Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA/Archive

26 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

We have CookBookCharlie's Very First WP edit and  new user appears to be way too familiar with WP policy and AfD page to be a new user. Showed up after the refutations of BigzMMA's points started rolling in. BigzMMA then jumps to their defense when I apply the SPA template to signify that they user hasn't made any edits other than this page. Both accounts have the same acusatorial/combattive writing style and therefore it seems logical that either it is the same person behind the keyboard or someone recruited to present evidence. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 26 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
Both accounts are ❌. As I said on my talk page here, I suspect off-wiki activity going on with regards to these articles. --MuZemike 23:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

04 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

MMADon101 is a new account, created recently after the indef block of BigzMMA. MMADon101 edits the same set of articles as BigzMMA (BAMMA and 2012 in Super Fight League), made a keep !vote in an AfD similar to BigzMMA, and most duck-ish of all, MMADon101's user page and User:MMADon101/sandbox are practically identical to BigzMMA's user page and User:BigzMMA/sandbox. TreyGeek (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't paying close attention. The account was created near the start of the year, prior to BigzMMA's indef block.  It made a single edit to an AfD back in January (attempted vote stacking while socking?).  All other edits came a day after BigzMMA's indef block, and all other info I included above stays the same.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Addendum The account is not new, it was registered back in January, voted on one AfD (in the same method that BigzMMA) did. I only discovered the account when it edited the 2012 ins SFL article with much the same style as BigzMMA. As I mentioned to TreyGeek and Mtking (2 editors who are also familiar with Bigz's style) that I found this odd and wanted to get a second opinion on what I felt was some sort of puppetry action.  Hasteur (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Second Addendum: Based on the spectacular parting shot BigzMMA made and the fact that this sleeper became active the very next day, is it reasonable to do a sleeper check for other sleepers tied to BigzMMA? Hasteur (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
MMADon101 is a ✅ match to BigzMMA. TN X Man 15:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

10 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

In a recent edit to my talk page, besides continuing to be uncivil, the IP admits to being this indef blocked user. -- TreyGeek (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that CU clerks cannot link an IP address to a user's account and I'm not necessarily asking for that to happen. This, to me, seems to be an obvious situation of an editor circumventing an indef block by editing while not logged in.  I was unsure of any other avenue for blocking the IP (individually or as a range) for this situation other than coming to this pre-existing SPI.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that CU/SPI doesn't officially link Users to IP addresses. As such I tagged the IP address as a Suspected Sockpuppet of BigzMMA based on the diff presented above as a best case we could get out of this process. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the view that CU/SPI doesn't officially link Users to IP addresses, however given the nature of the comment left, I think it would be appropriate that a rangeblock be considered, I will let MuZemike know of this. Mt  king  (edits)  23:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * IP address has added to 2012 in Super Fight League with the slipshod behavior that is typical of BigzMMA . I do admit to not using the right rationale first (and as such I corrected it with the right rationalle for reverting the inclusion) and the IP address restored the removed content. Hasteur (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * New posting on my talk page from IP  This definiteley is BigzMMA. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked for 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

18 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP address snidely admits to being BigzMMA based on previous interactions that they had with TreyGeek and myself. Editing same topic space (marginally notable BAMMA and Super Fight League) and using the same marginal site Sherdog to reinforce their viewpoint. The door keeps getting slammed in their face yet the message doesn't stick to this editor who believes they have the right on their side. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 18 April 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
Blocked the IP. TN X Man 13:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

01 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Agent00f is primarily an SPA that became interested in MMA discussions after BigzMMA was blocked with other socks. Strong similarity in paragraph style, multiple edits/corrections per post, content and tone, as well as picking up where BigzMMA left off at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Enough rope and good faith has been given that I feel a match is likely. Less disruptive with each sock, showing they are learning better techniques. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  14:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

As one whos worked with Bigz before this has the general "Down with all policies" feeling, but this doesn't really feel like a duck slam dunk. Hasteur (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) I think it is doubtful that Agent00F and BigzMMA are the same person, though I suppose the Checkuser will verify that. The times of day that the two edit are not the same (Agent's editing times appears to be western hemisphere and Bigz is eastern hemisphere).  The writing styles of the two are very different to me.  Bigz was not great at wiki-markup stuff (including how to indent his comments) and Agent seems to have a much firmer grasp of the English language, "big words" and grammar as compared to Bigz.  Agent has limited their edits mostly to WT:MMANOT and not any of the pet articles of Bigz.  And perhaps the biggest thing to me, is that Agent created their account in 2009, though it was mostly idle.  Bigz created his account in 2011.  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been hesitant to come here, as the case wasn't obvious but there are certain technical similarities that I found troubling. I don't think it is a slam dunk either, but the dates of accounts isn't why.  As I've said before, I'm no expert at SPI, which is why I rely on others who are to guide me, but the style differences are changing as he goes along and as his stress level goes up.  That change is what was the trigger for me. Assuming one is a sock and trying to mask it, you can only speak "differently" for so long and stress tends to bring out the true, inner you.   I tend to notice these things as well as technical editing styles (how many times a person reedits a post, etc.)  There is a "socky" feeling about this situation, be it BigsMMA or otherwise, because of the style of the discussion.  It is difficult to quantify, and I'm sorry that I lack the words to properly express it.  I felt that coming here was the least offensive way to get a 3rd opinion, as raising the issue with him wasn't going to be productive regardless of whether or not it was accurate. I'm not convinced he isn't and remain open minded, although your points are all valid.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  15:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to defer to the judgement of TreyGeek and Hasteur. If they feel it should be withdrawn, then I would not argue against it.  I didn't want to make a fuss or public declaration, and felt this would be the best neutral place to express my concern, and it has been answered.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Looking through this, it's really hard for me to find a connection, but at the same time I have to agree with Dennis Brown's comments. It's the gut feeling that this guy who takes 2 edits in 2010 (using complicated syntax) and then comes back 2 years later to edit the project space in the same area...it definitely smells like someone has something that hasn't been washed. But I can't connect the white sock and the grey sock in this case. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see clear evidence in behaviour that these accounts may have the same operator. AGK  [•] 21:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

❌: Although these editors are on different continents, we may well have here a case of off-wiki collusion. AGK [•] 22:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point i'm going to mark for close. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

07 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP here is similar to what was used by BigzMMA (an indef blocked user) in the past (1 and 2); it geolocates to the correct part of the world and IPs match the same ISP in the previous reports. The IP edits the same sets of pages, with similar editing style as BigzMMA. I know a CU can't officially link an IP to a registered user, but is WP:DUCK of a sock, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) TreyGeek (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I suggested to the IP address that their behavior was suspicious and that if they were editing while a named account was blocked that they should not edit for any reason. Doesn't feel like a slam dunk so I'm hesitant on the duck test. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, I didn't respond immediately to wait and see what a clerk would do, but there's a bit of a backlog here at SPI. Not sure if they are just behind or are waiting to see if there is more evidence/discussion before proceeding.   was blocked for two weeks following an SPI opened on April 10; that IPs edits were to MMA articles, specifically those in the area of UK MMA fighters and Indian based Super Fight League (SFL).   was blocked for 31 hours following an SPI opened on April 18; the IPs edits were again to SFL and BAMMA (a UK MMA organzation) and was blocked quickly following self-outing.
 * As I said in my opening, I know a clerk and/or CU cannot definitively link an IP to a registered account. However, other than not self-outing themselves as done with the two other IPs, there are a number of similarities.  All three IPs belong to the same UK-based ISP.  All three IPs edit the same set of articles UK and Indian based MMA organizations and fighters (which is also the same set of articles edited by the registered user this SPI is filed under).  Considering the other two IPs were blocked for block evasion this, to me at least, seems to be a self-evident WP:DUCK.  If the circumstances result in nothing being done without overt vandalism, I can understand that.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This particular IP seems to have stopped editing. Please re-report if more activity occurs. TN X Man 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

10 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

P4P is editing the same segment of MMA articles as Bigz did before his infinite block. The times of day the two edit are almost the same. The selection of articles and contents of articles suggest a non-NPOV towards MMA fighters and promotions from the UK and a minor focus from India (specifically the SFL). The edit that raised the red flag for me was this edit to the MMA WikiProject notability essay where UK and the Indian MMA promotions were bumped up to the next level tier without discussion. (This was a big issue for Bigz in the time he was editing, getting BAMMA listed a top tier and UCMMA as second tier.) I'm not arguing the good/bad of the edits themselves. However, I feel this is Bigz at it again and if Bigz wants to return to editing Wikipedia he should go through the proper procedure as has been explained on his talk page. TreyGeek (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Pound4pound certainly exhibits some of the same tendencies as BigzMMA did--the same views on British MMA organizations and fighters and a belief that his view is better than consensus. However, so far at least, I haven't seen the personal attacks from P4P that Bigz frequently used (although not against me personally).  That may mean it's a different person or that the same person has gotten smarter in his editing.  I really don't know if having the same attitude and viewpoints is enough to show he's a sockpuppet. Jakejr (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * 36 common articles, which is a remarkable amount, even for someone staying within a given field of editng. Timing of Bigz block and this account creation is also suspicious. I want to look at contrib styles a little closer, but on the surface, this is quacking pretty loudly.  Unfortunately, the Master is old enough that a CU can't be done, although behavioral evidence alone already indicates they both edit from the same island.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Too many coincidences, including http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Iain_Martell (admin only) that make it clear that this is BigzMMA. Indef blocked as a sock. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on a review by User:Steven Zhang, I will reverse the block and will monitor. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

23 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I am re-opening this as I feel that both Pound4Pound (P4P) and BigzMMA are one in the same, I am not going to cover old ground as detailed in the archive by TreyGeek and Jakejr and the high number (52) of articles they co-edit (see here).

There is also the indication that P4P did not open his account as a novice editor as evidenced by his 13th edit.

They both focus on UK and Indian MMA events. Take for example Super Fight League Pound4Pound and BigzMMA account for 79 edits (or 56% of them) the next two editors have 7 edits, one of which is an IP which is from a geolocation close to where BigzMMA has edited from.

you could also look at the 23 articles created by BigzMMA 14 (or 60%) have been subsequently edited by P4P, the Jake Bostwick article is an interesting one, it looks like the only edits of any substance are by either BigzMMA or Pound4Pound (I am assuming that as Toolserver listed this page as have been created by BigzMMA he is the creator).

In defence of P4P he has not displayed the personal attacks element that BigzMMA was blocked for, but if this is an attempt at a clean start account as the old one is blocked it is not permitted. Mt king (edits) 08:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Not the same person, commenting I see very little new evidence between the last SPI, which I was unfortunate to be part of due to lack of informing me, but the fact is that this is a coincidence that we edited on the same pages and the same sort of pages. It wasn't until after the last SPI that I even heard of this BigzMMA, so when I got around to checking the page histories of a lot of the pages I have edited on I was very shocked to see that s/he had either created the page or edited on it before me. The fact is we are too very different people, and even though we have edited on similar pages, our editing styles are much too different to consider us the same.

From the time he started on Wikipedia to the date he was blocked completely (as well as a sockpuppet that was proven to be his) BigzMMA had always used a very aggressive typing style, mostly attacking other editors who completely disagreed with him to the point in which his final words (as BigzMMA, not the actual sockpuppet) were 'So long, gayboys!' to the other editors on that blocking debate. My style has always been a fair one, I have always tried to avoid massive confrontations on here and just kept myself to myself. I have tried to be polite when it came to talking to other users, though I must confess that I could of done a better job at times. Generally I feel that the way I have edited on here when it comes to talking to other users has been much more friendlier than what BigzMMA could of ever been

An example of how different we are can be seen through our separate relationships with User:Papaursa. Since BigzMMA first encountered this user, all he has did was blame him for deleting articles and posting personal attacks to him to the point in which Papaursa was someone that BigzMMA picked to throw his frustrations at. Telling by the way he got on with Papaursa, if (and I do mean if) we are the same person and that I was just using another account, then I would of naturally shown resentment to him from the time I have started editing on here as Pound4Pound. But the thing is, this is hardly been the case, in fact it been the opposite of it, as me and Papaursa have not only helped with contributing to Wikipedia (we both helped set up the Women's Organisations/Fighters notability criteria, determining what makes women fighters notable and categorising which promotions should be classed as top tier and second tier), we have shown each other the sort of respect that simply would not of existed if I am the same person behind BigzMMA.

Another thing worth stating, based on the last SPI, is that one user said that we operated around the same time as each other, but on different IP addresses (as Mtking has pointed out, they are similar, not the same). Repeating my response to this the last time, if we are the same person, then by operating at similar times as him but on what clearly is two different areas within the same region must mean on thing, that I must be in a different location to where BigzMMA was operating. Now if this is the case, this must mean that if I am also BigzMMA then most likely I have either moved where I live or that I must be on a computer in work, a friends house etc. If the time I edit is the same as BigzMMA and, if like me, its pretty much all the time when I'm free, then this could not be the case, as I don't know about anyone else on Wikipedia but if I was using my works computer all the time to go on and edit on Wikipedia, I would definitely get the sack for it, and there would be no way that I would ever go to any of my mates houses just to edit on Wikipedia like this. So if anything, the fact that we edited around the same time of day is actually a reason why we aren't the same person, because there would be no way that I can use a works computer, friend's computer, family's computer all the time in this manner if we are the same person.

When I was originally blocked for this, I turned to Dennis Brown for help, in which he consulted with an experienced user called Steven Zhang, after discussing the issue with each other, they felt that there simply wasn't enough strong evidence to say that we were the same person, in which Dennis Brown wrote this once he unblocked me (which can still be seen my my talk page) -

''User:Steven Zhang has reviewed the block and has enough reasonable doubt that I have unblocked your account. He will add a rationale on my talk page later, I just wanted to get you unblocked now. Hopefully his assessment is correct and I will gladly defer to his decision in this matter. There were a few strong coincidences, including 36 common articles, common view on deletions, and some deleted material you had in common, which set off red flags for me, but he is comfortable that the style of you and BigzMMA is different enough to call this one giant coincidence and I will take his word for it. Sorry for the inconvenience. As you can imagine, sockpuppeting is a common problem from previously blocked editors, and the natural instinct is to block when we see this many coincidences. I'm not one to require all the bureaucracy when it comes to review, which is why I expedited this and just handled it myself by selecting someone I knew would do a fair job and not simply rubber stamp my previous actions, and didn't want to force you to go through the long winded formal process either. Hopefully, there are no hard feelings and while it was in error, I hope you understand how the error occurred. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I will be happy to explain. Glad to have you here, sorry about the bumpy road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)'' ''I've also restored your sandbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)''

Now the reason I brought this up, in addition to show why I was unblocked after the last time, is also point out an issue with this SPI right now. What Mtking said was his new evidence, is basically the same thing/s that everyone that took part the last time should of seen in the first place, and exactly what Dennis Brown and Steven Zhang saw as well prior to making their decision. These edits Mtking questions were made around the time of the last SPI on me, so hence this would of been shown before. This is not 'new evidence' as some editors have referred to it as, but just something new to Mtking, but everyone who would of put in their view last time would of seen this as well as the admin and the user I have spoken of not too long ago.

In my opinion, the only questionable action was the message I got from Mtking before this SPI case was opened, as it comes off as, in the most polite way to say it, very strong. Below is the message I received from Mtking on the 18th Decmember, which can still be viewed on my talk page -

''Is it still your contention that you are not BigzMMA as I find your editing patten striking similar. If you are then I wish to to give you one more chance to come clean and throw yourself at the mercy of the admins. If not it is my intention to re-open the SPI. Mtking (edits) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)''

I intend to report this message, but first things first is to ensure that when I do it will be taken seriously, which will only happen once this case is closed saying that either it is proven that BigzMMA and I are not the same user or, at worst, there isn't enough evidence to prove that we are the same so that I can also dedicate all my time to it. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to know a lot about BigzMMA. There is nothing questionable about the comment on your talk page; it is fully above board. If you think you can bring that to ANI or elsewhere you are mistaken. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to the nature of the last SPI (I was never informed about the case even happening by the time I was blocked), I had to read into the situation at the time, so that meant I had to see what BigzMMA was like IRWolfie-, and after the very strong approached message I got from Mtking less than a week ago, all I have been doing for the last few days was just reading all the messages he wrote, all the pages he was involved in, the opinions and the cases against him made by other users, so if it sounds like I know a lot about him, it is basically because I have no choice but to know everything about him if it means I can show why we are not the same user. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your style of writing appears to be the same as his. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your going to have to define what you mean by that, many people have similar writing style, some by nationalities (I use UK English because I'm British so that means I will spell how you spell color as 'colour' for example), some by the way they are educated, and remember with so many people in the world you are bound to find people to write in a similar manner. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment I was asked to take a look at this SPI and comment based on my previous experience with BigzMMA. The strong intrest in the Indian based Super Fight League coupled with the very loud protestations that they are not a puppet of BigzMMA, and the singular focus on MMA based topics (including updating MMA fighter records) suggests that there may be a case for a WP:DUCK call on this SPI. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should point out that there are, as you would agree, many users on here that would edit purely for mixed martial arts for as we know it is a very popular topic so to find an editor who would dedicate his/her time on Wikipedia to that single topic is not a rare occurrence. I think that saying that saying that my strongest interests are in Indian and British MMA is a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion simply because I have worked on more than that. I have worked on the sub-topic of Women's MMA (beefing up the Invicta Fighting Championships page and creating the Invicta FC events page, as well as helping set up the criteria for Women's MMA on WP:MMANOT is just a fraction of how I have contributed to it), other Asian promotions (most notably ONE Fighting Championship and DREAM) and to the point about updating MMA record, you will again find more than just me who will also update records from time to time. I would like to think that my methods for contributions have been more about simply updating things as I first hear about them, for example when I was updating the Super Fight League pages, I was doing so as it was happening and was being announced, so from around late September/early October till the 14th December I was adding in each fight card as it was happening each week, so if it seemed like I was only editing SFL, it was because the SFL was being week-by-week. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I started the previous SPI about the connection between these accounts, it should be obvious where I stand on this matter. If the evidence thus far isn't DUCK-ish enough, I have additional evidence I can provide to an admin only via private communications (as it would be a Wikipedia violation to do it openly).  If an admin wishes to receive this evidence let me know.  As for BigzMMA, I would still encourage them to follow through with WP:FRESHSTART if they wish to maintain an account and be an active editor.  IMO, if someone is going to start doing something right, do it all the way right.  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this evidence as well if that is okay with you TreyGeek, I don't think that it is particularly fair if you show an admin something that could be explainable, for then the admin to decide based on what you shown him/her to have me blocked and I was left in the dark - again. This is similar to what happened the last time, so in the interest of a fair trial, I would like a link to what you say is evidence. I am not trying to be rude about this, but if you were in my position in which you could potentially be blocked twice without acknowledgement over what is being said or what proof there is, then you can understand why I would not be happy over it to happen again. Also, to this point -

''As for BigzMMA, I would still encourage them to follow through with WP:FRESHSTART if they wish to maintain an account and be an active editor. IMO, if someone is going to start doing something right, do it all the way right.''


 * I believe that you may of given me the best chance to prove that we cannot be the same person with this line, for as I know for a fact we are not the same person but because you believe we are the same, in theory if we are the same and that after blocking me, BigzMMA will just suddenly request to be unblocked, confess to using my username Pound4Pound, claim to be a changed man etc etc in a week or two after blocking me. So what if you don't hear from him after this scenario and that after several months (maybe a year or two even), it clicks that you were wrong on this one? Because based on what you said if we are the same person then I would just simply follow the step to unblock BigzMMA and basically be fully active on here without question, but because I know I am not BigzMMA, I know that it is extremely unlikely that if you will heard from that user, for if you haven't heard from him since his last message months ago, then what makes you think you will hear from him ever again? Pound4Pound (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will only provide the evidence I have to an administrator. The admin may share that evidence if they wish and/or if it is allowed.  P4P, keep in mind that an SPI is not a fair trial.  There is no requirement that you be informed of this SPI or of any evidence that shows that you are the same person as Bigz or anyone else.  This is an investigation into a possible sock puppet of an indef blocked user because multiple editors believe there is a strong relationship between the two as evidenced in this and the prior SPI.  It is up to the admins and clerks to decide what is the best course of action for Wikipedia, not for you.  If I were in a position of being indef blocked, I would find something else to do with my life or follow the correct procedure for getting my editing privileged restored.  FYI, I will not comment on this SPI further until an admin comes in to review it and to respond to any questions/concerns they have.  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * According to WP:SPI, even though you are right that that the accused party does not have to be informed of their SPI case it does not state anywhere on the page that your evidence cannot be able for me to see through this section -


 * Without exception, you must supply clear simple evidence (diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) showing that the accounts you list are likely to be operated by the same individual. Evidence helps the administrator to follow your thinking, and to check you haven't overlooked anything. Administrators are not clairvoyants, so they may not immediately notice similarities between different accounts (eg editing approach, time, and behavior) that you may have seen.


 * Whilst this section does speak more to the admins, it does not state that evidence can only be shown to them outside the SPI page and/or away from the views of other users, which would be vital for others users to make their own decisions on the matter. It also said just under the subtitle of this comments section that -

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below.


 * So any accused's participation into these SPI cases should be allowed on these bases. WP:SPI also states -


 * Try to assume good faith in relation to all but the most obvious socks.


 * Even though you believe that me and BigzMMA are the same, it isn't clear cut that we are. Apart from me knowing for fact that we cannot possibly be the same person, other users have had doubts about their being a connection, most notably Steven Zhang and Jakejr (although his doubt is more from, as he said it on the last SPI case,  I really don't know if having the same attitude and viewpoints is enough to show he's a sockpuppet.) Because of this it cannot be said that I am an 'obvious sock' and due to this allowing my participation into this case would allow a clearer consensus on this matter. After all, for the admins to gain a clearer view on this situation, both sides need to show the evidence supporting their claims, so again whilst you are right about this being up to the admins and clerks to decide and not me, it isn't up to you to decide what the admins get to see and what they don't get to neither. And to your last point of If I were in a position of being indef blocked, I would find something else to do with my life or follow the correct procedure for getting my editing privileged restored, I don't understand how I would be able to get my editing privileged restored if I do get blocked again from this case, I know that I am not BigzMMA and because of this I am not suddenly going to (finger quoting) 'become' BigzMMA and request to be reinstated within two weeks after I am blocked, in fact it would surprise me if he comments tomorrow because s/he hasn't been heard from for months now. If you do wish to ignore my comments and continue to canvass off wikipedia, then I am hereby making an request right now for the admin who checks this evidence to allow me access to it as well, as I stated in my original comment after TreyGeek mentioned this secret evidence that it could be explainable but by not allowing both sides to know what this is it can lead to, as I know it, the wrong decision to take in this case. Even alleged criminals are entitled to know of all the evidence by their court date so that they can state their case with the fullest accuracy to what is being shown/said. Pound4Pound (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The lady doth protest too much, methinks, and it is unlikely you will get access to the information as it will only enable you to learn how to sock without being detected.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 22:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The behavior of both accounts is very similar, and P4P's bizarre line of reasoning here (especially their last comment) raises some additional red flags. I consider him a clear WP:DUCK and am very interested in how Steven Zhang came to a different conclusion.--Atlan (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just defending myself from the accusations being made, nothing that I wouldn't expect any other user of doing if in my position. Nothing DUCKish about it. But now that I have had a few days break off Wikipedia, I will be a bit more constructive in this comment now by stating what BigzMMA editing on and the sub topics that he involved himself with that I haven't and vice versa.


 * Just by looking at his editing history, we can see that he primarily edited on UFC and other MMA events and always took part in AfDs for any MMA events being considered for deletion where he would always vote to keep whilst personally attack any users who disagree with his views, whereas I have only took part in one or two, but generally I have almost never edited on any page relating to the UFC, not spent nearly as much time debating on AfDs as BigzMMA did (even less since the time after the last SPI case took place) and when I dealt with other users, I have always tried to be constructive but polite with my approach. I have edited on the sub topic of Women's Mixed Martial Arts which BigzMMA never did, I have tried to avoid major confrontations on here, whereas he was the one who provoked them and for that reason was eventually blocked.


 * I find it interesting when I looked into the all the sockpuppet cases relating to BigzMMA, I couldn't help but notice that there were 7 cases made in less than a 6 month time span (26 March - 10 August). Whilst 4 of which I agreed with (the one relating with MMADon101 is a good example of a clear sock), there are some users in there that were only accused on the basis that they shared the same opinion as him, which referring to one of my older comments, having people on here who share a similar opinion isn't a rare occurrence. Perhaps this case was made as a precaution, but with nearly as many cases made being not proven as there have been proven, I can see this case going like the last, which would be something like there being reasonable doubt that the connection is strong enough to be the same, after all, Bigz simply stopped editing months ago, with some of his last comments being requests for advice on how to regain his editing privileges back, maybe he couldn't be bothered to go through with it and finally quit Wikipedia? Pound4Pound (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I'm completely convinced, only more than 50% so in this case, which is why I have stepped to the side and allowing someone else to review. And you might note that the majority of the time, the "behavioral links" used to block are never discussed onwiki, as that would help the sock become a better sockpuppet.  Often, there are several aspects of behavior that line up too perfectly to be coincidence, and the technical aspects of behavior are being looked at as well, not just the opinions or wording. (ie: without outing anyone, there is evidence you both live in the same area of the same country.)  We don't discuss this via WP:BEANS.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 15:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * My opinion that these two editors are really one in the same has not changed and I still think that is this is socking. I blocked last time, and unblocked based on another SPI clerk's determination that the evidence wasn't sufficient (User:Steven Zhang a non-admin but full clerk, thus why I did the unblock).  As I've already taken action in this case before, and that action was reverse by review of another clerk, I will recuse from taking action and limit myself to offering this opinion only.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 00:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of reviewing this case, though I might not have an immediate resolution, i'll try and make it sooner rather than later. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm almost done my assessment, just trying up a few loose ends. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the evidence at hand, running a CU, and talking with another CU about what I had seen, i'm convinced that there is a sock here and that the original block was correct. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)