Leslie Roak

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

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

[edit] Report date November 29 2009, 01:29 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• HD12-21-12 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 70.24.216.73 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 70.24.220.52 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by User:AniMate

This appears to be another reincarnation of a long term blocked contributor originally known as User:Randy Jaiyan, though because of the passage of time User:Leslie Roak is the sockmaster that evidence can be checked against.

• Within a week of creating the HD12-21-12 account he moved Eclipse (2010 film) to The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010 film).[1] Blocked sockpuppets User:BreakingDawn 90210 and User:Twilight 90210 have numerous disruptive moves involving works related to the Twilight (series) of books and films. Here's the New Moon (2009 film) move log where a move to The Twilight Saga's: New Moon can be seen. Twilight 90210's move log and BreakingDawn 90210's move log, where both use "saga" in their Twilight related moves.

• HD12-21-12 has re-uploaded three images without changing any of the tagging: SMcCall.jpg, an image also uploaded and edited by User:Leslie Roak. Silver90210.jpg an image edited exclusively by User:BreakingDawn 90210. McCord_Clark.jpg which was also edited by BreakingDawn 90210. A number of images uploaded by Leslie Roak and his socks did not have proper licensing or uploader information [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

• Using wikistalk we can see HD12-21-12 overlap of edits with Leslie Roak, Twilight 90210, and BreakingDawn 90210.

• The IPs listed above have edited Claudia Zacchara and related General Hospital pages. It was established in February 2008, that Randy had been editing from a dynamic IP address in Canada when his request for his autoblock was declined here. Since that time multiple IPs with the same WHOIS and Geolocate information have consistently edit warred and vandalized articles related to General Hospital and characters connected with Carly Corinthos multiple times a week. HD12-21-12 is likely editing from the same IP range. AniMate 01:29, 29 November 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 - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by AniMate 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 03:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Confirmed

• HD12-21-12 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Inuktitude (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• This editor operates on a highly dynamic range; therefore, blocking of IPs for an extended period will be largely ineffective and can adversely affect other bona fide users. For IPs, block on behaviour for 12-24 hours after problematic editing. Leaving for clerks to block. Risker (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Risker. Did you perhaps mean Inuktitute instead of Inuktitude? NW (Talk) 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, sorry for the typo! Risker (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Jewelleryq

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

[edit] Report date November 29 2009, 13:01 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by McGeddon (talk)

New account Manorgolf has immediately started editing two articles that Jewelleryq was edit warring over, replacing more or less the same content that Jewelleryq had added, a day after another editor removed it.

Twisties article

• Jewelleryq adds a mention of the "Tastees" brand
• Jewelleryq removes mention of the "Fonzees" brand
• Jewelleryq adds "the UK" as a region where the product is available
• Jewelleryq's edits are removed by another editor
• Manorgolf adds "the UK" and "Tastees", removes "Fonzies"

Maltese cuisine article

• Jewelleryq adds "exported to other countries including Libya and the UK as Tastees"
• Jewelleryq's edit is removed by another editor
• Manorgolf adds "Twistees are exported to Libya and the UK, under the Tastees Brand"

Jewelleryq appears to have a close connection to the "Tastees" snack food brand, and has already racked up several warnings for adding promotional Tastees-related material to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

More suspicious accounts:

• Outosteel (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Aberdour (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Dragonsgirl (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

- MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Raynec

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

[edit] Report date November 28 2009, 20:57 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by Kafka Liz

Similarity of names alone suggests that the two accounts are linked. Both accounts focus on removing all mentions of Armenians from Azeri/Azerbaijani articles; compare Rayneci's edits: removing information on Armenians in Azerbaijan, blanking sections on historic Armenian communities, and altering articles on churches

with Raynec's: removing information on Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, blanking sections on historic Armenian communities, and blanking articles on churches here and here.

Finally, the Rayneci account resumed editing on 26 November after a period of inactivity shortly after the Raynec account received a week-long block for disruptive editing [7].

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Rayesworied

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

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

[edit] Report date November 28 2009, 15:54 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by Elockid

This user is editing the same exact articles subjects as Rayesworied and socks. The first edits were South Korean topics. This was one of the main topics that Rayesworied edited.

Then what really struck me as this is a suspected Rayesworied sock is that, they also started editing climate articles and articles based on New York on top of the South Korean articles, which is something that Rayesworied and socks also edit. Here are a couple of socks that did so

• Rayesworied:

Climate article

New York City

• Cxawer:

New York City

New York City

Climate

• Leeheaven:

Climate article

New York City

Then the fact that they were also editing Japanese based articles like confirmed socks You Can (talk · contribs) and Do you in (talk · contribs) also supports that Claimd is sockpuppet of Rayesworied.

Comparing the contributions of Claimd and Rayesworied and socks, they seem to be extremely similar. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:07, 28 November 2009 (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

Jdfielder

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

[edit] Report date November 26 2009, 03:03 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Japanimation Mohawk Dude '87 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DragonBallPSP (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Jdfielder and I got in a conflict over Bob Ross, after which he engaged in off wiki harassment, posting an "article" on his website attacking me. Since then, various "new" accounts keep popping up vandalizing articles with links to his article and making abusive remarks. These last two are just the latest. I know there were others but no longer remember their user names. Requesting check user to check for anymore sleepers, deal with Jdfielder himself (who has not yet been blocked) and hopefully block the underlying IP if possible. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 November 2009 (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 - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed - To check for any sleepers. ceranthor 14:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Wiki-br is a Likely sockpuppet. There may be more, but it's a large ISP that is difficult to search. Dominic·t 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

StephenPaternoster

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

[edit] Report date November 28 2009, 07:51 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Anglo-Saxon1 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 86.151.62.191 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Brianann MacAmhlaidh

StephenPaternoster is a blocked user. Here's a thread on ANI about the user [8].

Anglo-Saxon1 and StephenPaternoster edit the same type of 'Saxon-Viking' articles, particularly the article Bagsecg (the two are the most prolific editors in this article [9]). Both users refuse give references for their edits, despite being asked multiple times. Both users blank their talkpages when numerous other editors attempt to communicate with them. Anglo-Saxon1 is currently battling it out on Great Heathen Army, refusing to cooperate.

• 17 October 2009, on Talk:Bagsecg, StephenPaternoster blanks comments another editor raised over his edits to Bagsecg [10].
• 18 November 2009, just hours after the mentioned edit was reverted by another editor, Anglo-Saxon1 blanks the talkpage again [11].

• 1 November 2009, StephenPaternoster, undos an edit (about Bagsecg) with the edit summary "Fine how it is." [12].
• 26 November 2009, on another article (Bagsecg) undos an edit with the summary "Fine how it was," [13].

• On a wikiproject members list, Anglo-Saxon1 erases the sig of StephenPaternoster and puts his own in its place [14].

• IP - 86.151.62.191 is currently blocked, and has only a few edits, but a number of them are connected to these two accounts. 3 blanks to StephenPaternoster talkpage (rem warnings); two blanks to his own talkpage (rem warnings). He undid a reversion of Anglo-Saxon1's edits [15]; as well as twice more on another article [16][17].

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2009 (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

Chimeraweaver

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

[edit] Report date November 25 2009, 04:16 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

All three accounts showing the same focus on the former Texas School Survey article and the Texas Department of State Health Services article, with each consistently making the same promo style edits. When Drugfreetexas' first edit was reverted by linkbot[18], Chimera popped up moments later to restore sans the bot triggering links[19]. Apparently someone at this place is trying to promote the survey or do some PR work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

More than one person, other than myself, is contributing to this article from the same computer. Call it what you like, but it's not easy keeping up with the reverts by Collectonian and the others. I wish you guys would make it clearer why you removed our edits. I don't have time to read five pages of reasons why the removals took place. BTW, we don't work for DSHS just because we cite a government website page. - user: Chimeraweaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimeraweaver (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly noted in the edit summaries and in the numerous warnings on your talk page why they were removed. Multiple people using the same computer to make the same edits to the same article is meatpuppetry and not that different from sockpuppetry in this case, as there is no way to verify that you are actually multiple people. Your only edits among you seem to be to promote the Texas State Survey, which is what makes it seem like you have some conflicts of interest, not your random linking to government websites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

--The LinkBot automatically detected one of the website links shared the same words as the username of another editor and unjustly assumed conflict of interest based solely on this. That was a false assumption, so I reverted that edit and now we are being accused of a "meatpuppetry" conspiracy and doing "public relations" for a government agency, rather than merely raising awareness about it and its online activities. Nevertheless, I rarely edit pages but would like to continue editing the DSHS page in the future and will be the only editor from this computer doing so. In this effort, I would appreciate any polite guidance from the Wikipedia authorities rather than off-the-cuff accusations from editors like Collectonian. Collectoninan, you seem to have an unusual interest in the pages covering Texas DSHS and its State School Survey over the past months. How many pages do you watch over every day? - This commment made by user: Chimeraweaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimeraweaver (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Linkbot did not unjustly assume a conflict of interest, it properly reverted the addition of inappropriate social links. Multiple WP:SPA accounts hitting a single set of articles with clearly promotional tones would raise red flags for any editor. Wikipedia is not here to "raise awareness" about an organization nor its activities. It is an encyclopedia. If a topic is notable, it will have an article, which includes neutrally worded, relevant, and reliably sourced information. How is my interest "unusual"? It came to my attention through your initial and beyond inappropriate efforts to spam links to your new article on hundreds of pages. There is nothing unusual about that, and of course I will continue to keep an eye on it after seeing the inappropriate activities that were going on. How many pages I watch is irrelevant and I really don't see the point of your question, but its also not like its private info. I currently have 1126 pages on my watchlist. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (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 - Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk declined They've said they'll be from the same IP, and behavioral evidence is strong here anyways. Check's not needed. GrooveDog FOREVER 00:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Neutralhomer

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

[edit] Report date November 26 2009, 22:23 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by Piano non troppo

An editor with a history of having tool rights taken away from him has returned as an anon IP. After refusing mediation,[20] and an ANI complaint with another editor,[21] Neutralhomer announced he was retired. The anon IP started editing two days afterward. Now edits replacing disallowed material (online scheduling and uncited bios of non-notables) in TV and radio station articles are again being made with the blanket explanation that they are "vandalism". Same issues, same types of articles, same uncooperative edit justifications.[22][23][24] Same editor? Piano non troppo (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

• Agreed. Editing patterns are too similar to be coincidence. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutralhomer nows appears to have "come out of retirement" to make the same edits as the IP. Given the history of sockpuppetry and abuse of tools, a long block on this IP is probably in order if only to help the user take a break from WP if they can't do it on their own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Behavioural evidence is pretty convincing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Handrem

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

[edit] Report date November 26 2009, 15:38 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Coaster7 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Camera123456 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by DRosin

These users have two things in common. a) a COI with Love Systems and Nick Savoy. b) An identical editing history

Nick Savoy is the CEO of Love Systems, a company that runs dating workshops and sells dating-related products.

a)

Coaster7 created the Love Systems page. The user also proposed Nick Savoy for the following template which highlights notable members of the seduction community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Notable_Members_of_The_Seduction_Community&diff=prev&oldid=241571900

The user was previously questioned for the COI with Love Systems and Nick Savoy on the user's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coaster7

Camera123456 was previously suspected of being a sock puppet by User:RHaworth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Camera123456&diff=202152038&oldid=202151939

The user deleted this tag. One of the first edits of this user was adding Nick Savoy into a list of notable seduction 'gurus' on the seduction community page.

In the deletion review of Nick Savoy this user and Coaster7 supported each other's vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_6&diff=prev&oldid=250310683

Handrem's substantial edits consist of writing about Love Systems and Nick Savoy, or editing the pages of their competitors, for example James Matador. Here is an early edit of Handrem, just an example of editing about Love Systems and Nick Savoy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_Systems&diff=prev&oldid=250334680

All three users are currently voting on an AfD for Adam Lyons, a competitor. I am the creator of this article, and I have no issue with them voting delete but I think their activity is suspicious especially in light of point b). It should be noted that all three of them voted within minutes of each other on the AfD.

b)

On all three of these users' contribution lists you will see one thing in common. A significant proportion and frequency of editing articles related to Love Systems, Nick Savoy and their competitors- and an array of other articles with no clear link. Every edit other than related to Love Systems etc. consists of the addition of one Wikilink to a word in the article, or a single correction of a spelling mistake. If you look through their contribution list and actually view their contributions, you will see that their edits add minimal value to the articles, but instead make it appear like they edit other things, ie. it makes it appear that they are not sockpuppets without having to go through the trouble of undergoing any valuable editing.

Here are the links to the last three edits by Handrem as a case in point

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudo.com&diff=prev&oldid=327960717

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leadership&diff=prev&oldid=327960589

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extended_Reach_Drilling&diff=prev&oldid=327960442

Here are the links to their contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Handrem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coaster7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Camera123456

Also worth mentioning is the obscure knowledge they display in their edits which suggest they are close to Love Systems and Nick Savoy, if not part of Love Systems or Nick Savoy himself. An example of this is the information about the legal dispute between Erik von Markovik and Savoy.

To provide context the major competitors edited would likely be: Richard La Ruina, Adam Lyons, Mystery, James Matador among others.

This case may delve into meatpuppetry too, but it would be interesting to see if anyone else thinks this behaviour is suspicious and not beneficial to Wikipedia. DRosin (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

What ever happened to the Wikipedia corner stone of having good faith? You can look over my account history and see that I contribute to Wikipedia with a vast interest. No need for harassment. Handrem (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Bluebunnies

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

[edit] Report date November 28 2009, 06:50 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by Jæs

Unusual team editing at Carly Fiorina. Both accounts were created on September 18, 2008 within five minutes of each other, both have a nexus of edits related to Supreme Court Justices. (It looks possible that both accounts may only have edited just enough to reach autoconfirmed status?) I suspect there may be more where these two came from, hence the CheckUser request. jæs (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2009 (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 - Awaiting initial clerk review. (Potential batch of socks?) Requested by jæs (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

69.243.46.77

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

[edit] Report date November 28 2009, 07:25 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by Multixfer

After my recent experiences in sharing my viewpoints regarding the WP:NEWT project, I seem to have become a target for personal attacks and frightening, deliberate threats being left on my talk page and user page. The IP 65.204.30.126 left the following attack on my talk page [25], which was followed up later by the IP 69.243.46.77 on my userpage with this [26], [27], [28]. Today, the main IP (69.243.46.77) left a worrisome threat against me, again on my user page [29], that if my "real name is leaked it could be a significant issue for me." I take this as a direct threat to my and my family's safety. I also strongly believe this this is not just 2 random IPs who happened to come in from a messageboard comment on Slashdot, but that someone on Wikipedia (likely a regular contributor) is deliberately Wikistalking me, that they are likely the person who placed the messageboard comment on Slashdot, and they are logging out of their account and using IPs to hide their identity. I take threats very seriously. I believe that, at least, the two IPs are connected to each other and request an investigation as well as a Checkuser to determine if they are, in fact, connected, and to hopefully discover any other socks or possibly what the main account is. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that I also brought this up at AN/I, and the quick checkuser was endorsed by someone there (before they had to sign off for the day) [30]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: B  + F (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and another reason)

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I chose B since this is a specific pattern of vandalism, involving threats, against me. If there isn't a long enough history, I've also included F, as I believe that in any case, the threats against me warrant a checkuser. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed and see if there are any accounts behind these IPs. That I think it looks like a valid reason for a check. MuZemike 09:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

In progress... I may have something, but will ask for a second opinion first. Dominic·t 11:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Lear 21

Lear 21 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date November 25 2009, 00:34 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Lear22 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wegos (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• KJohansson (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 78.53.1.178 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.177.89.41 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.179.11.125 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.179.157.87 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.179.19.144 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.179.19.206 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.179.24.54 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.179.28.33 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.179.43.242 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.179.7.157 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 87.162.34.141 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 92.225.18.164 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 92.225.76.243 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 67.246.40.144 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Nirvana888

Lear 21 and KJohansson have a remarkably similar modus operendi per WP:DUCK: the same editing interests (EU, great power, Berlin, Germany), same obstinate POV pushing/edit warring/disruptive behavior for months on end (Great power), same "see talk"/"update" edit summaries [31] [32] (a habit of leaving a message on the talk and making unilateral changes), a habit of making flippant personal attacks and accusations of ignorance/contravention of Wikipedia policies ([33] [34] [35]) [36], same location (Berlin) and same ISP (HANSENET-ADSL) etc. KJohansson claims to be from Sweden [37] but edits using the same ISP as Lear in Berlin [38]. If you would like more diffs I'd be more than happy to investigate further. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've amended an additional IP sock that just poped up and tried to "legally" taunt me. See [39] [40]

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Some of the 85. IP´s related edits are likely conducted by myself (Lear 21). Nevertheless it remains as an absurd accusation by user:Nirvana888, who himself has been blocked because of socketpuppet violations. Most likely it is the reason why this user suspects others of doing so as well. The user:Nirvana888 has been engaged in an edit war at Great power and tries to initiate a personal attack on the base of this accusation in order to intimidate and to distruct from sensible argumentation at the discussion pages. As I am an exposed editor of several high quality mostread articles the existence of copycats (accounts like Lear22) under my name should not surprise. The user:KJohansson seems to have some similar editing interests with myself (we also discussed in other article themes) but in total seems to have a different focus(unlike the accusations suggests). The user is not identical with myself. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you feel like you are innocent then a CU should be able to prove this but I waited a long time (some would say too long) after the suspicious activity was first raised by User:Viewfinder. The IPs and other evidence only severed to corroborate and strengthen the suspicion. Thus it is not just myself but several others who have suspected possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other users

I am still suspicious of these accounts. Sockpuppeting seems possible, and meatpuppeting seems quite likely. The serial personal attacks and contempt for other editors shown by Johansson, and persistent unilateral edits by Lear and Johansson have obstructed what should have an easy edit dispute to resolve. Viewfinder (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Nirvana888 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed MuZemike 00:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mostly for a check on Wegos, KJohansson, and the 78 IP. Everything else is Stale for CU purposes. MuZemike 00:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks the 92s and 67 IPs are also quite recent and not stale. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Scibaby

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

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

[edit] Report date November 24 2009, 15:55 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Alister Kinkaid (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Occam eraser (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Pullister (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Climatedragon (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Hopkinsrocks (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Comfort & Joy (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Institute of Klimatology (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Meltdown36 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Bigred58 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Trundlex (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• William Dulsok (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• GardiaP (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz

Brand-new account, hit the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article running, speaks Wiki-talk fluently, behavioral similarity to other recent Scibaby socks.

Please not that recent Scibaby investigations uncovered two more sock-masters working on climate-related articles with a somewhat similar modus operandi, namely User: Tinpac (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive#Report_date_November_22_2009.2C_02:05_.28UTC.29). From behavior only, these are difficult to separate, as they all behave similarly and push similar POVS. However, it is obvious that User: Alister Kinkaid is not a new user. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think behavioral evidence points strongly to AK being Scibaby. But I've been wrong before, and given the wikipolitical sensitivity of the Scibaby case it's worth a CU to confirm. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another one added, User:Occam eraser, identified by User: BozMo. Again brand-new account.

Added User:Pullister, who turned up with the usual patterns this morning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And another one, Climatedragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who made just enough token edits to other articles to allow him to edit semi-protected articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(updated) This one has been blocked as yet another Scibaby sock. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another one added - Bigred58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which looks like another sleeper sock - possibly of Flegelpuss, since its MO looks similar. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 27 November 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 - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed - Tiptoety ^talk 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

John254

John254 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John254/Archive

[edit] Report date November 23 2009, 20:52 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Ywmpq205 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Kam47625 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 爆笑連合 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 三平 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare

Filing case for IP who requested it on WT:SPI. NW (Talk) 20:52, 23 November 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 - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by NW (Talk) 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed Might as well endorse and see what other socks John254 has created this time. MuZemike 02:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Alexcas11

Alexcas11 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexcas11/Archive

[edit] Report date November 29 2009, 14:31 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

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

[edit] Evidence submitted by Flowerpotman

Three edits from Homesolo and enough to say that this is yet another Alexcas foray.

• First edit is to add a fake film to the Jimmy Bennett filmography table; this article is, as mentioned in multiple reports above, an Alexcas magnet, but just for the record, the last Alexcas sock Hish222 (talk · contribs) added fake info to the table [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Bennett&diff=327788059&oldid=327266134 here, as did Joeymalone (talk · contribs) thrice here, here and here, not to mention Kaboomboys123 (talk · contribs) here. Duck here I would say, but as this account has made only three edits, it would only be fair to point out a few other similarities, such as ....

• The creation of a blatant hoax article, in the Alexcas style at Home Alone (Remake), a film purported to star Jimmy Bennett

• And the addition of Superman 4 to the Tobey Maguire article; not that is anything awful, although it hasn't started filming yet despite what Homesolo asserts, but again this article and that film franchise is the focus of activity from other Alexcas socks, such as Alexcool123, who added Spiderman 5 to the article in March (diff). FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:31, 29 November 2009 (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

• Administrator note: Blocked indefinitely and tagged. Article deleted as a blatant hoax. NW (Talk) 14:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Wiki libs

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

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

[edit] Report date November 27 2009, 11:27 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• 115.167.84.73 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 115.167.80.252 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 115.167.84.109 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 78.144.251.132 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• Scieberking (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 115.167.84.73 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Occultaphenia

I am not one to complain, but I suspect sockpuppetry: these editors appear to be attempting to remove previously cited content in regard to the Pete Townsend page, regarding Townsend influencing Jimmy Page appears to have been in the article cited and uncontested. At first the content was removed without reason, all with a (Tag: references removed) in the comment for removal section, all within a quick suspicious amount of time, with most not having much editing outside the Townsend page, with only one (Scieberking) giving an ambigious reason claiming the link is "Malware" which doesn't sound right or legit reason and the link doesn't appear to be this incorrectly claimed classification. They all appear not to have a real log-in, other than the above mentioned. This removal continues, despite the source backing up the claim. I also notice that user 'Wiki Libs' appears to have been very protective of the Jimmy Page article, and appears to have a history of sockpupperty, though this may be less likely due to different editing reasons. I hope i have done the right thing, as I do not want to get into an 'edit war' so to speak, but these accounts point to sneakery to me. Please check just to make sure.

[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 Occultaphenia (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk note: Merged from now-deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/115.167.84.73. Only author was Occultaphenia. NW (Talk) 02:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Scieberking (talk · contribs) is the 115.* IPs, unrelated to Wiki libs. Brandon (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

• Per the above comments, No action will be taken (with the assumption that the check did not reveal any other unrelated sockfarms that needed to be dealt with). Tiptoety ^talk 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the evidence that :115.167.84.73, 115.167.80.252, 115.167.84.109, 78.144.251.132 and Scieberking appear to have been proven socks of the same account, then shouldnt they be block? action should be taken. --Occultaphenia (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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