Administrator instructions - WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U), CheckUser policy (Wikipedia:CheckUser), or Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU).
| Welcome to Sockpuppet investigations (SPI). Please see the sockpuppet policy for detailed definitions and descriptions of what sockpuppetry is and is not. This page is used to discuss whether a user is likely to have violated that policy, or breached other restrictions (eg blocks or bans) using multiple accounts.
[edit] 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. [edit] 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). [edit] Quick CheckUser requests See #Quick CheckUser requests. This page may also be used for other CheckUser requests unrelated to sock abuse, such as: [edit] Evidence and SPI case guidelines  | 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. | 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}}.)
[edit] Submitting an SPI case Create the case by replacing "SOCKMASTER" with the name of the oldest account, or previous case name in the box below. 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 box, then click the button. | Start an SPI case WITHOUT a CheckUser request | Start an SPI case WITH a CheckUser request | | | | | Instructions for requesting checkuser on open cases | | Anyone can request CheckUser at any time on an open case if it is necessary. (This is done automatically if you use the "Request CheckUser" box to create your new request.) If you wish to request CheckUser to any existing open case, then do the following: - Add {{RFCU|CASE LETTER|No2ndLetter|New}} under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section.
- Note: if you used the "Start sockpuppet investigation plus CheckUser request" box to create your new request, then this will already be done, and the template will be placed under the "CheckUser request" section.
- Replace "CASE LETTER" with one of the code letters provided (A, B, C, D, E, or F)
- If a second reason to request CheckUser is necessary, then replace "No2ndLetter" with another code letter.
- A clerk will review the case and make a determination as to whether CheckUser is needed. A clerk will either
 endorse the case for CheckUser attention or  decline the case. - If the case is declined, then the case will be included back on the list of SPI cases that do not have CheckUser requests. If the case is endorsed, then a CheckUser will check all given accounts for technical evidence; this may take a while. At the end, CheckUser may post their results under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section, stating which accounts are
 confirmed to be the same user, which ones are  likely,  possible, or  unlikely that they are the same user, and which ones are  unrelated or  inconclusive. Sometimes, underlying  IP(s) may also be blocked. - The case is then placed back in the list of non-CheckUser requests pending further comments from clerks or patrolling administrators, or it may be closed by a CheckUser or clerk if all issues have been addressed.
| [edit] 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. [edit] See also | [edit] Open cases: not awaiting CheckUser [edit] User reported cases (view cases | edit cases )
| | | Quotient group - Quotient group (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 7 2009, 20:08 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets [edit] Evidence submitted by Mathsci A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was found to have been wikistalking me during the summer by multiple administrators on WP:ANI here. He had made a few edits related to elementary group theory, but disappeared after the charges of wikistalking. Quotient group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appeared later, made some edits concerning elementary group theory, and made some edits about youtube as himself and using the IP 213.48.162.4 (talk · contribs). Here are two almost identical sample postings to my talk page, where he tracked my edits to articles on the organ music of Bach and Handel (Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Handel organ concertos Op.4, Handel organ concertos Op.7). [1][2] Since then using Bristol IPs starting with 213.48.162.*** he has continued to wikistalk me, tracking my edits and making unhelpful and naive remarks in a style very similar to those of A.K.Nole. Whereas A.K.Nole edited from a Cheltenham IP, these edits now come from nearby Bristol, possibly because a new academic year has started and the editor has moved elsewhere in real life. (I'm on wikibreak at the moment while visiting California.) The Bristol IPs and User:Quotient group had already appeared in a previous investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mathsci/Archive but at that stage the duplicated edits on my talk page and the organ music articles had not yet been made. The latest case of wikstalking occurred recently on the talk page of Varoon Arya (talk · contribs), later referred to on WP:FTN. [3] by 213.48.162.5 (talk · contribs). He duplicates comments left by 213.48.162.12 (talk · contribs) [4] on Varoon Arya's talkpage. Another WP editor with more editing experience than me has looked at these edits and agrees that something fishy is going on. It's seems very similar to A.K.Nole's wikistalking. Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - Regarding Captain Occam's unhelpful remarks, please read WP:DUCK. User:Quotient group made the mistake of duplicating edits made by the small range of IPs, which have been wikistalking me since with this range of IPs. The wikistalking (following me to AfD's, talk pages, etc) is indisputable. Captain Occam is stirring the pot here and seems to have very little idea what he's talking about. Certainly A.K.Nole edited when logged out from a Cheltenham IP: since A.K.Nole has not edited with his main account for some time, the link with him might have gone stale. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
←Quotient group's repetition of the incorrect claim that A.K.Nole was "outed" (he merely edited WP while logged out from a Cheltenham IP - outing is something quite different) does not aid his defence. It is quite hard to see why he should repeat A.K.Nole's faulty point of view so closely and with such conviction. In addition he has given no reasonable explanation why he posted almost identical talk page notices followed by almost identical edits to articles on organ music as the Bristol IP. This coincidence does not seem in any way random. Checkuser can easily reveal whether he uses the same range of IPs or is geographically close. Only checkuser can verify if Quotient group is being truthful: certainly the stalking of my edits (this has never happened before to me on wikipedia until A.K.Nole) by the IPs is clear and is not dissimilar to Quotient group's first edits. - Quotient group: 3 very brief and superficial edits (at 1st year undergraduate level) to articles on group theory before participating in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Franco_Selleri with a bizarre remark about the Abd&WMC arbcom case which had just finished here. This confused input, unrelated to the AfD, seems related to the later rather silly claims that I had started the AfD through a sockpuppet, a claim that was dismissed in the subsequent sockpuppet enquiry. However, the edits are consistent with that of A.K.Nole, as is the starter level in university mathematics. This edit [5] and these edits [6], [7], [8] followed by this edit [9] are wikistalking. (Long-term editors on WikProject Music usually just check whether external links work in these long articles, almost all writte.)
- 213.48.162.2: this start edit on Myron Evans material [10] followed by this edit to a topic I started on wP:FTN [11], essentially trolling (the subject had arisen several times already on the noticeboard).
- 213.48.162.4: same edits as Quotient group but a week earlier [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].
- 213.48.162.5/213.48.162.12/213.48.16.17 These apparently separate comments are by the same user [20], [21], [22]. These misleading contributions with different IPs, while not using a registered account, seem to be contrary to core wikpedia policy. 17 also started a WP:FTN subject on Race and intelligence [23], which was dismissed as irrelevant. 5 later participated in this thread [24]. [25].
Although I'm on wikibreak, I was called back to comment on Race and intelligence by User:Slrubenstein and have for a few years been keeping tabs on the fringe science articles around Myron Evans, Ruggero Santilli and Francesco Fucilla and their associates. These users have followed me to this relatively unknown corner of WP and have been editing in a similar way. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - If Quotient group now admits that all these edits were by him, then he was being less than honest here. [26] The primary purpose of his account, given his admission, was wikihounding me. He has never accidentally edited mathematics articles when logged off. All his mathematical contributions have been on the same trivial level (like those of A.K.Nole). Since his style of argumentation is very similar to that of A.K.Nole, as well as his very knowledgeable claims to know why A.K.Nole left WP (from what I remember he was found guilty of wikistalking me by various admins, he was never outed except as being "Elonka" backwards), I think it would still be useful to check whether A.K.Nole edited using an IP 213.48.162.***. Once that has been decided, it will be easier to review the problematic status of the user Quotient group, an account that, with all the anonymous edits, has up until now been primarily been devoted to following my edits, i.e. a primarily disruptive attack account. There is no dispute of any kind here, just a wish to stop this kind of wikistalking. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. A ridiculous and questionable accusation which even on the face of it discloses no allegations of sockpuppetry whatever. It is completely obvious that the varying IP addresses are the same user and of course those were me not logged in, which I usually don't bother to do. It's a dialup, shared by many people and you can get different numbers. (Not everything in the range is by me of course!) Mathsci obviously realised it immediately and could have confirmed that by a simple polite question. This is not sock puppetry. Mathsci drags an old adversary of his to blacken my reputation and use false logic based on false premises -- if AKN hounds him and QG hounds him, they must be the same. Not true and nonsense. AKN edits the same articles as me -- not true. AKN lives in a different town but might have moved -- ridiculous. This is not sock puppetry. AKN left his account for good after he was outed by Mathsci at ANI. Even if he were to return, as me or anyone else, per WP:CLEANSTART this is not sockpuppetry. Mathsci uses this bogus SPI as an excuse to justify his previous assertions on multiple pages eg [27] about my location: this is a personal attack rising to borderline WP:OUTING, as in the AKN case. Mathsci should either take this to a proper forum for dispute resolution or stop this harassment by abuse of wiki-procedures. Quotient group (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Although I haven't paid close enough attention to this issue to have a strong opinion about the Wikistalking / sockpuppet question, something I've noticed consistently is Mathsci's repeated personal attacks against this user, such as [28] and [29]. This aspect of the issue appears to have a history stretching back several months, as evident from this AN/I thread about Mathsci outing personal information against A.K.Nole. According to that thread, attempts at dispute resolution for this issue have failed. If A.K.Nole is using sockpuppets or otherwise violating Wikipedia policy, I don't think either editor can be considered blameless here; I would recommend taking action against them both. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status - Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - A.K.Nole is stale and he admits to being the IPs. Brandon (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions
| | | | Sumdeus - Sumdeus (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 8 2009, 23:26 (UTC) - Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by ConcernedVancouverite (talk)
Sumdeus created two new articles: [32] and [33]. They were proposed for deletion, he removed the template. They were then proposed for Afd, and the Autumray6 account was then created and quickly removed the AfD templates from both articles: [34] and [35]. After the templates were restored Sumdeus quickly re-appeared to remove the Afd templates: [36] and [37]. After Sumdeus got a few warnings I explained that he should instead comment on the Afd page here: [38] to which he did not respond but immediately commented on the Afd of both articles here: [39] and [40]. Shortly thereafter Autumray6 found the Afd's for both articles and commented as well here: [41] and [42]. It seems that the two accounts are tightly related based upon these patterns. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - There is also a clear COI. In an earlier edit on this investigation editor Sumdeus admitted to a conflict of interest regarding the two created articles here. After a COI warning was issued, he then removed that portion from this discussion here. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
I rarely (this is the first time) feel the desire to post to Wikipedia - my account was created today, however Autumray6 is not me. We do know one another, we are not the same person, we just have better things to do (most of the time) than deal with the internet Nazis... Sumdeus (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I would also like to add, that out of this Wikipedia has gained two more highly technical users that won't be submitting new content in the future for the same reasons we haven't since the last time helping if politics of immature people are allowed to play out - management style has much room for improvement albeit understandable for the shear size Sumdeus (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - Comments by other users
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
| | | | SMG055 - SMG055 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 8 2009, 04:13 (UTC) - Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.)
The initial user was blocked for bad uploads. -
- Both based on Sarah Michelle Gellar's name with 55 added at the end.
-
- Same type of edits, adding "Critical reception" headers to movies. See [43] and [44].
-
- Both has called me a vandal for reverting her/his unconstructive edits. See [45] and [46]
-
- The person uploaded another image with a fake license tag too. See [47].
-
- Threatening another person with the same bad English, as well as using the word "immature" both times and listing the articles involved. See [48] and [49]
-
- Also apologized about an image, just like with the other accounts. See [50], [51] and [52].
-
Logged in within the same 10 minute span on both accounts and removed the talk page SSP notice. See [53] and [54]. If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- User:Saa19952 uploaded a bogus film poster (created by blog owner and posted to blog, notating it was not an actual poster for the film) and added it to Salt. The poster was removed here on November 6 and was re-added by User:Gellar55 here. This begs the question of why an editor whose first edit was made on November 6 would a) know about the film poster, having never edited the article before and b) know how and what poster to be re-dded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
| | | | Orsahnses - Orsahnses (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orsahnses/Archive
[edit] Report date November 7 2009, 10:54 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by Pare Mo Dorseoa's unconstructive edits and deliberately vague and inaccurate edit summaries—the all-too-familiar "improve article," "fix sentences," "NPOV," and "clean up," just to mention a few—lead me to believe that he is a sockpuppet of Orsahnses. The fact that their userpages are almost if not completely identical supports this. --Pare Mo (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. As Pare Mo said, they do resemble Orsahnses. Isahries like Orsahnses Orsahnses and their blocked sock, Boxedor have a great disgust for the United States, see their edit summaries and the kind of language they use. For Isahries, this edit, this edit and this edit uses the same exact use of "WP Cleanup" in their edit summary, something that Orsahnses likes to do like this, this or this. A view of the socks edits summaries (as Pare Mo has shown above) and the fact that their editing for the most part, Philippine based articles seems to pass the duck test. I've added the other socks because Orsahnses, as evident with Boxedor, and what it looks like now, Isahries, creates old socks and when one gets blocked, they move to a new one. Note the similarities in their edit summaries compared to the socks and Orsahnses. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC) I also find it very hard to believe that User:Dorseoa has the same exact user page as Orsahnses and a Uchrgseous blocked sock of Orsahnses. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | Jaredsacks - Jaredsacks (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredsacks/Archive
[edit] Report date November 7 2009, 05:40 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by FFMG User Sekwanele was banned for been a sock of Jaredsacks, the new user, Sekwanele_2 is following the same edits pattern as Sekwanele and the username is very similar. FFMG (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - First, Sekwanele is not even blocked, and never has been. Second, that account hasn't edited since January so checkuser is unlikely to be helpful. Are there are more recent Jaredsacks socks to check against? Wknight94 talk 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, my bad, when I saw Sekwaneles page I, (wrongly), thought he had been blocked and created a new account Sekwanele_2 to evade the block.
- I just confused the sock notice with a block notice. FFMG (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions
|
[edit] Bot-reported cases (view cases | edit cases ) | Bot reported cases | |
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was Deeb.
-
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was deeB.
-
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the literal pattern jimbo.
-
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string jimbo is prone to false positives, please take extra care ensuring this name is actually a violation before blocking.
- The string jimbo has a comment associated with it: Check to see if this name is being used to impersonate or insult User:Jimbo Wales HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
| [edit] Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing Cases in this section have an open request for CheckUser that is being processed. Any user may update or act on this case, and any patroller or clerk may decide the case. However it will not be closed if the Clerks believe any further action is needed. - Endorsement or decline of CheckUser may only be made by a Clerk.
- If your case is not showing up here, or this section seems out of date, please click the purge link.
[edit] Awaiting Clerk approval (view cases | edit cases )
| | | ItsLassieTime - ItsLassieTime (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive
[edit] Report date November 9 2009, 06:03 (UTC) - Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)
The editing history and patterns are extremely similar and editor picked up on some of ItsLassieTime's work on various articles, in particular Thumbelina, which several socks were used to edit at various times. First edits also reflect usual pattern of this editor, in creating their user page and talk page with similar worded notes. They appeared as a new editor a month after ItsLassieTime's ban, displaying intimately familiarity with Wikipedia policies and throwing out DYK, GANs, doing GA reviews, etc within a very sort time frame. GA review comments similar to those ItsLassieTime used when passing articles as well, and user page styled in same manner as the ItsLassieTime's time one was. Considering the user's history, requesting check user to both confirm if this is a sock and search for sleepers, as when ItsLassieTime's socks were discovered they had half a dozen going at once. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status -
 Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
| | | | RJII - RJII (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive
[edit] Report date November 9 2009, 06:00 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
Similarity of recent accounts to RJII and suspected socks is discussed at ANI.[55] FredUnavailable has said: "I am fine with any sort of Checkuser." He commented: "I just checked out the RJII pages and I'll admit that my Talk style is uncannily similar." See Defending yourself against claims. The statement from Elen (below) is accurate. I am not, however, related to any RJII. I am confident that the Checkuser will prove this to be the case.--FredUnavailable (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Checkuser should note that Moonbatssuck, Idetestlunarbats, Moonhoaxbat and FredUnavailable are all the same person, who has changed their name repeatedly on being requested to do so (although with some irregularities in process). It would be very helpful if Checkuser could determine if this individual is also an RJII sock.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | JuliaHavey - JuliaHavey (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 8 2009, 23:54 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets Juice Plus has had a longstanding problem with apparent sock puppet SPAs engaging in vandalism, [58][59] [60][61] COI editing, edit warring, and verbal abuse.[62] Two of these accounts have been indefinitely blocked in the past 2 weeks alone.[63][64] It seems that there may be distributors of this multilevel marketed product who are using sock accounts in an attempt to delete crticial (but reliable) content from the article and to insert content in violation of policy, while disregarding WP:COI and WP:SOCK. These apparent sock SPAs are also being cited by another editor to create an illusion of consensus.[65] One editor in particular (c.f. WP biography Julia Havey), who first began posting under the name JuliaHavey, a contentious SPA editor and self-admitted Juice Plus distributor,[66] [67][68] was particularly problematic in the past and has apparently been using multiple sock accounts to circumvent COI policy and avoid scrutiny (c.f. WP:ILLEGIT), after she had claimed in May 2007 that the she was “quitting Wiki” because she “hates the policies” [69][70]. Another editor has acted surreptitiously as a proxy for this user, bypassing the discussion page and attempting to railroad contentious edits and unreliable sources.[71][72] This example shows that the user signed their post as “Julia”, and te user's MO and style is identical to that of JuliaHavey and the aformenetioned sock SPAs. It seems that much of the disruptive activity, policy violations, and apparent sock puppetry on Juice Plus is being perpetrated by Julia Havey. The posts of JuliaHavey and the aforementioned suspected socks are very similar in content (complaining that the article is biased), tone (verbal abuse and personal attacks directed at me specifically), and style (referring to me as “Red”, and excessive use of ALL-CAPS and exclamation points!!!! for example). A Google search indicates that the Haveys (Julia and husband Patrick Havey, who jointly operate a Juice Plus distirbutor ship under the name of the the "Health and Wellness Institute") formerly resided in St. Louis Missouri[73] up until about March of this year and then relocated to the Nashville, TN region (Brentwood, TN) sometime later this year.[74] One of the suspected socks for this user is Dubbawubba (talk)(contribs), since banned indefinitely, who appears to have inadvertently posted without signing in,[75] revealing their IP as 68.52.214.24 (talk)(contribs), a non-commercial IP address registered to Comcast in Nashville, TN[76] (coincidentally or not, the same city in which the product manufacturer, National Safety Associates, is located[77]). Recently, a new user, Jackie_JP, showed up on the page and is claiming to be an official representative/marketing employee of National Safety Associates.[78][79] The user, despite being asked, has not provided contact information that would allow for verification of their employment by NSA. The user is posting images on the article, which they claim were provided and authorized for use by NSA; however no evidence regarding source or permissions was provided). User TraceyR encouraged this editor to violate WP:COI and bypass objections raised on the talk page regarding a controversial edit.[80] An SP investigation is clearly warranted. I realize that much of this complaint probably belongs on ANI but I hope that some progress can be made here first. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
|
[edit] Awaiting CheckUser (view cases | edit cases )
| | | Art Dominique - Art Dominique (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 6 2009, 23:08 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
The long banned and perpetual socker User:Art Dominique (see: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Art Dominique, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Art_Dominique) appears to be back to his pushing his "Soviet agression" POV on Continuation War. However, it is possible that these may be "innocent" POV pushers that happen to share his point of view. Most the account are already blocked, but I'm asking for a CU to see how feasible it is to range block him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - Additional diff of interest: [81] --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence submitted by Illythr To be more precise, this user's single-minded focus in presenting his POV seems to transcend human comprehension: unlike "normal" POV-pushers, who, once rejected, tend to try new ways of doing their thing, this one uses the same approach over and over for more than three years, now. While the content this new incarnation is trying to get through has changed (only the essence remains now), the tactic is always the same - constant reverts coupled with lengthy rants on talk pages that give the impression of someone frustrated with unreasonable opposition and willing to talk. This impression quickly fades as soon as you actually try talking to him, though - it feels like talking to a wall. A talking wall that may echo some of your words back at you, but never actually hears what you are saying. Latest example can be found here. If someone's willing to risk their sanity and do a comparison, here's where poor user:Husond gets to bear the brunt of yet another offensive back in 2007 (!). And here's the result of the one attempt to initiate some kind of dialogue with Art Dominique. --Illythr (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - Note: the latest confirmed sockpuppet of Art Dominique is User:A. Tihonov (December 2008). --Illythr (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. Username War began with Soviet offensive is not only "likely" me - it is me. However, it is not my sockpuppet. It is my previous username, which I only used for very short period of time, in conjunction with the Continuation War article. Then User ThaddeusB wrote to me, stating the following: "Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change." The simplest thing to do was to create a new user account. Since I only had made a very small amount of contributions under the previous account, I didn't care for being credited for them. As I had only contributed to the Continuation War page, I made sure to clearly report to other users on the Talk:Continuation War page, that - "per request" - I had changed my user name. This notice I placed under an individual comment heading, so that it can easily be noticed by all. I stated what had been my previous username, and what I had changed it to. I later wrote to User ThaddeusB, that I had been glad to comply with his username change request. I also told him that the username Kingroodney is in no way associated with me. Based on the activity of the highly disruptive and misbehaving user account of Kingroodney, the soul purpose of it's creation and operation appears to have been to try to make it seem as though it is my sockpuppet account - to get me and other likely-minded contributors in trouble. I believe that account to be the works of user Illythr. The username Enabling others also has no association with me. Boris Novikov (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - From my talk:
Art Dominique was obsessed specifically with the Continuation war - almost all his socks were single purpose accounts that pushed the same POV with single-minded focus into that one article. He also edited some topic-relevant articles like Battle of Tali-Ihantala, but the primary article is his main haunt. The latest one seems to be a significant upgrade from the usual - he actually made a valid point before reverting to the usual mantra. --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - As such, I would say there at least some small chance that Boris is unrelated since he doesn't quite fit the usual pattern. (And yes, if Boris is unrelated to Art then "War began with Soviet offensive" is not actually a sock. It was shut down for username reasons only, making a creation of a new account perfectly legit.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
|
[edit] Completed cases [edit] Pending close Cases here have been closed by users and are awaiting a Clerk to review for formal close and archiving. (view cases | edit cases )
[edit] Quick CheckUser requests This section is for CheckUser requests unrelated to sockpuppetry, such as: -
- Underlying IPs - identification and blocking for a longer term than autoblock.
- Collateral damage checks - before hardblocking IPs and ranges.
- Threats of harm (to self or others) - where the location and other details may be needed for law enforcement or medical authorities.
- IP block exemption checks - before granting IPBE or to confirm proper use.
Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above. If posted here, they will be delisted by a clerk without being actioned. Copy the following template and paste it to the end of this page (quick link to edit) with a useful header and details, then sign using "~~~~" and click "save". -
| ==== HEADER ====
{{SPIquick}} |
[edit] Suicide threat by Eggbaguette  | This quick case is open. | Eggbaguette (talk · contribs) has made a suicide threat here. Looks like a hoax to me, but, better to take it seriously and find out he was kidding, than to ignore it and find out he wasn't.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 02:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Archived cases The following are old SPI cases, separated by month: |
![[47]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lucy_liu_sundance.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
