Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asgardian/Archive

Evidence submitted by Nightscream
Asgardian was banned for 1 year from Wikipedia in April 2010. Since then, he has been found to have been engaging in what administrator and checkuser Amalthea called "extensive ban evasion" with the sockpuppet "Spartancourage", which led to a reset of the 1 year ban in late July.

A few days ago, another editor left this message on my Talk Page, alerting me to IP accounts that he/she felt were being used by Asgardian on the God of War III article. In looking over that article's edit history, I noticed two IP accounts, 125.63.185.218 and 125.7.71.6, with the following traits:


 * The blanking of an entire section, with a euphemistically deceptive edit summary that claims that that section was not blanked or deleted, but "improved". This section blanking, and use of inaccurate edit summaries (ones which appear to be deliberate used in order to camouflage controversial edits from casual reviews of article edit histories) was a recurring tactic of Asgardian's, one which was extensively provided as evidence against him in the April ArbCom case, and whose confirmation by the arbiters was among the causes resulted in his ban.


 * The emphasis on "colloquial" language (See two diffs above) as justification for blanking an entire section, rather than rewriting it. Asgardian's past irritation with colloquial language is documented in my discussions with him, in which I was required to inform him that poor or sloppy writing on the part of other editors, while undesirable, does not constitute "vandalism", as he actually contended.


 * The blanking of entire talk pages, using the rationale that it's "not illegal" or "Wikipedia allows" it. While Wikipedia does allow this for registered users, I'm not certain that it is allowed for anonymous IP's since IP's can be used by more than one user, and thus, an IP talk page is not the sole domain of one user. Blanking talk pages in order to conceal past warning, blocks and other evidence of conflict with other editors or administrators attempting to address his policy violations was a regular habit of Asgardian, who would remove his TP contents because, according to him, they were "nothing of note" (even though blocks and block warnings are certainly "of note"), while leaving barnstars in place for beneficial editing on his part.


 * Both IP's are traced to Australia, where Asgardian resides, and one of them in particular is traced to Syndey in particular, which is where he is known to reside specifically. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * I realize that a checkuser cannot publicly comment on this matter. However, it would be nice if a CU could look this over and forward to arbcom-l if appropriate. NW ( Talk ) 04:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That we can do. I'm going to mark this as checked, although I'm actually starting now. This will be my last comment on this page. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to do here, then. T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by BOZ
Several IP addresses on Expedition to the Barrier Peaks appear to be using the same sort of wording in the edit summaries, the same sort of arguments on the talk page, and the same sort of tactics in reverting to the preferred version. BOZ (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
The first five of those IPs are indeed traced to Syndey, where Asgardian resides, but the sixth is traced to Germany. Nightscream (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Everything seems to have gone quiet. I'm going to mark this for close. TN X Man 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

07 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets






 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

User:Asgardian was banned from Wikipedia in April 2010, initially for one year. The ban was later extended in July 2010 following his attempts to evade the ban. Following a September 2010 sockpuppet investigation into two IP accounts that Asgardian was suspected to have been using for further ban evasions, his ban was made indefinite. Another sockpuppet investigation was held that November (last month) regarding six other accounts he was believed to have been using for ban evasion. One of the above three IP accounts, 122.248.156.9, is one of the IP's named in the November 2010 investigation.

Since his ban, Asgardian has focused on video game related articles, such as those related to God of War, which two of the three IPs have focused their edits.

Asgardian was banned for a number of violations, including WP:OWN and WP:CIV, as evidenced by edit summaries in which he summarily dismissed others' contributions on the basis of what he felt was poor "colloquial" writing, or "fannish" writing more fitting to "fan" sites. He would sometimes dogmatically refer to his favored versions of articles as the "WikiCorrect version". Reviewing the evidence presented during Asgardian's arbitration case will corroborate this. User:JDC808 has warned User:125.7.71.6 for the same type of behavior with the admonishment, "Some edits by you and another contributor (60.241.188.222) have been along the lines of "this is the way it should be". There are also several times that you claim "colloquial" or "poor grammar", and instead of fixing said claims, you completely remove all information. This is unconstructive and doesn't solve the issue."

Asgardian was also known for characterizing his own edits as slight "tweaks" or "tidying up", even when they were edits of a far more substantial nature. User:60.241.188.222's contributions show a number of edits with summaries that employ these specific turns of phrase:
 * "colloquial tidbits"
 * "Nope - no blind reverts. Not a fan site."
 * "poor English/grammar and unnecessary unimportant details for overview. Not a fan page"
 * "Please, not a fan page."
 * "Some tweaks. Rest fine. If it ain't broke - don't fix it."

User:122.248.156.9 attacked Off2riorob with this unambiguously inflammatory talk page message. Looking through Off2riorob's user contributions shows no interactions with User:122.248.156.9, or edits to any articles that User:122.248.156.9 has also edited that I could see, so the apparently unprovoked nature of this message is rather remarkable. However, it is not so inexplicable when one considers that Asgardian edit warred with Off2riorob on the Beyonce Knowles article in February 2010, shortly before the arbitration case that led to his ban, and that this edit war was introduced as evidence in that arbitration in response to Asgardian's claim that he had not edit warred recently.

As for User 125.7.71.6, we see the same aforementioned edit summaries:
 * "Slight tweak"
 * "Retained version by Rjanag as no discussion and additions all colloquila fragments and poor grammar."
 * "You just inserted a spelling error, and assumption (no "binding") and colloquial fragments. Discuss!)"
 * "Take it the Talk Page and bring manners."
 * "Grammar, spelling and no colloquial tidbits."
 * "Actually that was all colloquial and only weakened the article"
 * "Tweaked"
 * "One good addition. Tweaked another. Other mentions unnecessary.)"
 * "Heh. Yes - first is colloquial and trite patter and unnecessary. Second - tidy of my own words as the GD doesn't look at the 3rd grave)"
 * "Tweaked"
 * "One more tweak, but very solid."
 * "Tweaks"
 * "Good pick up on Helios: tweaked."
 * "Slight tweak"
 * "English/grammar and fannish detail"

It should also be noted that two of the IPs, 60.241.188.222 and 125.7.71.6, are traced to New South Wales Sydney, Australia, where Asgardian is known to reside. The third, 122.248.156.9, is traced to Dortmund, Germany, and is one of the IPs named in the November sock investigation. Asgardian could be editing from that IP through the use of certain types of proxies. Nightscream (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: The same editor also edits from 59.101.43.138, which is also traced to New South Wales, as indicated by this talk page message, in which he attempts to justify some of his behavior. Nightscream (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2010 (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

 * Two of those IPs haven't edited in 8+ days, so I left them alone. I blocked the other two for evasion, though. It doesn't seem like page protection here would help, but if it would, let us know. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What does not having edited in 8+ days have to do with this? My initial report above was made eleven days ago, on December 7. Both of those IPs, 122.248.156.9 and 59.101.43.138, edited most recently on December 7 and December 8, respectively. You're saying if an IP editor lays low during the sock investigation, then it's not a sock? How does this make sense? By blocking two of them, all you're doing is ensuring that he'll use those other two.

Also, you blocked 125.7.71.6 for only two weeks. Why is this? Asgardian was banned indefinitely for his repeated block evasions. What will a two week block do? Nightscream (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to indef block an IP. And it may be that the editor isn't laying low, but that they're not using those IPs anymore. The other two IPs are far more active, so they may just be using those two now. If this were AIV or somewhere else, the report would be considered stale. Having said that, if either of those IPs became active again, then definitely relist them or let me know or something. As to it being a just a two week block, well, that's really just a starting point. If they come back after the block expires then we can consider another block. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your statements are irrational, misinformed, and lacking any logical merit. It took three years for the community to finally impose a one-year block for this serial policy violator, after which he sought to evade the ban using multiple socks, including IPs, which resulted in his ban being made indefinite. Indef blocks of IPs are perfectly acceptable, for which I believe there is precedent, and by refusing to do so, you are only contributing to the problem. This is not a starting point. The earliest of the 12 unreversed blocks that Asgardian had imposed upon him from October 2006 to April 2010 was the "starting point". The first of his two ArbComs may have been a "starting point". Since his ban, he has already "come back" (I don't know why you refer to him as "they"), so to argue a two-week block now is a starting point, using the rationale that he didn't edit from two of the IPs during the ten days of the sock investigation, reveals you to be as much of a ineffectual turnkey as those who enabled Asgardian by refusing to take any decisive action during the three years in which he routinely violated policy from his username account. Nightscream (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Nightscream, HelloAnnyong knows what he is talking about. Blocking an IP address (which always could be shared) indefinetly could be saying NO indefinitely to some users or require them to go through the painful process of getting an IPBE from a CU or an unblock. It is just too unwelcoming. Now I do get that we have a sock here, and that's why some of the blocks have been issued, but blocks are supposed to be preventative, not a punishment. If the block on an IP is no longer going to work, then they should be unblocked. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  21:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And how is a two-week block preventative, when the user in question is a serial policy violator who has made it clear that he has no regard for the site's rules, or the community's decisions, including the one that indefinitely banned him? How does a temporary block keep him from returning?

The last sentence in your message is particularly impenetrable. An IP should be unblocked if the block doesn't work? What does this mean? The fact that you insist on a mere two-week period for it, which will accomplish nothing but delay the inevitable, is precisely why it will not work. Nightscream (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's what DQ and I are talking about. This person is clearly jumping between different IPs, so a long-term block on any one IP isn't going to be effective. For example, I just found 61.68.62.216, a new IP that I've blocked per WP:DUCK. Totally different IP, but same person. So what good would a really long-term block do on an IP that's not being used anymore? As a side note, I've also gone ahead and protected half a dozen articles that that editor edits in as a further deterrent. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If Asgardian is using a relatively small number of IPs---say, for example, limited by the available terminals at a New South Wales library that he might be using---then why not try to block them. There are only five IPs listed on that page. Why not at least try blocking them?


 * And you still haven't answered my question (big shocker): What good is a temporary block? What do you think will happen when those two weeks are up, or for that matter, when those article protections cease? Nightscream (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * When the blocks are up, we'll see. If the editor comes back and continues their behavior, then we'll block them again. But if they give up (which I admit is unlikely) then they gave up. DQ was entirely right when he said that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that blocks are preventative rather than punitive (a point I mentioned when I assembled my evidence against Asgardian during the Arb case that led to his initial ban--see the bold text here), and nothing in my posts here argues or implies otherwise.

Question: Since he has already been found guilty of "repeated ban evasion", then doesn't that mean that he has already "come back"? If I may ask, how many times do you want to keep the "Let's wait and see" goal posts in a state of flux, before you're willing to set them down and say, "We've now seen."? Nightscream (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not being able to respond earlier, the problem with blocking an IP idefinitely is that if (s)he moves away or does stop using the library, were now telling the library that all legit editors can't edit neither. That's the only problem I see in indef blocking. I know it seems stupid, but it's better to see the abuse of an IP like a library before blocking it. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  00:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That would seem to be a problem on the part of that library, who should be notified that someone's been using their services in such a manner. But can't other users log in for an account? IPs can be blocked without that prevention setting, can't they? Nightscream (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The library can be notified about it via letting the ISP know, and that's what WP:ABUSE is for (which I am part of), but I doubt a CU (yet) will release an IP to contact, and letting a sock have the ability to create accounts is asking for trouble, and yes, other users can login, but not new ones if the account creation flag is set, and some may not have home computers. Also Useragents are a lot harder to tell at libraries becuase of public terminal use. My two cents there. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  03:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DQ and HelloAnnyong are correct. IPs are almost never blocked indefinitely. Furthermore, just like at AIV, IPs will not be blocked if they have not edited recently. We have no way of knowing if the same person is still behind the IP. If there is further activity, repost, and we can deal with it then. TN X Man 16:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DQ, you said on your talk page that "the user can change/not use IPs anymore". Where was this indicated? Nightscream (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

06 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User has contributed to articles such as (among others):
 * Cthulhu
 * Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture
 * King Ghidorah ‎
 * Kraken in popular culture ‎
 * Kraken (Comic Books)
 * Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) ‎
 * God of War (series) ‎
 * Kratos (God of War) ‎

was blocked on December 7, 2011. On December 12, just a week after PurpleHeartEditor's block, user appeared and started editing articles right away, and was already familiar with wikipedia jargon such as "reliable source" in his/her very first edit. And looking at his/her contributions, we can see that SoundofRain focused on articles that match exactly those in which PurpleHeartEditor was involved: ‎ Not only that, but he also made the same edit that PurpleHeartEditor did on Kraken (Comic Books): PurpleHeartEditor's edit on 3 October 2011 and SoundofRain's edit on 15 December 2011‎.
 * Kraken (Comic Books)
 * Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) ‎
 * Kraken in popular culture
 * Kratos (mythology)
 * ‎God of War II ‎
 * Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture
 * King Ghidorah ‎

Thus, I ask for a checkuser on SoundofRain because of his tendency to edit the very same articles as PurpleHeartEditor, and to make the very same edits, which all seem highly suspicious, particularly when we see that PurpleHeartEditor was originally banned for sockpuppetry and block evasion. And I ask a permanent block on SoundofRain, first for block evasion, and then for having claimed this particular edit had "consensus", while the only other editor agreeing with him was none other than PurpleHeartEditor (thus using sockpuppetry to manipulate consensus). Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 6 January 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

 * - PurpleHeartEditor is currently blocked as a confirmed sock of . (How that was ascertained is unclear to me, but whatever.) Since this user has requested an unblock, I'm endorsing to see if they did actually evade their block. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some diffs for CUs, plus the list above:
 * Exact same removal of content PurpleHeartEditor SoundofRain SoundofRain PurpleHeartEditor
 * Mass removal of text (mostly sections): SoundofRain PurpleHeartEditor PurpleHeartEditor PurpleHeartEditor PurpleHeartEditor SoundofRain SoundofRain PurpleHeartEditor SoundofRain with similiar category removal as some diffs
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

✅ that are the same. Amalthea 21:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Case merged; socks blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

04 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:PurpleHeartEditor and User:SoundofRain are currently blocked as sockpuppets of User:Asgardian. Before they were blocked, this user was already familiar with basic Wikipedia Jargon such as a "reliable source" edit, and appears to use the same model as User:Asgardian - i.e. (blanking out and disagreement with the edits of others.) Thus, I ask for a checkuser on this editor because of his tendency to make the very same edits how Asgardian and his other sockpuppets made, which all seem highly suspicious. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 10:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Abhijay (<b style="color:#000">☎ Talk</b>) (<b style="color:#000">✐ Deeds</b>) 10:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aston Villa F.C.
 * Shay Given
 * Jerzy Dudek

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

 * Sorry, you're going to have to do better on the evidence. Mistersaxon has no articles in common with Asgardian or any of their recent accounts. The focus isn't right: Asgardian was more comic book focused, wheras this new account is more about football. Can you add to the evidence at all? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand that the account is completely based off Asgardian (Asgardian did more comic book based articles, where in this case this suspected account edits more for football). One strikingly similar edit summary (rv) - a tag used for most of his edit summaries. Seeing from his edit summaries (don't mean to an edit stalker), it seems that this user gives warnings to other vandals in the similar way PurpleHeartEditor did such as this and . Another thing of Asgardian and his socks was the courtesy to blank talk pages as this user did at . While Asgardian had special emphasis on colloquial language and tweaks, etc, Mistersaxon4 appears to be placing a much more special emphasis on grammar and references, with the possible likelyhood that Asgardian is trying to evade ban by trying to make his suspected sock as discrete as possible, but I cannot know this. So I would like to request checkuser, because I am suspicious that the account has been used by Asgardian.   <b style="color:#060">Abhijay</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎ Talk</b>) (<b style="color:#000">✐ Deeds</b>) 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Abhijay, you've brought this editor up on my talk page ten days ago. Like I have told you there, the "one strikingly similar edit summary" has in fact been used only once by Mistersaxon4, never by PurpleHeartEditor, and never by Asgardian in his last 5000 edits. I'm not sure where you get "used for most of his edit summaries" from. I have more in common with Mistersaxon4 than Asgardian does: I have warned many editors, I have used "rv" many times, and I . As I see it, there is no indication that Mistersaxon4 and Asgardian are related; using the CheckUser tool would be a violation of the privacy policy in this case. Amalthea  21:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

24 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please check Special:Contributions/27.99.96.121 and Special:Contributions/60.241.188.222. -- HOUNDER4  (TALK)  (CHANGES) 13:48, 24 February 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

 * Wow, this case could have used some actual evidence rather than just two obvious links. Anyway, I've blocked both IPs for a month each. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

27 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same behaviour to previous sock accounts and IPs used by Asgardian. I noticed that the edit summary written as "No source for claim" from the IP he currently uses in God of War: Betrayal is similar to the one from IP 60.241.188.222 in The Citadel of Chaos, which also said "No source for claim". -- HOUNDER4  (TALK)  (CHANGES) 18:35, 27 February 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

 * IP blocked 2 weeks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

13 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I don't know why Asgardian continuing contributing here with his obvious editing habits. As User:Oakendoor (created on 28 February 2012), he added "My page" in both the user page and the talk page, the same thing he did previously as User:SoundofRain; and the edits for this account is similar: King Ghidorah, Kraken, God of War series template. His edit summaries with reverting edits that is considered as an "opinion" (as IP 113.21.40.134 and Oakendoor). As 27.99.102.17, when reverting Abhijay's edit, he hide his own identity and assuming new ones by refering his sock account and IPs as "us". -- HOUNDER4  (TALK)  (CHANGES) 17:32, 13 March 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
is a match to. No comment on any IPs. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The named account has already been blocked; I have blocked 27.99.102.17 for 1 week based on behavioral evidence. Tiptoety  talk 06:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)