Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latitude0116/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Latitude0116


Latitude0116

30 October 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


MarkB40n is a sockpuppet of indefinitely-blocked user Plateau99. Plateau99 was blocked for a month, and this was when he started using MarkB40n. The first thing his sockpuppet attempted to do was make Zoophilia a sexual orientation, [1], similar to what Plateau99 tried to do [2] in the past. Here both are undoing "blanking" when it doesn't fit their pro-Zoophilia POV: Plateau99: [3] but was later reverted [4]. His sockpuppet [5] but later reverted [6]. An IP was involved [7] with valid concerns stated on the talk page and his reasons for removal, but MarkB40n accuses it as vandalism because it doesn't fit his pro-zoophilia POV and tries to get the page protected [8]. They both have the same edit summaries, and both edit a few times a month only to add non-neutral content to the Zoophilia articles. MarkB40n tries to hide his Zoophilia-related edits by making minor changes to other articles. For such a "new" user, MarkB40n sure knows his way around Wikipedia (using the book citation format in one of his very first edits, requesting page protection, warning users on their talk pages, etc.). Someone963852 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2012 (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 November 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

MarkB40n is pushing the same sort of POV as Plateau [9] [10] I was alerted to this on my talk page on the 29th but I was too busy to follow up on this until now. Guerillero | My Talk 04:55, 6 November 2012 (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

  Technically indistinguishable:

AGK [•] 16:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 April 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


All three exhibit similar editing patterns as User:Plateau99, who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing on Zoophilia related pages. Plateau99's sock User:MarkB40n was also blocked after Plateau99's indef, and this leads me to believe that he has not stop sock-puppeting.

  • User:BlackF8's first few edits[11] are towards the Zoosadism article, which I've edited before, and includes him adding in comments in parenthesis and quotes from Beetz, both of which Plateau99 commonly did. Edit summaries are similar. New editors are unlikely to add in quotes with refs like that. BlackF8 also made small changes on different articles before editing the Zoophilia one, so his sock puppeting wouldn't appear obvious to others.
  • User:Paperynl is an obvious sock of Plateau99, editing only Zoophilia related pages and trying to add in materials that Plateau99 tried to add in the past.
  • User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast This sock is harder to spot, but the account is created a week after Plateau99 is blocked in August. Edits only include adding icons/ tables/ or rewording phrases on different article so to appear different from Plateau99. Similar hours of editing as Plateau99, and if edited on the same day, edits only hours after Paperynl (4 hours after on April 11 and 20).

If these are indeed confirmed socks, I highly doubt Latitude0116/ Plateau99 will stop sockpuppeting in the future. Someone963852 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2013 (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
Who is User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast a confirmed sock of? Plateau99? User:Fbbfan was created in 2013[13], after User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast[14] in 2012. Recent edit summaries[15][16] by User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast are highly similar to Plateau99's and his other socks. Someone963852 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially bodybuilder is related to Fbbfan. The other two users used proxies to evade linkage, so there isn't a technical relationship between them and Female bodybuilder enthusiast. I think there is enough evidence to block bodybuilder on behavioral evidence alone though. I'll look into it later today or tomorrow, I'm quite swamped right now. Other clerks are welcome to act on it as well. NativeForeigner Talk 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21 May 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created after the latest socks were blocked; seems to know his way around Wikipedia very well for a "new" user. Similar editing patterns as the previous socks User:Plateau99 and especially User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast (with the editing of tables and such). Similar edit summaries [17] as the other socks. I don't think he will stop socking in the future. Someone963852 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(added)

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
12 September 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Account was created on 22 October 2013, which was after the date the latest sock was banned. Exhibits the same editing patterns as the other previous socks, specifically 'CentrumZero' and 'Female bodybuilder enthusiast'.

GayTenn contribs
CentrumZero's (latest sockpuppet) contribs
Female bodybuilder enthusiast contribs

All three have edited random LGBT articles, such as LGBT rights in the United States, LGBT rights in [state], Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States [18][19][20] (with all three accounts editing the tables), Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States [21][22][23], List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States [24] [25] [26], List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States [27] [28] etc. All three socks don't leave edit summaries.

The user is trying to 'legitimize' these socks by editing a bunch of LGBT articles, then later adding non-neutral POV material to the zoophilia articles (the purpose of Latitude0116's socks). Someone963852 (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2014 (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
17 September 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:29, 17 September 2014 (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 March 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Gdca1 is another account created by the user Latitude0116/ Plateau99 after the account and its socks were blocked.

AHC300 was created a month after the previous sock was blocked [57]. User also has similar contribution history [58] to previous socks [59] [60][61]. Reasons are similar to the previous socks [62]. These socks are all trying to appear "legitimate" by editing a bunch of LGBT related articles (mostly to edit templates and maps, while not leaving edit summaries) to hide their zoophilia-related edits. All socks had a lack of edit summaries. This user edited a female bodybuilding article [63], and one of the past socks was named Female bodybuilder enthusiast [64].


Comments by other users

edit

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

I am not this other user, Latitude0116. I find it offensive that I am being accused of being someone I am not. I am also not User:AHC300. AHC300 has done a great job adding information to zoophilia-related articles. The only commonality is that we have edited zoophilia-related articles -- nothing more.

Looking at User:Someone963852's contributions history, it appears he accuses anyone who adds "pro-zoophilia" material of being a sockpuppet of this one user (Latitude0116). That is to say, if anyone adds anything perceived as being "pro-zoophilia", Someone963862 will then proceed to accuse that person of being a sockpuppet of this one user (Latitude0116).

Also, the accusations are baseless. Starting an edit summary with a capital letter? That's something most people do. Using the word "zoo"? That's also a commonly-used noun when discussing articles related to zoophilia. Gdca1 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gdca1, you are pro-zoophilia/bestiality. That's easy enough to see from this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am neutral on the issue. Citing a lawyer making a constitutional argument (either for or against) does not necessarily mean I agree with them. Gdca1 (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[65] said the same thing when being blocked. Your editing patterns are identical to the previous socks. It's hard not to notice when users edit the zoophilia-related articles since those articles are rarely ever edited. Someone963852 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Gdca1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

  • First ever edit (after a "user page" creation) was a removal following the old patterns.
  • The use of the word reverted in the edit summary of their 4th edit proves a level of Wikipedia knowledge non-consistent with the account age.
  • The account was used on 14/15 May, then 7 July, and after that we have a gap of ~2 years; it is used again after 28 November 2016, with their come-back edit being on the very same article as the previous (Zoophilia and the law).
I believe that a CheckUser can't be done since the last sock case was opened in 2014, but this case appears to be a WP:DUCK case like Kostas20142 stated. Someone963852 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

Closing because of inaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 December 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Timeline
Latitude0116 SPI
Archive Sock Confirmed Creation Blocked Notes
L 30 October 2012

6 November 2012

Latitude0116

Plateau99

MarkB40n

Y 24 April 2004

26 December 2004

5 July 2012

6 November 2012

21 August 2012

6 November 2012

L 21 April 2013 BlackF8

Paperynl

Y 24 January 2013

11 April 2013

25 April 2013

25 April 2013

F 21 April 2013 Female bodybuilder enthusiast

Fbbfan

Y 30 August 2012

21 February 2013

3 May 2013

3 May 2013

Created 9 days after Plateau99 was blocked
F 21 May 2013 CentrumZero

Snowden supporter

Y 4 May 2013

13 June 2013

14 June 2013

14 June 2013

Created a day after Female bodybuilder enthusiast was blocked
L Suspected, not in archive

(October 2013)

Pro-Randian 7 October 2013 [66][67]
F 12 September 2014

17 September 2014

61-1099lm

Chiseled abs cutter

GayTenn

Y 6 August 2013

18 September 2013

22 October 2013

17 September 2014

17 September 2014

12 September 2014

Created a little less than 2 months after CentrumZero/Snowden supporter were blocked
F Not in archive Dawkinsfan44 Y 19 September 2014 21 December 2015 Created 2 days after 61-1009lm/Chiseled abs cutter/GayTenn were blocked
L 20 March 2018 Gdca1 15 May 2014 Per evidence in the archive
F 20 March 2018 AHC300 [68] 6 October 2014 Created less than a month after 61-1099lm/Chiseled/GayTenn were blocked

Had the AHC300, Dawkinsfan44, GregThomas93, Lupertazzi342 accounts concurrently

135 overlapping articles (AHC300 with the confirmed socks) [69], very distinct topics

See my, Pudeo's, and JBW's comments below

F Not in archive GregThomas93 Y 19 January 2016 21 March 2016 Created a little less than a month after Dawkinsfan44 was blocked
F Not in archive Lupertazzi342 Y 27 January 2016 21 March 2016 Created 8 days after GregThomas93 was created

User:AHC300 is a disruptive editor who exhibits the same agenda editing as the previous blocked socks, such as adding a bunch of original research and false claims not supported by the references in order to push a pro-zoophilia POV (see diffs from the archive). The user focuses on zoophilia-related articles such as Zoophilia, Legality of bestiality by country and territory, Legality of bestiality in the United States, Enumclaw horse sex case, etc. as did the previous socks, and edits other similar articles as the confirmed socks, such as Female bodybuilder enthusiast, CentrumZero, 61-1099lm, Chiseled abs cutter, GayTenn and Dawkinsfan44 (sort the first column of the table to 'F').

Here is an example of AHC300 adding original research, non-neutral POV, undue weight content in the "Arguments for bestiality" section [70] in order to promote the legalization of bestiality.

AHC300 was created less than a month after 61-1099lm/Chiseled/GayTenn were blocked.

AHC300 also has a particular interest in editing female bodybuilding-related articles and one of the past blocked sockpuppets was named 'Female bodybuilder enthusiast', who was blocked back in April 2013 [71]. The Editor Interaction Analyser tool shows that AHC300 and blocked sock Female bodybuilder enthusiast: [72] edit at least 80 articles in common. AHC300 has 135 overlapping articles with the confirmed socks, based on AHC300's edits matching theirs: [73]; these are very distinct and niche topics revolving around zoophilia, bestiality, female bodybuilding, same political views, LGBT rights in ____, etc.

'Female bodybuilder enthusiast' created the Legality of bestiality in the United States article [74] (which was previous reverted by another editor [75] because "some or most of the 'references' do not support what is written in the article") but the sock reverted it back in. After the socks were blocked, AHC300 popped up and became the main editor of that article, adding their own OR/SYNTH/deceptive content to the article [76] and still continues to do so. 'Female bodybuilder enthusiast' created an image to add to the Legality of bestiality in the United States article [77] and AHC300 also created a very similar image file to add to that same article [78] (accuracy of those images is debatable).

This is a clear case of WP:DUCK, but please let me know if you have additional questions. A checkuser on AHC300 would be helpful to check for sleeper accounts, since the previous blocked socks had multiple accounts at once and used proxies. Some1 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC) copy-edited, Some1 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Small additions, Some1 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Very likely based on behavior IMO. Previous sock created Rising Phoenix World Championships for example, and AHC300 has pretty much been the only other person interested in this topic. Both edit female bodybuilding, zoophilia/beastiality, LGBT legislative history and US elections. This seems quite a niche... AHC300 also registered a month after the last sock GayTenn had been blocked. Sadly, this is probably another sock that has evaded their block for years. --Pudeo (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been an active and respected member of the wikipedia community for years now. I have voted in every wikipedia poll and active with other users. Everything I post on wikipeida is sourced and verified information. I am not "disruptive", nor am I "misuse of two or more accounts by the one individual". My edits are critical for expanding wikipedia and I have spent countless free hours of my time creating and editing articles. These accusations are completely absurd. AHC300 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AHC300: Thanks for your reply. I notified you because comments can be useful in behavior-only SPIs. Given that you don't do mass-scale automatic edits but actually work on the aforementioned topics, I'd be pretty amazed that there would be another editor that was focused on zoophilia and female bodybuilding, which have nothing to do with each other, and registered one month after the last sock was blocked... Also what all these accounts have in common that they rarely participate on talkpages or leave edit summaries, and do similar gnomish updates to legislative templates or maps. That accusation is not absurd; it certainly looks like you have previously edited with these accounts, although it is not impossible that you were a new editor. --Pudeo (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AHC300: Just curious, what do you mean by "voted in every wikipedia poll"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see your username in the 2020 ArbCom election voters list, nor the 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015 ones. As for your other claims, since this is an SPI about you abusing multiple accounts and evading your block, I'll hold off on providing examples of your disruptive behavior. Some1 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • All previously confirmed accounts are   Stale. A checkuser won't be able to pull anything useful. This will need a behavioral investigation... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am looking into this, so please don't close the investigation because of inactivity, even if I have not got back within a couple of days or so. (But obviously if there are other good reasons for closing the investigation then that's a different matter.) JBW (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having checked the editing history of AHC300 and of numerous known sockpuppets I have now seen enough evidence to leave no reasonable doubt whatever that this is yet another Latitude0116 sockpuppet. I have blocked the account. JBW (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latitude0116/Archive&oldid=1079619987"