Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albert14nx05y/Archive

04 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar editing patterns to User:Stranded Pirate who has repeatedly edit warred on Trinity University in favor of getting their myopic view added against consensus. Their most recent efforts have also gotten another page vandalized which I've only just discovered now; already blocked for 31 hours for current abuse. Blurpeace 09:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Checkuser will not disclose relationships between IPs and registered editors. A determination will have to be made based on behavioral evidence only. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, the IP hasn't edited in about 10 days, so closing as no action taken. --MuZemike 00:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

18 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The intersection between the two users for me are edits to the Harvey Levin article. Before the master was indeffed, there was a significant dispute about adding a link to a picture "article" to the Levin article and claiming that Levin served in National Guard in Reseda, Calfornia, during the Vietnam war era. This is the edit by the master adding that material to the article. This is a second edit adding a ref. This is the edit by the puppet adding the same material and a ref at the same time. Notice that the wording of the sentence is almost the same, including using the same abbreviation for California. The ref, though, is different, and that part is rather odd. Both accounts cite to TMZ, but the master's ref was at least somewhat related to Levin, whereas the puppet's ref is to a bunch of videos that seemingly have nothing to do with Levin. This intersection, though, is fairly strong considering how obscure and unimportant the added material is.

As for other behavioral evidence, other than both editors are pugnacious (thin), the only other thing I see without looking at every edits for each, are edit summary similarities. Both of them use certain abbreviations or shorthand consistently, including "info" instead of information, "i" instead of "I", "u" instead of "you", and "plz" instead of "please".

A couple of asides. I requested checkuser, but I don't know if it's too old now for it to be helpful. Also, I'm aware that the puppet's username is probably blockable on its own. Two users, including one admin, have commented on it; I'm not sure why no action has been taken, but at this point I feel uncomfortable doing so. Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The master's contribs are too stale for CU but it isn't necessary in this case. Indeffing sock, tagging and closing.

27 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

24.0.133.234 was blocked for 48 hours for being a sockpuppet of Albert14nx05y, but I don't see that IP listed at the archived Albert14nx05y casepage, and the gelocation is not the same as the IP that is listed there. Now he has listed himself as a volunteer at WP:DRN. See Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard for a discussion about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

In case anyone is curious, the advice I gave the IP about ranting at User talk:24.0.133.234 was written before reading the comments by Bbb23 below. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am about to unwatch this page, but for what it is worth, here are my observations. I have reviewed a bunch of edits by the listed sockmaster and socks, and in my completely subjective opinion, the reaction to administrative actions and to comments by uninvolved users passes the WP:DUCK test. I see the same style of aggressive accusations against admins and the same style of responses to comments about the user's behavior, and the same attitude that disagreeing with a policy or restriction gives you license to ignore it. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This is in the wrong place. It should be for User:Albert14nx05y. I don't have time to do this right because real life beckons. If diffs are needed, it will have to wait until tomorrow. I blocked the IP based on duck. The edit to Harvey Levin was essentially the same crap as was added by Albert. Although the IP said they added a new source, that was untrue. They purported to add a new source. It was supposedly a podcast without any idea what podcast, no URL, and no indication where in the podcast (I think they said "somewhere" in the podcast). In addition, they refactored the Levin talk page, removing the entire history of the dispute with Albert and added their own material. The fact that this IP and the IP listed on the archived investigation geolocate to different places is hardly conclusive considering the other IP was from August 2012, many, many months ago. BTW, the IP is now railing on their talk page and calling for my head. You're welcome to give it to them; I need a new one, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is Albert's edit to the Levin article. Here is the IP's edit to the article. It's only one sentence, and they are identical except that Albert wikilinked the Air National Guard. Albert included only one reference to TMZ. The IP included the same reference except that he used a template instead of a bare URL. The IP added a reference that was meaningless to somehow make it legitimate. The "title" of the reference is "mentioned somewhere in this podcast", and the "url" is the material itself - in other words, it's an absolutely meaningless reference. I was wrong about the talk page refactoring. There was an IP who removed the material from the Levin talk page, but it was a different IP, and it was a month earlier. The now-blocked IP made his edit directly after to the same section, so I misinterepreted them as consecutive edits by the same IP.

As to style, mostly it is in the IP's favor. It appears that the same person has been using the IP address the whole time. I'm judging by the use of tildes in his edit summaries and the pages being edited. Albert didn't do that, although I did discuss certain quirks about his edit summaries in the original investigation, so if the IP is Albert, he may have learned from my comments. Albert claimed to be a lawyer. His style seemed reasonably well-educated. The IP writes like he knows Wikipedia but, other than being reasonably articulate on talk pages (other than his own, where he seems to rant a lot), he doesn't write much like Albert. And with the exception of the Levin article, there's no intersection between the IP and Albert on other articles.

Finally, one thing against the IP is the other registered account, User:Copyright Troll, who was also blocked as Albert's sock. Two things. First, take a look at CT's comments right after his unblock request. Then look at the various comments by the IP on his talk page, starting with the unblock request itself. Notice the ranting quality is the same, as is the use of exclamation points and all caps. Also, the "reason" why the IP went to the Levin page is similar to what CT said about why he went to the Levin page. CT said, " I went to his article to add this information when i saw that someone had already added it once before." The IP said, " Yesterday I noticed how strange the Harvey Levin page looked. I posted a topic on the talk page, (which has been removed by Bbb23), and I found a neutral source and added some info. about Harvey Levin's military career that had been deleted."

The second thing is CT used User:68.3.59.73, which geolocates to Arizona. The current IP geolocates to New Jersey. The suspected IP used by Albert in August 2012, User:72.191.9.166, geolocates to Texas. In other words, all three are different locations.

That's all I'm going to dredge up for now (this takes a ton of time). If others knowledgeable about SPI feel I've made an error in the block, that's fine. Duck, of course, is a judgment call based on the evidence; it's not a conclusive determination. However, if others agree with my call, I'd like to know that, too, because the IP's block is going to expire in about 8 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP's block expired. His first edits were to the Levin article and its talk page (including this time removing the previous material himself, which has gotta make you wonder). He also came to my talk page. I told him I was going to revert his changes but that I wouldn't block him pending the outcome of this SPI as long as he stayed completely away from the Levin pages. I made it clear I would block him if he failed to heed my warning. He failed. I've now blocked him for a week. I'm going off-wiki now, so if there are issues overnight, I won't be around.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * IP reblocked by bbb23. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)