Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Axmann8/Archive

Report date March 28 2009, 19:35 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by — Ched ~ (yes?)/©


 * First edit to User talk:Baseball Bugs. — Ched ~  (yes?)/© 19:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * user has been blocked as a sock of User:Axmann8
 * unblock requests have been denied — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC) (I don't knnow if something else like closing needs to be done here or not)


 * All of these are synonyms of the indef-blocked . I am certain the three are the same guy. I'm not totally certain they're actually Axmann8. They could be a troll who's trying to further tighten the noose on Axmann8. However, the puppeteer is familiar with the involved users, such as me and CENSEI, so at the very least he comes into this knowing all about the Axmann8 case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?

carrots 23:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually the accounts 2 and 3 have unrelated names.  Math Cool  10  Sign here! 05:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Account 2 is, roughly, "Man 8 of the ax" in Spanish. Account 3 works out to ax+(male person)+ate. PhGustaf (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * added (another anagram of "Axmanneight") who appears per this edit to be claiming that "the others" (and presumably therefore Naxenamight itself) are socks of someone else. Tonywalton Talk 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * added (another anagram of "Axmanneight") 20:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Note: Nexanamight added themselves here. Tonywalton Talk


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Axmann8 has sent me this following email:


 * Subject: I'm not using sockpuppets.‏


 * If you're familiar with my edits, you would know that using sockpuppets is not my style. First of all, they are idiotic, and second, it's impossible to do such a thing, as I have a static IP address (I use Firefox) and I only have one computer. It would also be idiotic because if I used a sockpuppet account on this computer, it would be detected immediately and then I would NEVER have a chance at un-blocking. I don't contest these kinds of things by being a nuisance. I use logic. Furthmore, if I WERE to use a sockpuppet (I have sent an affidavit to ArbCom affirming, under penalty of perjury, that I have not been using them), I certainly would be as idiotic as to use a name that resembled "Axmann8". And also, (this is the stinger), why would I use a mexican username? I'm a skinhead. I wouldn't care use a trash language (not like saying that will win me any friends, but I think it's pretty damning evidence against whoever is trying [and IMO, failing miserably] to pin sockpuppetry on me). Anyway, I would appreciate it if you relayed this EXACT message (maybe copy and paste) it to that "sockpuppet" discussion.


 * I'm not sure about his statements, but they do have a point.  -  down  load  |   sign!  03:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the reason I want it checked. It's a little too obvious. If it's Axman, then he's already banned anyway. And if it's not, somebody's in a heap o' trouble - and the ban might need to be reconsidered. We'll see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I received the same email from AxMann8, it should be noted. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 08:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If they turn out NOT to be related ot Axman, is it possible to find out who the actual creator of those socks is? Because if it's a regular user, some kind of sanction would seem to be in order. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested by MuZemike 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Can we please have a clerk move this to the suspected master which seems to be Axmann8, it would help in using a few automated tools. Thanks ——  nix eagle email me 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 03:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To MuZemike, you have requested a checkuser, please provide some examples of what specific behaviors suggest a relationship; could behavioral evidence alone not meet the duck clause? Anything other reasons that this situation would warrant a checkuser? Before we can approve a checkuser, a valid reason is most likely required. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I raised the checkuser question, and it's to confirm that this really is Axmann8, and not someone pretending to be Axmann8 in order to destroy any chance Axmann8 might have for eventual reinstatement. The reason I'm not fully convinced it's actually Axmann8 is because the verbiage does not seem to fit his style of editing. There's no question in my mind that these are socks of each other, but they might be an impersonator. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid reason. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also if this is socking from a single IP or a small range, could an IP block or range block be applied to reduce or (hopefully) stop the disruption? Certainly this is a sock-wearing duck (witness "the", or at least "a" puppeteer actually "helpfully' adding themselves above). There is an arguable case for Axmann8 to be unblocked; the socking is merely clouding the issue. Stopping it by blocking an IP or range would help. Tonywalton Talk 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a cursory look at this yesterday as part of an ArbCom investigation. I found no obvious technical evidence to link Axmann8 with the socking. Axmann8's edits are almost entirely from a single fixed IP address, whereas the socks come from dial up accounts. The possibility that the socking is the work of an unrelated opportunist troll with a grudge cannot therefore be discounted. Axmann8 incidentally was not blocked for socking but for disruption.  Roger Davies  talk 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

= . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Agree with Roger, looks ❌. However, the suspected socks appear to be highly  related to one another:


 * Moved the unrelated to a new case, closing out both of these.  Syn  ergy 13:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by HalfShadow
'Anne' comes right out of the gate knowing how our system works; granted that's not considered 'hard evidence', but is generally unusual. Axmann also has a habit of creating 'hiding in plain sight' accounts which are generally variations or plays on his original account name. 'Anne Maxight' is an anagram of 'Axmann Eight'. That's a little too perfect to be coincidence. Half Shadow  03:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Half  Shadow  03:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

to check for sleepers. –MuZemike 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anne Maxight blocked indefinitely NW ( Talk ) 03:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ but part of a different sock farm. Could a clerk open a case under, please? Brandon (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done at Sockpuppet investigations/A Glass Bubble. Closing this case, then. Tim Song (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. Didn't really expect that. Archiving the case. NW ( Talk ) 15:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)