Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chelo61/Archive

Report date June 1 2009, 01:45 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Repeatedly adding back the same rosters in all the WWE video games, just as the suspected sockmaster has done and has edit-warred up to violating 3RR. All edits by suspected sock similar formatting as those made over a week ago on the same set of WWE video game articles. For instance, and  are very similar edits. MuZemike 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by MuZemike
 * Also adding, as edits are also exactly the same as those above. MuZemike 01:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is NOT my account. I am not the only who thinks that the roster should be added.Chelo61 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by MuZemike 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Give the similarity of edits, and the 3RR problem presented here, checkuser is requested to confirm that Chelo61 has been using an alternative account to make the edits. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 01:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the above accounts. -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on any warring in the article via watchlist. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 02:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

07 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This user was just banned for edit warring on a page. And now a new user appears, having the same opinion as him or her. Yes, it could be a different person, but the fact that this was the new user's first edit suggests that it is quite possibly the same person. See this message on the talk page ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  02:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I was involved in the discussion which led Chelo61 getting blocked. (I had to request a formal RfC as well as Full Protection of the page in question and issued the final warning before an admin blocked him/her). Although I had my suspicions too I chose to give the benefit of doubt. Now that Endingstart has opened the SPI I might as well air my concerns. Chelo61 has been blocked a total of 6 times for violation of policy mainly on Michael Jackson related articles. It is interesting how the accused user ZDriver speaks in the same tone and mannerism that Chelo61. His comments are almost identical... ZDriver is raising exactly the same issues that Chelo61 did (a user named SJ changed the page despite their being an on-going discussion). I would therefore hope that the checkuser can go ahead based on the behavioural evidence. If it is deemed to be Chelo61 I would think that a permanent ban would not be unreasonable but equally a topic ban from Michael Jackson would suffice as its clear Chelo has zealous tendencies when it comes to the subject of the late Michael Jackson. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  03:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Seems likely based on behavior, but CU would confirm it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are a match to each other. Behavior will need to be the deciding factor.  TN X Man  16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm calling it. I've blocked and tagged the puppet, and reset the master account's two-week block. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

10 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

He's back, and this time using an IP. He even replied using the IP on his own talk page see here, and commented YET AGAIN on the article talk page, in which he got banned from. ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what I'm talking about now. Please excuse this. I must be very tired. I thought I read him replying to it with an IP, but I guess I was wrong, looking over it now. Oh boy am I embarrassed. ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  01:51, 11 December 2010 (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

 * Ha, that's alright. I'm going to close this case, then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)