Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blade-of-the-South/Archive

20 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

First, a little backstory. User:Blade-of-the-South and I have had some disagreements on the Talk:Ghouta chemical attacks page. Last night, I took it upon myself to rewrite and update parts of the article that I felt were sloppy, per WP:BOLD. Blade-of-the-South took exception to my editing and, although I did not engage in the pattern of repeated revert behavior against him or another user that would characterize WP:EDITWAR, he posted a "warning" on my user Talk page that I was engaged in an "edit war". Not satisfied with this, User:Valkyrie 06 followed this "warning" less than half an hour later by posting the same "community sanctions notice" placed on Blade-of-the-South's Talk page by User:Bbb23 the previous day on my page. The text of this notice points out that it is only valid when placed by an "uninvolved administrator". But Valkyrie 06 isn't an administrator at all.

This section is for evidence, so here's the evidence:
 * Valkyrie 06 and Blade-of-the-South tag-teamed my user Talk page with admonishments in the form of the edit war warning and the community sanctions notice, with alternating edits within the same 40-minute span of time:
 * Valkyrie 06 and Blade-of-the-South both state admiration for the semi-obscure religious figure Meher Baba on their user pages:
 * It was Valkyrie 06 that responded irately to Bbb23's placement of a community sanctions notice on Blade-of-the-South's Talk page, apparently referring to the Talk page in the first-person possessive:
 * Valkyrie 06 then attempted to cover his/her tracks by claiming to be a "non involved editor" before Bbb23 could respond:
 * Valkyrie 06 demonstrates a remarkable depth of knowledge about community sanctions for a user who registered last March and made no contributions from 16 April 2012 until 18 September 2013, when he/she posted on Blade-of-the-South's Talk page demanding an explanation for why Bbb23 brought up "my so called badness", an apparent reference to the community sanctions notice directed toward Blade-of-the-South:
 * Valkyrie 06 appears to have copy-and-pasted the community sanctions notice onto my Talk page as a sort of "shame tag", identical to the notice Blade-of-the-South received, although he/she edited the "Edit War" section just created by Blade-of-the-South instead of creating a new section -- similar to the way Blade-of-the-South created that "Edit War" section:
 * Minutes after Valkyrie 06 and Blade-of-the-South tag-teamed my Talk page with the edit war warning and community sanctions notice, Blade-of-the-South posted on Talk:Ghouta chemical attacks to inform editors that I had "got a warning as a result" of my contributions to Ghouta chemical attacks the previous night -- not mentioning that warning came from him:

In conclusion, WP:QUACK. Obvious sock is obvious. I've been the victim of puppetry before, and this has to be the laziest example of an editor unhappy with my perspective on an article attempting to muster some sort of credibility by using another account to pretend to be a "non involved editor" backing him up, both on his own Talk page and on mine. Kudzu1 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have another one, actually -- the common use of "non involved editor" to introduce a supposedly independent opinion:  -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And here's another -- Blade-of-the-South asked User:Bbb23 to post the community sanctions notice, just like the one he had received, on my Talk page prior to Valkyrie 06 doing it him/herself: -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Involved editor here. I actually came here to file a report about this but found Kudzu1 beat me to it; he seems pretty thorough so I do not have much to add. I have notified Blade-of-the-South of this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection I do have more to add. Both on March 15, 2012 and again on April 17, 2012, Blade and Valkyrie 06 edited the same articles in rapid succession. In neither case does this seem like an effort to avoid scrutiny, but it does further establish the connection between these accounts. VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Its quite simple really. She is my wife. Thats why there were past edit connections. My previous explanations are the truth. Just not the entire truth. I was going to ask her to stop, nicely. I didnt know she would have a go at editing on her lap top the other day. She did it while I was on my PC. She is very clever being a top health professional, so learning editing is nothing too hard for her as health is PC intensive these days. Im flattered really she leapt to my defence. What can I say. I guess she has some rights to do this. In fact I think she just used the wrong template, but was entitled to do what she did in the warning. From Bbb23 talk page, this topic, 'A non-admin can give the warning, although it's unusual'.

Im not 100% sure on the husband wife editing policy. Lol. Really I was surprised and kept loyal, but really its a new thing for me. Thoughts? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose you have a plausible explanation as well for why "she" addressed User:Bbb23 on your Talk page, speaking about your "so called badness" and user Talk page in the first person, and why "she" then edited "her" initial comment to change those pronouns and add that "she" was a "non involved editor"? Also, it seems like kind of a funny topic to bring up at a "dinner party": -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Re 'I suppose you have a plausible explanation' Are you married? If you are then you will know. Lol. Like I said loyalty to a spouse is a big deal. I had hoped she would kinda let it go. Dont even think I can tell her what to do :) She was kinda right and as an editor has rights too. Im interested in the spouse policy now. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not buying it. BTW, repeating your story twice on this page doesn't make you sound more credible. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I put the story in the wrong place after a rewrite. I have a minor medical condition affecting my left hand from my military service. Sometimes typing is difficult. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW my wife sent me an SMS saying she replied to 'the sockpuppet thingy'. She loves the terminology but that reply is all she has time for. I think shes over it all. :) Anyway I will try to find where her reply is. (re edit) OK Here it is

Look I found this too. Made last year  Read the top bit of the talk page. where she says she is my wife. For the record I am No_More_Religion,s Wife.. (thats my previous user name) '''Same address, different computer. I am new to Wikipedia'''

I just confirmed with her she will not edit the Syrian pages anymore.

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Which still doesn't explain the "my so called badness" and "my talk page" statements in "her" response to Bbb23. You two have very similar writing and editing styles as well, I notice. Sorry, I'm just not believing this "leapt to my defence after a dinner party" yarn. There are too many holes -- the first-person possessives, the clearly feigned "surprise" when I called you out on the "warning" I was supposedly given on my Talk page (by you and "your wife"!) by pointing out that User:Valkyrie 06 was clearly linked to you, the identical writing/editing styles, the rapid-fire tag-team edits, etc.
 * IMO, you'll be lucky to get off with a warning with all your excuses and "her" promises to stay out of the Syria pages (which she actually didn't edit, so I'm not sure what that vow is supposed to help), but I certainly don't believe your story. I think you were caught red-handed abusing multiple accounts -- perhaps (if I'm being generous) using your wife's account, maybe even with her permission, to create the illusion of support from a "non involved editor", a term you "both" seem to like using -- and I think you're inventing a story to keep from getting blocked. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I found what you were referring to. It is odd, Im not going to raise it with her, but I think this explains it. Inexperience on wikipedia and some confusion over the grammar to employ, her comments on my talk page, my badness in her language etc. We had also had a mighty dinner party with lots of beverages where I mentioned the sanctions. As for it 'sounds like me', 'same style'. Yup your right. Blurred lines. Identity merge. Its what happens in a long marriage. In a good one AFAIK. And well she is protective of me, lots of women do that naturally. As for the phrase "non involved editor". Its from the template. Official lingo. You should know, you got one, but deleted it. Frankly Im enjoying this sideshow, but my wife is over it. Funny thing though she leaning toward Assad did it. Lol . Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think now its fair to say a few other things. My wife has rights as an editor, even though I admit the input she did was not helpful overall she did identify 'one revert' rule anomalies with the person bringing this claim of sockpuppetry. I think the claimant could have read her talk page first, seen the statement on the top where she says she is my wife, made 18 months ago and talked to me. He didnt. Maybe all this is a good distraction perhaps to divert attention away from our edit war ( he deleted the notice on his talk page). Its easy to fling mud and some mud sticks as they say. Kudzu1 I know you did a lot of work with this claim, it must be frustrating and the article is a strong background frustration. I wish you had of read her talk page first and talked. I think we should move on, and oddly enough the article is improving and I think we should get on with it NPOV style. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll accept whatever the admins decide. But let be me clear: I don't think the person who made the User:Valkyrie 06 edits is your wife. I think it is you. I don't believe your story. I did read her Talk page first, and I still think it was you who made those edits using that account. And although it's completely non-germane to this SPI, we are not in an "edit war" (seriously, you don't seem to understand what that term means) and I did not violate 1RR (again, you don't seem to understand what that term means). That's my final word here. I'll await the admins' ruling. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course the admins decision must stand. You are entitled to your views also, I respect that. I reiterate it must be frustrating you did a lot of work, but I appreciate your vigilance. There is no advantage for me to have used a sockpuppet. Look at what happened with a suspected one. Everyone looks for them, so do I. Its just an unfortunate chain of events. That is my wife's account. Lastly But even if you had been warned, by an admin. So what? You were told this by an admin 'You should respect the sanctions and the 1RR restriction even without a formal warning'. I got a warning also. Its not the end of things. I think it sharpens us up at times. Lets move on. Signing off also. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to simply state here, that I have reasons to believe that Blade-of-the-South is indeed married and that his wife is indeed protective of him and at times takes the initiative of supporting him in his efforts in Wikipedia. This as a general statement. I do not know how it applies in this case. Hoverfish Talk 16:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also I fail to see where a possible use of sockpuppet did any action "in a manner that contravenes community policy", like weighting in a consensus vote or violating the 1RR imposed in the Syrian conflict articles. The only thing I see, unless I miss something, is that she supported him in some discussions in talk pages. I do not see any evidence by the nominator that Valkyrie's account violated any serious rule, just accusations and warning templates. The only thing I can say against Blade and his wife is that they should try to understand when and how these warnings apply, and where not. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 17:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Third point, is Kudzu1 implying I may also be a sockpuppet of Blade, by "the common use of "non involved editor" to introduce a supposedly independent opinion"? He (Blade) quoted my advice/comment that I left in his talk page. I am the "non involved editor" he referred to in the article. He didn't pose as the "non involved editor", he just wrote it in a clumsy way, but he quoted me, so unless I am his sockpuppet, I don't see how this applies as an accusation. Hoverfish Talk 17:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I had signed off on this but Im starting to feel embarrassed now for Hoverfish that hes been dragged into this mess. I read that insinuation swipe by Kudzu1 against you Hoverfish and hoped you would not see it. Admin Hoverfish made an honest suggestion, and a good one to end edit conflict. Kudzu1s insinuations are shameful. Hoverfish is an experienced honest editor. Admin can I please tun this around and ask for a warning to be given to Kudzu1 about abuse of this process to gain some edit advantage or personal gain or whatever process is behind this that degrades Wikipedia. This has gone to far. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If it is me you refer to as "admin", I never became one, Blade-of-the-South! No time for such an extra responsibility. I think Kudzu1 misunderstood whom you were referring to as "non involved editor", this is all. Hoverfish Talk 21:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I know you are not an admin. I was referring to he or she will will adjudicate this matter. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In light of the administrative decision here, I will say I remain deeply skeptical of Blade-of-the-South's explanation, but I recognize Bbb23's prudence in assuming good faith and accept the outcome. For the record, Blade, it's not a matter of me putting a lot of work into this SPI; if I'm going to contribute, I'll put in the due effort. I have nothing invested here and nothing personal to gain. I presented my legitimate suspicions for consideration, and they were duly considered. That is all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats fine Kudzu1, I assume good faith but its tainted by your end position. No hard feelings. However Im delighted with the result, common sense prevailed. On the positive side, in this recent intensive, I have improved my editing skills after quite a layoff and look forward to getting into it again with lots of discussions, before edits, on what is a highly charged subject. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 I accept the findings and think them fair. Two accounts in one house need to be managed as you suggest so avoid such accusations. I cant ask her to close it as we are not like that, but I will make sure we dont edit in tandem. Which should not be a problem as she hardly edits at all. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I think it's fair to accept Valkyrie's and Blade's assertion that they are husband and wife. Her initial edit in March 2012 disclosed that immediately, and I also accept Hoverfish's comments in that regard. The only issue is whether Valkyrie is a meat puppet, and that is less straightforward. She's made only 28 edits since creating her account a year and a half ago. Obviously, her recent edits were not optimal. I warned her about her leaving an administrative notice on Kudzu's talk page and logging it at the sanctions page. Other than leaving a message on my talk page after that, she's stopped editing. My inclination is to show some leniency here and to close this with warnings to both Blade and to Valkyrie. Don't act in tandem, and don't ask each other to support your point of view. If I see any of that, I will block both accounts. Also, recognize that controversial articles that are subject to sanctions are held to a higher level of scrutiny, and editors can be sanctioned just for being disruptive. I'll leave this open a bit longer in case anyone wishes to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing changed since yesterday. Closing based on my previous comments. Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , something changed today: indefinitely blocked. I don't accept the husband and wife story, and there's a few things I can share privately to support my block. Can I request CU, for the record, given Blade's threat of future socking? (On their talk page.) Drmies (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

14 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Behavioral plus the "blade" nomenclature. The most recent previous socks are listed at User talk:Drmies/Archive 59; they seem to have not made it into the usual archive location. There were additional accounts found with the last CU, so requesting it again. VQuakr (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's something I forgot. I blame lack of naps. And I need one today as well. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Quack, quack. A pretty paltry effort on Blade's part. I second VQuakr's call for CheckUser. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ that and  are the same. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Rschen7754 03:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

01 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Editor portrays himself as new to Wikipedia and immediately begins POV-pushing on Talk:Ghouta chemical attack, where User:Blade-of-the-South and his socks were very active in the same activity. He identifies himself as being from Australia, where Blade-of-the-South said he was from, and suggests on his Talk page that he has a special knowledge of Syria different from "Australias knowledge" -- similar to claims Blade-of-the-South made. Upon posting, despite being "new", he immediately began attacking users with whom Blade-of-the-South disagreed over Ghouta chemical attack and related content, including User:Sayerslle and myself (bear in mind here I haven't been active on Talk:Ghouta chemical attack in months, and my only interaction with this editor was immediately before I came here to request CheckUser).

He has predominantly contributed on Talk, with his only edit to a main page being a revert to Ghouta chemical attack, similar to how Blade-of-the-South seemed more interested in using Wikipedia Talk pages as a forum rather than contributing to articles.

But the primary red flag for me is that after being warned, he wrote on his Talk page to repeat Blade-of-the-South's old smears -- suggesting User:VQuakr and I are either the same person, are paid to edit Wikipedia, or both. It's possible the person behind User:Blade-of-the-South and his various socks is active in some dark corner of the internet spreading malicious rumors and driving like-minded Aussies to come to Wikipedia with similar cause. But Occam's razor suggests otherwise. Kudzu1 (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2014 (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

 * - Not possible, stale. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to call this per WP:DUCK. This account continues the "sword-named" accounts that Blade-of-the-South most recently did with Huge-Blade. You can see and  where the most recent confirmed sock and MustaphaScimater support the same editor on the same article talk page with similar communication skills. Both editors have been defiant on their talk pages, looking to take on Wikipedia and being accusatory of anyone who they come into conflict with (a trait that Blade-of-the-South also had). This is basically just more of the same, so I am blocking and tagging this latest sockpuppet and marking this case for closure. --  At am a  頭  16:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)