User talk:Kilo-Lima/Abuse

Need you advise/help, please
I'm going to remove your post from this talk page as per Admin Redvers because you appear to be giving out personal information about another editor and we don't allow that. WorkingHard 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Hi Kilo-Lima, I apologize in advance, because I know this is way too long. I come to you because of your experience with sock puppet situations (and your nice attitude, of course). But please, if you don't have the time, let me know, and I'll see if I can figure it out on my own---or I'll try pestering someone else. :) Basically, what I need help with is to establish if this needs attention or if I can just leave the issue in the "wait and see" basket in the back of my mind. It concerns User:WorkingHard, suspected sock User:65.184.20.40, suspected sock User:65.184.17.216 and the latest suspected sock addition User:65.184.18.231 (and possibly suspected mini-contributor 65.184.17.197). These users have been involved in a pattern of problematic activity for the last 6 months, often showing up in the same articles, always doing identical edits once they are reverted by other uses, supporting WorkingHard, and responding to the community in the same fashion -- by page blanking, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, as well as the use of intimidation and threats. I first noticed the user on the arbitration page a week or so ago, but that arbitration did not lead to further scrutiny of the user, I think because there had been no proper sock puppet investigation, but mostly because the whole case was such a mess, including arbitration against an unregistered user only, not against the whole group of users and IPs involved in the puppetry. I'm worried that the user may think that his/her behavior and actions are therefore sanctified and won't be dealt with or contested if they continue. BACKGROUND: 1. WorkingHard admitted to an Admin. that he is a web hoster who wants his site mentioned in an article about a murdered child:. On the same subject, subject, 65.184.18.231 writes: "You may be surprised to know you are dealing with a few of the people intimatley involved with this case. We are PERSONALLY connected to Mr. Lunsofrd in a way that cannot be denied ever."  2. The reason for the editing flurry to get the name into search engines and generate hits to the site, it turns out, is that the domain is for sale:. 3. The owner is David Stodghill, which is the exact person the sock/meat puppet group wants included in the article about the murdered child.  SPAM ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR The latest editing activity from these accounts have mainly been limited to four issues: A> having an article for Alexis Stodghill, (deleted through a AfD preocess, but recreated two days ago by Working Hard), B> having an article about the suspended TV pilot Grand Strand television show, about which WorkingHard states: "I filmed a television show called Grand Strand",, etc , C> having the name David Stodghill and the firm Charlotte Web hosting featured in the Jessica Lunsford article, and D> the name Alexis Stodghill included in the List of female television actors article. But looking back at the history of for example User: 65.184.17.216, I still feel that maybe there is some reason for concern and that I shouldn't just drop the ball and hope someone else will pick it up and deal with it. I think this is probably way too long and complicated for the "Suspected Sock Puppet" report page: what aspect of the behavior should I concentrate on and where do I best report it so that it can be dealt with without too much time and effort wasted? Thanks in advance. (PS. You can e-mail me, if you prefer). Best wishes, Pia 02:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC) That sounds wonderful, but as you have said, they are all unregistered ip addresses. Please do not try to bind me with peoples "ip" addresses or try to name me as someone I am not. Though you do a wonderful job trying to knock me down, you forget one thing, you have broken so many wikipedia rules regarding to Harrasment, Wiki Stalking, Sock Puppetry, that as usual, your complaints to admins only get your sock puppet accounts banned and you kicked for 48 hours. I don't know what your facination with me is, though you try to present me in a false light (And you do it very well, are you a writer?) none of what you post to the trained eye makes any sense whatsoever. You have continuosly edited entries on people's user pages, wiki entries and others that suit your "warring" efforts. Let's not forget, Wikipedia is not about pov! Goodluck Pia, this will be your 20th some odd administrator you have embarrassed with your "complaints" WikiStalking and Harrassment do indeed fit you to a t. I'd suggest looking them up and seeing what they are all about.WorkingHard 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ADVERTISING AND VANITY EDIT 1: The edit war to add David Stodghill and his firm involves all four meat or sock puppets: WorkingHard, 65.184.17.216 , 65.184.20.40 and 65.184.18.231.
 * ADVERTISING AND VANITY EDIT 2: The groups is also edit warring over the inclusion of the name "Alexis Stodghill" into the article List of female television actors.The campaign involves WorkingHard and the suspected socks: 65.184.20.40, and 65.184.18.231 . 65.184.17.216 and buddy User:Justadding were also involved in the AfD process of the Alexis Stodghill article which was deleted as a non-notable  but which is now been recreated by WorkingHard (since two days ago) and which I don't intend to deal with until the sock or meat puppet situation is addressed. It's no use if we have a "me, Irene, I and myself" situation voting "keep". ;)
 * USER PAGE BLANKING: WorkingHard's user page, which had comments from other users about deliberate misinformation (impersonation) and tags about sock puppetry and blocks, was blanked to hide the four short comments dealing by this, first blanking by by 65.184.17.197, then by WorkingHard and by 65.184.18.231 . WorkingHard has now removed all entries from his user and talk page, and installed two redirects to hide the content  and.
 * INTIMIDATION: WorkingHard: [,, , adding false block tag:.
 * INTIMIDATION/PERSONAL ATTACKS: 65.184.18.231: pretending to "out" users and then libel them: "C. is in fact a 34 year old person with a very extensive criminal history, you may leave us an email address for more information for conclusive PROOF." (posted on several user pages in different versions, ). Threatening blocks and the stripping of admin privileges: "I would suggesat you actually read the arbitratioon before you get so gung ho on an article, admin privelges are exactly that. I really resent you calling me a suspect ip. I call you a suspect admin.", Sock puppet accusations: , , , "For some reason you must have fallen in love with the user Cumberbund, who is in fact a webmaster that wanted the webhosting job and we decided NOT to hire him because of his criminal history." , Blanking talk page, adding false edit summary , deleting other user's comments , using false edit summaries, and using threats , blanking an uninvolved party in an arbitration, with the edit summary "Harassing account/sock puppet, libelous comment removed" . "RE: sockpuppetry, we were asked to signup with a username for wiki after making several vandilism reverts on the entry, we did, and a day later were banned for being sock puppets, the admin who banned us, unbanned us hours later after seeing the mistake he made, and even other admins came to our talk page and said we were NOT sock puppets...Also Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WorkingHard. Read the Jessica Lunsford entry by Admin Tony The Marine, you'll see where he says that I am not a sock puppet".
 * Not to disappoint the user, but before noticing his/her behavior through an ongoing arbitration less than two weeks ago, I contributed to Wikipedia in happy ignorance of the underbelly of the Wikipedia user world of sock puppets, impersonations and personal attacks. That is why I felt the need to contact an experienced Admin. and sock puppet analysts before bringing this issue up on the check-user page and the long term abuse/vandalism page: I suspect it is easy to overreact when exposed to this kind of behavior for the first time and it may very well be the opinion of experienced administrators that the lack of sophistication by this user and the very narrow focus of the contributions (all Stodghill related) may make him/her a very minor threat to the community as a whole, and that simply making the user aware that people are watching could be enough. I'm therefore very pleased to know that the user is aware that he/she is being watched. I encourage HardWorking to get to work on the above accusation, preferably in an official forum and not on user pages, so that more eyes get focused on his/her pattern of intimidation by misinformation. I would be particularly fascinated to see a list of the 20 "odd administrators" allegedly contacted by me, the Wiki rules broken, other's comments edited by me, the stalking, the sock puppets used and the 48 hr ban mentioned. Yes, that would thrill me to no end. :) Pia 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to back up Pia here. You might also be interested to know that WorkingHard has already admitted to being these ip addresses, but complained when being accused that these were sockpuppets that he'd only just created his user name (WorkingHard) but was blocked from using it. WorkingHard has also made efforts to cover up his earlier claim of being a cameraman on the same show Alexis Stodghill was supposedly on.Cumberbund 04:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) This isn't a debate, but I'd just like Kilo-Lima to know... The Sock Puppet alert that was made on Arbitration for Pia has just commented (For the first time in over a week on wikipedia) directly above my own comment here. It's amusing that when user Cumberbund is being run off, Pia shows up to assist, and when Pia gets caught with her hand in the cookie jar, theres good ole Cumberbund to back her up. Both live in the same city, state and magically share the same ip address. Neato isn't it? This is my last comment for Pia/Cumberbund. As for rules broken in the last 2 comments above me already, read very well this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks Also see WIKISTALKING You'll find it very informative. WorkingHard 05:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)