Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spotfixer/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Spotfixer


Spotfixer

Spotfixer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date September 11 2009, 19:44 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Oli Filth


User:Spotfixer was previously blocked for sockpuppeting as User:TruthIIPower (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotfixer). Evidence for link to the IP User:208.80.104.2 is

  • the edit history of article MurmurHash; article was started by TruthIIPower, and then continued immediately (same day) by 208.80.104.2.
  • IP is now demonstrating ownership issues with said article.
  • IP is clearly an experienced editor, with diverse knowledge of WP policies and guidelines (see e.g. [1] and [2])
  • IP's tendentious editing style and accusations of bias and incivility are similar to those of TruthIIPower (e.g. compare responses to multiple etiquette and edit-warring warnings at User talk:TruthIIPower with IP's edits such as at User talk:208.80.104.2#Civility and Talk:Hash function#MurmurHash conflict.

Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Nothing much to say here except that Filth is doing whatever he has to in order maintain ownership, which is coincidentally what he's accusing me of. The claim is false, the motivations are obvious. My only crime is that I took an interest in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.104.2 (talk • contribs)

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

  Administrator note IP blocked for 2 weeks. MuZemike 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date October 16 2009, 07:32 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Awickert
edit
  1. The editor's history shows a familiarity with the machinery of Wikipedia.
  2. The edits in that history from the past few days are those in question, but much earlier edits are also on Spotfixer's favorite topics (liberal/conservative issues in the US of A), showing that it could be an IP used by Spotfixer for some time.
  3. Suspicious comment to Schrandit with reference to User:Spotfixer
  4. Same large amount of irritation to Schrandit's use of endearing terms as another confirmed Spotfixer sock, User:TruthIIPower, had.
  5. One major focus of the IP is Religion and abortion, over much the same issues that the Spotfixer sock "TruthIIPower" debated / editwarred
  6. Admittedly weak, but the writing just feels similar to me to that of TruthIIPower (with whom I interacted and tried to guide towards politeness before his/her block)

Though I can't be sure, these are enough to make me reasonably suspicious per WP:DUCK. Awickert (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

I edit from a school, and even a quick glance at the logs shows that this IP has been a magnet for sock accusations because different people have used it over the years, sometimes with overlap in their interests. As far as I can tell, all of the edits by the people I'm accused of being were made long before I got here and there's no reason to think that these students are currently enrolled. To reiterate: It's impossible for me to have been anyone's sock puppet, unless it's someone who's been editing since the end of the summer.

Now, while I'm pretty sure Awickert is acting is good faith, he's actually doing this work on behalf of User:Schrandit, who accused me of being a sock immediately after I reported him for WP:CIVILITY violations, in an apparent attempt to distract attention and maybe eliminate me. If you look at the most recent version, you'll see that everyone who responded thought I was right to report him. That's what this is really about: Awickert is a probably unwitting pawn of Schrandit in this because Schrandit is too discredited and personally motivated to launch a claim against me that anyone will take seriously. In any case, the accusation is also false, and that's what I'll try to stick to in answering the points.

  1. Yes, I freely admit that I've edited Wikipedia before, and even written a paper on it (which earned me an A+). However, I've never registered an account, and until this fall, none of my edits were from this side of the country. If knowing how to use Wikipedia is suspicious, then everyone here is a suspect.
  2. Saying my response was suspicious doesn't explain why you think so, or why anyone else should. Please explain. because I have no idea what you're getting at. What's interesting here is that, although I didn't check it out carefully, it does look like Andrew c has found evidence that other people have edited from this IP. Of course, this is not news; I'm hardly the only student, nor are students permanent. Even among recent edits, I found some that weren't (and couldn't be) by me, such as one that quotes a blog I don't read on a topic I know nothing about, and doesn't even have a signature. In hindsight, maybe I should have registered an account so that I wouldn't be so readily blamed for the actions of others, but I've never needed one before. Then again, I'd always edited from home, not a shared connection, so I never had to worry about being blamed for the actions of others. Like I told Schrandit, I write only for myself and only what I myself support. I take full responsiblity for whatever I do, but not for what anyone else does, whether it's Schrandit or a former student here.
  3. It is demonstrably the case that my reaction to Schrandit's intentionally provocative sexism and condescension was not "large amounts of irritation", even though such irritation would have been well-deserved and exactly what he was hoping for. Instead, my immediate reaction was to point out what he was doing and laugh it off. Only when he didn't take the hint and did it again did I politely report him. As I mentioned earlier, this report was vindicated as correct. Instead of showing a pattern connecting me to someone else, you've just shown that Schrandit makes a habit of baiting people with this sort of language.
  4. I can't speak for anyone else's motivations, but what got me looking at this was a lecture in journalism class about neutrality in news coverage. The use of biased terminology to politically frame the issue was explicitly mentioned, with examples given from the abortion debate, such as "unborn child" and "mother". I went to Pro-life movement to see for myself, and there I found some "mothers", which I fixed. This was my first edit from the east coast, and it's also what got Schrandit's attention. He's been working hard to undo this change, but others have been working even harder to set things straight. Full disclosure: I'm clearly more liberal than Schrandit, though that's not hard, but I have no special interest in the abortion issue. My interest is as a future journalist who care about the misuse of the English language for propaganda purposes.
  5. It's not weak, it's nonexistent. There's no connection.

I think I've refuted all of the accusations, but if I missed something, let me know. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies; just one more: the account is registered to "unknown school", care to enlighten us as to which it is so we can verify that it truly is a school IP? If it is a school IP, say hi to Spotfixer for us, as he/she clearly goes/went there too. As to he's actually doing this work on behalf of User:Schrandit: no, Schrandit and I have not spoken about this. I'm pretty sure that he/she and I differ in opinion on several/most politically-charged issues as well, and in bringing up this investigation I am not trying to condemn/condone either party. I am willing to change my opinion on whether or not you are a sockpuppet, especially if the IP verifiably belongs to a school, but my suspicions are still high (mistrust is one of those unfortunate learned characteristics after editing Wikipedia for a while; you'll understand my paranoia when you go to User:Scibaby). Awickert (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I did miss something. The second point claimed that this was suspicious, which made no sense to me. Schrandit was accusing me on the basis of this comment. He insisted that I was taking orders from someone or editing on someone's behalf or whatever. In fact, it's much simpler: a person standing right next to me in real life pointed out that Schrandit was obviously baiting me, and I had to agree. Not only did Schrandit allow his paranoia to skew his interpretation, Awickert has bought into it. This is hilarious!
I'm sorry, but I'm done defending myself when there's nothing to defend myself against. I have a lot of studying to do right now and I don't have any more time to waste on this. Block me, ban me, make me write bad checks; I don't care. I'm gone until I have more time. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a busy guy too. However, what you say here has no obvious bearing on what you wrote here I'm not going to be tricked into outing someone who gave me good advice. - how could you "out" them, or why even mention them, if they have no relation to Wiki? Per paranoia, see above, and mocking me is impolite. Please note that this wouldn't have come to my attention if not for the revert wars, so whether you are blocked or not, you have something to learn about how things are done here - take it to talk and read WP:WRONG. Awickert (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

User page is already tagged as a suspected sock of User:Alienus. How does this relate to this case? Is User:Spotfixer and User:Alienus one in the same? -Andrew c [talk] 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Conclusions
edit

  Administrator note IP blocked 3 months as a clear sock puppet (per the last diff provided). MuZemike 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 15 2009, 16:23 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit

User:Aappleby is also potentially in the frame, there's appearance of conflict of interest, but hopefully it's spotfixer.

Evidence submitted by Wolfkeeper
edit

Previous deletion review of MurmurHash was characterised by the presence of 208.80.104.2, who has since been found to be User:Spotfixer. Two days after the review was closed User:Phil Spectre (a suspicious name in itself) was created, and this then set about trying to get competing articles on hash functions deleted (but failed). He then rewrote MurmurHash and got it recreated; it's now being re-reviewed.

The only other worry is User:Aappleby, while I would hope this isn't him involved, he wrote murmurhash, so would have a WP:COI. I think it would be best to checksum Phil Spectre right now, if it is a COI, then that's very bad; but it's more likely to be Spotfixer who is banned anyway.

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit

I dealt with TruthIIPower, who was very uncivil to those who disagreed with him/her. I find Phil Spectre's editing behavior to be very different. So whether Phil Spectre is a sockpuppet or is an user who just happens to have edited Wikipedia before via IP or something, I don't know, but I find it unlikely that they are TruthIIPower (unless TruthIIPower is deliberately changing their editing patterns, but that involves too much assumption for me). Awickert (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say one way or another but I think it is worth noting that Specter's first edit and Spotfixer's first edit were to their own userpages. Specter and TruthIIPower have both worked on Hash functions and Specter and the 69.121.221.174, the confirmed IP of Spotfixer/TruthIIPower have both edited the pages Talk:Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality and other Randian pages. This cross-section on interests is worrying. - Schrandit (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TruthIIPower and 208.80.104.2 were both heavily involved in editing the page Hash function in April, particularly together on April 10th. - Schrandit (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's worrying is the pattern of false but sometimes successful sockpuppetry claims that all involve you linking people to banned users to get them banned. You were the one who falsely accused me of being Spotfixer when you disagreed with my edits and you also falsely accused 208.80.104.2 of the same. Now you're grasping at straws when even a casual look at Specter makes it clear that he sounds nothing like the volatile and angry Spotfixer. As for the Rand thing, libertarianism is popular among computer programmers and science fiction geeks, so the null hypothesis prevails. The questions I'd like to ask are whether Specter has done anything wrong other than support an article that Schrandit opposes, and if not, then why are we even wasting our time on this witch hunt when Wikipedia is full of vandals, POV pushers and worse. CarolineWH (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably because I hate murmur hashes. Or maybe I am trying to make Wikipedia a better place. You decide. Or don't.
Lots of people disagree with me and I don't accuse them of sockpuppetry, in fact, I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry. Another editor accused you of sockpuppetry because you edit the same articles as Spot, make the same arguments as Spot, argue the same way as Spot and do it from the same computer. And, shocker, the jury agreed. - Schrandit (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, before Andrew filed the report, you accused me after I wrote you up for wiki-etiquette violations (of which you were entirely guilty), and as usual, you participated in the "investigation". Yes, the "jury" agreed with you about me but they were wrong, and the block was lifted. They also agreed with you about 208.80.104.2 but they were wrong there, as well. See a pattern? A real jury needs evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, while WP:DUCK is explicitly defined as the weakest of four standards; mere suspicion. When you convict on suspicion, you should expect to be wrong a lot. CarolineWH (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are just making things up. I had no hand in bringing the sockpuppetting case that you were convicted in up, nor did I participate in it. I do not ever recall having said or done anything in relation to 208.80.104.2 until this present moment. If you have a suggestion on how we might run this enterprise more equitably or more efficiently then by all means write it up, in the mean time, please leave my good name undarkened by your baseless complaints. - Schrandit (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to ask this once, so think carefully. Are you absolutely sure that I can't easily find diffs showing that you accused me before the report was filed and that you participated in the investigation process? CarolineWH (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read your conviction, I had no hand in bringing the sockpuppetting case that you were convicted in up, nor did I participate in it. - Schrandit (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to where you first accused me. And here's a snapshot of the investigation where your name comes up 16 times, starting with Andrew's initial argument. CarolineWH (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should explain my history of those events. I filed the sockpuppetry report because of a large number of reverts that were coming up on my radar screen on all of the right topics, and wanted a checkuser so someone could investigate if it was the same IP as Spotfixer / TruthIIPower. In my investigations but unrelated to my filing, I noted that Schrandit had made some accusations that the IP (69.X) was Spotfixer. Schrandit and I had not spoken from the time that TruthIIPower was blocked until after my filing the sockpuppetry accusation; we just seem to have come to the same conclusion (which I now believe was in error).
So here Caroline said, "Are you absolutely sure that I can't easily find diffs showing that you accused me before the report was filed and that you participated in the investigation process?" to which Schrandit replied, basically, "Yes". In the barebones logic, Schrandit is correct because he did not participate directly in the investigation, though it is true that he accused the 69.X IP / Caroline of sockpuppetry.
But in any case, this is getting pretty heated and off-topic, so it might be better if Caroline and Schrandit either took a deep breath and avoided the rather personal direction this thing is headed, or took their current debate to another venue. Awickert (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be stickler for procedure, but has anyone formally contacted Specter to inform him of the accusation and give him a chance to defend himself? CarolineWH (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem so; I'm going to ask Wolfkeeper to do it since he was the one who initiated this. Awickert (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've now notified him/her.- Wolfkeeper 04:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Awickert (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by - Wolfkeeper 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]



  Clerk endorsed MuZemike 02:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Inconclusive - Spotfixer (talk · contribs) is   Stale, and there is nothing in the log. J.delanoygabsadds 00:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
edit

  Administrator note No action taken. I'm not seeing anything conclusive, either behavioral or technical, that sock puppetry is going on here. Unless there is some concrete evidence that goes past pages edited, I cannot conclude anything here; the inconclusive CU results also put a damper on finding anything else out at this time. MuZemike 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date December 21 2009, 17:56 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Schrandit
edit

I was/am involved on a discussion on the page Queer Fist. Two new users, (Qikr and Nancy Meier) popped up within 19 hours of on another and took the same side in the dispute. I was a little suspicious so I glanced at their contributions. I noticed that the only edits that the two had made were to that page, User talk:Blanchardb and other pages that I had edited. Both edited their own user pages early on and used the same syntax/capitalization/punctuation. I became more suspicious.

I looked over my edit history for actions that had been reverted in the last few days and the above names all popped out. They all fit the profile and some of the names sounded very familiar. I punched the names into google and they were all taken from the list of faculty at Salesianum high school in Delaware, a page that I have edited frequently. I do not believe this choice of names was coincidence as my family has many strong ties to that particular high school. This is very disturbing.

These are the real names of real people, people respected in my community, people with jobs to keep, people with families that have ties to my family, people whose good names are at stake.

These supposedly new users displayed a very keen awareness of wikipedia language and policy. After existing for just over a day, one of them filed an ANI report as their 13th edit and got an opposing editor a 24 hour block. I cannot believe that this is the doing of anyone remotely new to wikipedia. This is the work of an old hand.

I have suffered a bit of wikihounding in my day, there were a few banned users who came back trying to play out a grudge and the community has always come through for me, blocking or banning the offending party. But this is so different. I'd like to know who is behind this and for the sake of the people whose very real identities and reputations have been dragged into this, we need to try to take some step to see that this doesn't happen again. - Schrandit (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be CarolineWH
User:CarolineWH has been indefinitely blocked for off wiki-harassment. 69.121.221.174 is his ip address, heshe looks to be up to his old tricks with a new slew of user names. I regret not asking for a hard-block. Look at Caroline's statement below - how do you deal with contempt like that? - Schrandit (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, both Spot and I are female, and it doesn't look as though Fixer has edited lately. Also, the contempt came from Spot, not me. I'm more apathetic. - Carrie 69.121.221.174 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly it ought to be blanked per WP:BAN. Please review on an expedited basis due to its occurrence at a high profile RfC. Better to reduce drama quickly before that takes the dispute resolution off focus, but will defer to others for a second opinion. Durova386 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was Spotfixer, or at least the better half of Spotfixer, and she clearly wants this block, so give her what she wants. It doesn't matter: she's leaving and I've stopped editing after the bogus ban. - Carrie69.121.221.174 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any compelling evidence I'd have to say just play out Occam razor on that one. - Schrandit (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually care one way or the other: Wikipedia deserves to be manipulated by right-wingers such as yourself. Oh, and don't be too quick to thank me for having that eBay link oversighted. Some of us have principles. - Carrie 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)
For what it's worth, I've tracked down all three people who've edited from this IP in the last few months. One was me, but I stopped after I got banned for trying to track down Spotfixer. The other was Spotfixer, or at least the female half of the pair, who I'll call Spot. She made that one edit on Ayn Rand that should have tipped me off, but I didn't connect the dots in time. In particular, I knew she was into BDSM with Fixer, but I didn't realize the connection between Randism and BDSM. If I had known, I could have stopped her sooner. The third made a few edits about food, and I've called her Ms. Fondue. I am under a bogus lifetime ban for trying to defend myself, Spot (and Fixer) are under a legitimate lifetime ban for being assholes, and Ms. Fondue has no strong interest in editing. Combined with Spot's not-quite-imminent-enough departure, whether you block this IP turns out to make almost no difference, so knock yourself out. But do yourself a favor and look into Schrandit's abuse of tagging and deleting, since it's really nasty. - Carrie 02:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alison, I appreciate your concern for privacy, and the NoIndex is harmless, but I assure you that I've carefully avoided using real names for anyone: these are intentionally just nicknames. The only real name is mine, and only my first name and initials. I just need labels for the people I can't name, but as you know by now, I won't compromise anyone's privacy, even if they disgust me. - Carrie 03:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)


(Outdent) Occam's razor Lets come at this logically. We have spotfixer, a convicted sock-puppeteer, we have whoever is running this batch of socks and we have Caroline. They all edit with the same syntax/grammar/capitalization, the all edit the same pages, they all edit with the same POV, they all edit from same ip address and now they all edit at the same time. Why would we think that these are different people? - Schrandit (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this isn't about me anymore, just you. It doesn't matter if the IP I'm on gets blocked; I'm not going to contribute my edits to a place that mistreats genuine contributors so badly while allowing a neo-Nazi free reign. There is no assumption of good will on your part, nor even basic honesty. This is just one more completely cynical attempt on your part to game the system by distracting admins from your numerous offenses. What's pathetic is that it'll quite likely work. - Carrie 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outden) Godwin's law Nazi? Are you new to the internet then? There are 1,700 admins on Wikipedia, it is going to take one of them maybe 90 seconds to clean up your poorly conceived attempt to manipulate this project. If I do something wrong in the meantime, there are more than enough editors and admins left in circulation to call me out on it. - Schrandit (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm guilty of WP:POINT, not WP:SOCK, and it doesn't matter anyhow, because I'm moving out of here after Christmas. Block whatever you like: you can't touch me. Sam S. White (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Please add User:69.121.221.174 to the checkuser per this diff.[3] Durova386 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Schrandit (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Ok. This case is strange indeed. Yes, this IP is apparently a relatively static shared IP. That should be obvious from the talkpage/contribs;
69.121.221.174 (talk · contribs · 69.121.221.174 WHOIS)
  • The following editors are the same editor, and these accounts have been used abusively. Also, per account behaviour and IP usage, the following accounts are   Confirmed to be Spotfixer (talk · contribs);
For some reason, they all make a hobby of following Schrandit (talk · contribs) and sometimes Blanchardb (talk · contribs), around.
  • There is one other, apparently unrelated account that I will decline to mention.
  • The following accounts are   Likely to be the same editor, per IP and contribs/interests;
I'm also calling these   Likely to be related to the above accounts, though not confirmed, per their edit-warring with Schrandit yet again on Christianity and abortion. Also, pretty-much all accounts mentioned (except the unrelated one) have used the IP address above anonymously, often abusively. At the very least here, I recommend softblocking that IP with AO/ACB enabled. It's clear that there are two distinct computers involved, but that almost all accounts edit from both of these
For some reason, the Sam S. White account caused an oversight to be requested by the CarolineWH account. Here's the timeline from here;
(cur) (prev)   15:35, 21 December 2009 69.121.221.174 (talk | block) (42,299 bytes) (Spotfixer's internet privileges have been removed.) (rollback)
(cur) (prev)   15:34, 21 December 2009 Sam S. White (talk | contribs | block) (comment removed)
Now, both of those edits were made from the same computer, in less than a minute apart. The IP one self-identifies as CarolineWH - Alison ❤ 05:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Clerk note: Accounts and IP blocked. Moved case from Sam S. White to Spotfixer. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 05:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
edit
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 3 2010, 20:12 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Schrandit
edit

So I might be a bit paranoid, but looking back at this I think I have good reason to be. I glanced back at my contributions and saw that many times when I had deleted unsourced content from BLPs or from articles about organizations those edits had been reversed. In a few cases, citations were found for the reintroduced material and that's awesome but most of the time it was not and other damage was done to the articles and of course this would not excuse the stalking/sockpuppeting that I am pretty well convinced is going on.

All of these accounts were used within an hour of their creation, they have all only edited a single article, all of them immediately after I edited them and very importantly, this all started within 40 minutes of 69.121.221.174's most recent 2 month account creation block expiring. 8 of them were created on the first day of that block being lifted (2 sets of 3 accounts were created inside of 2 different 30 minute blocks). Who ever has been using this ip address has been carrying on similar behavior for the last year, most recently with a strikingly similar style that can be seen here.

There is a long history at play here, I suspect this is another block evading move by Spotfixer/Caroline and I think with the past in mind that there is enough concern to warrant a checkuser. - Schrandit (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Schrandit (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk endorsed, the pattern here is sufficient to warrant a CU, though I'm not seeing a 2-month block on the IP. Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the block log Shell Kinney initiated a block in late December and then extended it until March 1st. - Schrandit (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an extension. It's until "2010-01-22T05:06:57Z", or Jan 22. Tim Song (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Stale: Spotfixer
  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged:
Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 3 2010, 16:23 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Schrandit
edit

Same old pages, same MO. - Schrandit (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by SGGH
edit

My evidence pertains to CharlieC24 (talk · contribs · logs). Note these edits, 1 and 2 clear duckage of AmyFuller's edits example.

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit

Just an observation, if they are editing the exact same pages and have the same MO then it would probably be a duck. If it is then the CU wouldn't be required unless the clerk/admin wants to look for sleepers. Just thought I'd help out :) Regards, ToxicWasteGrounds 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True story. This is the reason I asked for a CU, I should have made that explicit, thanks for the heads up. - Schrandit (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) ToxicWasteGrounds 16:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought User:AmyFuller was a sock of User:CarolineWH. I'm not sure about Spotfixer, but maybe they're all related. I would add CarolineWH to the check just to be sure though.--Atlan (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and it has been confirmed that Caroline is a sock of Spot. - Schrandit (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where/when was Caroline confirmed as a sock of Spotfixer? I was under the impression they knew each other off-wiki for a while but that they were separate individuals? Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spitfire you are right, Caroline is only a likely sock of Spotfixer. Both usernames edited the same pages, used the same grammar/spelling/syntax, edited from the same address and edited at the same time but because they/he maintained that they were two different people Caroline was given the benefit of the doubt (charitably, in my opinion) and only classed as a likely sock of Spotfixer. As there is a a SPI history for spot (in which Caroline is a part) and not one exclusively for Caroline I figure it makes sense to keep the efforts of the editors/editor from this ip here. - Schrandit (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Schrandit (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Administrator note User:CharlieC24 blocked under WP:DUCK of User:AmyFuller. I'm not, however, seeing the relationship to User:Spotfixer. Can you be a little more clear? Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline was almost certainly a sock of Spot (only abstain from saying certainly because it was contested.), we can be beyond a reasonable doubt that this a bit of grandfather-socking. - Schrandit (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Clerk declined After doing further research I found an obvious connection to User:Joseph Louden which is a blocked sock of User:Spotfixer from a prior case.   Looks like a duck to me, so I'm declining this request. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk note: All accounts blocked and tagged --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk endorsed On second thought, going through the archive, I've noted that we've missed socks in the past, so there is reason to suspect sleepers here. For that, I'm going to endorse a checkuser. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There is quite a bit of history here, and I am not sure I have collected it all, or understand it all, so I am recapping. In April 2009, Luna Santin linked TruthIIPower to Spotfixer, and both accounts were blocked after discussion at ANI.

This SPI was first started in September 2009 to look into whether 208.80.104.2 was related to TruthIIPower (already linked to Spotfixer).

In October 2009, Awickert (talk · contribs) requested that the IP 69.118.57.142 be unblocked, explaining that this IP is a university residence.

In November 2009, CarolineWH was blocked at ANI. And in the lead up to this current SPI, another ANI.

In summary, we have two IPs that are not too far from each other; according to MaxMind, they are in nearby towns. In the history of the investigation, there have been overlaps, but it is not clear to me that they are the same people/groups. One may have spawned or visited the other, possibly more than once. However, I am seeing quite a few accounts on these IPs that are being created to edit alongside Schrandit (talk · contribs) on various pages, often in a combative manner. That suggests that if they are separate people, there is communication between them. Please look for mature solutions to this; creating lots of throw-away accounts to snipe at Schrandit is not a mature solution, nor is it a successful strategy. fyi, user conduct is reviewed using our Wikipedia:Requests for comment process.

Many of the account names which have been blocked appear to be real peoples names, which means this SPI investigation strays into privacy issues. As a word of warning to these people, pursuing this agenda against Schrandit while editing on this IP will likely result in your username being added to this page, and thus linked to your IP address. If you use your real name as your Wikipedia username, this does create a cryptic public record of your current abode, which is not very smart given the number of crazies on the interweb.

  Confirmed that the following all share the same computer and/or internet connection, and have turned up on pages edited by Schrandit:

Not technically linked, yet tangled in this web all the same, is:

The simplest solution is to block them all as they are appearing to edit as if they are a single person; however, I am not able to link these to Spot, CarolineWH, or anyone else, and I think we should accept Awickert's explanation for what is going on here. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How disappointing, I had rather hoped this had moved on. - Schrandit (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have no definitive connection between the confirmed socks and Spotfixer, I have indefinitely blocked and tagged them as socks of User:AmyFuller. –MuZemike 21:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


26 May 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Schrandit
edit

Sigh.

This whole thing continues to get creepier. This manifestation isn't even trying to hide being a sockpuppet. Normally I wouldn't ask for a CU but this person (people?) have a substantial history of sleeper accounts so unfortunately I think it is necessary. - Schrandit (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't really know what we're dealing with here but I would assume these ips are related, if so, would some sort of a rangeblock be in order? - Schrandit (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Schrandit (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk endorsed as it's been a little bit since the last CU run. –MuZemike 20:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note NotAmyFuller indefinitely blocked and tagged. Clear sock. –MuZemike 20:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed. Also, WeWhoKnow (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).   IP blocked. J.delanoygabsadds 17:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See CheckUser results below. –MuZemike 00:50, 19 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

The following are   Confirmed as Spotfixer:

Nearly all of these are sleeper socks, created back in late 2009, so rangeblocking will not do much good, I'm afraid. –MuZemike 00:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See contributions of User:Xerotic, which was a sock of User:Spotfixer. Editing behavior is identical, including a bad AIV report about me. Original sockpuppeteer has also abused multiple other accounts previously. Calabe1992 (talk) 18:20, 28 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

Blocked per really loud quacking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to do the same. Noting that this account was created one day after the last sock sweep, I would suggest this remain open to repeat the checkuser look for sleepers. Kuru (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  IP blocked, although I don't know how effective that will be. J.delanoygabsadds 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All blocked and tagged. Kuru (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spotfixer/Archive&oldid=1138679953"