Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bischof-Ralph/Archive

Evidence submitted by Wine Guy
User:Bischof-Ralph is indef blocked here and at the German Wikipedia (reason given on de.wp: No desire for encyclopedic Collaboration recognizable: Man of Mission, POV, etc.). Shortly after he was blocked, Fan-of-Pope, Artistic-mind, and Old-chobo appeared and immediately began editing Alfred Seiwert-Fleige and the related the related AfD, the favorite topics of Bischof-Ralph. The similarities appear to be more than coincidental. Wine Guy ~Talk  03:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

While the obvious similarities are interesting (i.e. level and usage of English, interest in Alfred Seiwert-Fleige, hyphenated user-names), I've noticed another common thread between these four users—they all have a habit of adding extraneous line breaks wherever they go. Some examples: Bischof-Ralph, Fan-of-Pope  , Artistic-mind  , Old-chobo. If it looks like a duck... Wine Guy ~Talk  18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding English usage, as Artistic-mind claims to be a native speaker of English, this and this in particular do not appear to have been written by a native English speaker. Wine Guy ~Talk  00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Since I consider Bishop Seiwert-Fleige to be a shismatic (in article !) which is the opposite than bischof-ralph wants to tell us (!) I cant be a sockpuppet. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2010 (U

I am a native American and native English speaker. I am being accused of being a sock puppet. Investigate me and check my ip address, but I garantee you I am not a sock puppet. It is very sad that new users can not even add a few bits of information without someone trying to create problems.Artistic-mind (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Now wine guy is accusing me of not being an English Native. I wonder what the next claim will be, that Im not even human? I was born and raised in the US and even Americans make typos and grammatical errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistic-mind (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a crazy suggestion that I am a sock puppet for Bischof-Ralph and now that Im not even a Naitive English speaker. I am very let down by these false accusations. I am a user who enjoys reading and editing articles. Wikipedia should be a place where users help other users and not a place where you have to defend yourself against childish behavior, rumors and out-right lies. Please rethink your accusations. As far as Bischof-Ralph he peaks my interest and I felt it important to creaate this account and include facts to an article that were being discredited by others for the sake of "personal" feelings. I read the history of the articles hoping to learn something about a catholic Bishop I have read about on google and came to wikipedia to read more and it is very sad to read all these silly "complaints" and judgemental attacks... praying for all the lost and confused. Artistic-mind (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I'm wondering if this SPA should be included too. 'She' took part in a 'discussion' that reminds me of Peter Blegvad and his eartoons.... Peridon (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Michelle cannon
 * I assume you're referring to this User:Michelle cannon. SPA yes, but doesn't seem to fit the clear pattern of the users above. Any other thoughts on the issue? Wine Guy  ~Talk  20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the way 'she' slotted 'her' edit in the discussion so that it continues the apparent search for the truth. It's the old Plato and Socrates technique. This is more of a gut feeling than anything, and 'she' appears to have stopped editing. By the way, I see that Fan-of-Pope is now blocked here and in the German Wikipedia. He has also edited a related article in the Italian Wikipedia (Clemente Domínguez y Gómez - adding Ralph Napierski's name to those consecrated by Alfred whosit). Not blocked there at present. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clemente_Dom%C3%ADnguez_y_G%C3%B3mez&diff=prev&oldid=29758169 Peridon (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The other two accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. Behavioral evidence is too convincing for me. –MuZemike 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Wine Guy
Previous SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Bischof-Ralph/Archive

Templeknight has now appeared at the Alfred Seiwert-Fleige article, inserting the same information to the article that Bischof-Ralph and his previously identified socks added. In particular, information to bolster the legitimacy of "Bishop Ralph", aka Ralph Napierski, an admitted internet hacker and prankster. Templeknight became active on en-wiki shortly after Bischof-Ralph and his puppets were blocked, but the account was first active on the German wiki in 2008; the userpage on de.wikipedia indicates that Templeknight is a 13 year-old boy, activity on de-wiki appears consistent with that. Templeknight's activity here on en-wiki does not appear to be a teenager; more likely, the account has been comprimised and is being used by Bischof-Ralph. Wine Guy ~Talk  23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

began editing Alfred Seiwert-Fleige in tandem with, , and (all socks of Bischof-Ralph) shortly after Bischof-Ralph was blocked. I neglected Michelle cannon in the previous SPI because she had not appeared at the AfD, but "she" does appear to be part of this group of puppets. Several additions of information about Ralph Napierski are particularly telling.

Some diffs regarding Michelle cannon:

Michelle cannon:    adding information about Ralph Napierski either wholly unrelated, or only marginally related to subject of article.

Bischof-Ralph: (note last block of prose before links); Michelle cannon:

Wine Guy ~Talk  09:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Another new user entered the fray today,, the account has already been blocked as it was being used solely for disruption. Wine Guy ~Talk  19:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * sigh --Michelle cannon (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Today i got attacked by Bischof-Ralph User:Ban_Yoo on my talkpage User_talk:Templeknight and accused of creating hoaxes. He ddeleted my article and posted rediculous stuff which is the opposite I am standing for and now you accuse me to be his sockpuppet?

This is my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=345104517&oldid=345100878

This is Bischof-Ralph´s article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=345233078&oldid=345232662

I guess there is no more proof needed.... --Templeknight (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Not in my clerk capacity, as I closed the related AfD and performed two reverts on the article: it might be a good idea to run a checkuser here, both to confirm the link and to look for sleepers. I also added who seems to be performing similar edits. Tim Song (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had planned on adding Michelle cannon as well, just hadn't really looked closely enough at the edits yet. Michelle cannon clearly follows a similar pattern though. I endorse the request for a checkuser. I didn't ask for it originally as I'm only just becoming familiar with the routine here at SPI; I wasn't sure if it was appropriate, but I certainly trust your judgment. Wine Guy  ~Talk  23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The style of Templeknight's edits is rather reminiscent (in my opinion) of the previously blocked socks, and the material added seems largely familiar. Templeknight has accused me of vandalising the article "like people deleting whole articles and adding false information. This is exactly what User:Peridon did... He deleted the whole article and added false information that has already been proven wrong and he continues to do this over and over... --Templeknight (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)" (quoted from Templeknight's talk page). 'False information' was, as I remember, one of the accusations thrown about by the Bischof-Ralph tribe of socks (drawer of socks?). What I had done was revert the re-addition of material removed when the Alfred Seiwert-Fleige AfD was closed. As to Michelle Cannon, I wondered about 'her' at the time of the previous sock investigation, but very few edits were made. 'She' seems to have come out now, and has been attempting to recruit people interested in Catholicism (with one major success - Templeknight). The duologue style of editing and communicating is reminiscent of the previous socks. There is some new material in the Alfred Seiwert-Fleige article - centring on Bishop Napierski (Bishop Ralph). This is only marginally relevant to the article's subject - but very relevant to Napierski. Peridon (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The German edits by 'Templeknight' were only made between March and April 2008, and were mainly concerned with the author Michael Baigent. No subject relevant to this discussion was edited. He claimed to live near Vienna, and to be interested in mythology and the Holy Grail. Peridon (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, in the German-WP we have temporarily suspended the account without restriction, since the "Vita" does not fit and he in en: WP in the same article to the blocking of BR. occurred. Regards --NebMaatRe (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I Came here in skepticism, however i add a concern, Temple knight's valour (sorry for the pun) in debate on the Genesis creation myth move seemed very legit, i agreed with most of what he said. i find it disturbing that he has been accused. Here Michelle Cannon popped up with temple knight. I checked thier talk pages, i saw what I thought was a trouble maker User:Wine Guy. After checking "contributes," there is little doubt in my mind. Apologies Wine Guy for thinking you were a POV pusher. i am deeply disgusted by this. 03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Per my comment above. Tim Song (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Seiwert-Fleige indefinitely full-protected for severe edit-warring/content dispute until the conclusion of this SPI case. If this case closes, and I'm not around, I'll allow any admin to unprotect at that time. –MuZemike 20:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * is ✅ as:
 * . Brandon (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged, full-protection lifted. –MuZemike 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (=IP 93.209.51.145)
 * (=IP 93.209.51.145)

Evidence submitted by Papphase
User:Theophil was created very shortly after several User:Bischof-Ralph sockpuppets were banned (see Archive). His only actions were to put a number of Christianity tags on his User page and then revert my clean-up of the Alfred Seiwert-Fleige article which was/is Bishof Ralph's major playground. He uses the same accusations of lies and vandalism against anyone who removes orignial research, IKMO-sources and off-topics (such as Ralph Napierski "inventions" in the Fleige article) than previous sockpuppets.

User:Michelle cannon has hardly any edits outside the Fleige article. Popped up around the same time with all other socks and has the same liking for large numbers of flashing User page tags. Accusations of vandalism against me like all other Ralph-puppets.

As for myself: I don't edit very often here, but I'm a regular contributor on de:WP with several thousand edits and over 70 new articles. I guess a good number of people can vouch for me not being a vandal.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

AGAIN??? you've got to be kidding me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle cannon (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that papphase has a personal problem with the people the article seiwert-fleige is about. He posted hate comments at the talk page, he called Seiwert Fleige a "schismatic rogue" of a "fringe church" and he claimed that the german goverment is not working correctly. Then he tried to discredit his Vicar Generalis by lying about his inventions. He acts like he is fighting a religious war here. . And there is also evidence that he did lie. Now he is constantly attacking me of being a sockpuppet and also has even deleted his OWN lies from the talk page... even though they remain in history forever! That is extremely suspicious behavior!!! It was already prooven that i am not a sockpuppet. and to say that i am a duck because i checked evidence that somebody else gave is redicoulous! i realy suggest that papphase will be blocked for lieing, trying to hide his lies and for constant harrassment!!! --Michelle cannon (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First: I do have a problem with fraud, yes, and with people promoting it for personal gain and attention. Second: The Palmarian is a fringe church (with about 2000 followers and an amazing 70+x bishops among them) and Fleige is not even part of that anymore, but basically alone with Napierski (and maybe Federico Tolli, if he's not to busy improving his magick). Third: Fleige is a schismatic, as proven by the church documents I cited. Fourth: What you chose to call my "lies", was actually nothing I have written (all my statements are still fully visible on the talk page), but comments by yet another Bishop-Ralph puppet. And they were initially removed by an administrator, not me -until you reverted the admin. Fifth: You obviously insist of putting the most blatant nonsense into the article (including comments of Napierski's "achievements" in brain computing -> note that the article isn't even about him...) and are clearly out of you depth with even standard vocabulary  (re: 'canonisation' vs 'incardination') yet insist on writing down lenghty opinions on canon law (read: original research) and present IKMO-sources that are so hazy one should here foghorn everytime the page opens up. --Papphase (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

now you lie, insult and shove your POV again. oh and btw, did you notice the subject line? this section is for accused parties only. If you have anything to say to me say it on my talk page or in the section which is appropriate. btw... you admitted that you came to Wikipedia EN to "keep an eye" on bischof-ralph. you have no interest in editing over here on Wikipedia-EN, your only reason is to stalk and harrass bischof ralph.. (for personal vendetta). I am sure if bischof Ralph never edited this article in the first place and someone else did originally you probably wouldnt have involved yourself. you are trying to publicly destroy a man of mission and that is really sad. From what i have read about bischof-ralph he is an honorable being who's main goal is to help others, NOT himself. And ALFRED was not given the proper chance he deserved. I support this article and these men of God. I wish there were more men out there to boldly go out in this crazy world without fear and help others find the path they are searching for. If bischof ralph was in this for personal gain i am quite sure he would be going at it a completely different way protecting his "identity". He is not a fake, no fake would use their real name publicly if there was a possiblity of braking the law. I think you are wrong about him. I hope one day i get the chance to meet him and do mission with him!!! so if you have anything to say to me, then say it in the section titled... Other users, or on my talk page. this section is for the "accused socks" Thankyou and have a nice day. --Michelle cannon (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Papphase- re to your comment below about me back on the aflred page happily editing and putting the nonsense back in, thats like calling the kettle black, as you were doing just that!! ---Michelle cannon (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that people with personal hate involved should be allowed to spread their POV in wikipedia articles. Im glad that these "users" who pretended to be bishop-ralph have been blocked too. IF papphase leaves this article alone then it is possible to create a good article. --Michelle cannon (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
This is one of the cases where we need a CU to sort out who is a sock and who isn't. Note that was clean in the last check. Tim Song (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The main evidence regarding Michelle cannon is the users insistence on adding irrelevant material about Ralph Napierski, aka User:Bischof-Ralph, see Feb. 19 SPI for diffs. Even if CU can positively confirm that IPs of Michelle cannon and Bischof-Ralph are completely unrelated, I think the DUCKy evidence points to meat-puppetry. It should also be noted that one of the characteristics of Ralph's previously confirmed socks is that they contradict and argue with one another, and then present that as "proof" that they are not socks.


 * Michelle also jumped on the bandwagon of sock in accusing Papphase of "spreading lies", questioning who he is, and claiming an "attack on Bishop Sewivert-fleige and Bishop Napierski" . I also can't help but notice the similarity between Michelle's response to Papphase here and that of  here.


 * Michelle has also suggested that, and I are part of a "game plan" of  ; and questioned Tim Song as well.  . This follows another pattern of Ralph's puppets: attack those who have a problem with questionable edits, and vigorously defend the addition of unsourced or improperly sourced material and original research.  Wine Guy  ~Talk  23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ban Yoo was an interesting sock - one who appeared to be attacking the point of view of the other socks. Possibly to gain sympathy for the others.... I gave an apology to Michelle Cannon when she was cleared in the last SPI - as she might have just picked up a smoking gun when the sheriff walked in. I feel that now she has walked back in and picked up a dripping dagger. (There might be a blunt instrument with hair stuck to it in there yet to appear...) It is not difficult to vary one's IP address - and apparent location. It is also not hard to get someone else to post for you. Editing history and style are probably the factors to be assessed here. It could be that Michelle is just a loose Cannon, but it is also possible that ducks might be involved. Peridon (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added . Obvious sock is obvious. Tim Song (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Michelle is back on the article happily edit-warring all proven nonsense back into it. Full protection would be nice and this is a duck if I've ever seen one. --Papphase (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
User:Theophil indefinitely blocked and tagged (WP:DUCK applies clearly). I highly doubt Michelle Cannon is a sock, as she is on the opposite side of Bischof-Ralph in the ongoing edit war (which led to me full-protecting the article last time). –MuZemike 17:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

– I've already pinged the CheckUser who checked last time to take another look as far as underlying IPs are concerned. –MuZemike 17:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * H3II0-U blocked (by Coffee) and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Michelle cannon has been blocked 1 month for harassment, as two different CheckUsers on multiple Wikipedias have confirmed the creation of an impostor/harassment account. –MuZemike 04:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The indefinitely-blocked accounts have already been confirmed by Brandon. There's nothing else to do here. –MuZemike 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * - tagged and block
 * - tagged and block
 * - tagged and blocked

Evidence submitted by SGGH
Above already confirmed and tagged. But per and  a CU might be prudent for sleepers. Probably an annoying little troll but still. SGGH ping! 20:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by SGGH ping! 20:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC) By now, there are probably a few other sleepers. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No other accounts found at this time. Dominic·t 08:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats what you think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyMadeABoomBoom (talk • contribs) 09:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that one on the new user log, and I knew it was fishy :D S.G.(GH) ping! 10:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SGGH. Doesn't seem to be anything else to do for now, marked as closed. SpitfireTally-ho! 10:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by VanillaBlueChocolateAdolf
All of these socks came after the CU yesterday. I'm requesting another CU as it is likely there are more sleepers. VanillaBlueChocolateAdolf (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Clearly these are all socks of each other including the nominator whom I have just blocked for sock puppetry. Blake Edwards made the same nomination with the same wording which I reverted earlier as he was trying to reopen a closed check. And after I blocked him, this nominator now created a new check asking the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This must be the seventh or eighth sock or sleeper I have either blocked or seen blocked in the last 24 hours from this child, I can't believe the initial CU brought up nothing. Range block appropriate? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The last range block caused quite a bit of collateral damage so it may not be possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey-Winters (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, shush. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now blocked about 3 more, one who even reminded me to relist this on Sockpuppet investigations (heh!) he's amusing isn't he. Can we have another sleeper check please? And a rangeblock? S.G.(GH) ping! 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by VanillaBlueChocolateAdolf (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I, as well as another clerk I asked for a second opinion from, am very convinced these are in fact not socks of Bischof-Ralph. Established users can feel free to email me if you'd like more details. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Detagged all accounts. Closing this case as they are all currently blocked (as they should be). -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)