Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/0Bammer/Archive

Report date July 28 2009, 16:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Multixfer

I strongly suspect these accounts, including the indefinitely blocked Stpuidhead, are all the same person.

In November 2008, Stpuidhead was blocked indefinitely. Previously, in August of 2008, 0Bammer had added the following to his userpage and then apparently abandoned the account. This appears to be an admission that he was the puppetmaster of two socks, one of which was indeffed 3 months later.

User:Headlikeawhole, who created an account in November 2008, just a few days after Stupidhead was indeffed, has many times edited a subpage of 0Bammer, including just 2 DAYS after creating the new account, ,.

Headlikeawhole, who apparently dislikes Paris Hilton, engages in disruptive editing at the Paris Hilton article, making tendentious and vandalistic edits like these, ,.

The Headlikeawhole account has not edited Paris Hilton for nearly a month, yet today, on the Paris Hilton talk page, this comment appeared, which follows the same generally mocking and patronizing tone as those of Headlikeawhole. Furthermore, the accounts very first edit was to a Headlikeawhole subpage.

Headlikeawhole continues to vandalize articles. Will someone please block these accounts as socks?


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This appears to be a case of WP:DUCK to me. Is there any reason to delay processing any further? Go ahead and block these accounts already.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I don't think anyone really spends much time at this page... the checkusers get done quickly because you just run a script, but these cases require more attention. Not to mention there are some cases here that seem to be completed but haven't been archived. Whatevs, guess we will just have to wait. :-/ &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to blocking admin/checkuser: Stpuidhead and hamidkarzai are both blocked but don't forget to block the puppetmaster account as well. Many thanks! :-) &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

- The first three accounts here will be stale, but the latter two seem likely enough to check. NW ( Talk ) 04:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ✅ that == . The rest is  --  Luk  talk 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked and tagged. Jamie  S93  16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Possibly more accounts can be found. There are literally tons of subpages hooked up to most of the older accounts, filled with lots of weird redirects, inside jokes with the editors own self, and even listings of all the socks/accounts used.

Evidence submitted by Multixfer
IP address 69.242.82.130 made this edit to 0Bammer's userpage. 0Bammer seems to edit his userpages and subpages with IPs. Following that IPs other contributions brings us to edits like these,. Those accounts, based on behavior, are blatantly 0Bammer socks (or rather 0Bammer is the sock, since the ages of these accounts go back to 2005 in some cases).

The last 3 IPs listed above, 69.243.46.77, 69.251.8.2, and 65.204.30.126, have been leaving threats, insults and weird comments on my User and Talk pages since the end of November (see previous SPI here ). Dominic and Thatcher dealt with that one. I suspect the closeness of these IPs to the IP which edited the 0Bammer userpage and other related account pages makes it likely that this person is now stalking me (since I was the one who got their previous socks blocked). Nore that all of the IPs above are all Comcast and all Geolocate to the same general area of the US, the Baltimore/Washington DC area and one just over in Pennsylvania. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not requested checkuser as all accounts are too old to check. This will have to be a behavioral investigation, but I think I've lined it up pretty well and the behavior of the older accounts and IP at least are blatant. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The accounts are all too old to check. Thatcher 15:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't ask for Checkuser. This is a request "without" Checkuser... the behavior of all the older accounts at least is obvious. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
All registered accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. IPs left alone as none of them have edited in a while. MuZemike 07:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)