FuriousJorge

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

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

[edit] Report date January 2 2010, 06:39 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by Soxwon

Compare these edits with this edit. They are almost identical. Soxwon (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Administrator note: IP already blocked for one week, for vandalism. Amalthea 18:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Administrator note: Possibly the same person, but not in violation of WP:SOCK. IP is already blocked for a week, unless FuriousGorge comes back during that time there's nothing else to be done. Amalthea 18:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.

Killercali

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

[edit] Report date December 28 2009, 09:14 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Archer Drezelan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 75.85.119.218 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Livewire legend (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by MuffledThud (talk)

Account created August 08, all but one edits were on Jim Markunas, editor of "Chicks with Guns Magazine" up to May 09. Note article created with unusual edit summary "Added notability, added sources".

User:Archer Drezelan created October 09, immediately began creating links and articles on Lucas Hardeman, related artists, and template to link them together. Note intro of Lucas Hardeman: employee of "Chicks with Guns". Note also edit history of Lucas Hardeman, where edits are made by User:Archer Drezelan with edit summary "added notability" at [1], [2]. On 28 Dec. 09, User:Killercali awakens from 7-month hibernation to remove AFD notice and refimprove tag from Lucas Hardeman in these two adjacent edits. MuffledThud (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:75.85.119.218 has made only one edit: blanking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman in this edit, two minutes before User:Killercali removed the AFD from Lucas Hardeman.

User:Livewire legend's first edit in March 06 was to add Lucas Hardeman to the notable alumni of a college in this edit. User:Archer Drezelan re-attempts this in Nov 09 at [3], [4] and [5] in the space of a few minutes. User:Livewire legend has subsequently been the sole co-editor with User:Archer Drezelan of Template:R.E.B.E.L., The Dance: The History of American Minstrelsy, Jason Christopher White and Aaron White. This behavior was already noted by another editor at User talk:Livewire legend#Speedy deletion nomination of R.E.B.E.L.. User:Livewire legend has also uploaded photos of Lucas Hardeman File:LH in Studio.jpg, File:Lucas Hardeman Rosa Parks.jpg, claiming self-creation by Lucas Hardeman in the summary. File:Lucas hardeman pinches tacos.jpg is credited to "Markus Eliance", which is noted as an alias of Lucas Hardeman in Lucas Hardeman.

Comment A day after User:Killercali removed the AFD notice and refimprove tag from Lucas Hardeman, User:75.85.119.218 did the same in this edit. MuffledThud (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

As was stated in the deletion page for Lucas Hardeman, myself and Archer Drezelan share an IP address, and have been making edits to a number of pages to, what I now know to be a "Walled Garden". After reviewing the rules of Wikipedia, we both have condeded to move the remaining pages we've edited to our sandbox, until the original subjects are notable under Wikipedia guidelines.

However, we do not have any connection to User:Killercali. Whomever made those edits would not be from our same network, as I personally am not familiar with any other editors for the particular pages you've submitted as evidence. Livewire legend (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response: Same thing for User:75.85.119.218 -- No idea who that is. I didn't even know you could edit Wikipedia without a real username. Unless the admins just removed the name or something. But yeah, I don't know who killercali or that othr user are. It's just me an Livewire legend who were editing those other pages. Archer Drezelan (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ALSO Re: the picture files, we had access to those pictures from the subject of the page. Which is also why we said in the deletion page for Lucas Hardeman that we did in fact make an AUTOBIO of sorts; meaning specifically that we know the subject, but he did not write it himself. We had access to his personal history just the same.

Again, we've gone through the guidelines and understand what we did was against policy. We will make sure not repeat our error in the future. Archer Drezelan (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You're saying here that you're not Lucas Hardeman: "we know the subject, but he did not write it himself. We had access to his personal history just the same."

Yet as noted above, you've uploaded images claiming that "I, Lucas Hardeman" (or in some cases "I, Archer Drezelan") is the creator and copyright holder, and grants permission to publish it under CCA license, etc. So which is correct: are you the creator of the photos or not? If you're not both Lucas Hardeman, or his relatives old enough to have taken the photos yourself/yourselves, then you've both falsely claimed to be creators of these images, and they should be deleted immediately. MuffledThud (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Response: We gave the subject credit for creating the photos because the photos belong to him, and we used them for the page. Obviously these pictures were not in public domain, with the exception of the Newsweek article (which we should have included) and the infobox. So technically, yes, we did make a false claim in being the creators, because we have no way of knowing who physically took the picture. Livewire legend and I are not his relatives, but we do have a relationship with the subject that would constitute a COI under Wikipedia's guidelines.

As well, when originally uploading them, it was done without carefully going over the categories on Copyright and proper submission. As is policy, if the pictures are to be deleted, so be it. Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Response: Shouldn't we keep this argument about sockpuppetry? The issue of the images lacking proper citing is not wholly relevant to this particular case. Just like I said on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucas_Hardeman#Lucas_Hardeman, the killercali dude is screwing up our peace negotiation. :) We just want this resolved, and to keep our accounts. I personally don't care if the subjects page gets deleted, because there are plenty of other subjects I'm interested in contributing to. But, like Archer said, do what you must, MuffledThud. It's your world, and I'm just a ferret.Livewire legend (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The argument is indeed about sockpuppetry: you've misrepresented yourself as Lucas Hardeman when uploading the images, and this misrepresentation should be taken into account when judging whether to take you at your word that you and User:Archer Drezelan are separate users. MuffledThud (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

--By the way, thank for your vote on AFG, User:MuZemike.Livewire legend (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a vote really, but my observations. –MuZemike 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I am leaning towards AGFing here that these are two separate people sharing one common IP, that IP not being the one who blanked the deletion discussion. –MuZemike 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

I don't think there is sockpuppetry going on here, given the diverse articles edited and the patterns. I'll leave it open if another administrator wants to look at it. –MuZemike 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WalterMitty

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

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

[edit] Report date December 25 2009, 04:44 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Betty Logan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Melody Perkins (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence

The following report was rejected by a checkuser in August 2009, because the editing data for WalterMitty and Melody Perkins was stale, but the report does not seem to have been relisted for consideration on behavioral evidence alone:

Evidence submitted by TheRetroGuy

User:Betty Logan appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked user Melody Perkins, itself a sockpuppet of User:WalterMitty, both of whom were indef blocked for block evasion. Not only do Betty Logan and Melody Perkins have several articles in common,[6] [7] but Betty Logan has embroiled herself in the Jenny Agutter nudity debate, seeking a similar outcome (see these two discussions for a comparison [8] [9]). Betty Logan registered on 7 November 2008 [10] and began editing within a few days [11], a couple of weeks after Melody/Walter's block. The Betty Logan account was registered shortly after activity from these suspected socks ceased. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Melody Perkins was blocked on 20 October 2008 [20] as a block evading sockpuppet of WalterMitty, itself blocked for 6 months in May 2008. [21] WalterMitty's block was reset, then changed to an indef block after the user later went on to engage in harassment (see suspected socks above, links 7 to 14). Betty Logan and Melody Perkins have several articles in common with each other. Some examples include:

• Maximum break, Betty Logan, 62 edits, Melody Perkins, 10 edits [22]
• List of most expensive films, Betty Logan, 80 edits, Melody Perkins, 21 edits [23]
• Bikini waxing, Betty Logan, 10 edits, Melody Perkins, 9 edits [24]
• Steve Davis, Betty Logan, 21 edits, Melody Perkins, 8 edits [25]

There are others, but these appear to be the most significant. I know we all have articles in common, but the diversity of these subjects lead me to believe it is possible that Betty Logan and Melody Perkins are one and the same person. Please see also this checkuser report for further details. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
:Also see this comment from Betty Logan regarding the addition of this video to the article by Melody Perkins, which was subsequently deleted. I find it strange that Betty can recall a video which was included in the article for less than an hour over a year ago and can give directions to it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Update by User:Beyond My Ken

The commonality between the edits of these three accounts remains striking:

• Maximum break, Betty Logan, 67 edits; Melody Perkins, 10 edits; WalterMitty, 1 edit[26]
• List of most expensive films, Betty Logan, 216 edits; Melody Perkins, 21 edits [27]
• Bikini waxing, Betty Logan, 14 edits; Melody Perkins, 9 edits [28]
• Steve Davis, Betty Logan, 22 edits; Melody Perkins, 8 edits; WalterMitty, 7 edits[29]
• Jenny Agutter, Betty Logan, 11 edits; Melody Perkins, 13 edits; WalterMitty, 6 edits [30]
• Stephen Hendry, Betty Logan, 32 edits; WalterMitty, 22 edits [31]
• Alex Higgins, Betty Logan, 32 edits; WalterMitty, 3 edits [32]
• Peter Ebdon, Betty Logan, 6 edits; Melody Perkins, 4 edits [33]
• Matthew Stevens, Betty Logan, 14 edits; Melody Perkins, 4 edits; WalterMitty, 1 edit [34]
• Audrey Tautou, Betty Logan, 28 edits; Melody Perkins, 2 edits; WalterMitty, 2 edits [35]
• Don't Look Now, Betty Logan, 26 edits; Melody Perkins, 1 edit; WalterMitty, 9 edits [36]
• Paul Hunter, Betty Logan, 4 edits; WalterMitty, 12 edits [37]
• World Matchplay (snooker), Betty Logan, 1 edit; WalterMitty, 8 edits [38]
• List of world snooker champions, Betty Logan, 6 edits; WalterMitty, 7 edits [39]

Since both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins are blocked, if Betty Logan is, as it appears, a sock of the WalterMitty editor, all of Betty Logan's edits are in furtherance of avoiding a block. Note that the Betty Logan account was created on 7 November 2008, just 17 days after both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins were blocked on 20 Octobert 2008. [40][41] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This evidence shows that at least 479 edits were made by Betty Logan to 14 articles where Melody Perkins had previously made 72 edits and WalterMitty had made 76 edits, before they were indef blocked for abusive use of mltiple accounts.

Of course, the 14 articles listed above are not Betty Logan's only overlap with the two blocked accounts, WalterMitty and Melody Perkins. Betty Logan and WalterMitty have 26 articles in common, and with Melody Perkins (who was editing at the same time as WalterMitty), Betty Logan's overlap is 16 articles.

Below, Betty Logan suggests that the overlap between his or her edits and those of WalterMitty and Melody Perkins is a coincidence, and suggests that comparison between her edits and those of User:Armbrust will show a similar coincidence. Indeed, Betty Logan and Armbrust do indeed have a significant overlap, with 153 pages in common, but there is also a significant difference between this overlap between two snooker-oriented editors and the overlap between Betty Logan and the two blocked accounts: as far as I can determine, all of the articles involved in the Betty Logan/Armbrust overlap are snooker-related. In the case of WalterMitty/Melody Perkins/Betty Logan, it's the common interest in non-snooker related articles – Bikini waxing, Jenny Agutter (an Australian actress), Audrey Tautou (a French actress), Don't Look Now (an Italian horror film) and List of most expensive films – which is most telling. It's highly unlikely that three randomly selected snooker enthusiasts would have these very specific non-snooker interests in common.

The evidence presented here is compelling because of the totality of the pattern of editing, not just because of the common interest in snooker. This is not, as Betty Logan describes it "circumstantial evidence at best", such patterns are the essence of a behavioral case for sockpuppetry, in this instance to avoid two blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses to comments

Contrary to Betty Logan's contention below, that their editing behavior on Avatar (2009 film) was "exemplary", as a result of a conflict with User:Erik and User:Wildhartlivie, Betty Logan filed a complaint on AN/I, and joined in to expand what appears to be a frivolous and scattershot SPI complaint against Wildhartlivie and other editors who disagreed with her. These actions appear on their face to be retaliatory, and, if so, are not the behavior of an editor dedicated to consensus as Betty Logan wishes to protray her- or himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Compare Betty Logan's scattershot counter-accusations below to his or her behavior here, with the intent to muddy the waters and to use every possible means of deflecting yet another block. It would have been nice if Betty Logan had provided even one diff to support her allegation, but in any event, I state categorically that I am not User:Ethelh, who I am not familiar with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

After some investigation, I see that User:Ethelh was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Epeefleche. According to this and this, my account has no overlap whatsoever with Ethelh, and a trivial 3 overlaps with Epeefleche, 2 of them user talk pages. It doesn't seem on the face of it likely that I am them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone would ask Betty Logan to stop refactoring my edits. My understanding is as the person who brought this case, my remarks should go here, not in the "comment by other users" section. Betty Logan has moved them to that section a number of times now, and I don't wish to violate 3RR by continuing to move them back to where I believe they belong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the investigating admin should take a look at this, where Betty Logan made the same unsupported accusations as he or she does below. The "common editing history" that is supposed to exist between Epeefleche and myself consists of a single edit I made on Erik's talk page to inform him, as an uninvolved editor, of the complaint that Betty Logan had posted on ANI. Erik is the lead coordinator of WikiProject Film, and therefore is known to many people who edit film articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, while for the convenience of the investigating admin I have commented above on Betty Logan's unsupported allegation concerning me, I am under no obligation to defend myself, as I am not the subject of this investigation, Betty Logan is. Rather than throwing around charges left and right, apparently with the intent of muddying the waters and deflecting attention from the evidence presented above, he or she would be better advised to provide any information they feel would mitigate against that evidence, as they did in their initial comment. That evidence shows that at least 479 edits made by Betty Logan to 14 articles where Melody Perkins had previously made 72 edits and WalterMitty had made 76 edits, before they were indef blocked for abusive use of mltiple accounts. If Betty Logan has nothing more to say on that subject, they should perhaps withdraw from the discussion and allow the process to continue without the further disruption of unfounded and unsupported accusations against others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The evidence shows that Betty Logan is a sockpuppet of WalterMitty and Melody Perkins, and since these accounts are blocked there is no need to show "disruption" by the editor, since all of his or her edits are in futherance of avoiding those blocks. (FWIW, I have no knowledge of the quality of Betty Logan's editing, as the case presented here is not in any way concerned with it.) If, as Betty Logan appears to be arguing below, this editor has had a change of heart and is now only interested in editing productively, perhaps his or her best course of action is to admit to their sockpuppetry and ask, on the basis of their newly adjusted behavior, for a second chance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully decline Betty Logan's offer, made below, to "mentor" me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, the basis of this complaint is that using an alternate account to edit around a block is detrimental to Wikipedia, and is considered to be disruption per se. According to my understanding, there is no requirement to show that the editing itself has been disruptive, only that the edits have taken place to avoid a block, or, in this case, two blocks. I have no particular animus against Betty Logan, and would have no objection if an admin were to determine that her editing has been, in general, beneficial to the project and were to, for instance, offer Betty Logan an official "fresh start" on condition that she admit her connection to WalterMitty and Melody Perkins. My one concern is that his or her behavior on this SPI page, and in particular on this one might indicate a willingness to engage in rather non-collegial behavior, but that may be understandable given the situation he or she is in, i.e. a relatively constructive editor with a history of sockpuppetry called to defend their past errant behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

One further comment: I've looked at Wilhartlivie's editing history, and I see there a solid record of positive contributions to Wikipedia, primarily on articles related to film. Betty Logan's comments regarding her editing are unfounded and uncollegial, and should be retracted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to clerk comment below

I am not aware of any specific disruption attached to Betty Logan's editing per se, aside from the ANI filing and his or her apparently retaliatory behavior on the other sockpuppet report linked above; however, it was my understanding that editing through a block was, by definition, disruptive, or I would never have filed this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

This has only just come to my attention through an investigation into another user, and I am perplexed I was not notified about this. If a checkuser is run on me it there will be no IP match since mine is static. In addition to that the cross-editing looks considerable but you have to take into account the area where most of this cross-editing takes place. I often edit the snooker articles and I often encountered edits by Melody Perkins. She seemed to be a good editor for the most part, but there aren't many snooker articles so two people who share an interest will often cross edit. The only other article we cross-edited was the bikini waxing article. The claim that the video was only on there for an hour is a lie, it was present for weeks if not months, so it was hard to miss if you were a regular vistor to the article, and it is one of the firt videos up if you google "bikini wax". The only reason I became involved in that article was because my boyfriend refused to perform oral sex on me unless I had a bikini wax. I tried shaving but it leaves stubble, so I came across that article while I was researching bikini waxing. I don't feel too comfortable revealing aspects of my sex life here on Wikipedia, but if it helps to clear this up then I will oblige.

When Melody Perkins stopped posting on the snooker articles I looked her up to see she was banned for being a sock. She had always been effective editor on the snooker articles, but since she admitted to being a sock I guess she left the admins with no choice. I bookmarked 3/4 of the articles outside of the snooker which she regularly edited and had been targetted for vandalism because I was worried there would be no-one around to protect them. I realise it looks like a pattern of cross-editing, but when you take the snooker out of the equation where the articles are not independent that only amounts to a handful of articles. I am sure there are plenty of articles in other areas which we have edited independently.

If I am going to go under 'behavioral analysis' I hope this take into account our MO on the articles we have in common, rather than just a judgment based on a small amount of circumstantial evidence. If you take the Jenny Agutter article for instance where it is suggested I argued for the same outcome as MelodyPerkins, this simply isn't true. Melody Perkins argued for a list of the nude scenes to be included. I argued for the mention of the scenes to be incorporated into the text and for their notability to be established through reliable sources. That resulted in the nude scenes only being mentioned in relation to Jenny Agutter's own comments about them. I resisted their total removal because I felt that would be censorship, but I also recognised that their inclusion had to be consistent with Wikipedia policy.

Another article Melody Perkins and I have in common beyond the snooker project is the List of most expensive films. I'm not sure what Melody did there apart from remove erroneously charted films, but I have personally proceeded to work through that article and source every entry. If you compare the article to how it was at the start of the year to how it is now you will notice it is a very well sourced article as opposed to being completely unsourced. In the next few days I will have it completely sourced.

Another article for you take a look at is the List of snooker player nicknames. At the start of the year completely unsourced with false entries, and now I have completely sourced it.

Similarly with List of vegetarians and Pescetarianism - both completely unsourced this time last year and now completely sourced! The Vegetarian list was some undertaking.

My main focus in these articles has to been provide complete verifiable and reliable sourcing for the claims within. I think you will find these articles inparticular are in a much better state due to my involvement. Although I've only looked through several of Melody's edits, it seemed she had no interest in sourcing. Our behavior on the common articles is completely different, and I doubt you will find any articles where the point of my edits have been to perpetuate her edits. Our functions and our MO on the common articles are different to such an extent that we look like separate editors - because we are!

Even if I haven't quite convinced you here then at least look at the articles I have highlighted and ask if I have ever vandalised an article as Betty Logan, and consider the improvements these articles have undergone with my involvement. It is very obvious that the bulk of my editing is in sourcing articles, so the question is am I good for Wikipedia or not? I have never been blocked, and while I have been involved in the odd dispute they have always been resolved usually through my own edits by reasoning with the other editor. With the American-British debate on Avatar (2009 film) I deferred to consensus and no edit-warring took place apart from the odd revert in establishing the ground. I would very much like to be able to stay on Wikipedia and continue with my main function of adding sources to poorly sourced articles. Even if you ultimately decide to suspend my account I would appreciate it if you could give me 48 hours notice so I can wrap up the sourcing on List of most expensive films since it is almost complete, although I would very much prefer to stay.

Obviously I can't prove I am not Melody Perkins, so I hope my record as a good editor will at leats earn me the benefit of the doubt. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look in to that complaint (re Beyond My Ken below in respect to the Avatar/ANI) you will see that that my conduct on "Avatar" was exemplary. There was a disagreement between myself and User:Erik, which was ultimately resolved (see talk page). There was a small dispute between Erik and myself in how the dispute was listed after he removed some of my comments in respons eto his on anothe rtalk page which I restored but that was resolved once he reworded his own comments. User:Wildhartlivie left extremely unpleasant comments on my talk page which I complained about at ANI. An administrator pointed out in that dispute that Erik 'canvassed' and Wildhartlivie should not have left the comments he did. The upshot was I did not edit-war as Wilhartlivie accused me of doing so I was justfified in filing a complaint about it.Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have suspicions that User: Beyond My Ken is a sock of User:Epeefleche who has made similar allegations in the past. I was involved in a dispute with User:Erik at Avatar (2009 film). The dispute was eventually resolved amicably, but User:Wildhartlivie left some unpleasant messages on my User talk page: [42]. I felt they were completely unwarranted so reported them at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice. The admin agreed that Wildhartlivie was out of order: [43]. Editor User:Beyond My Ken who had been on Wikipedia less than a month who is very informed about Wikipedia protocol and is already instigating sock investigations launches a sock investigation into me. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history on the talk page of User:Erik (the aforementioned editor above) with User:Epeefleche:[44] User:Epeefleche was blocked for having a sock User:Ethelh: [45]. User:Ethelh conducted a campaign of harrassment against me after I removed an unsourced contribution. She accused me of creating socks (seeing a pattern?) and waging a campaign of harrassment against her: User_talk:Betty_Logan#ANI_discussion_you_may_be_interested_in. This came to nothing in the end because User:Ethelh was blocked for being a sock. I find it very suspicious that User:Beyond My Ken and User:Epeefleche have a common editing history on the talk page of a user I was in a dispute with, and now here is an editor with less than a month's experience on Wikipedia already filing sock invetsigations. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the refactoring comment above, I moved the comments to the section below because User:Beyond My Ken's defence that he is not a sock are hardly evidence in the case against me. The above section is for evidence, not for his own personal comments about who he is or isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to these 14 common articles ken cites above, you can run my name against any number of editors and you will get a similar match level. Yes, we have a lot of common edits, but I also have a lot of common edits with User:Armbrust. If User:Beyond My Ken can't provide anything beyond circumstantial evidence I don't really see that there is a case to answer to. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I see that I made a mistake when I said the video had been up for less than an hour. It was added to the article on 23 July 2008 [46] and removed and deleted on 21 August 2008 [47]. On 23 July it was moved rather than deleted. I guess the longer timeframe makes it possible that she would have seen and remembered it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your main beef with me seems to be in regards to the Jenny Agutter article. Do you not think the article reads a lot better now the material is integrated into the text and sourced through Jenny Agutter's own comments? Instead of reeling off a list of nude scenes, we now have a textual commentary by Jenny Agutter from an interview with a respected journalist about their impact on audiences. Would you not say my edits were constructive and positive? Do you think I adopted the same uncompromising approach as Melody Perkins? Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

When you proposed adding the information to the Jenny Agutter article I was concerned about how it was going to play out, mainly because of the trouble I had during my previous involvement in that particular debate. But I have to agree that it does read better. I can't really comment on any of the other stuff, but if you have been making constructive edits and you're not WalterMitty/Melody Perkins I guess there shouldn't be a problem. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So I think these are the main points:

• I have lots of snooker edits in common with Melody Perkins and I liked her as an editor. I also knew her from the Bikini Waxing article too.
• After she was banned for admitting she was a sock, I took on some of her articles beyond the snooker project that were regularly targetted for vandalism because I worried about them. This just amounts to circumstantial evidence at best, the question is has melody used a secondary account to perpetuate her edits?
• The most controversial one, the Jenny Agutter article, the opposing editor agreed that that by integrating some of the material and sourcing it I have improved it. A completely different MO to Melody Perkins.
• Another article we have in common was List of most expensive films. Melody just removed the odd erroneous entry, I have systematically worked through the list sourcing every film. This is also the case with List of snooker player nicknames.
• With the Audrey Tautou article there was a debate over the birth date. Melody Perkins favoured the earlier once. Many times I have restored the later date to the article following its removal, primarily because while both dates are sourced neither should be removed.
• With respect to the comments below by User:Wildhartlivie. I was involved in a dispute on the talkpage of another article with User:Erik. We were attempting to resolve an issue, which is the opposite of edit-warring. Erik invited input at WT:FILM which I felt was more than just a notification because it summarised his half of the argument and not mine:[48] I responded to this, he removed my comments so I restored them. Erik then adapted his comments to address my concerns [49], but following this User:Wildhartlivie violate WP:AGF and left rude messages on my talk page:[50]. I tried resolving this with user:Wildhartlivie but he removed my comments: [51]. I felt his comments were inappropriate so I took them to ANI were an administrator found that Erik had canvassed, and that Wildhartlivie should not have left the messages on my talk page: ===>[52] <===. When another editor launched a separate official investigation into the conduct of Wildhartlivie, I dropped a note informing her of the current ongoing one. Betty Logan (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This really is quite simple. Is it implausible that Melody Perkins and I edited snooker articles and the Bikini waxing articles independently? No. Is it implausible that I took over 3/4 of her articles beyond the scope of the snooker project after she was blocked because I was worried about potential vanadalism whil she was no longer there? No. Neither of these scenarios are implausible. So if your intention is to prove I am sock then you need to present evidence that we edited to the same agenda. If you check the List of most expensive films you will see that mine and Melody's editing styles are completely different and my main objective has been to source all the estimates. If working through an article and sourcing it in its entirety is proof of me being a sock then you have a strange understanding of the term. User:Beyond My Ken keeps talking about editing patterns, but has failed to produce any edits that endeavoured to create any disruption on the articles in question. All my edits on the common articles have been to add sources or revert unsourced additions. I just hope the investigating admin takes a look at those articles and sees the amount of work I've put into them, because I am actually quite proud of how far they've come on. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Beyond My Ken is a beginner on Wikipedia I am willing to offer my services as a mentor to him. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've put a strike through the evidence regarding the video since it was there for a month, would have been seen by any number of people in that time and therefore shouldn't be considered in this report. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, Retroguy. I will reiterate to User:Beyond My Ken that according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims "cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only". As yet he has presented no evidence of misuse. An examination of the articles I edit will prove I am a conscientious editor whose priority is making sure that the information is well sourced on the articles I edit. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, Nathan. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to User:Wildhartlivie's most recent comment, I am sure he would advocate throwing me into the river and burning me at the stake if I didn't drown. For the record I do appreciate the objective consideration of the "evidence" that I seem to be receiving from the clerks. Anyway Happy New Year Wikipedia! Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie has repeatedly moved his comments to the 'Evidence' section: [53] and [54]. Can the clerks please ask him to restrict his comments to the 'Comments by other users' section. He should not be commenting beyond this section since he did not file the case, he is not teh accused, and he is not a clerk. Thankyou. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I am slightly curious as to why both User:Beyond My Ken and User:Wildhartlivie want to see me thrown of Wikipedia. If you look at where the bulk of my work has been focused (List of vegetarians, Pescetarianism, List of snooker player nicknames, List of most expensive films) along with my general editing on the snooker articles these articles have been transformed into fully sourced articles. It is obvious from my article editing my intentions on the articles are honourable. You'd think they would pursue someone who was actually vandalising and disrupting articles wouldn't you? Looking through Wildhartlivie's editing history I'm wondering exactly what his role is on Wikipedia besides arguing with other editors. The only reason I crossed swords with Wildhartlivie was when I was in dispute over a particular article. The fact that I was discussing the issue and trying to obtain a consensus says it all really. If I run socks why didn't I wheel a few out to support my cause?? I honestly think if you chaps have this much energy to expend on another editor you should save it for someone who is editing to the detriment of the articles on here, rather than someones who can demonstarte on several articles that she is committed to building well-sourced neutral articles. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other users

I want to respond to the misrepresentations made by Betty Logan regarding her silly complaint to WP:AN/I. I posted to her talk page that the actions by Erik were the same as what any other editor would do and I mentioned that edit warring wasn't acceptable. In fact, she did revert the movement of her post to the WT:FILM page more than one time, which I did mention to her. She responded to me by making veiled threats to take it to WP:AN/I, which she proceeded to do, lamenting at one point that I don't seem to accept that my behavior was at fault. My comments to her at that time were in no way "extremely unpleasant", even when she removed my comments from her page as "vandalism". At least until she threatened to go to WP:AN/I, after which I told her not to post to my talk page. She was taken to task for soliciting the response of another editor, who filed a baseless and unwarranted sock puppet investigation complaint against me, telling her "There is an investigation into [my] conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice if you would you like to bring your probelsm with this editor to the attention of the administrators". Betty Logan trotted over to that sock investigation to add, unwarranted, names of persons with whom she has a beef, claiming they are socks of mine, too. This user has no basic understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies and sees nothing wrong with dropping unfounded accusations against other editors in a manner which serves to stir up problems. The admininstrator at WP:AN/I did not "agree" I was out of order, the adminstrator said that if I dropped edit war notices on her talk page, I would be wrong. I did not leave a warning template for her, so the comments were pointless. I have no doubt whatsoever that an editor who has participated in this level of disruption in my life would violate sock puppet guidelines. She should be banned if she is not yet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the evidence presented here is far more compelling than your knee-jerk additions of Beyond My Ken to the specious sock puppet case against me in which you commented, inanely, and added every name of every editor that came across your bow. As for "rude", that is your interpretation only, no one supported your assertion nor backed you up. The administrator comment was that dropping an edit warring template wasn't appropriate, but you continue to ignore the fact that no edit warring template was "dropped". Please stop misrepresenting the comments of the administrator on WP:AN/I, when it is obvious he didn't bother to go look at what was said and did not bother to follow up his comments. You seriously need to learn what these forums are for and how to operate on them, because they do not represent "official investigations" into anyone's conduct. Well, except for filing sock puppet cases. Your whiny complaint to WP:AN/I was basically ignored. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder why you would purport that the evidence submitted does not tend to implicate you nor does it support your contention when it was a matter of "I think" when you added various other names to the specious sock case against me on which you commented. You started add names of anyone with whom you disagree. Why would this case require something more? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you could act as a mentor to someone who clearly knows more about Wikipedia than you do. You've yet to respond in any coherent manner. Don't insult him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here. If behavioral evidence tends to indicate that Betty Logan=WalterMitty and other accounts, that in itself is editing around a block and is disruptive in and of itself. Her conduct in regard to speciously expanding the sock puppet accusations to include anyone who responded was disruptive and non-warranted and her report to WP:AN/I has been boldly misrepresented here. If it quacks like a duck... Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And I would strongly urge Betty Logan to stop moving this comment around the case page. This is a valid endorsement of the comment posted to the clerk comments and is thusly properly posted. Do not move my comments around. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I formally protest the moving of my properly posted endorsement of the comments by User:Beyond My Ken regarding the clerk's comments and I formally protest the personal attack launched by the editor above in regard to the characterization of my editing history as "I'm wondering exactly what his role is on Wikipedia besides arguing with other editors." For the record, I am a SHE, not a HE, please bother to learn enough about someone to discover their gender, and I have a solid record of editing on this encyclopedia, have taken two articles to good article status, one to featured article status, one to featured list status, have made over 45,000 edits and work deeply with WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM. I do not appreciate aspersions being cast upon me by a disruptive editor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk note: It's plausible, given the overlap, that Betty Logan = WalterMitty/Melody Perkins. I'd like to see some evidence of disruptive effect, though, given that its been a year since WM/MP were blocked. If none can be found, aside from the disagreement above about an ANI filing, then there would seem to be nothing gained by blocking Betty Logan at this point over the potential connection to WM/MP. Nathan ^T 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Clerk note: Stop edit warring. I don't care where the comments are; just leave them where they are right now. If you continue, you will be blocked. NW (Talk) 19:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

BlackJack

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

[edit] Report date January 3 2010, 17:49 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Orrelly Man (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

BlackJack has previously admitted to using sockpuppets (User:Bart Maverick and User:The bowling of a ghost) [55]. No action was taken against BJ or either of these socks.

[edit] Evidence submitted by 85.210.127.158

• Accounts (BlackJack and Orrelly Man) have edited 351 of the same pages. [56] Mostly 'year in sports' and cricket articles.
• 'Infantile stupidity' edit summaries. [57] [58] [59] [60]
• Orrelly Man stopped editing on 27 June 2009, BlackJack came back from his wikibreak two hours later.[61]
• BlackJack asks an admin to investigate User:HughGal, [62] Orrelly Man then reverts HughGal's edit. [63]
• Both accounts participated on the same discussion regarding births in 'year in sports' articles and regarding H. D. G. Leveson Gower.
• Orrelly Man participated in 10 AFDs which is inappropriate uses of alternate accounts per WP:ILLEGIT.

85.210.127.158 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Misconceptions2

Misconceptions2 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2/Archive.

[edit] Report date January 2 2010, 15:16 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Mirroryou1 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Admit-the-truth (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 188.221.108.172 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• XxGustakhxX (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Bali ultimate

Misconception2 is involved in heated editing at a new article he just created Muhammad and assassinations (article since speedily deleted). In December he was blocked a week for sockpuppetting with User:Muhammadproject. Mirroryou1 shares this users problems with the english language and point of view, and has so far confined itself to reverting to his prefered version. Mirroryou1 was used earlier today to avoid 3rr. Admit-the-truth has already been blocked for peristend copyvios (the same persistent copyvio problems Misconceptions2 has had) but include it as a point of reference.

The underlying issue is that we have a very, very strong pov-battler on our hands who is much more interested in making some point or other about Islam (I'm not sure what it is exactly beyond "Islam is bad") and the extent of the disruption should at least be limited. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added an IP address. Misconceptions2 has since been given a block for edit waring, and appears to be using the IP, which geolocates like the rest of his socks and IPs to the manchester, UK area. The IP is edit warring here[64] to maintain another of Misconception2's content forks.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow up. The IP I added was included in the previous case. The checkuser on the last case (from december 8) implied, but did not specifically state, that the IP belong to Misconceptions2. The checkuser wrote: "User:Български360 and User:Admit-the-truth indefinitely blocked and tagged. I'll leave the block on the sockmaster and the IPs as-is and see what happens; if they come back. Then longer blocks may be needed." I believe that time has come.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Added the account beginning XX because it's brand new and engaging in one of the obscure edit wars Misconceptions2/Mirroryou1 were engaged in.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

I have been accused of sockpuppetry last time. I am only the roomate of Misconceptions and i live nextdoor to him.

i have a different IP and My ISP is: O2

I think the case is not sockpuppetry but meat puppetry this user is refering to--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is it, Mirroryou? Do you "live next door to him" or are you "his roomate." Ah, the webs we weave....Bali ultimate (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

http://s758.photobucket.com/albums/xx224/cloud-360/

here is some pictures of my internet--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What is up with you people. I have a different computer different ip, different isp than him. I got banned for meat puppetry before for 1 week and i wasnt allowed to defend myself!

now i am defending myself. i will upload some pictures to show you

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me. I am in the process of chaging my wirless interet WEP key. please, if another account gets made with my same ip, it is not me. I will report him if he makes another, becuase just a minute ago he got me banned--Mirroryou1 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is pahetic
Arghhh, this is pathetic. Why dont you use the checkuser thing allready and get this overwith. Also hat Gustahkh account is definately not Misconception. It is somone else. Just because peopel dont share your views does not mean u can accuse them . You just dont want people reading articles critical of Islam.

Secondly, Misconceptions2 was permenately banned mistakenly. The guy who made an edit on the caravan raids with the ip was me. Not misconceptions2. He got perma banned wrongly and i will do everything to get him unbanned.He did not edit war after ban!!!-Mirroryou1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirroryou1 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the Gustak user is not misconceptions2, i know so, since he told me !PLEASE USE CHECK USER ALREADY!!!!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And after this is over. Please get Misconceptios2 perma ban removed. Because he did not edit war after ban.he got perma ban for accusation that he edit warred after ban. but the person who edited the caravan raids article, was me,i told u this many times.I will forgive misconceptions2 for purposely trying to get me banned.Its not fair that he get banned because of me, and that u accuse me of being him !!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple users had suspected that you are a sock of Misconceptions2 based only on behavioral similarities. These users didn't know about a shared Internet connection before you said it. This is not an accident. Your defense would have been valid if the suspicion was first raised from a CU check. Sole Soul (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other users

Misconceptions2 said nearly the same sentence that Mirroryou1 said above [65], but Mirroryou1 saying that doesn't make sense, if he is not Misconceptions2, because he was not accused before, AFAIK. Misconceptions2 apparently said it about another account, not Mirroryou1, because he said "his account was banned". The time of registering the account, editing times and editing the same pages are very strong hints. Sole Soul (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The extraordinary thing is that Mirroryou1 is using the exact same argument as Misconceptions2 when he was previously banned on Dec-08-2009. The accounts involved then were Български360, 188.221.108.172, Admit-the-truth, 86.18.223.124, Muhammadproject. He was banned for 1 week for sock puppetry to enable edit warring. I think a longer ban is in order this time.Cathar11 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. You're right. The first comment by "mirroryou1" was supposed to be by the master account misconceptions2. Mirroryou hadn't ever been accused of anything, until today. Sort of makes checkuser unneccessary at this point. Hopefully, they'll get this down so we can 86 the lot shortly.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

this is so funny. the way your talking is like saying. "look at this stone its magical, then bali, the side kick comes along and says, it really is" just to sell it. i have been accused of sock puppetry by cathar11, in the article adminsrator notices/incidents. why dont u check it--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So this is what happenned:

• • • Cathar11 in AN/I: Mirroryou1 is a sock of Misconceptions2
    • Misconceptions2 in AN/I: "i have been accused of this before" (he means in the previous SPI case a few weeks ago)
    • Mirroryou1 here: "I have been accused of sockpuppetry last time" (he means in the AN/I a few minutes ago) Sole Soul (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that he was still using sockpuppet IP User:86.18.223.124 to canvas support at RS noticeboard on 1 January 2010. As this account was used to edit an article he was creating on his user page it's definetely Misconceptions2's sockpuppet.Cathar11 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think User:188.221.108.172 is another sockpuppet. Misconceptions2 is using it to override his block -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Piggybacking a neighbors connection from a wireless, and using another computer hooked up to own router. I don't know if CU has access to the routing information string, but that may be the only way to prove a sock in this case.DD2K (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have indeffed this user for further socking but a check-user to find any underlying accounts would be much appreciated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the roomate of misconceptions2. i live in a flat, we live in 2 different rooms obviouslly. Anyhow, you blocked Misconceptions for an edit i made on the caravan raids. lol--Mirroryou1 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not gonna let misconceptions2 use my computer to log into his account, from this day on,ever again or the check user will claim we are the same person and i will get banned.i dont want to get banned from editing.please ban misconconception2 if you want. NOT ME PLEASE--Mirroryou1 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally i want to testify something. about a month ago misconceptions2 got banned from wiki (thats what he told me), i let him log onto my computer and he did something and GOT my ip address banned ! I will not let this happen again and am willing to testify against him.If he says that my account is his. He is lieing, I have let him on my computer many times and if he made edits on my ip adress. But from this day am not going to let him use my computer.

if the checkuser shows us as the same person it can not be trusted--Mirroryou1 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for unblocking me. I am in the process of chaging my wirless interet WEP key. please, if another account gets made with my same ip, it is not me. I will report him if he makes another, becuase just a minute ago he got me banned--Mirroryou1 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• This seems to be obviously one person. If CU confirms that they have used the same computer and shared internet, it should be treated as socks. Since Mirroryou1 is continuing the battles that 'mirror' those of Misconceptions2, there should either be a indef block on all accounts(After CU, WP:Duck), or a topic ban for Mirroryou1. DD2K (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

comment. WE ARE NOT ONE PERSON. HE HAS DIFFERENT IP AND INTERET CONNECTION THAN ME. if u click on ip 188. it says that i use 02. also i only made one edit on that article, to get Bali's attention.

bali ultimate. you know that the ip 188.XX is my wirless internet ip.it is not misconception2's. And after this is over. Please get Misconceptios2 perma ban removed. Because he did not edit war after ban.he got perma ban for accusation that he edit warred after ban. but the person who edited the caravan raids article, was me,i told u this many times.I will forgive misconceptions2 for purposely trying to get me banned. !!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to copy-paste the same thing in so many places. -- Raziman T V (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not misconceptions2, sure i know him and let him use my computer of he needs to because am his friend. The only reason i edited the caravan raids article is to get Bali's atention, since it seems am banned from talking in his page.After this is over, i will try get him perma ban removed, and will edit the caravan raids article if i feel like it, and u better not accuse me of being a sock like u did the Gustak user. Also please tell that Gustak user to join in this discussion, i know his not misconceptions2--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Gustaks ip

can somone identify his ip and submit it on wiki, and compare it with misconceptions ip. Since i know he is not misconceptions2 , and i dont want an innocent person to get banned--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If misconceptions logged into his account on my computer. does that mean the checkuser will idetify him as me?--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read this essay.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

are you trying to be funny? because i am not his brother, secondly can i ask why you have admit-the-truth as one of his sock puppets? it seems like it was a sock months ago?is it so if the others are not his socks and the check user says admit-the-truth is. You will then use that to ban him. Your just trying to remove everything from wikipedia you dont like, in my opinon and get rid of your enemies.--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: D (3RR using socks )

Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Srideep TestPlant

Srideep TestPlant (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date January 2 2010, 18:20 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Richfriend (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• JoostVoeten (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 212.79.63.131 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 67.174.111.71 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 82.11.186.199 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Hu12

Returning blocked spam/advertising sock account Richfriend (talk · contribs). JoostVoeten (talk · contribs) claims "I'm working for Testplant..."[66]. Use of wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "Testplant" software. See Spam case --Hu12 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E  + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)

Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Hu12 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Both IPs have different RIRs, it looks like. –MuZemike 03:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

AndreaCarax

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

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

[edit] Report date January 3 2010, 15:37 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• 93.149.195.48 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · 93.149.195.48.html RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Kww

Obvious AndreaCarax sock, continuing her edit war on genres and fiddling with AndreaCarax's user page. We have previously blocked 93.149.194.0/24, and it looks like that needs to be expanded to 93.149.194.0/23 to cover this address. Requesting checkuser so that collateral damage can be assessed before expanding the block.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Watchover

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

[edit] Report date January 3 2010, 05:56 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• KAPITALIST88 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Cantwejustbefriends (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Orderinchaos

Something very odd is going on here. A bunch of users with very similar viewpoints have been editing at a range of Australian articles. I'm actually prepared to extend good faith to Watchover (i.e. I think the result could be that he is OK but the others are mutual socks of an unknown sockmaster).

KAPITALIST88 (who should have been usernameblocked anyway - 88 is a Nazi reference) was blocked this morning over an image they had uploaded with false copyright to Tony Abbott (Australian opposition/Liberal Party leader). Within 17 minutes of KAPITALIST88 discovering he was blocked, Cantwejustbefriends, an account with only 3 previous edits (one of which was a major edit to Joe Hockey, Abbott's leadership challenger), roared into life. The history at List of Prime Ministers of Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) over the past couple of hours, together with Cantwejustbefriends's user and talk pages which talk about "factionalism" and "pack mentality" in their first and second diffs, suggest to me that there is sockpuppetry going on. The issue over which one is backing up the other is a somewhat unrelated pet issue of Watchover's in adding tables to list articles (see e.g. [67] from October).

Kristina Keneally (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (from earlier in December) is also of interest.

Watchover's and Kapitalist's edits are almost mutually exclusive to a scary degree - one edits for a few days, then stops, and the other one edits in the interval. Orderinchaos 05:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Orderinchaos 05:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Bonnie Nagy

Bonnie Nagy (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date January 2 2010, 00:07 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by WuhWuzDat

During recent edits patrol this morning, I noticed User:Peterjenka (appears to be a self promotional userpage of self published young author, at first glance), and then a mention of deleted article Peter Jenka on User talk:Bonnie Nagy, with further comments by Ms. Nagy that would lead me to believe that both Peter Jenkas are one and the same. After having an admin check the deleted article against the userpage, I am following his advice and requesting checkuser.

It would appear that, after having her first attempt at an article for this subject deleted, Ms. Nagy created a new account, and a pseudo-autobiographical userpage for "him", in an attempt to avoid deletion. WuhWuzDat 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by WuhWuzDat 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Captaincold

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

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

[edit] Report date December 19 2009, 20:12 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by EEMIV

Same articles, editing habits and userpage text as socks I previously reported.

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by --EEMIV (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Likely. No obvious sleeper. -- Luk ^talk 10:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

• Blocked and tagged by NJA. NW (Talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Report date December 29 2009, 02:58 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by EEMIV

• Very similar user page text ("X is a Wikipedia user/editor") as other recently-blocked socks
• Editing in same Aqua Teen Hunger Force/Adult Swim arena
• Recreation of a deleted article on an obscure voice actor initially created or heavily edited by other socks
• Account creation soon after other socks blocked

--EEMIV (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by --EEMIV (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk declined – Already WP:DUCK-blocked by another admin. Previous CUs run didn't come up with anything, so I don't see much a purpose in running one at this point. –MuZemike 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

[edit] Report date January 2 2010, 00:03 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by EEMIV

*sigh*. Same as before:

• Recent account creation following block of other socks
• Immediate involvement in small arena of articles (ATHF/internet memes)
  • ... include restoring content previous redirected per community consensus
• Initial edit to the same insignificant voice actor article created? or certainly substantially edited by previous socks.

I know it's a clear case of WP:DUCK. Request checkuser to see if there's a consistent IP being used, with the suggestion that its account-creation ability be blocked for however long. --EEMIV (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by --EEMIV (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed – OK, then maybe it's a different IP or range, now. –MuZemike 03:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Kils

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

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

[edit] Report date January 1 2010, 23:19 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• 217.228.102.111 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 62.214.137.214 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Cirt

• Post to article Uwe Kils, [68]
• Note text in post "Professor Dr. habil". The account Kils (talk · contribs) signs posts in a similar fashion [69]

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Cirt (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Concern over possible avoiding scrutiny from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kils/Archive#Conclusions through use of IP instead of restricting Wikipedia contributions to the account Kils (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 03:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Dan56

Dan56 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date January 3 2010, 01:07 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Supremeclientele27 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Amalthea

There was an edit war (actually the continuation of the same edit war from two weeks ago) at Rated R (Rihanna album) a couple hours ago, that ended with me blocking both users, User:Dan56 and User:Vitorvicentevalente, and getting two autoblocks as well. After lots of discussion with both, I unblocked Dan56 and restricted him to not edit the article in question (User talk:Dan56#Unblock request), and lifted the autoblock as well. Six minutes later, User:Supremeclientele27 is created and undid the last edit of the dispute, to restore Dan's version. I really, really don't expect Dan to be clumsy enough to do that himself, but that's certainly no random, new account that happened to just butt in - I'd bet my bit that this is a sock account. Amalthea 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that Supremeclientele27 edited at 00:36:24 and 00:36:49, while Dan made edits at 00:35:10 and 00:37:09, I again stress that it's unlikely that the sockmaster is actually Dan, but am still convinced that this is not a new user, but an experienced one that acts disruptively by furthering the edit war. Amalthea 01:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. No, it was not me. Dan56 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: D (3RR using socks )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Amalthea 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed – These accounts may be socks of User:Brexx or User:TrEeMaNsHoE, as they have edited a couple of articles that these two banned users have edited. –MuZemike 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Supremeclientele27 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser) is Blastmaster11 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser), but I don't if any abuse was intended.

Dan56 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser) appears to be Unrelated. I can't find any obvious masters. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. Blastmaster11 left an edit once on Dan's talk page once, so Blastmaster might have watched the talk page. I'll talk to him, thanks J!
Is it customary to now rename this page to reflect the findings? Amalthea 13:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Incagold richard

Incagold richard (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date January 3 2010, 01:26 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Genevoise1291 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Highscorejunky (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Todosjogos (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 92.106.10.106 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 83.79.44.228 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by –MuZemike

A storm of single-purpose activity has all-of-a-sudden popped up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IncaGold and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard M Holmes. All three suspected socks display the exact same traits in their signatures -- they start with lowercase letters. Also, all of their edits squarely fixate on IncaGold, Richard M Holmes, Black Legend (software publisher), and those two AFDs I mentioned. As far as the IPs are concerned, 83.79.44.228 is Stale, but the other one, 92.106.10.106 has the same WHOIS information, and they both Geolocate to similar areas in or around Zurich, Switzerland. –MuZemike 01:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: C + E (Vote stacking affecting outcome and community ban/sanction evasion)

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by –MuZemike 01:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 03:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Confirmed

• Highscorejunky (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser) ==
• Todosjogos (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser) ==
• Genevoise1291 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Likely

Incagold richard (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser) = above

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

Wikiuser999120

Wikiuser999120 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 30 2009, 12:33 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Wikiuser999113 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wikiuser999112 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wikiuser999111 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Regancy42 (talk)

Regancy42 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

• All are already blocked. I don't think any more has to me done. NW (Talk) 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.

[edit] Report date January 2 2010, 19:38 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• The_free_encyclopedia_2010 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 111 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 112 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 113 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 114 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 115 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 116 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 117 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 999 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 987 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Free wiki editor 123 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by SoCalSuperEagle

User:The_free_encyclopedia_2010 and User:Free wiki editor 111 have already been confirmed as socks of User:Wikiuser999120. The only edit made by User:Free wiki editor 112 restored edit(s) made by User:Free wiki editor 111 at Talk:List of ChuckleVision episodes. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, per the user creation log, the User:Free wiki editor 112, User:Free wiki editor 113, User:Free wiki editor 114, User:Free wiki editor 115, User:Free wiki editor 116, and User:Free wiki editor 117 accounts were created within a 3-minute span (details). --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request - code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention to check for sleepers and underlying IPs/ranges. Omai. –MuZemike 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk note: One may also wish to look at [70] as well. –MuZemike 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

All listed socks Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. No chance of an IP block, unfortunately. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Knoblauch129

Knoblauch129 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 30 2009, 22:52 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Schoenberg129 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Larrymuzik (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Shir aharon (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Shlomo99 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Shlomo909 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Rivkalle (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• SHLOMO.L (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Greenpath129 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Dorit64 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Deskford

Each of these users has been involved mainly or exclusively in editing the article Kobi Arad or in adding inappropriate links to this article from other pages. Only one of the above accounts seems to be active at any one time.

See for example:

• Revision history of 21st-century classical music
• Revision history of Polystylism
• Revision history of Electronic music

--Deskford (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kobi Arad's ID on Twitter is kobiarad129 — that number 129 again. Is this significant? --Deskford (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...and on YouTube he appears to be greenpath129. --Deskford (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that User:Greenpath129 got blocked and Kobi arad got speedily deleted on 10 August 2009, then User:Knoblauch129 came into existence on the following day, re-creating the current Kobi arad article (which someone later renamed Kobi Arad). The promotional editing continued under various anonymous IP addresses before continuing as User:Schoenberg129 from 12 November 2009. --Deskford (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Jubileeclipman

Please look at the edit window of this revision and notice the weird line breaks. Possible evidence of Copyvio lifting from other websites. Also click on the links: few of them lead to any English website. Also notice the vain attempt to make this an FA-class article.

• Kobi Arad Revision as of 00:18, 31 December 2009

Also notice the edit/revert cycles in the history. Well-respected editors are already tiring of the process:

• Revision history of "Kobi Arad"

--Jubilee♫clipman 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also notice that many of these have been involved (exclusively in most cases) in adding links from other articles to Kobi Arad. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I already said I used a previous username Knoblauch - the other above usernames I'm not familiar with - I personally stayed away from editting for a week (pl see you logs),

similar grammatical mistakes, language - as u claim, is not conclusive evidence, overlaps in IP #s are conclusive - have there been overlaps?!

I would ask to keep the page, and help improve it, since I feel Kobi Arad is a notable musician although I may have done a lousy work as an editor,

Pl. take this into consideration,

J.--Schoenberg129 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition - in case the sock - puppetry is proven - this does not detract / affect the article's standing. I suggest you block users - and relate towards article in and of itself.--Schoenberg129 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw the accusation of several accounts. I openned Shlomo99 and 909 - and dont know about the other editors, and never made any edit in Kobi Arad article. apologize for harm done by wanting to push Arad's name into other articles,

Shlomo--Shlomo909 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

one of the editors mentioned all acused parties are in new york - that's where Arad is active, they may have gone to the same shows I went Shlomo--Shlomo909 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other users

Appears to be an attempt at self-promotion, or at best WP:COI, pretending to be lots of people, but it's obviously one (note, for example, the characteristic and identical misspellings and ungrammatical formations used by all accounts, and the habitual use of "edit" or "editing" as an edit summary.) Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Call me a dupe, but I'm inclined to trust Schoenberg129's statement that he's only been one other editor. It's possible more than one person is involved, here. Sockpuppet accounts? Hmm. Perhaps meatpuppets. A group of associates playing fast-and-loose with the Wikipedia rules? One person giving up, and their good friend taking up the crusade? Unusual, but not quite implausible. However, whether we're catching the lizard, or the tail of the lizard, this abusive editing needs to stop. Deskford has listed accounts working toward the same end, but I'd add other editors on Kobi Arad... 67.243.147.245, 68.161.94.64, 74.72.122.244, 24.39.156.23, and 208.125.2.58. Where are they? All in New York. A coincidence? In my experience with thousands of vandals? Never happens. This is a concerted effort to abuse Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Deleted contributions of Greenpath129 are extremely interesting indeed. They are all massive promotion of Kobi arad (lower case), with all of the creations speedy deleted. Non-admins can see the links on his talk page -- and he got blocked for persistent inappropriate page creation. Folks, don't kid yourselves, this is one extremely persistent self-promoter on an astroturfing campaign, and there's no way it's more than one person. Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be an admin: I cannot access deleted edits. However, User talk:Greenpath129 tells you everything you might need to know... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My vision may have been clouded by the realization that an (unrelated) editor I struggled with for ages changed over the last months and has become an exceptional, model editor. The editing on Kobi Arad *has* changed in quality, but again, whether it's one or two people acting in consort (on alternate days, whatever), the nub is the same. Not only does the activity on Kobi Arad need to stop, but Wikipedia needs to find a reasonable way to identify and stop other editors using this same technique. I read somewhere that 1-in-10 people in jail is actually innocent of the crime for which they are accused. In the same light, we don't need to absolutely prove that an editor is guilty of all perceived misdeeds. There comes a time when "society" just "needs them off the streets". If a few rough diamonds get lost in the process, well, Wikipedia isn't (solely) a gentle and kind mechanism for socialization. We are trying to create a usable, reputable encyclopedia; that is the stated goal. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Woah! Any criminal court in any of the liberal democracies will always seek to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of each crime before sentencing for each. In that same light, we need to give all these people a fair trial rather than just drag them off the streets because they might be bad apples... I hope I misunderstood you, however! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(Smile) Nope, you understood me correctly. Wikipedia is not a self-appointed justice department. Its goal, loosely, is to produce an important, public encyclopedia. It is not seeking to provide shelter and council for every self-promoting, partisan, uninformed, mentally compromised individual on the face of the planet. Statistically, Wikipedia could accomplish its goal by arbitrarily and permanently banning anyone, who, let's say ... has ever been blocked ... whose edits are reverted more than 10% of the time ... or whose name begins with "Q". There's an important distinction, here. Are we seeking to implement the core values as established by the Wikimedia Foundation, or is this, in a larger sense a project for social reform. If you answered "both", then you would agree with me. But the goals of the social reform need to be stipulated, they can't be taken as given. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk note: Just purely looking at the contributions, User:Knoblauch129 only made one edit on 11 August 2009 here. User:Schoenberg129's first edit was on 12 November 2009, as shown here. Just looking at those two accounts, it's possible that the former was abandoned and the newer one created, and I don't see any "good hand, bad hand" activity with these two. –MuZemike 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status - Self-endorsed by clerk for Checkuser attention.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser on all accounts that don't end in "129" (as the three "129" accounts I believe are Stale; I'm also going to handle those myself). Using edit summaries of "(Ee)dit" are common, though the range of articles are a cause of concern; in other words I'm not totally convinced of WP:DUCK here. –MuZemike 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator note: I have indefinitely softblocked User:Knoblauch129 and User:Greenpath129. (Sorry, Schoenberg129, I accidentally blocked your account [71]; I got confused amongst the "129"s.) This is just a precautionary measure to ensure those accounts won't be used again. I have also done the same with User:Shlomo99 with regards to User:Shlomo909. Aside from the stale "129" accounts, I'll leave it to CheckUser to see what technical evidence there is. –MuZemike 20:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions