Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AZ8196/Archive

Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken
Az81964444 created the article Border War (1910-1918), and he and I had some conflict after I edited it, which included what I interpreted as an attack on me, after what was determined to be incivility on my part – all discussed on on AN/I – which resulted in the editor retiring. I've continued to watch the article, and editor $1LENCE D00600D did some edits to it today. I reverted one of them and left a message on their talk page. The editor's response on my talk page indicated that he was the author of the article. This picqued my curiosity, and I looked back into the history of these editors. What I found is a pattern of a user who edits for a number of months, almost always on articles related to battles – frequently including the Battle of Ambos Nogales, which was created by AZ8196 (other IDs have created other battle articles) – and then drops the ID and starts another. I have tracked the editors back to AZ8196, although they may go farther back than that.


 * AZ8196 – created: 30 January 2009 last edit: 26 February 2009 – 62 edits, 25 pages
 * (considering the gap between the end of February and the beginning of May, I may be missing an ID here)
 * TJ13090 – created: 2 May 2009 last edit: 1 June 2009 – 746 edits, 127 pages
 * Aj4444 – created: 5 July 2009 last edit: 30 August 2009 – 2701 edits, 412 pages
 * Az81964444 – created: 13 September 2009 last edit: 31 July 2010 – 9334 edits, 1250 pages
 * Robertp6165 – created: 5 April 2010 last edit: 27 July 2010 – 36 edits, 2 pages
 * $1LENCE D00600D – created: 1 August 2010 most recent edit: 30 August 2010 – 943 edits, 247 pages

The pattern seems deliberate: note that IDs are dropped near the end of a month, and are usually created at the beginning of a month. There's one gap, which I noted above, but otherwise the move from one ID to another is direct and almost immediate. There's only one ID (Robertp6165) which overlaps, and that ID only edited two articles, First Battle of Dragoon Springs (created by TJ13090) and Second Battle of Dragoon Springs, so it may have been created specifically for that purpose.

Wikistalk results for these six editors show considerable overlap, even considering their focus on military-related (actually, battle-related) articles:


 * 1 article (War of 1812) edited by 5 of the 6 (all but Robertp6165)
 * 5 articles (United States occupation of Veracruz, Battle of Picacho Pass, American Indian Wars, Action of 18 March 2006, First Battle of Dragoon Springs) edited by 4 of the 6 (in 2 different combinations)
 * 53 articles edited by 3 of the 6 (in 5 different combinations)
 * 185 articles edited by 2 of the 6
 * 244 articles in common overall

This is in the context of the 6 IDs having edited 1753 unique pages in their editing careers. (2063 total "unique" pages less 310 overlaps). This means that these 6 IDs have overlapped on about 14% of all the articles they have edited, a high percentage, and unlikely to be the result of coincidence.

I have no evidence that the edits of this editor have been disruptive, but the pattern of starting IDs and then dropping them, without acknowledging the connection, is a concern, since it looks like avoiding scrutiny. If the editor has a legitimate explanation for doing so, that's fine, but if not they should probably be asked to pick one of the IDs to edit from and the rest should be indef blocked, and the user told not to continue to create new accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have notified all the accounts listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that of all these IDs, only one has a block history: Aj4444 has a 24 hour block for personal attacks and harrassment. However, also note that the latest ID, $1LENCE D00600D, has left a rather uncivil message on my talk page in response to my notification of this report, in which he again confirms his identity as Az81964444. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking a little deeper into this, Az8196 created one article, Battle of Ambos Nogales. After the ID stopped editing on 26 February 2009, that artice was subsequently edited by TJ13090 and Az81964444. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The next editor in line, TJ13090 created 8 articles:


 * Battle of Galveston Harbor (1837)
 * Battle of Brazos Santiago
 * Battle of Brazos_River
 * Battle of Bear Valley
 * Battle of Puerto Plata Harbor
 * Battle of Columbus (1916)
 * Traditional Arizona
 * First Battle of Dragoon Springs


 * With 7 out of these 8 articles, after TJ13090 stopped editing on 1 June 2009, there were multiple edits made by Aj4444 and Az81964444 (with the last also having multiple edits by Robertp6165). The exception is #6, which had multiple edits from Az81964444, but none by Aj4444. Clearly, these IDs are all the same person, continuing to work on the articles they created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Next, Aj4444 created 17 articles:


 * Battle of Albuquerque
 * Battle of Taku Forts (1860)
 * Battle of Taku Forts (1858)
 * Bombardment of San Juan del Norte
 * Battle of Fatshan Creek
 * Battle of the Pearl River Forts
 * Action of 15 October 1917
 * Bombardment of Ancona
 * Bombardment of Fort_Stevens
 * Action of 17 November 1917
 * Battle of Rio de Oro
 * Battle of Taku Forts
 * Action of 4 May 1917
 * Bombardment of Fanning (moved to Fanning Raid by another editor)
 * Bombardment of Madras
 * Battle of Trindade
 * Ernest Martin Jehan


 * In all but one of these articles, after Aj4444 stopped editing on 30 August 2009, the articles were edited, sometimes extensively, by Az81964444. The one exception is Fanning Raid, a stub article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly, Az81964444 created 96 articles (which I will not list here), and from looking at the Wikistalk results for the two IDs, it seems as if the latest ID, $1LENCE D00600D, has edited most, if not all of them. Once again, we see this editor using a new account to continue working on the articles they created with a "retired" account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm requesting CheckUser, despite the clear behavioral evidence, because I may have missed an ID, and I'm not sure how far data goes back, so I don't know if staleness is an issue or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding XavierGreen's comment below, there was indeed some conflict between Az8196444 and myself, which I noted in the very first sentence of my evidence, including a link to the AN/I report on it. (Here it is again, for those who might have missed it: ) However, I didn't go looking for this, it fell into my lap when $1LENCE D00600D admitted on my talk page that he was the editor who created the article (that is, Az81964444), and I went and looked into it.  If that had been the end of it – an editor retiring after some conflict and then returning for a "fresh start" – I would not have filed a report, since this editor appears to me to be basically productive, if a little touchy, but the pattern going back at least four other editors was really too much to ignore. But, even if this was "retaliatory" in some way (and it's not), the evidence shows what the evidence shows, it's pretty undeniable.  The easiest thing would be for $1LENCE D00600D to make a statement admitting their behavior, giving a reasonable explanation for it, and pledging not to do it again. I'd be perfectly happy with that, as I'm sure most people in the community would be. I'm not seeking to have this editor blocked or sanctioned, just to put a stop to a rather disruptive, apparently scrutiny-avoiding pattern of behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - AZ8196 is stale. However, if a CU acts soon TJ13090 will still be fresh, and in any case the rest are giong to be fresh for a few more months. It looks quite suspicious, and it's possible there is another one or two. I'm not sure on the motive regarding socking though, apart from minor incivility they seem to write well. (Although in the same style) CU would help clear this up. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember some malicous comments exchanged between Beyond My Ken and the editor with multiple accounts. I suspect the creation of this invesitgation is retaliatory action taken by Beyond My Ken against the editor in question.XavierGreen (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded in my section above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this is a 'vendetta' per se. (Which it doesn't appear to be) there is a large amount of evidence indicating that this is the same person. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)





– similar articles but different physical location:

–MuZemike 04:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This report has been sitting here for a couple of weeks without any action being taken; perhaps that's just because of a general SPI backup, but perhaps it may be because it's not immediately obvious what should be done. If I may be bold to suggest that the previous accounts, with the exception of Robertp6165, be indef blocked on the basis of the behaviorial evidence or, in the case of Az81964444, based on the CU "likely" finding, and that $1LENCE D00600D be warned not to continue to create new identities (unless with good reason, and then with notice to ArbCom), but that otherwise no sanctions be placed against them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the only thing that gives me pause is that I've just found that User:XavierGreen, the editor who posted the comment above about my report possibly being retaliatory, has a 283-page overlap with this suite of IDs. I'd feel better continuing to endorse my suggested outcome above if it could be determined that XavierGreen is an unrelated account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it seems like this has been sitting around forever. I've looked over this and have come to a decision. If anyone disagrees with this decision, let me know on my talk page. --  At am a  頭 17:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond my Ken is right and  need to be blocked. No duck blocks can be handed out here IMO. --  DQ  (t)  (e)  02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my suggestion was not exactly as DeltaQuad states. I suggested that the socks be blocked, but that $1LENCE be allowed to continue editing with a warning not to sock again,  except  if further checkuser investigation found that XavierGreen was also related.  The editor reported here ($1LENCE, AZ81964444 et al.) is quite prolific in the Military History subject area and, on net, a positive asset for the project, so it would be best, in my opinion, if a way could be found to allow them to continue editing, but with acknowledgment that they should do so under one ID. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggesting closing this request without any action taken. No evidence has been presented of an abuse of multiple accounts. If somebody wants to create a new account every month he/she can perfectly do so. Ruslik_ Zero 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, not necessarily. Users who create a bunch of accounts disruptively (like this guy) can be blocked; besides, repeatedly creating accounts may well violate WP:SCRUTINY among other things by obfuscating the entire edit history. T. Canens (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm blocking Az81964444. The editor is supposedly "retired" anyway, so there should be no harm done, but this will prevent the account from being reused again.
 * 2) I'm going to leave a stern warning for $1LENCE D00600D, that they need to choose one account and stick with it. Any further use of alternate accounts outside of what is permitted at WP:SOCK will lead to sanctions (including an indefinite block). This is due to the lack of evidence that there is any disruption from the account.
 * 3) Based on I'm highly doubtful that XavierGreen is a related account. No action against them.
 * Broadly agree with Atama, with the addition that I'm also blocking the stale accounts, which are certainly related; and that I'm turning off the autoblock on the accounts, as it is unnecessary. Finally, I don't think sockpuppet tags are appropriate under the particular circumstances here; I would simply redirect the user pages. T. Canens (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I actually went back to undo the autoblock and saw that you'd done that, I'd forgotten to turn that off. (It's likely that the autoblock would have blocked $1LENCE D00600D also, which we don't want.) Redirecting the the user pages is actually better than a sockpuppet template, that was a good idea. --  At am a  頭 17:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, not that it makes any difference one way or the other, but as the editor who filed this report, I endorse the admin actions taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here via Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D and that ought to be taken into consideration as to whether user:$1LENCE D00600D ought to be indefinitely blocked. -- PBS (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)