Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BeenieWeenie969/Archive

Report date January 19 2009, 21:51 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 

All of the users' only goal, it appears, is to cause disruption or attempt to make fun of me such as a child might. The user Stinky Cadaver started by nominating me for adminship, and I find this event to be extremely fishy, as not enough things line up right. For one, It had been a very long time since I was in any dispute(he references disputes by saying that I'm good at solving them), so unless this user has been an IP for awhile, and stalking my edits for at least a few months, I have no idea how he came to know of me.

The second and third users are a much closer case, the user BeenieWeenie969 starts by registering an account, and immediately nominates an article for deletion that I myself had nominated for deletion twice. Both times the article was barely kept, but that is beside the point. One thing, obviously, is that AfD is not something a brand-new user is able to find so quickly. Lastly, on his talk page, he makes a direct reference to me, in an insulting fashion. Please see this diff.

Finally, Gaydalus969 makes an account, he, along with Beenie, are obviously mimiking the 969 behind my own name, and, aside from that, this insulting username also is what Beenie referred to me as in the above diff. This user only has a single contribution as of writing this report, and this contribution is an insulting, and vandalous rant on my talk page, or whatever it could be percieved as.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

A checkuser is required as I obviously now have a stalker on wikipedia, and seeing as he has registered three, or two accounts to stalk me with, and one of them has already been blocked, it is apparent that blocking this account will not do any good, and he or she will just keep coming back for more. Secondly, I do believe that these are sockpuppets of someone that I have had run-in in the past, and per the above obvious stalking, I do believe we need to find out who this person is.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to leave this open for awhile in case any more show up?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, is Stinky Cadaver related to those two, or ...?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could, though it's probably easy enough to take care of things if they come back; as far as any relationship between the accounts, they geolocate somewhat similarly, but have no obvious technical connection at this time, behavioral indicators aside. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added another of my stalkers it seems, the user immediately found my page after registering an account, and his explanation of such doesn't add up.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in a good position to check this at the moment, but I suspect we may be seeing some proxy use, here. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a proxy block possible?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  09:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Ran some checkusers related to this; no remaining sleepers or master account are apparent. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Tiptoety talk 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 1 2009, 22:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 


 * This single edit is what I use for my evidence. I have a suspicion that the BeenieWeenie socks might not be the user Grawp, and could possibly be the same user I had run into, and possibly filed a past sock case for, in regards to the user who was stalking the admin Gwen Gale.  It might, or might not be the same guy, but as the users stalking me and Gwen have come back multiple times under different usernames, despite having account creation blocked, I believe it is worth it to check the user to try and narrow down the ranges being used to see if a range block is possible, or maybe even find some sleeper accounts.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The evidence above suggests why it is appropreiate. It will be used to zero-in on the IP range this editor is using to stalk us, so he or she can hopefully be blocked to prevent further disruption.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * @Deskana: I've listed the user this case is based off of under the suspected sockpuppets area. I honestly didn't know the sockmaster had to be listed.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It would be helpful if you'd provide some links to the user account in question. The case it titled "BeenieWeenie969" but the only user account listed is "Flying Cactus". Checkuser works by comparison to other users, so the account you want me to check against need to be listed. It's pretty unlikely I can confirm or deny anything without a baseline to compare to. --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

the master account, and previous socks are in the nasty collapse box. Mayalld (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed the box, disabled the prior request's rfcu tag, the lower case is what the bot will respond to now. Please close out as you would normally do. This confusion is because of a change in archiving format. ——  nix eagle email me 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

❌ --Deskana (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date March 21 2009, 21:49 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 

All of the suspected sock IPs started by only making contributions to Gwen's talk page, and mine. This particular sock farm has shown in the past to be obsessed with us.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Are these IPs unrelated?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

CU is required to make sure that this IP sock farm does indeed belong to our stalkers, and if such is the case, a rangeblock could hopefully be issued. Maybe they've run out of open proxies.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid reason, find the connection etc. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 03:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * No obvious sleepers. Rangeblock looks to be overkill. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 Syn  ergy 01:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date June 10 2009, 22:08 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

The user's first contribution shows that they know how to use wikilinks and reference tags, while their 15th contib shows them finding AFD, only to vote keep with the reason that I am racist. These are not actions of a new user.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Accuser is delusional and needs to undergo a psychiatric evaluation instead of submitting ridiculous checkuser requests. Favortie (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That comment is completely out of line. We do not condone personal attacks here and any further comments like that one will result in a block. Now, back to the case. Do you have any comments in regards to the CheckUser results below? Tiptoety  talk 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I am not User:BeenieWeenie969. User:Daedalus969 should quit harassing me and move on. Favortie (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is correct, you are not BeenieWeenie969 you are Facto. Would you mind explaining why you have chosen to change accounts? Tiptoety  talk 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * what ever, you never should have endorsed his request in the first place. I don't need anymore negative energy from you or him. Bye. Favortie (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

CU is required to see if this user, who comes out of nowhere to insult me on an AFD, is indeed one of my past stalkers. It could be that my past stalkers were using a proxy before.. and maybe this check won't find anything because of that, but I have previously asked the opinions of a CU, and they have agreed with me that this user smells like a sock. As I said earlier, this check is to see if they are related to my earlier stalkers, as their 15th contrib is not that of a normal user.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - Tiptoety  talk 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * This is confirmed as a sockpuppet of an established user without prior blocks: . It's not related to any banned user, however. I almost decided not to name it, but in a case where a new account's edits are so extreme as to be confused with a troll or stalker, I think the main account needs to be public so people can decide how to react. Dominic·t 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see this related AN/I thread. Tiptoety  talk 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Both accounts (Favortie and Facto) blocked indefinitely by admin Tanthalas39. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions