Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor XXV/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Editor XXV


Editor XXV

Report date November 15 2009, 18:10 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by A8UDI

Admitted this account is a sock here A8UDI 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I have only one thing to say:


Comments by other users

I'm pretty damn sure he's a sock of Native to Neptune (talk · contribs) (refer to my talk page), who is a sock of Editor XXV (talk · contribs). Saturn claims to be on a dynamic IP, if that's worth anything. Aims to reach 100 socks, claims NtS is his ninth, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here he claims to have 9 socks and it trying to get 100. We need a block NOW.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Editor XXV is meant to be the master sock. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  Talk 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for CheckUser
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.Requested by Tiptoety talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers. Tiptoety talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •   Clerk note:
Tiptoety talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All   Confirmed (shocking, I know). I rangeblocked him for a bit, but it's a large range, and busy, so I can't leave it in place for too long. J.delanoygabsadds 19:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date November 21 2009, 13:10 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Captain-n00dle
edit

User claims to be: [1], [2] & User_talk:Magmatron Captain n00dle T/C 13:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Conclusions
edit
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date December 28 2009, 20:13 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano
edit

These two accounts seem to be trying to get Editor XXV (talk · contribs) and Decepticon Shockwave (talk · contribs) in trouble for some reason; requesting SPI to root out any further socks and find the true sockmaster beneath this mess. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit
CheckUser requests
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Confirmed Editor XXV (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

  IP blocked. This page should probably be redirected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor XXV. J.delanoygabsadds 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
edit
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 2 2010, 02:04 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by December21st2012Freak Talk to me

This is a similer username of many other Editor XXV socks. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Well, I think someone beat you to the punch, as they're both blocked right now. Since the SPI bot is down, Im not sure this SPI is even going to get seen ... is there some way we can archive it or does it have to be at least looked over as a matter of process? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind; a CU could really be useful here. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

  Clerk endorsed To check for any more sleepers and a possible IP (range)block. --Bsadowski1 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed. Also, Sharkticon Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is blocked. No rangeblocks would be possible. J.delanoygabsadds 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Report date February 10 2010, 00:48 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by December21st2012Freak Talk to me

Another Editor XXV sock, see his 2 edits and his username. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC) December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Does policy allow really really obvious socks to be reported to AIV or to an administator's talkpage, rather than giving them a proper SPI? I get a feeling that XXV just gets a kick out of seeing this page grow longer and longer. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, although AIV would not be that great a place, unless the account is vandalising, and you want to be careful that you aren't going to the same admin over and over, or just going to random uninvolved admins, however, in principal, there's no need to file an SPI if the sock is exceedingly obvious (or vandalizing enough to justify a block). Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

  Clerk note: blocked by Closedmouth SpitfireTally-ho! 09:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
24 December 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

after attacking Afd's yesterday as "The Needle", he's back again today WuhWuzDat 23:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit



25 December 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The account's first edit was to an re-AfD. the earlier AfD was previously voted in by a sock of Editor XXV, and the discovery that said account (Divebomb) was a sock changed the original outcome and then led to the AfD being listed on deletion review. Noticeably,it was commenting on the sockpupppeting and deletion issues of the Transformers WikiProject with what appears to be quite extensive knowledge for a new user. Extensive knowledge of Wikipedia seems to also be a tell-tale sign of Editor XXV socks. Their "good hand" account was suspected to be one because of their suspicious amount of knowledge on WP. [3] Also, the suspected sock's user page contains a "Native of X" phrase, the likes of which seem to be a trait for Editor XXV socks. (like this) Also, user has made this edit to the SPI for another sockmaster that's been disrupting the Transformers Wikiproject. [4] NotARealWord (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I am the accused party in this whole affair. I am absolutely, positively, 100% not guilty. And yes, I'm quoting O.J. Simpson's plea in the Nicole Brown murder case, who, as I'm sure you all know, was totally exonerated on all charges. Thanks in advance, 1977 Style (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
07 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

same as always, AFD discussions, then slipped into merger and Afd discussions for Transformers. WuhWuzDat 16:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
No sleepers. TNXMan 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Seems to be the same activity as Editor XXV does. Joined and immediately started voting in Transformers deletion nominations. Could also be one of several other Transformers targeting sock masters, but I'm guessing this one from his wording. Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
20 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Going over the history of this user and Editor XXV's sock puppet Divebomb, I see they voted together on dozens of deletion nominations and seemingly always the same way. Mathewignash (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skyburst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rail_Racer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hurricane_(Transformers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Splashdown_(Transformers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raf_Esquivel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Darby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clench_(Transformers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fan-mode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kicker_(Transformers)
I could provide dozens more. Mathewignash (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Started a new account with working on Transformers deletions and mergers with this XXV usually dwells. Very suspecious activity for a new user. Mathewignash (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I had reverted some work done by XXV's sock puppet named User:Divebomb, which this user has seen to revert. I suggest he not only be blocked/banned, but his edits reverted as vandalism. (this is user Mathewignash). 198.51.174.5 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This investigation is nothing short of a farce. Simply because I choose to begin my editing under this new account (see WP:CLEANSTART) by editing Transformers-related topics does not mean I am some vandal I have never heard of before.! --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(alright, back to the investigation) Mathewignash reverted valid redirects that just happened to be made by a banned user. I reinstated them. That does not make me him.

I see this as nothing more than an attempt to get someone who has performed an action Mathewignash takes issue with into trouble, which he has done before. --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing is I started this investigation BEFORE you started reinstating Divebombs edits, which only proves I am probably correct in who you are. Of course there about about 4 different sock puppeteers who frequent the Transformers articles. You could be any of them in the end. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

IIRC, Editor XXV and Wiki brah are on separate continents; the UA and location more closely match Editor XXV than Wiki brah by quite a bit and, especially after looking at the behavioral evidence, has tagged as such. And no, WP:CLEANSTART does not apply when you try to evade scrutiny and continue editing in the same areas in which you have been blocked in the past before. There is also WP:BAN to deal with on top of that. –MuZemike 03:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

On 17 February 2011, an ANI report in several single purpose accounts and one IP involved in an article naming dispute were blocked as sockpuppets. Now, another SPA, Neimoidian, has posted to the naming dispute.[5] This statement, "Now, as for your claim that I have made no argument, it is false, as I have made many arguments." is very clear that the new SPA is the same as those that were blocked for sockpuppetry. —Farix (t | c) 12:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

The sockmaster is singularly obsessed with this one subject, called Leo Prime. It would be nice to find out if the guy's on a stable IP or small IP range so his disruptive behavior could be permanently stopped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among the 3 edits made by today's sock (Neimodian) is to label another already-blocked editor as a sockmaster. He might be trying to drop a hint as to who he is, or he might be trying to send us on a wild goose chase. He also filed a presumably frivolous SPI against another editor who's part of the Leo Prime debate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is sending us on a wild goose chase. Though, there is really no way to confirm this seeing as he is using open proxies. Tiptoety talk 20:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Unrelated:
09 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This user reinstated a lot of edits done by user IncinerateAfterThoroughExamination, who was a sock of Editor XXV. If he's not a sock, another sock puppeteer whose sympathetic with XXV (possibly user Divebomb), as after I reverted his edits, he contacted me on a message board threatening to use his socks to get his way on his edits here. Mathewignash (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • This page should really be here, I think. —GƒoleyFour— 00:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, hello. I'm not a sock puppet of Editor XXV, I've even gone against his proposal for deletion on the David Willis (cartoonist) article. I just share the viewpoint in regards to bootlegs not being sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia Transformers pages. I have a load of edits to my repertoire that do not match his typical behavior. Also, MathewIgnash should know me better, as we've interacted on both TFWiki and the Allspark, where I go by the name "Detour". As for the similar edits, it was my curiosity that brought me there, as Editor XXV gloated about his deletion nomination on TFWiki, and I ended up taking a peek at his contributions. And lastly, I would like to point out I've been contributing on and off to Wikipedia without problems since 2006. --Hiryu84 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I was sent a threatening personal message on the Allspark by someone named Beta Command, not Detour, seeming to be this wikipedia user. Is Hiryu84 the same person as Beta Command or not? Anyways, as for the inclusion of coverage from non-Hasbro products in Transformers related articles, I've recomended this be proposed in the Transformers Wikipedia project, where we can talk about it. DOn't just do in and delete it all because you decided it's not right. Mathewignash (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Beta Command is -Blackout-'s Allspark username. My Allspark username, again, is Detour. You've met me. As for the conflict, even before I was made aware of this I'd been discussing the matter on the Wikipedia IRC help channel to avoid edit warring, and have since started something on the subject at the Wikiproject TF page. --Hiryu84 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Clerk endorsed Matches style and:
  1. 04:09, 9 March 2011 (diff | hist) Rodimus (Undid revision 417929044 by MuZemike (talk) MuZemike, those toys aren't real transformers toys. They're knockoffs. Not notable.)
  2. 04:07, 9 March 2011 (diff | hist) Ultra Magnus (Undid revision 417929099 by MuZemike (talk) Banned or not, I sort of have to agree. Are Spider-Man knockoff toys listed on his pages?)

  Declined – I very highly doubt this is Editor XXV. Look at the creation of the account. –MuZemike 07:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

[6] confirmed "alternative" account of indef blocked user Tærkast (Communicate) 14:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

There are quite a few accounts here, but they're all hiding behind proxies. I've blocked them all. TNXMan 14:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are all socks of banned user Editor XXV (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 01:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Single purpose account focused on Talk:Leo Prime and other such pages. I get the sense that this is part of a larger sockfarm, so CU for confirmation and sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Already done, I've blocked and tagged some socks, blocked a proxy. TNXMan 14:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

09 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Started an account, put some glib remark on his user page and started being "helpful" on the Transformers wiki project, just like he always does. Mathewignash (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Confirmed plus:

–MuZemike 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Joined to make childish nonsense threats on my talk page about the last 2 sock puppets he used. Mathewignash (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
16 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Seems to just have joined and is just deletion nominating articles I started for fun. The same articles sabotaged by another Editor XXV sock puppet earlier today. I would recomend blocking him and reverting all his deletion nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Blocked per WP:DUCK, also   Confirmed was ClearlyNotEnough (talk · contribs) if another CU can check for open proxies, that would be great, as I am unable to right now. –MuZemike 23:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies blocked, marking for close. TNXMan 12:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Just joined and started with an attack post against me, then nominated one of my articles for deletion based on a complete lie. Should be blocked immediately and his edits reverted/deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


23 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Started new accounts and immediately started "helping" in the same projects XXV frequents. Mathewignash (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
29 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Joined and immidiately started making claims against me for reverting Divebomb's edits, and Divebomb was Editor XXV. Mathewignash (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
02 May 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Uhm name make this WP:DUCK in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

It's actually someone else whom I've blocked. TNXMan 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

04 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Seems to be following Editor XXV's pattern. Joined and IMMEDIATELY started nominating articles for deletion. Four pages from my userspace, and another two articles that I edited recently were targeted. I suggest his edits be reverted and all the AfDs be SPEEDY KEEP. Mathewignash (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Mathewignash (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
06 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Just came on and started vandalizing, and mentioning this user. Could be him or one of a couple other sock puppeteers. Either way a troll is a troll. Mathewignash (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
08 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same in and posted some stupid rant on the Transformers wiki project. It's XXV or one of the other trolls. Mathewignash (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

It's a new wave of socks,   Likely related to Chiendogg (talk · contribs). I have indefinitely blocked Canada Brah (talk · contribs) as a sock. –MuZemike 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


23 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

This request is a bit backwards. I ran a checkuser on Frangfl (talk · contribs), who is requesting an unblock from an IP address blocked as a proxy (see user's talk page). When checking the IP address, I noticed a large number of accounts that shared the same useragent. These accounts are listed above. Note that Robot With A Mind Of Its Own (talk · contribs) is already blocked as a sock of Editor XXV; given the   Likely to   Confirmed checkuser result, I'd like some others to take a look at behavioral evidence and possibly a second look by a checkuser - I don't have time at the moment to do more than check the blocked IP.

Again, to clarify, all of these accounts have been using the same IP address with the same useragent. This IP address is currently under a six-month block as an abused proxy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: the timestamp ranges shown are when each account was active on that IP address. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
So... what's the deal here? I'm not really convinced by behavior on this one, so I'm inclined to close. Anyone else? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


25 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This user seemed to join a few weeks ago and immedately displayed interest in sock puppetry and deletion, playing he asking for help in SPIs, giving helpful advice that seems to be trying to get credit for his other puppets, PRODing articles that he always shows interest in, and following my edits to make his. Now he happens to find this SPI and makes a comment on it? Mathewignash (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Mathewignash (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Unrelated –MuZemike 14:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Harassing edits for the deletion nomination for the article Slugslinger by a new user. I first suggested another sock master, then it was suggested to me that this sounded more like XXV. Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

It's bloody obvious that this is either Editor XXV or Wiki brah (talk · contribs); in any case, I have blocked. –MuZemike 00:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Editor_XXV/Archive&oldid=1143704200"