Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VaughanWatch

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

VaughanWatch socks?


Only edits are to pages related to Vaughan, Ontario, particularly the 2006 municipal election and candidates. What got my attention was, where the user is trying to get the user formerly known as pm_shef, who changed his name before this account was created, to stop editing. Thryduulf 10:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also have a look at

Who also possibly pushing POV on issues related to the city, its election or candidates.

Can you list a couple of the last confirmed socks, or if they are older than a month, list the last few suspected socks that were blocked without checking? Right now there is nothing to check against unless the checkusers have photographic memories :) Thatcher131 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Which I do, come to mention it. ✅ the users, no comment on the IP. These accounts too: --Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we have a block on Jeronimo then if it's confirmed? -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All the accounts are blocked. Thatcher131 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Return of VaughanWatch
Alleged puppetmasters

Alleged sockpuppets
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)
 * (not blocked)

While more aggressive than VaughanWatch normally was, their edits are consistent with VaughanWatch's style and are continuuing his attacks on me. From replacing page content with offensive phrases to placing false warnings on user pages, they are on a relentless path of vandalism on this site.-- pm_shef 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have consolidated Requests for checkuser/Case/ED209 with this request, reformatted for clarity, and moved previous discussion to the talk page. To briefly summarize, user:pm_shef has been under renewed attack for his editing of articles related to Vaughan, Ontario. There seem to be two main attackers, VaughWatch/JohnnyCanuck and ED209. (JohnnyCanuck was previously determined to be a likely sock of VaughanWatch.) I believe based on past interactions that ED209 is a distinct editor from VaughanWatch. pm_shef suspects some of these attackers are VaughanWatch socks and some are ED209 socks; ED209 vigorously denies this. Most of the attack accounts have been blocked as vandal accounts, obvious socks, or username violations. However it may be desirable to identify the primary accounts so that more permanent steps can be taken on the offenders. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to identify a sockmaster, but I did find and block a few open proxies, so this wasn't a total loss. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:VaughanWatch continued


These two IPs have been placing warnings over edit conflicts on pm shef's page, much like VaughanWatch (see, , both in response to vaughan-based articles). Additionally, on one of the IP's talkpages, he/she said this:. For further evidence, see, which was created by one of Vaughan's socks and rivals that of the recent IP pushes. Before I go and block, I need to make sure that I follow policy (as per WP:SOCK). &mdash; Deckill e r 23:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch's last contribs are pretty old. Are there any confirmed or likely socks with more recent edits? Thatcher131 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User:YoungWebster and User:64.228.149.67 are the most recent (but still about two months old); the IP addressed a concern that discuses pm shef. &mdash; Deckill e r 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note, after VaughanWatch's first sockfarm was uncovered, he did seem to lay low for a while, this activity is most likely him trying to fly in again under the radar. Though, as Deckiller said, the "warnings" he's been leaving on my page have the makings of someone at least familiar with the Vaughan debacle that took place here a couple monhts ago. - pm_shef 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

✅. Those IPs are consistent with previous VaughWatch activity. Essjay  ( Talk )  15:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:VaughanWatch redux


YoungWebster has been making highly biased edits to some of the same articles disputed by the whole VW crowd (note, for example, allegations at Susan Kadis that the Thornhill Times folded "due to lack of interest in its excessively partisan approach"), and 64.228.149.67's only known WP contribution to date was to my talk page, again accusing the editor who reverted that comment from Kadis' article of being a sockpuppet of User:pm_shef, which seems to be their favourite new tactic of late. I reluctantly understand if you guys want to wash your hands of the whole thing at this point, but I also can't really block either of them without more solid evidence than I have. Bearcat 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the extent of VW's proven sock puppetry, would it be appropriate to simply ban new suspected accounts (based on their edit behavior) based on community consensus at AN/I (or is that against policy)? Thatcher131 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'd say you're on pretty safe ground there. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to doing that if there's a clear consensus, but I'm reluctant to act unilaterally in that regard. As much as possible, I'd prefer to act on solid evidence; barring that I still wouldn't be comfortable editblocking unless one or two other administrators actually looked at their edit histories and agreed with my assessment. Given the way I was targeted for attack by the VW brigade throughout the whole mess, I'm really not willing to act without backup. Bearcat 00:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

✅. Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  )  08:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

, along with and  have made similar edits (and participated in some of the same afd dicussions) relating to Vaughan, Ontario elections. Note that Poche1's first edit (19:55, 27 March 2006) occurred during Leotardo's 24 hour block for 3RR (12:52, 27 March 2006); Skycloud's first edit (22:57, 27 March 2006) occurred shortly after Poche1's subsequent block (21:31, 27 March 2006).

Poche1 has repeatedly deleted the suspected sockpuppet tags from his and other accounts  (as well as removing some warnings ,) so it seemed fair to take the matter here. Less obvious but likely is a relation to ; note that one of the confirmed sockpuppets of that user is. Refer also to Eyeonvaughan RFC and Checkuser request for Eyeonvaughan  OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

64.231.242.202 & 69.156.148.61



 * see the end of this section for a sorted list of users extracted from the various naratives

and have been launching personal attacks  and vandalism against pm shef. I suspect they are being used by, who is currently blocked for personal attacks, or. The IPs resolve to Bell Canada. Although they have been blocked for 24 hours, if Checkuser finds they are being operated by VaughWatch, this should help admins block new IPs that launch similar attacks and may be evidence in what seems like the inevitable ArbCom case. Thatcher131 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also look at

which are making personal attacks against and are from the same Bell Canada range. Thatcher131 03:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

is a related issue. Suspected sockpuppet of User:Eyeonvaughan. Similar edits under and. Edits consist of accusing User:Theonlyedge and User:Pm shef to be sockpuppets of each other, just like the mother account. Also, Westernriddell has less than ten edits, half fo them to AfDs over five months old (some of which he supported claims made by Eyeonvaughan), with the rest being immediately after the block on Eyeonvaughan being put into place. Although this is a somewhat obvious case of sockpuppetry, I decided to put it here to be "just". Also, see the above request for more information relating to this case. User:Pm shef asked me to request this checkuser as a somewhat neutral party. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also include, , , &  who have all been adding or reverting to the sockpuppet tag and like the above have made few if any other edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * is also doing the same thing. Thryduulf 08:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The only edits by are to vote on the Simon Strelchock AfD and complain about Eyeonvaughn's block. Thryduulf 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved here from above, once I realized there is already a request going on. Eyeonvaughan is the subject of an ongoing RFC in which massive sockpuppetry has been suspected and confirmed, but not yet linking Eyeonvaughan to any. A related user, was found to have a large number of sockpuppets via RFCU recently. The remaining suspected sockpuppets for Eyeonvaughan from the RFC are as follows:      and. A connection between VaughanWatch and Eyeonvaughan is suspected as well; a list of confirmed sockpuppets of VaughanWatch may be found at the RFC. Furthermore, some recent activity suggests sockpuppetry between, , , , and : all have made a rather bizarre unjustified assertion that and  are sockpuppets of each other, and some have tried to force sockpuppet suspect tags onto their user pages. Obviously, some of these users have differing IPs, but the activity is still suspicious; I would like to know if those IPs are related somehow. Mangojuice 12:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

is also worth taking a look at - their only contribution has been to remove all the allegations of sockpuppetry and IP votes from Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchock (second nomination) Thryduulf 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the evidence of sockpuppetry against : 1. After Alan Shefman's son User:Pm_shef writes that he will abstain from editing articles related to Vaughan politics, and confirmed that abstention at 05:55, 11 April 2006 here, "Theonlyedge" goes after Pm_shef's longtime Vaughan target (who he nominated for the AfD a month prior) a few hours later, at 22:02, 11 April 2006 here. Coincidence?

2. The name of Pm_shef's father's company is simply The Edge. It is involved in anti-racism, which we know Pm_shef/ Corey Shefman has been involved in too, both personally and through his edits. The Edge sounds a lot like The Only Edge... a coincidence? See main link to his father's bread-and-butter for 25 years: [www3.sympatico.ca/theedgeq/]

3. Roughly 50% of all edits are also articles that Pm_shef has edited. Compare Pm_shef's contributions to Theonlyedge's contributions.

4. Both accounts in question were created within 5 weeks of one another; Pm_shef on Oct 31 2005, TheOnlyEdge on Dec 11 2005.

5. 4 hours after Pm_shef nominates this article for deletion (which he ultimately lost), Theonlyedege comes around and does NOT vote Keep or Delete but rather, after two consecutive Keep votes, adds a comment that the article should be shortened to 2 or 3 paragraghs. This was Shef's way of cutting his losses. See original AfD Keep debate: []. 6. Both users are from Thornhill, as they have both have edited the article on Thornhill and are obsessed with their politicians.

7. Both are obsessed with adding positive POV edits to their favorites Susan Kadis (as well as Michael Di Biase) and negative edits/blanking to their political competitor Mario Racco and political opponents Anthony Reale, Tina Molinari and Josh Cooper.

8. Why did Pm_shef / Theonlyedge create this article on a previous opponent? So that he can control it. He can keep it down to 2 or 3 sentences and maintain control over content.

I hope this is enough evidence, but if you want more, I can find more. , as I see it, is the sockpuppet that does the dirty work for Pm_shef. He comes out of hibernation when needed, like a trusty administrative assistant. Leotardo 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The odd "administrative assistant" comment above (made by VaughanWatch/Eyeonvaughan previously), repeated insistance that user:pm_shef and user:Theonlyedge are sockpuppets and other contributions by are making me very suspicious that the account is operated by the same person as VaughanWatch.

Sorted list of users
 * This is a sorted list of all the suspected sockpuppets of whom checks have been requested in this section, the ones bolded are particularly active. A definitive answer (even if this is inconclusive) for each one would be very helpful.




 * Many of the above users are repeatedly insisting that Pm_shef and user:Theonlyedge are the same. This is covered in a separate request further up this page. Thryduulf 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not just those users Thryduulf, but admin as well. The following comments are copy and pasted from AN/I here about Pm_shef after I posted evidence of sockpuppetry: "That appears to be rather damning evidence. I've never seen any two verifiably unique users have that much in common. — Apr. 20, '06 [10:20] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * I completely agree. So what do we do?  I suggest an indef-block for  and a week for . Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin has already conducted a sockpuppet check a week ago, and all the found sockpuppets were blocked. I wasn't one of them. Stop wasting admin time, guys, and stop this harassment. Leotardo 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Heaven knows you're right about wasting my time. Confirmed that Leotardo is amongst a multitude of VaughanWatch socks. I'll be going round blocking. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Eyeonvaughan, user:VaughanWatch & others
Related to the Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan, I have been looking into the contributions of user:Eyeonvaughan and user:VaughanWatch. I beleive that user:VaughanWatch is a sockpuppet of user:Eyeonvaughan based on their edit histories (the two never overlap, but edit on the same days on the same/related articles. They then don't edit for a few days, but when one isn't editing neither is the other - I have a spreadsheet that shows this but don't know how to get it on Wikipedia), their style of editing and persistent personal attacks against user:Pm shef and user:Bearcat. There are multiple AfDs and at least one deletion review on which they have both voted. I also suspect that User:Hars Alden (note particularly this edit to user talk:Hars Alden where user:VaughanWatch leaves the edit summary "It's my talk page") is another sockpuppet, although I haven't checked in detail. Based on the articles they have contributed to and this personal attack-laden edit accusing user:Bearcat of being the same person as user:Pm shef (which user:Eyeonvaughan frequently does) and of having a sockpuppet, I think User:CasanovaAlive is probably another of the family of sockpuppets. IPs User:70.29.239.249 (which is the account CassanovaAlive alleges is Bearcat's sockpuppet) and User:69.198.130.82 have also been linked to this on the RfC page. I would like someone else to check this and block as necessary. I am assuming that user:Eyeonvaughan is the primary account as that is the one that arrived first. Thryduulf 14:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I should clarify that I am not aware of any evidence that either user:Pm shef or user:Bearcat either have sockpuppets or are sockpuppets of anyone. Both strongly deny any accusations they are the same person. Thryduulf 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as you're doing that, you can throw in and, both of whom tried to insert bogus references into International Hockey Hall of Fame to bolster the alleged notability of Elliott Frankl (the center of this campaign), and , who re-created Elliott Frankl and revert the IHH bogosity. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For some locations where the possible sockpuppetry in support of a POV campaign went on, see also:
 * Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman (third nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Elliott Frankl
 * Articles for deletion/Yehuda Shahaf
 * Articles for deletion/Vaughan Watch
 * --Calton | Talk 06:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also request that along with User:Hars Alden contributions you include User:Hars Aldenn contributions & User:HarsA contributions based on the similar names and they all filed the identical false 3RR on pm_shef. Also, User:UndergroundRailroad contributions made claims against pm_shef and may be involved. The last possible sockpuppet is User:Jazzabelle contributions who reverted an apparently unconnected report on User:CasanovaAlive here CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the following are sockpuppets of :

There may be others that I've missed. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All blocked.--Shanel 01:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an awful lot of work and much appreciated, but what about ? Thatcher131 05:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * HOLY CRAP THATS A LOT OF SOCKS! --Syrthiss 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You got that right. Is there a sockpuppet barnstar? --Khoikhoi 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch ctnd
Could a checkuser confirm if all the VaughanWatch edits come from a single ip, and if so is it shared? With a list of socks 52+ long (including a possible bot, tho I think that could have been a Willy pagemovebot instead) I'd be willing to support a community block for a long time on the underlying ip if unshared. For reference, there are the completed RFCU's further down this page and Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of VaughanWatch. Thanks. --Syrthiss 13:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Declined. Mackensen (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * okee. --Syrthiss 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the number of IP addresses that have been suspected (I don't know if these were checked or not) my guess is that he is not on a static IP. IIRC Bell Canada has been identified as the ISP resposible for the IP addresses listed. If this is the case then someone who understands such things (i.e. not me) might be able to figure out how they allocate their IPs. Thryduulf 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * IPs from 64.*, 67.* and 69.* have all made similar attacks (all Bell Canada) so it seems likely that VaughanWatch knows how to access different IP address one way or another. AFAIK any IP that carries out VaughanWatch-like attacks can be short-term blocked without a Checkuser, based on the history of the situation. Thatcher131 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyCanuck and VaughanWatch
was recently blocked indefinitely by User:Curps as a "sockpuppet used abusively," presumably as a likely sockpuppet of or, with which you gracious checkuser-enabled people are no doubt familiar by now. JohnnyCanuck has asked me to place a request here to check if he is or is not a sockpuppet of VaughanWatch; you may take this, I feel, as a request from him.

I have doubts that he is a sockpuppet, but I am not totally sure. The reasons for which I doubt he is a sockpuppet I would prefer to keep out of public (lest it educate VaughanWatch on how to make better sockpuppets). The reasons to think that he is a sockpuppet involve mostly his adding sockpuppetry tags to User talk:pm_shef and User talk:Theonlyedge, just as had recently been doing, and a large involvement with Elliott Frankl and its deletion debate and subsequent deletion review (now archived), which VaughanWatch and others were also involved in. Curps may have something to add, I'll leave a message on his user page. Mangojuice 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If we're digging into VaughanWatch socks for the 10000th time, can I toss in?  pm_shef pointed this user out as doing the same kinds of edits the VaughanWatch-collective did, and this user's only edits have been to two Vaughan-related articles.  I'm not familiar with the situation well enough to judge for myself. --Syrthiss 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Likely. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''