Administrator instructions - WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U), CheckUser policy (Wikipedia:CheckUser), or Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU).
| Welcome to Sockpuppet investigations (SPI). Please see the sockpuppet policy for detailed definitions and descriptions of what sockpuppetry is and is not. This page is used to discuss whether a user is likely to have violated that policy, or breached other restrictions (eg blocks or bans) using multiple accounts.
[edit] CheckUser CheckUser is a tool that allows authorized users to look at technical information left when a user/IP makes an edit. This technical information can help determine if a single person is using more than one account. Use of the checkuser tool is governed by policies on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation levels. For more information, see the Foundation policy, the local policy and the Foundation privacy policy. [edit] When not to request CheckUser There must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for checkuser without evidence will be declined, because  CheckUser is not for fishing. CheckUser is also not  magic pixie dust, and should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry,  Stale account(s) that have not edited for many months, or cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter (see also the  duck test). [edit] Quick CheckUser requests See #Quick CheckUser requests. This page may also be used for other CheckUser requests unrelated to sock abuse, such as: [edit] Evidence and SPI case guidelines  | If the evidence is sensitive, privacy is needed, or if it involves sock puppetry by an administrator, seek advice by email from a Checkuser or the Arbitration Committee first. Private information, emails, logs, etc, may not be posted on the wiki; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first. | You need to provide evidence showing the accounts or IPs are likely to be sock-puppets and acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner, which other users will then assess. If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks. Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts or IPs concerned. This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected. Some general guidelines when making your SPI case: - Remember to always assume good faith when possible.
- After submitting a case, consider notifying the suspected accounts by adding
{{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talk pages. Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. - Do not use any section headers ("===") on case pages as this will break the report templates and mess up the formatting.
- Keep it simple. Simple, concisely presented evidence leads to a quickly resolved case.
- After administrators and/or checkusers have reviewed the case, it will be closed and archived by an SPI clerk. (Administrators may mark a case closed using {{SPIclose}}.)
[edit] Submitting an SPI case Create the case by replacing "SOCKMASTER" with the name of the oldest account, or previous case name in the box below. For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the box, then click the button. | Start an SPI case WITHOUT a CheckUser request | Start an SPI case WITH a CheckUser request | | | | | Instructions for requesting checkuser on open cases | | Anyone can request CheckUser at any time on an open case if it is necessary. (This is done automatically if you use the "Request CheckUser" box to create your new request.) If you wish to request CheckUser to any existing open case, then do the following: - Add {{RFCU|CASE LETTER|No2ndLetter|New}} under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section.
- Note: if you used the "Start sockpuppet investigation plus CheckUser request" box to create your new request, then this will already be done, and the template will be placed under the "CheckUser request" section.
- Replace "CASE LETTER" with one of the code letters provided (A, B, C, D, E, or F)
- If a second reason to request CheckUser is necessary, then replace "No2ndLetter" with another code letter.
- A clerk will review the case and make a determination as to whether CheckUser is needed. A clerk will either
 endorse the case for CheckUser attention or  decline the case. - If the case is declined, then the case will be included back on the list of SPI cases that do not have CheckUser requests. If the case is endorsed, then a CheckUser will check all given accounts for technical evidence; this may take a while. At the end, CheckUser may post their results under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section, stating which accounts are
 confirmed to be the same user, which ones are  likely,  possible, or  unlikely that they are the same user, and which ones are  unrelated or  inconclusive. Sometimes, underlying  IP(s) may also be blocked. - The case is then placed back in the list of non-CheckUser requests pending further comments from clerks or patrolling administrators, or it may be closed by a CheckUser or clerk if all issues have been addressed.
| [edit] Administrators' instructions If you wish to help out at SPI, but are unsure how to get started, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions. If you need help with anything, please ask one of the active SPI clerks. [edit] See also | [edit] Open cases: not awaiting CheckUser [edit] User reported cases (view cases | edit cases )
| | | Bambifan101 - Bambifan101 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive
[edit] Report date November 10 2009, 23:23 (UTC) - Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)
Latest set of named and IP socks; need new checkuser to find any sleepers and evaluate for new IP range block/s. 98.90x seems to be his current primary range. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC) -
- I would check the 98.90.0.0/16 range. --Bsadowski1 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) P.S.: I checked 98.90.0.0/16 with the ContribsRange Gadget and I see many IPs with edits to Disney articles (within the last 3 months).
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status -
 Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
All named accounts are already blocked. However, given this user's history, I agree with Collectonian--a sweep is necessary to find any more socks in this guy's hamper. Blueboy96 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
All  Confirmed (surprise). I blocked 98.90.0.0/16 for 6 months. Not much else to do here. J.delanoygabsadds 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - Conclusions
| | | | Ffdsajkl101 - Ffdsajkl101 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 10 2009, 21:50 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
The suspected sockmaster has primarily been edit warring on the Marriage article. He was recently blocked for a violation of 3rr at 20:49, November 10, 2009. Although the IP has yet to edit past this date, the user has previously, obviously logged out in order to try and evade 3rr, or vote stack. Please compare this diff and this diff. Also check out this, in which the IP fixes an error in the suspected socmaster's post, and lastly, this diff, in which the IP responds to a post as if it was the suspected sock master.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | |
Everyme
- Everyme (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 10 2009, 21:47 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets [edit] Evidence submitted by A Nobody - Copied from ANI.--chaser (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
An IP sockpuppet of a banned user appears to also be commenting in the AfD (the IPs ONLY edits are to this AfD). The IP (78.34.241.98) is of the same German 78.34-range as banned User:Everyme (formerly User:Dorftrottel). If you scroll down and look of the list of known IPs presented here, you will see that this user is indeed associated with the 78.34 German ranged IPs and moreover has a history of showing up to argue counter to my stance. Since the Everyme account was blocked and therefore also since the evidence presented in his RfC, at least a dozen additional 78.34 ranged IPs have been identified and blocked as him already for dirsuptive editing (if you need a list, please let me know, it will just take a few minutes to compile). The user in question has even had edits of such a vicious nature deleted if not oversighted. Incidentally, checking the edit history of the article under discussion reveals that it has indeed been edited in the past by Dorftrottel and Everyme, who has an established animosity toward Star Wars articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederacy of Independent Systems, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Vader's helmet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force lightning, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Civil War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human (Star Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacen Solo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerec, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandalorian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techno Union, etc. (in all cases he said to delete and/or badgering those arguing to keep). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | Supreme Deliciousness - Supreme Deliciousness (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Deliciousness/Archive
[edit] Report date November 10 2009, 00:44 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
Based on user contributions, it's pretty clear that Supreme Deliciousness and Ani medjool are the same person. They both chiefly edit articles on various hills in the Golan Heights and Israeli wine. Recently, they both mistakenly entered a deletion discussion on the wrong page within 10 minutes of each other [6]; they were the only ones to do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. I am not sockpuppet! I try to correct several article that currently be slanted with pro-israel POV Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC). Ohh my god.. I have a problem with Jalapeno, going around to every single page and posting that Ani Medjool is my socpuppet, people might vote differently at the afd and Requested move at the article I created. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC) The "wrong page" is what was linked in the edit summary listing the article for deletion (see here, I was actually confused by this as well). nableezy - 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | Quotient group - Quotient group (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 7 2009, 20:08 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets [edit] Evidence submitted by Mathsci A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was found to have been wikistalking me during the summer by multiple administrators on WP:ANI here. He had made a few edits related to elementary group theory, but disappeared after the charges of wikistalking. Quotient group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appeared later, made some edits concerning elementary group theory, and made some edits about youtube as himself and using the IP 213.48.162.4 (talk · contribs). Here are two almost identical sample postings to my talk page, where he tracked my edits to articles on the organ music of Bach and Handel (Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Handel organ concertos Op.4, Handel organ concertos Op.7). [7][8] Since then using Bristol IPs starting with 213.48.162.*** he has continued to wikistalk me, tracking my edits and making unhelpful and naive remarks in a style very similar to those of A.K.Nole. Whereas A.K.Nole edited from a Cheltenham IP, these edits now come from nearby Bristol, possibly because a new academic year has started and the editor has moved elsewhere in real life. (I'm on wikibreak at the moment while visiting California.) The Bristol IPs and User:Quotient group had already appeared in a previous investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mathsci/Archive but at that stage the duplicated edits on my talk page and the organ music articles had not yet been made. The latest case of wikstalking occurred recently on the talk page of Varoon Arya (talk · contribs), later referred to on WP:FTN. [9] by 213.48.162.5 (talk · contribs). He duplicates comments left by 213.48.162.12 (talk · contribs) [10] on Varoon Arya's talkpage. Another WP editor with more editing experience than me has looked at these edits and agrees that something fishy is going on. It's seems very similar to A.K.Nole's wikistalking. Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - Regarding Captain Occam's unhelpful remarks, please read WP:DUCK. User:Quotient group made the mistake of duplicating edits made by the small range of IPs, which have been wikistalking me since with this range of IPs. The wikistalking (following me to AfD's, talk pages, etc) is indisputable. Captain Occam is stirring the pot here and seems to have very little idea what he's talking about. Certainly A.K.Nole edited when logged out from a Cheltenham IP: since A.K.Nole has not edited with his main account for some time, the link with him might have gone stale. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
←Quotient group's repetition of the incorrect claim that A.K.Nole was "outed" (he merely edited WP while logged out from a Cheltenham IP - outing is something quite different) does not aid his defence. It is quite hard to see why he should repeat A.K.Nole's faulty point of view so closely and with such conviction. In addition he has given no reasonable explanation why he posted almost identical talk page notices followed by almost identical edits to articles on organ music as the Bristol IP. This coincidence does not seem in any way random. Checkuser can easily reveal whether he uses the same range of IPs or is geographically close. Only checkuser can verify if Quotient group is being truthful: certainly the stalking of my edits (this has never happened before to me on wikipedia until A.K.Nole) by the IPs is clear and is not dissimilar to Quotient group's first edits. - Quotient group: 3 very brief and superficial edits (at 1st year undergraduate level) to articles on group theory before participating in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Franco_Selleri with a bizarre remark about the Abd&WMC arbcom case which had just finished here. This confused input, unrelated to the AfD, seems related to the later rather silly claims that I had started the AfD through a sockpuppet, a claim that was dismissed in the subsequent sockpuppet enquiry. However, the edits are consistent with that of A.K.Nole, as is the starter level in university mathematics. This edit [11] and these edits [12], [13], [14] followed by this edit [15] are wikistalking. (Long-term editors on WikProject Music usually just check whether external links work in these long articles, almost all writte.)
- 213.48.162.2: this start edit on Myron Evans material [16] followed by this edit to a topic I started on wP:FTN [17], essentially trolling (the subject had arisen several times already on the noticeboard).
- 213.48.162.4: same edits as Quotient group but a week earlier [18],[19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].
- 213.48.162.5/213.48.162.12/213.48.16.17 These apparently separate comments are by the same user [26], [27], [28]. These misleading contributions with different IPs, while not using a registered account, seem to be contrary to core wikpedia policy. 17 also started a WP:FTN subject on Race and intelligence [29], which was dismissed as irrelevant. 5 later participated in this thread [30]. [31].
Although I'm on wikibreak, I was called back to comment on Race and intelligence by User:Slrubenstein and have for a few years been keeping tabs on the fringe science articles around Myron Evans, Ruggero Santilli and Francesco Fucilla and their associates. These users have followed me to this relatively unknown corner of WP and have been editing in a similar way. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - If Quotient group now admits that all these edits were by him, then he was being less than honest here. [32] The primary purpose of his account, given his admission, was wikihounding me. He has never accidentally edited mathematics articles when logged off. All his mathematical contributions have been on the same trivial level (like those of A.K.Nole). Since his style of argumentation is very similar to that of A.K.Nole, as well as his very knowledgeable claims to know why A.K.Nole left WP (from what I remember he was found guilty of wikistalking me by various admins, he was never outed except as being "Elonka" backwards), I think it would still be useful to check whether A.K.Nole edited using an IP 213.48.162.***. Once that has been decided, it will be easier to review the problematic status of the user Quotient group, an account that, with all the anonymous edits, has up until now been primarily been devoted to following my edits, i.e. a primarily disruptive attack account. There is no dispute of any kind here, just a wish to stop this kind of wikistalking. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. A ridiculous and questionable accusation which even on the face of it discloses no allegations of sockpuppetry whatever. It is completely obvious that the varying IP addresses are the same user and of course those were me not logged in, which I usually don't bother to do. It's a dialup, shared by many people and you can get different numbers. (Not everything in the range is by me of course!) Mathsci obviously realised it immediately and could have confirmed that by a simple polite question. This is not sock puppetry. Mathsci drags an old adversary of his to blacken my reputation and use false logic based on false premises -- if AKN hounds him and QG hounds him, they must be the same. Not true and nonsense. AKN edits the same articles as me -- not true. AKN lives in a different town but might have moved -- ridiculous. This is not sock puppetry. AKN left his account for good after he was outed by Mathsci at ANI. Even if he were to return, as me or anyone else, per WP:CLEANSTART this is not sockpuppetry. Mathsci uses this bogus SPI as an excuse to justify his previous assertions on multiple pages eg [33] about my location: this is a personal attack rising to borderline WP:OUTING, as in the AKN case. Mathsci should either take this to a proper forum for dispute resolution or stop this harassment by abuse of wiki-procedures. Quotient group (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Although I haven't paid close enough attention to this issue to have a strong opinion about the Wikistalking / sockpuppet question, something I've noticed consistently is Mathsci's repeated personal attacks against this user, such as [34] and [35]. This aspect of the issue appears to have a history stretching back several months, as evident from this AN/I thread about Mathsci outing personal information against A.K.Nole. According to that thread, attempts at dispute resolution for this issue have failed. If A.K.Nole is using sockpuppets or otherwise violating Wikipedia policy, I don't think either editor can be considered blameless here; I would recommend taking action against them both. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status - Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - A.K.Nole is stale and he admits to being the IPs. Brandon (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions
| | | | Jaredsacks - Jaredsacks (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredsacks/Archive
[edit] Report date November 7 2009, 05:40 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by FFMG User Sekwanele was banned for been a sock of Jaredsacks, the new user, Sekwanele_2 is following the same edits pattern as Sekwanele and the username is very similar. FFMG (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - First, Sekwanele is not even blocked, and never has been. Second, that account hasn't edited since January so checkuser is unlikely to be helpful. Are there are more recent Jaredsacks socks to check against? Wknight94 talk 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, my bad, when I saw Sekwaneles page I, (wrongly), thought he had been blocked and created a new account Sekwanele_2 to evade the block.
- I just confused the sock notice with a block notice. FFMG (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 Clerk note: There is no intersection of edits between Sekwanele and Sekwanele_2, nor is there one between Jaredsacks and Sekwanele_2. The block logs look clean, so I don't see avoiding scrutiny as a reason to use a different account. If they are the same person, then it doesn't look like there is abusive sock puppetry going on, and it seems that Jaredsacks and Sekwanele are abandoned. MuZemike 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions
| | | | Hair tongs alarm fan - Hair tongs alarm fan (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 6 2009, 10:29 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by Polargeo Multiple edits from both of these users between Hair tongs alarm, Talk:Hair tongs alarm and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hair tongs alarm. Also the same POV from the IP on the hair tongs alarm talkpage here. This IP appears to have been used for excessive vandalism recently User talk:83.244.229.222. Polargeo (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - Hair tongs alarms excuse would make sense if Su-min4thewin had not come in on the article 2 hours later as this user's first ever edit. Both accounts were used exclusively on issues related to this article including backing each other up on the talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. Some of the edits for the article hair tongs alarm were made on a communal computer, next in line for using it was Su-min4thewin who asked what i was doing and has also blessed me with an edit(Hair tongs alarm fan (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)) I cannot say when Sumin4thewin made the edit, and am surprised that it was 2 hours later than my edit, but this evidence is not necessarily incriminating, and it would definitely be wrong to delete both accounts without hardline evidence. Besides, him and myself would only have one IP address in common, if you wish to research this fact, then please feel free to do so. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - This looks like one of those typical single-purpose cases. Once that single purpose is gone (i.e. the article is deleted), the accounts will disappear. Checkuser probably not necessary. Wknight94 talk 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions
|
[edit] Bot-reported cases (view cases | edit cases ) | Bot reported cases | |
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was Deeb.
-
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was deeB.
-
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the literal pattern jimbo.
-
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string jimbo is prone to false positives, please take extra care ensuring this name is actually a violation before blocking.
- The string jimbo has a comment associated with it: Check to see if this name is being used to impersonate or insult User:Jimbo Wales HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the literal pattern jimbo.
-
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string jimbo is prone to false positives, please take extra care ensuring this name is actually a violation before blocking.
- The string jimbo has a comment associated with it: Check to see if this name is being used to impersonate or insult User:Jimbo Wales HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the literal pattern jimbo.
-
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string jimbo is prone to false positives, please take extra care ensuring this name is actually a violation before blocking.
- The string jimbo has a comment associated with it: Check to see if this name is being used to impersonate or insult User:Jimbo Wales HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the literal pattern jimbo.
-
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string jimbo is prone to false positives, please take extra care ensuring this name is actually a violation before blocking.
- The string jimbo has a comment associated with it: Check to see if this name is being used to impersonate or insult User:Jimbo Wales HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the regular expression hubris|deeb. The portion that matched was deeb.
-
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the regular expression Railizardz \b[1-9][0-9]\b. The portion that matched was Railizardz 12.
-
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string Railizardz \b[1-9][0-9]\b is often associate with sock puppets of User:Railizardz HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the literal pattern jimbo.
-
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string jimbo is prone to false positives, please take extra care ensuring this name is actually a violation before blocking.
- The string jimbo has a comment associated with it: Check to see if this name is being used to impersonate or insult User:Jimbo Wales HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
| [edit] Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing Cases in this section have an open request for CheckUser that is being processed. Any user may update or act on this case, and any patroller or clerk may decide the case. However it will not be closed if the Clerks believe any further action is needed. - Endorsement or decline of CheckUser may only be made by a Clerk.
- If your case is not showing up here, or this section seems out of date, please click the purge link.
[edit] Awaiting Clerk approval (view cases | edit cases )
| | | Crazyer 666 - Crazyer 666 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 10 2009, 04:38 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
Crazyer 666 was blocked indefinitely for vandalizing articles, particularly ones on Ukrainian topics, with Ukrainian-language words. Ueee ueeee was blocked for doing the exact same thing, and on the same article as Crazyer 666 Poltava. I reverted much of the vandalism created by Ueee ueeee. Today, I received vandalism on my talk page from Dickputka2.0 who tried to create a now-deleted nonsense article on a slavic word (I assume a curse word or slur). Ukrainian language connection seems fairly obvious but not 100%. Other active socks likely. See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status -
 Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | |
DoDaCanaDa
- DoDaCanaDa (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 9 2009, 22:37 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets Perhaps also the following 2 users (though I'm not so certain)
- DoDaCanaDa has engaged in several disputes, from the look of his talk page, mainly about the article Ray Joseph Cormier (now deleted), which is seemingly about himself (according to DoDaCanaDa's user page). For unexplained, and fairly inexplicable reasons, he was given a barnstar by User:AristoLtd. Yet AristoLtd has just 4 edits - why would a user that new give out a barnstar to someone that obscure, who seems mainly concerned with his own article about himself. Two of the other 3 edits of AristoLtd were also unexplained barnstars - for LeonisRugitur and SusanLesch, though I'm not sure whether this was actually just misdirection to obscure the other barnstar.Newman Luke (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
- Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by Newman Luke (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | |
Knyphausen56
- Knyphausen56 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 9 2009, 20:33 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets 68.36.205.151 is a Comcast IP from Princeton that has been static since at least August 2008. Contrary to appearances, Knyphausen56 is probably not a real name account. Knyphausen is an extremely rare name. Wilhelm von Knyphausen won an important battle at Princeton. The interleaving edit history proves that the two accounts are connected. Here is a timeline: - August 2008: IP adds info that Dignano is in Austro-Hungarian empire. [36]
- (May 2009: IP makes an edit related to Princeton.)
- August 2009: IP updates info on person with title who died in Air France disaster.
- September 2009: IP removes one son of an Archduke and changes birth year of the other [37]
- 25 October 2009: IP makes 3 edits concerning an Austro-Hungarian field marshal.
- 27 October 2009: IP updates info on Gabriela von Habsburg. [38]
- 29 October 2009: IP repeats September edit, responds to a question concerning title styles on talk page.
- 7 November 4:08-4:09: Knyphausen56 creates Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este with bogus source. [39]
- 7 November 4:14-4:15: IP creates links to the new article. [40]
- 7 November 4:18-4:58: IP continues work on Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este. Highlights: Removal of cleanup tag, addition of two more bogus sources, one child renamed and redlinked. [41] Cleanup tag removed once more. [42] Cover-up message on talk page trying to explain why no ancestors on Wikipedia. [43]
- 7 November 11:28: IP gives Christoph Franz a redlinked elder brother. [44]
- 7 November 15:20-15:23: IP gives an archduke and an archduchess an additional son. [45] [46]
- 7 November 15:27-15:28: IP adds 4 great-great grandparents for Christoph Franz' article. Removes information that both parents of Christoph Franz' fake great grandmother died unmarried (although with issue).
- 7 November 15:41-15:44: IP creates another couple of great-great grandparents, this time choosing a couple without issue. Again the child is renamed first.
- 7 November 15:53-15:58: IP renames a great grandmother and adds "parents" for her. [47] Marries her "parents" with each other, having to discard the "mother"'s real husband. [48] [49]
- 7 November 16:23-18:11: IP makes extensive edits to Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este, adding or renaming further ancestors. Highlight: "All of his grandparents and great-granparents are royals and he is thus descended from the Austrian, Spanish, British and Prussian royal families."
- 7 November 18:14: Knyphausen56 creates user page saying: "I am a scholar of Austrian and Italian history, including the royal families of said countries."
- 7 November 18:33: IP standardises redlink for "father" at Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este. [50]
- 7 November 18:34: Knyphausen56 creates page for "father" under the new title. [51]
- 7 November 18:37-18:40: IP makes minor edits to "father" article.
- 7 November 18:54-19:12: Knyphausen56 standardises redlink for "mother" article in "father" article and adjusts Christoph Franz article. Creates "mother" article.
- 7 November 23:26-23:31: IP makes various edits to Christoph Franz and his "parents".
- 8 November 4:03: Knyphausen56 comments in AfD.
- 8 November 4:05-4:07: IP removes hoax tags from 3 articles.
- 8 November 4:13-4:31: Knyphausen56 adds various plausible sounding and hard to verify sources to the 3 articles.
- 8 November 4:33: Knyphausen56 fixes a somewhat revealing copy-paste error. [52]
Only some of the most representative/relevant diffs are included, since almost all of the 86 combined edits are relevant. The user has created an article on a 17-year-old "Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este" and has provided him with fake royal ancestry up to and including all great-great-grandparents. In doing so, several hoax articles were created, and information in legitimate articles was manipulated by adding additional offspring, renaming relatives or spouses, or removing information that didn't fit. Initially added sources all failed verification. Later books were added without page number. To fully understand the fake it is necessary to uncollapse the genealogy box at Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este, in various stages of development. This is an obvious case, but because of the criminal energy shown and the potential impact on the integrity of our information I think it is appropriate to check for additional sockpuppets. Hans Adler 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Case originally reported to ANI by User:Flowerpotman, see WP:ANI#Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este AFD and related articles. I have now added a votestacking account, created 14 minutes after Knyphausen56's most recent edit. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este. Hans Adler 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
PPS: I have now added 63.139.66.1, the IP address of Lawrenceville School near Princeton. At 9 November 17:00 this IP contributed to the AfD, supporting the article. Note that the other IP's second edit mentioned this school in May 2009. [53] Hans Adler 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I have added another IP, which is assigned to the Lawrenceville School. It would really be a pity if someone had to contact the school and g et this kid into trouble there because wikipedia admins don't take action.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. The evidence you provide is interesting but not convincing because none of what you accuse me of can be deemed deceptive. I made the edits I did in good faith because I genuinely believed, and still do, that what I wrote is true based on my research of primary, secondary and tertiary sources, some of which I have mentioned in the articles. I am in no way affiliated with either Archduke Fulvio Marco or Princess Maria Louis or either of their two sons but am only trying to add historically significant information to this great encyclopedia.--Knyphausen56 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by Hans Adler 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
|
[edit] Awaiting CheckUser (view cases | edit cases )
| | | ItsLassieTime - ItsLassieTime (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive
[edit] Report date November 9 2009, 06:03 (UTC) - Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)
The editing history and patterns are extremely similar and editor picked up on some of ItsLassieTime's work on various articles, in particular Thumbelina, which several socks were used to edit at various times. First edits also reflect usual pattern of this editor, in creating their user page and talk page with similar worded notes. They appeared as a new editor a month after ItsLassieTime's ban, displaying intimately familiarity with Wikipedia policies and throwing out DYK, GANs, doing GA reviews, etc within a very sort time frame. GA review comments similar to those ItsLassieTime used when passing articles as well, and user page styled in same manner as the ItsLassieTime's time one was. Considering the user's history, requesting check user to both confirm if this is a sock and search for sleepers, as when ItsLassieTime's socks were discovered they had half a dozen going at once. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - If it would help, 209.244.189.88 (talk · contribs) is one IP ItsLassieTime used to block evade.[54] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
I would also suggest that User:ChristianBenvenuto be checked too. The users first edits (three minutes after creation) were to add then remove a comment on this request that does not look like it comes from a new user. User:ItsLassieTime has at least once forgotten which account they were logged into and made comments that did not fit the account. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry about that edit, I was going to make a statement regarding my thoughts on it. I'd thought it was off-topic, and I realized I'm now being accused of being someone's sockpuppet. Which sadly, I am not and I'm going to leave the CheckUser to make sure that I am not. I don't want to be framed of someone's elses misdeeds and problems. I've been around Wikipedia in the past as an unregistered IP and have looked at the Incident and SPI archives in the past. I'm sorry if my quick edit causes interest but I intend no trouble from it.ChristianBenvenuto (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed To check if Benvenuto = Wright. I can say right now that all other previously-blocked socks are Stale, so an admin would need to look at behavioral evidence to determine a connection with ItsLassieTime. MuZemike 20:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
| | | | RJII - RJII (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive
[edit] Report date November 9 2009, 06:00 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
Similarity of recent accounts to RJII and suspected socks is discussed at ANI.[55] FredUnavailable has said: "I am fine with any sort of Checkuser." He commented: "I just checked out the RJII pages and I'll admit that my Talk style is uncannily similar." See Defending yourself against claims. The statement from Elen (below) is accurate. I am not, however, related to any RJII. I am confident that the Checkuser will prove this to be the case. I will point two things out to the the Checkuser: 1) RJII claimed to be from Philadelphia, not my location; 2) The kinds of articles I have edited are completely different than what RJII edited. Most of his were on politics, economics, and global warming, three topics on which I have editing nothing. Clearly no intersection of editorial interests.--FredUnavailable (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Checkuser should note that Moonbatssuck, Idetestlunarbats, Moonhoaxbat and FredUnavailable are all the same person, who has changed their name repeatedly on being requested to do so (although with some irregularities in process). It would be very helpful if Checkuser could determine if this individual is also an RJII sock.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk endorsed. Checkuser evidence would be nice, but I am not sure how much use it will be. This case might have to be decided on via behavioral evidence regardless of the result. NW (Talk) 20:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | JuliaHavey - JuliaHavey (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 8 2009, 23:54 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets Juice Plus has had a longstanding problem with apparent sock puppet SPAs engaging in vandalism, [56][57] [58][59] COI editing, edit warring, and verbal abuse.[60] Two of these accounts have been indefinitely blocked in the past 2 weeks alone.[61][62] It seems that there may be distributors of this multilevel marketed product who are using sock accounts in an attempt to delete crticial (but reliable) content from the article and to insert content in violation of policy, while disregarding WP:COI and WP:SOCK. These apparent sock SPAs are also being cited by another editor to create an illusion of consensus.[63] One editor in particular (c.f. WP biography Julia Havey), who first began posting under the name JuliaHavey, a contentious SPA editor and self-admitted Juice Plus distributor,[64] [65][66] was particularly problematic in the past and has apparently been using multiple sock accounts to circumvent COI policy and avoid scrutiny (c.f. WP:ILLEGIT), after she had claimed in May 2007 that the she was “quitting Wiki” because she “hates the policies” [67][68]. Another editor has acted surreptitiously as a proxy for this user, bypassing the discussion page and attempting to railroad contentious edits and unreliable sources.[69][70] This example shows that the user signed their post as “Julia”, and te user's MO and style is identical to that of JuliaHavey and the aformenetioned sock SPAs. It seems that much of the disruptive activity, policy violations, and apparent sock puppetry on Juice Plus is being perpetrated by Julia Havey. The posts of JuliaHavey and the aforementioned suspected socks are very similar in content (complaining that the article is biased), tone (verbal abuse and personal attacks directed at me specifically), and style (referring to me as “Red”, and excessive use of ALL-CAPS and exclamation points!!!! for example). A Google search indicates that the Haveys (Julia and husband Patrick Havey, who jointly operate a Juice Plus distirbutor ship under the name of the the "Health and Wellness Institute") formerly resided in St. Louis Missouri[71] up until about March of this year and then relocated to the Nashville, TN region (Brentwood, TN) sometime later this year.[72] One of the suspected socks for this user is Dubbawubba (talk)(contribs), since banned indefinitely, who appears to have inadvertently posted without signing in,[73] revealing their IP as 68.52.214.24 (talk)(contribs), a non-commercial IP address registered to Comcast in Nashville, TN[74] (coincidentally or not, the same city in which the product manufacturer, National Safety Associates, is located[75]). Recently, a new user, Jackie_JP, showed up on the page and is claiming to be an official representative/marketing employee of National Safety Associates.[76][77] The user, despite being asked, has not provided contact information that would allow for verification of their employment by NSA. The user is posting images on the article, which they claim were provided and authorized for use by NSA; however no evidence regarding source or permissions was provided). User TraceyR encouraged this editor to violate WP:COI and bypass objections raised on the talk page regarding a controversial edit.[78] An SP investigation is clearly warranted. I realize that much of this complaint probably belongs on ANI but I hope that some progress can be made here first. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed MuZemike 20:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | Art Dominique - Art Dominique (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 6 2009, 23:08 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
The long banned and perpetual socker User:Art Dominique (see: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Art Dominique, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Art_Dominique) appears to be back to his pushing his "Soviet agression" POV on Continuation War. However, it is possible that these may be "innocent" POV pushers that happen to share his point of view. Most the account are already blocked, but I'm asking for a CU to see how feasible it is to range block him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - Additional diff of interest: [81] --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence submitted by Illythr To be more precise, this user's single-minded focus in presenting his POV seems to transcend human comprehension: unlike "normal" POV-pushers, who, once rejected, tend to try new ways of doing their thing, this one uses the same approach over and over for more than three years, now. While the content this new incarnation is trying to get through has changed (only the essence remains now), the tactic is always the same - constant reverts coupled with lengthy rants on talk pages that give the impression of someone frustrated with unreasonable opposition and willing to talk. This impression quickly fades as soon as you actually try talking to him, though - it feels like talking to a wall. A talking wall that may echo some of your words back at you, but never actually hears what you are saying. Latest example can be found here. If someone's willing to risk their sanity and do a comparison, here's where poor user:Husond gets to bear the brunt of yet another offensive back in 2007 (!). And here's the result of the one attempt to initiate some kind of dialogue with Art Dominique. --Illythr (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - Note: the latest confirmed sockpuppet of Art Dominique is User:A. Tihonov (December 2008). --Illythr (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. Username War began with Soviet offensive is not only "likely" me - it is me. However, it is not my sockpuppet. It is my previous username, which I only used for very short period of time, in conjunction with the Continuation War article. Then User ThaddeusB wrote to me, stating the following: "Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change." The simplest thing to do was to create a new user account. Since I only had made a very small amount of contributions under the previous account, I didn't care for being credited for them. As I had only contributed to the Continuation War page, I made sure to clearly report to other users on the Talk:Continuation War page, that - "per request" - I had changed my user name. This notice I placed under an individual comment heading, so that it can easily be noticed by all. I stated what had been my previous username, and what I had changed it to. I later wrote to User ThaddeusB, that I had been glad to comply with his username change request. I also told him that the username Kingroodney is in no way associated with me. Based on the activity of the highly disruptive and misbehaving user account of Kingroodney, the soul purpose of it's creation and operation appears to have been to try to make it seem as though it is my sockpuppet account - to get me and other likely-minded contributors in trouble. I believe that account to be the works of user Illythr. The username Enabling others also has no association with me. Boris Novikov (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - From my talk:
Art Dominique was obsessed specifically with the Continuation war - almost all his socks were single purpose accounts that pushed the same POV with single-minded focus into that one article. He also edited some topic-relevant articles like Battle of Tali-Ihantala, but the primary article is his main haunt. The latest one seems to be a significant upgrade from the usual - he actually made a valid point before reverting to the usual mantra. --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - As such, I would say there at least some small chance that Boris is unrelated since he doesn't quite fit the usual pattern. (And yes, if Boris is unrelated to Art then "War began with Soviet offensive" is not actually a sock. It was shut down for username reasons only, making a creation of a new account perfectly legit.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
|
[edit] Completed cases [edit] Pending close Cases here have been closed by users and are awaiting a Clerk to review for formal close and archiving. (view cases | edit cases )
| | | Donikanuhiu - Donikanuhiu (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 10 2009, 00:55 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by Barocci On 5 November, Donikanuhiu recreated MelodyVision at MelodyVision Song Contest. After MelodyVision Song Contest was nominated for deletion, he tried to remove afd template from the article[84][85]. On 7 November 2009, Donikanuhiu has been banned for persistent vandalism [86]. On 8 November, 77.105.28.92 started editing. 77.105.28.92 added sq interwiki to an article[87], something Donikanuhiu previously used to do[88][89], then removed afd template from MelodyVision Song Contest [90]. Barocci 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions Clerk note: No action taken at this time. The IP is clearly him, but the IP hasn't edited since the block, so it's possible the IP may have been reassigned to someone else by now. As for Donikanuhiu, if he persists in userpage vandalism, please report at WP:AIV. MuZemike 05:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - Why no action has been taken to the user, despite the intentional and unambiguous WP:EVADEment of the block? Barocci 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 | This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
| |
