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] Making 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 )
| | | Freegolan - Freegolan (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 3 2009, 01:49 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets [edit] Evidence submitted by Nableezy User:Freegolan was initially blocked indefinitely in early July for using sockpuppets User:Wolof359, User:Freegolan, User:Nosdena12, User:Hamas4life, and User:Masasuijen by Nishkid64. Since then a new user has shown up making similar comments. Compare this by Hamas4life with this by Ani medjool. Similar language used by Freegolan and Ani medjool. Similar language used about supposedly "pro-Israel editors", (Freegolan and Ani medjool. Same narrow focus on Israel. Also, though there is not a large sample size for most of the users, similar timings in edits. Nableezy 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by Nableezy 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Declining checkuser here because all of the old accounts are Stale - we have nothing to compare the new account to. I did take a look at the edits, however, and the main thing I'm unsure about is that Ani medjool uses very broken English. Freegolan and all of his previous incarnations did use grammatically correct sentences, although the frequent capitalization errors are similar. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | AlxRnz02 - AlxRnz02 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 3 2009, 05:19 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
- Users appear to edit identical pages, with similar content being added, or re-added; user's support each others edits. Users focus on the following articles:
RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
These four users appear to all be affiliated with the Connetquot Junior State of America, an article currently up for deletion. All four are new accounts whose edits have focused exclusively on this particular club. It appears that these four editors are trying to publish their club information (including list of officers) on as many pages as possible. See these diffs as examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. There are at least a dozen more just like these. Also, the names of the users indicate they are directly involved in the club. For example, user AlxRnz02 is likely the same as the club's "Director of Finance/Treasurer: Alex Rienzie." User "Chsjsa" is an acronym for Connetquot High School Junior State of America. User User:Ssypher is likely the same person as the club's "President: Scott Sypher." Cbl62 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - The following unregistered IP address has also been part of the same chain of suspicious edits relating to this club: 74.101.175.152. Cbl62 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | Rhaeskg - Rhaeskg (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 2 2009, 22:31 (UTC) - Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by ~ ς ح д r خ є ~
After IP received warning for vandalism, an extremely identical edit was done with an account created one minute before ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
Ok yeah I guess that was kind of obvious. Go ahead and ban me, but please don't ban the IP. Its shared by an entire university. I think I win though, because these random letters actually formed a name I might use in something else. And I now know some of the ways in which sockpuppets are caught, and will avoid that in the future. Really, I fucking win. Oh and one more thing:
Rhaeskg (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
| | | | Scientus - Scientus (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 2 2009, 21:21 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by Trilemma Users Doorworker [9] and Sam Albrecht [10] have only contributed to the Alan Grayson page, on which Scientus, for months, has been aggressively editing [11]. Their edits are quite similar, sometimes identical, to the language that Scientus has been insisting on adding, some of which has been decided, through discussion, to be NPOV violations. Trilemma (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | Mr. Hicks The III - Mr. Hicks The III (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 2 2009, 00:02 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets User:Mr. Hicks The III, User:I am Dr. Drakken, User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100 are all clear returning accounts and edit warriors on articles relating to the Israel Palestine conflict. All show the same habit, despite not being admins or even long term editors, of punctuating their comments with "Don't do it again" in routine disagreements.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] All commented on the Judea and Samaria dispute that led to Canadian Monkey and NoCal100 being topic banned (see, i.e., Drakken and Hicks). Both Hicks and Drakken have under 250 edits, have participated at WP:AE, and made the same single edit to 2000 Ramallah Lynching without comment.[19][20] Drakken was previously blocked as an untraceable sock by checkuser Dominic after he and Thatcher found Drakken to be editing from open proxies.[21] Hicks is most recently seeking to enforce the Judea and Samaria topic ban against other involved editors.[22][23]. Canadian Monkey and Dr. Drakken were created 19 minutes apart on December 30, 2007; User:Hadashot Livkarim, the longest term account now confirmed to be NoCal100, was created 29 minutes later. NoCal100 was created four days later on January 3, 2008 (for combined first edits of this group see here). NoCal100's first edits were to revert User:Calton on unrelated pages (see early contribs here). Calton was soon also reverted by Canadian Monkey on unrelated pages (i.e., here). In April 2008 both users were reverting User:Calton in tandem on List of fictional ducks (full history here). Before NoCal100 or Canadian Monkey were created, the same dispute with User:Calton on List of fictional ducks had been carried on by User:Isarig, a long time edit warrior who has been topic banned for socking, and then exercised his right to vanish (see block log). Isarig made the same use of the phrase "Don't do it again" in routine disagreements.[24][25] At least one editor, User:PalestineRemembered, has compared NoCal100's mannerisms to Isarig (see here). All five of these accounts repetitively use the "+" symbol in their edit summaries, especially "+ref", for adding content (search all but Isarig here and here, search Isarig here). None appear to have overlapping edits. User:NoCal100 has now been banned for continued sockpuppetry. A full list of Isarig's socks appears not to be publicly displayed due to his exercise of RtV. I asked Hicks if the user had a previous history in the area, and received a non-answer.[26] In sumary, the above information suggests that User:Mr. Hicks The III should be checkusered, and that further investigation should look into any relationship between that account and those topic banned under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria, or the former editor User:Isarig. - Re Dominic: Thanks. I understand there are admins and potentially members of ArbCom who have watched the situation with Isarig, however, in light of his choice to exercise WP:Right to vanish.[27] Is it possible to find out if they have additional perspective? That would seem to be an important part. Mackan79 (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note I requested that User talk:NoCal100 be replaced since it seemed to have been mistakenly deleted. I see there that the pursuit of Calton, including a note of the similarity to Isarig, is discussed several times.[28] (See User talk:Canadian Monkey for more queries about reversions of Calton.) Mackan79 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. May I suggest also having a look at Jaakobou (talk · contribs)? This editor also uses the "+"-syntax excessively, issues warnings and orders to desist [29] , is a regular guest at WP:AE [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedrito&diff=prev&oldid=309340536] and edits in the same areas as NoCal100 (talk · contribs) and Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) did, albeit with the distinction that whenever a topic got too heated only one of either Jaakobou or the pair stayed involved (e.g. the Judea vs. Samaria spat). A quick look at Jaakobou's earliest edits indicate that this was/is probably not his first account. After some sporadic edits in late 2006, the account becomes extremely active as of January 2007, using edit summaries such as "rv to last NPOV version, if you wish to add all the defamatory guess works (regardless of origin) i can assure you there's plenty out there." [30] and participating in WP:AfDs [31]. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09:06 02.12.2009 Actually... [32]. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09:15 02.12.2009 - Those aren't likely, in my view. The "+" is common enough; I only consider it relevant that none of the accounts use a completely different style. Jaakabou isn't a native speaker of English, as I understand, which I believe is rather evident and contrasts with all of these. I just ran a script that I installed at some point, which shows Jaakobou editing at a completely different time of day, whereas Canadian Monkey and NoCal100 combined seem to be identical to Isarig (one has nearly all workday edits, the other has almost all evening/morning/weekend edits, Isarig has no division). As to Jayjg, there's of course imitation. There is much more to suggest it is Isarig (which, if so, I think would seal this up). Mackan79 (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: A + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
- Current status -
 Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey are Likely matches with Mr. Hicks The III (and each other), using the same ISP and being located in the same area. I cannot conclude anything about the others based on IP data, as they are stale. An admin will have to have to make a call on all of this. Dominic·t 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions - All users mentioned except for Former user 2 have been blocked, Canadian Monkey today. I have tagged them all as sockpuppets of Mr. Hicks The III, but perhaps that ought to be changed to NoCal100 being listed as the sockmaster? Clerks, feel free to change it about it you wish. NW (Talk) 04:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 | This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
|
[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 )
| | | Canadaman1960 - Canadaman1960 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 2 2009, 17:25 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets Virtually all edits to the page Kevin Trudeau, from 23:04, 29 November 2009 to present (16:45, 2 December 2009) has been either edit warring by this user or one of his/her/its IP sockpuppets in violation of WP:V, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, or various editors reverting these edits only to have them reinserted, usually moments later. Editor has been warned on own talk page, on article's talk page and in edit summaries but will not stop, and has escalated to using an increasing number of IP puppets. Surely will run out of IP addresses eventually. The edits made by the IPs and the registered user are essentially identical, including wild accusations of a world-wide "network" and other conspiracy-theory-related stuff, as well as repeated misuse of "See also" to insert particular accusations, e.g. of "quackery" and of using "Ponzi schemes" (key words that keep recurring in most or all of these disputed edits). Some edits vary a little bit (e.g. inclusion of additional link terms and dropping of others, or inclusion of non-reliable "sources" like blogs), but clearly all are either by the same user or by meatpuppets; the former seems more likely. At any rate, checkuser will help ascertain that these are likely to be the same person. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: D + B (3RR using socks and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
- Current status -
 Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | Japanhero - Japanhero (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 2 2009, 15:51 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets [edit] Evidence submitted by Ryulong Japanhero is a chronic spammer turned annoyance who owns a series of fanpages to Japanese television shows. Before, he added external links to articles. Until recently, he has become disruptive in articles, talk pages, and user talk pages. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Japanhero contains all known sockpuppets. Ryurong is a poor impersonation attempt account that made vindictive edits. Riderfanace is a wild guess, KamenRiderKivala was an obvious sock who did not improve the project, and the other two accounts showed up today to be a good hand bad hand pair. The IP address is the only one that is positively linked because it reverted an edit I made to a known sock's user talk. This person needs to be shown the door, even if there is a possibility that it is not possible to block the individual's IP range. Discussions about the sockpuppeteer can be found here and here, and I had contacted Nishkid64 by e-mail to deal with other sock outbreaks. This needs a formal case to track further sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
- Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
|
[edit] Awaiting CheckUser (view cases | edit cases )
[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 )
| | | PoemKeeper - PoemKeeper (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 1 2009, 22:26 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets [edit] Evidence submitted by Tb User:PoemKeeper appeared out of the blue, as a single-use account, devoted to pushing a single controversial change to An Anarchist FAQ, and has been unwilling to engage in any compromise. I was surprised that this editor should have known Wikipedia policies immediately upon joining, and asked, "Have you edited Wikipedia before?" [33]. He acknowledged that he had [34] but when asked about his other account(s) directly, [35] he refused to disclose them [36]. He has claimed to have "forgotten" his other account(s). When I read WP:ILLEGIT, the use of multiple accounts is prohibited, especially when it prevents other editors from connecting various edits done by the same person. He expresses that he deliberately creates multiple accounts to prevent himself from being tracked: [37], claiming (incorrectly) that the ease of setting up Wikipedia accounts is to enable people to behave as he does. This single-use account has been devoted not only to a single article or a single pattern of edits, but indeed, to essentially one single controversial change. That in itself is a big giant red flag. Tb (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) There remain three possibilities: - User:PoemKeeper is using multiple accounts simultaneously in violation of policy;
- User:PoemKeeper has used different accounts in the past, but no longer does, and has switched accounts to make a "clean start";
- User:PoemKeeper is using multiple accounts for one of the legitimate reasons identified in WP:SOCK#LEGIT and cannot say so publicly, but has followed the directions to notify checkuser privately.
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
Clerk endorsed ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) - Checking, although I should note that if this does fall under your third possibility (where PoemKeeper is a legitimate account privately declared) I'm not going to announce that connection publicly. As a result, my response here may be rather delayed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
-
 Inconclusive - The range is far too busy to identify any connections between accounts without knowing what else I'm looking for. In hindsight, I am a bit leery of doing this anyway since it does seem to lean a bit towards the {{fishing}} side of things. If you do believe this is a legitimately declared account, you may want to contact ArbCom via email - they won't tell you the main account if there is one, but they may be able to confirm or deny if that's even the case. Non-arb Checkusers aren't usually given access to those emails unless they're declared to the Functionaries list (and I've never seen one sent there). That said, if this account is proving disruptive, then things can be handled just on those grounds. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC) -
-
- And this is the reason clerks need not be so hasty in endorsing cases for CheckUser attention. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more solid evidence that this current account was being used abusively before a check was ran. That said, a check was ran and the results were exactly what were expected. When a SPI request is filed with a single user and no suspected sockpuppets listed, CheckUser is going to prove almost useless and generally serve only as a fishing expedition. I mean, without other accounts to link the "sockmaster" to, how can we even be sure the account is a sock instead of just an SPA? Tiptoety talk 05:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- To be fair, the user in this case did admit to using other accounts, which is the only reason I took a look at all; if the range was relatively low-traffic, it's possible I may have been able to identify another account. In general, however, and even really for this case save for what I just said, Tip is correct. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions  No action taken. If you wish to pursue some form of other administrative action in regards to the account being an SPA, please do so at WP:ANI. Tiptoety talk 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
| | | | Mr. Hicks The III - Mr. Hicks The III (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date December 2 2009, 00:02 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets User:Mr. Hicks The III, User:I am Dr. Drakken, User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100 are all clear returning accounts and edit warriors on articles relating to the Israel Palestine conflict. All show the same habit, despite not being admins or even long term editors, of punctuating their comments with "Don't do it again" in routine disagreements.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44] All commented on the Judea and Samaria dispute that led to Canadian Monkey and NoCal100 being topic banned (see, i.e., Drakken and Hicks). Both Hicks and Drakken have under 250 edits, have participated at WP:AE, and made the same single edit to 2000 Ramallah Lynching without comment.[45][46] Drakken was previously blocked as an untraceable sock by checkuser Dominic after he and Thatcher found Drakken to be editing from open proxies.[47] Hicks is most recently seeking to enforce the Judea and Samaria topic ban against other involved editors.[48][49]. Canadian Monkey and Dr. Drakken were created 19 minutes apart on December 30, 2007; User:Hadashot Livkarim, the longest term account now confirmed to be NoCal100, was created 29 minutes later. NoCal100 was created four days later on January 3, 2008 (for combined first edits of this group see here). NoCal100's first edits were to revert User:Calton on unrelated pages (see early contribs here). Calton was soon also reverted by Canadian Monkey on unrelated pages (i.e., here). In April 2008 both users were reverting User:Calton in tandem on List of fictional ducks (full history here). Before NoCal100 or Canadian Monkey were created, the same dispute with User:Calton on List of fictional ducks had been carried on by User:Isarig, a long time edit warrior who has been topic banned for socking, and then exercised his right to vanish (see block log). Isarig made the same use of the phrase "Don't do it again" in routine disagreements.[50][51] At least one editor, User:PalestineRemembered, has compared NoCal100's mannerisms to Isarig (see here). All five of these accounts repetitively use the "+" symbol in their edit summaries, especially "+ref", for adding content (search all but Isarig here and here, search Isarig here). None appear to have overlapping edits. User:NoCal100 has now been banned for continued sockpuppetry. A full list of Isarig's socks appears not to be publicly displayed due to his exercise of RtV. I asked Hicks if the user had a previous history in the area, and received a non-answer.[52] In sumary, the above information suggests that User:Mr. Hicks The III should be checkusered, and that further investigation should look into any relationship between that account and those topic banned under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria, or the former editor User:Isarig. - Re Dominic: Thanks. I understand there are admins and potentially members of ArbCom who have watched the situation with Isarig, however, in light of his choice to exercise WP:Right to vanish.[53] Is it possible to find out if they have additional perspective? That would seem to be an important part. Mackan79 (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note I requested that User talk:NoCal100 be replaced since it seemed to have been mistakenly deleted. I see there that the pursuit of Calton, including a note of the similarity to Isarig, is discussed several times.[54] (See User talk:Canadian Monkey for more queries about reversions of Calton.) Mackan79 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. May I suggest also having a look at Jaakobou (talk · contribs)? This editor also uses the "+"-syntax excessively, issues warnings and orders to desist [55] , is a regular guest at WP:AE [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedrito&diff=prev&oldid=309340536] and edits in the same areas as NoCal100 (talk · contribs) and Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) did, albeit with the distinction that whenever a topic got too heated only one of either Jaakobou or the pair stayed involved (e.g. the Judea vs. Samaria spat). A quick look at Jaakobou's earliest edits indicate that this was/is probably not his first account. After some sporadic edits in late 2006, the account becomes extremely active as of January 2007, using edit summaries such as "rv to last NPOV version, if you wish to add all the defamatory guess works (regardless of origin) i can assure you there's plenty out there." [56] and participating in WP:AfDs [57]. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09:06 02.12.2009 Actually... [58]. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09:15 02.12.2009 - Those aren't likely, in my view. The "+" is common enough; I only consider it relevant that none of the accounts use a completely different style. Jaakabou isn't a native speaker of English, as I understand, which I believe is rather evident and contrasts with all of these. I just ran a script that I installed at some point, which shows Jaakobou editing at a completely different time of day, whereas Canadian Monkey and NoCal100 combined seem to be identical to Isarig (one has nearly all workday edits, the other has almost all evening/morning/weekend edits, Isarig has no division). As to Jayjg, there's of course imitation. There is much more to suggest it is Isarig (which, if so, I think would seal this up). Mackan79 (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: A + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
- Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey are Likely matches with Mr. Hicks The III (and each other), using the same ISP and being located in the same area. I cannot conclude anything about the others based on IP data, as they are stale. An admin will have to have to make a call on all of this. Dominic·t 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions - All users mentioned except for Former user 2 have been blocked, Canadian Monkey today. I have tagged them all as sockpuppets of Mr. Hicks The III, but perhaps that ought to be changed to NoCal100 being listed as the sockmaster? Clerks, feel free to change it about it you wish. NW (Talk) 04:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
| This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
|
[edit] Quick CheckUser requests This section is for CheckUser requests unrelated to sockpuppetry, such as: -
- Underlying IPs - identification and blocking for a longer term than autoblock.
- Collateral damage checks - before hardblocking IPs and ranges.
- Threats of harm (to self or others) - where the location and other details may be needed for law enforcement or medical authorities.
- IP block exemption checks - before granting IPBE or to confirm proper use.
Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above. If posted here, they will be delisted by a clerk without being actioned. Copy the following template and paste it to the end of this page (quick link to edit) with a useful header and details, then sign using "~~~~" and click "save". -
| ==== HEADER ====
{{SPIquick}} | [edit] Archived cases The following are old SPI cases, separated by month: |
