Again, CUs are not likely to reveal the IP. Not saying this won't be considered for Administrator review. I would like to note that the technical evidence witthout CU (aka WHOIS and Geolocation) is making this show more like meatpuppetry to me. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nod, understood, no worries. Thank you for the attention to this matter, regardless. Would still request admin investigation with regard to above-presented evidence. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Added another user to check, above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Clerk note: Ilov90210 (talk · contribs) seems to be unrelated on behavioral evidence. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Nod, no worries, would still like admin action with regards to the others. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see what admin action there is to be taken. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Use of the above-listed IPs, combined with the account, to cause disruption at article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

Dante8

Dante8 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

22 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 72.78.224.46 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 68.81.39.234 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 72.94.35.106 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 24.189.97.251 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 92.4.165.234 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Schrandit

So I am normally fairly conservative about these things. From the edit history these first four are all pretty clearly the same person, Dante appears/appeared to be a newish user so I thought it possible that they were editing from multiple locations and just forgot to sign on so I took it to ANI for an explanation. After a few days no explanation from the user was forthcoming, a few more ips popped up and some of the editors who commented at ANI thought that Dante and her IPs bore a uncanny similarity to the banned user SkagitRiverQueen (here SPI here) and suggested I filed a SPI over the matter. These users have made contested edits to controversial pages at the same time. I think CU is necessary to see if this is SRQ trying to evade a ban and if there are any other socks floating around. - Schrandit (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

• Comment - While the characteristic condescending "tone" of SRQ is absent, the topics being edited (plus the socking) have me more than slightly concerned. There's certainly nothing wrong with being a self-proclaimed lesbian ordained minister who edits articles related to Judaism (and has sockpuppets) - but I've only met one on WP so far. I think a CU could hopefully prove whether or not this is SRQ; but behavior is everything when a banned editor is both determined to sock and determined to alter his/her chances of getting caught (she's gotten a few "tips" on how to do it). I will add any evidence as I find it. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• At the very least, 72.78.224.46 is "related"[146] to Dante8, and has picked up where Dante left off. Even though the IP reverts Dante8[147] here[148]: this is merely "copy-editing", as demonstrated when the IP "expands and adjusts" Dante's work[149][150]. Here's the IP reintroducing[151] an image that was put in by Dante8[152]. No response from any of the accused, of course. The last two IPs listed don't seem related in this case, and should be excluded here. This one should be fun to watch... :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk note: I am leaning towards a decline on this CU per privacy policy and 24.189.97.251 has already been blocked once for circumventing a block. Also while running the wikistalk check here and looking at the contribs, I see some small time overlaps, and only a few of the articles hit most of those IPs. Plus with the IPs in the list is a (what looks to be) a solid internet line, not just these mobile phone ranges. I would like another clerk to comment though before I do anything. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Additional information needed - Can someone substantiate the alleged Dante8-SRQ connection with diffs? Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hey, Tim! This is certainly no quacking duck, and while a clear link to SRQ can't be established without CU at this time: there does appear to be a solid behavioral connection between Dante8 and 1-3 of the IPs. This report shouldn't be hinged or judged on SRQ involvement alone, but rather on whether Dante8 is socking. As far as SRQ's recent possible activity goes... I'm still working on it, and may want to e-mail you if "privacy policy" is a concern here. User:Sabra2 and User:UrbanCowboy12 (interestingly, both with numbers after their names, much like Dante8) were proven to be the same user, despite using a gazillion IP socks in the interim. If Dante8 is not conceivably shown to be related to these two through CU - SRQ involvement in this case is most likely "inconclusive" (or at least "stymied"). I'm not 100% convinced that this is SRQ, but I am extremely suspicious that it actually could be. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Let me elaborate a bit: I can't endorse a checkuser to look between Dante8 and the IPs, per the privacy policy; CUs do not link accounts to IPs except in cases of egregious abuse. So the only way I'll endorse a CU is if there's a well-founded suspicion (not necessarily DUCK but definitely more than a hunch) that Dante8 == SRQ, and for that I need to see some diffs that support such a suspicion. Timotheus Canens (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • By "these two", I meant a relation between the two "named" SRQ socks and Dante8 - but I understand that this case is about Dante8 and the reported IPs here. I probably wouldn't have filed this under the CU request, myself. No diffs I can find so far would go beyond a hunch, though this is a Harvard grad Quasimodo compared to a mere "feeling". SRQ is only caught when she messes up, and she has learned not to get caught better after each time. If she's learned to stay away from articles she's previously edited, but still "rewrites" large portions of articles she is known to be interested in... (sigh). You know best what to do here, Tim. Cheers, and thank you :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• So first flag was that these folks have all edited the same (very low volume) articles in the same period of time.
• The next was that they all edited from the same POV.
• They use the same poor citation style, mostly hitting up google books and leaving bare URLs at the end of sentences Dante, ip
• Usually don't leave edit summary's but when they do they use the same grammar and syntax Dante, ip 1, ip 2
• Most damningly - one hand undoes the reversion of the other hand's edits

• Dante reinserting ip 2's edit
• Dante reinserting ip 1's edit
• ip 1 added a photo, then Dante re-adds it, then Dante re-adds it, then ip 2 re-adds it, then Dante re-adds it, then ip 1 re-adds it.

I hope this is sufficient, if not I can probably dig up some more. - Schrandit (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this will make a difference or not but the Dante 8 contributions surprised me because the account is set up on July 2010 with 187 edits but during this short time it's started 9 articles and has put in multiple images. This is not something someone new can do when they first start editing this project. Images alone are difficult to do never mind setting up an article properly. The articles set up look a lot like the ones that SRQ set up prior to her banning. I just thought this might be of interest if missed. It sure took me by surprise, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but from where I'm standing this is enough to call it a Duck. Thoughts? - Schrandit (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to SRQ, I'm not sure yet (and I am the expert). User:ILuvAMRadio was a classic SRQ duck recently detected: Dante8 is slightly more... sophisticated. That doesn't mean it can't be her, but it's not conclusive right now. CU for this report was declined because of the IPs, and the SRQ SPI will be expanded in time. I still think Dante8 is socking, and the report should focus on that alone (& the last two IPs removed, again). Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about SRQ to know if it is her but I know enough about socks to know that this is one and should be stopped before it causes any more damage. - Schrandit (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And, "ignoring" sock accusations entirely[153] is never a good sign... Doc9871 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Clerk declined - Per Myself, Tim, and no developments that prove SRQ's involvement. Now onto administrators for behavioral blocking if needed. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

Jcncnc

Jcncnc (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

05 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 66.58.183.33 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• Gentile72 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Robert18966 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Kory207 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Marioa69 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Paulherrick (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Mustang63 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces

Jcncnc is a new account whose only edits to articles have been to the John Birch Society, mostly to remove the term "radical right" from the lead. Their edit summaries show some knowedge of policy:

• ...This does not exhibit a neutral or unbiased point of view....
• ...All articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints
• Bias policy is being violated

After I placed a 3RR warning on their talk page at 23:23,[154] the IP reinstated Jcncnc's edit at 23:46[155] When reverted they subsequently reinstated the edit.[156]

The fact that Jcncnc appears to be an experienced editor and the new edits followed their edits closely, as well as both continuing to revert is suspicious.

TFD (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added another possible, Mustang63. The fact that sll these accounts end in numbers is reason to suspect that they are all related. TFD (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. I'm accused of sock puppetry because I appear knowledgeable! I've used Wikipedia for years (to look things up). So I have some idea of how Wikipedia works. It doesn't take a lot to figure out you can click the "edit" button to edit an article. And it doesn't take much work to sign up for an account and spend a few minutes reading Wikipedia's guidelines and understanding that a neutral and unbiased tone in all articles is essential to the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. And it doesn't take a genius to know that the term "radical right-wing" or "radical left-wing" are totally unprovable, yet incendiary terms that certainly do not put across a neutral tone. The bias here is palpable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcncnc (talk • contribs) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

I've added Gentile72, Robert18966, Kory207, Marioa69, and Paulherrick as others with similar edit patterns.   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk declined - Checkusers in most cases will never draw the link to a specific IP address. "It is undesirable to link an IP to a named account, since an IP is often much more tightly linked to a specific person." See the Checkuser Policy for details. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

SyedNaqvi90

SyedNaqvi90 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SyedNaqvi90/Archive.

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

06 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Humaliwalay (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by AllahLovesYou

SyedNaqvi90 was blocked on 31 August 2010 because he violated Wiki-policies according to him. He was unwilling to accept major academic and government sources that may show lower percentage for Shias in Pakistan.

1. After SyedNaqvi90 was blocked Humaliwalay began removing sources from the same page [157], unwilling to accept major sources such as Library of Congress. Humaliwalay: "Libraray of Congress is not as authentic as PEW and other reliable sources"
2. From the tone of their language I noticed that SayedNaqvi90 and Humaliwalay are showing Shia nationalism and dislike toward Sunni Muslims, they are engaged in some sort of anti-Sunni propaganda, falsfication of sources and ridiculous POV-pushing. I understand that there are differences between people all around the world but that doesn't mean Wikipedia (encyclopedia) should be used for openly attacking a billion people by writing stuff like this about others (basically nonsense).
3. For example, among many other nonsense, Humaliwalay inserts in articles: "The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' (No one can touch it save the pure) but in it is stated in multiple verdicts of Sunni Scholars that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine", which is backed by these fake unverfiable sources: Fatmaada Aalamgeer Vol.5, Page 134. Fatwa Siraajiya, Page 75. http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_siraajiya_p75.jpg
4. Both of these users have been leaving messages on my talk page in a very similar way [158], and both even use very similar wordings (i.e. they both often use the word "hence"). I hope this is enough evidence needed. Thanks! AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Daniel L. Barth

Daniel L. Barth (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel L. Barth/Archive.

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

06 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets