Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codename MeatCommand/Archive

25 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Definitely a sockpuppet of the recently blocked 73.40.108.10. (Same behavior, same place; even the user name itself suggests it.) However, such a username plus the victim of attack suggest a sockpuppet of the now-blocked User:Codename MeatCommand. I believe a checkuser should be able to weed out the sleepers. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (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

 * Sleepers check declined, no reason to expect sleepers. Both blocked, so I'm closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

28 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * (Admitted: "Sock puppet here. [...]")
 * (Admitted: "Sock puppet here. [...]")
 * (Admitted: "Sock puppet here. [...]")
 * (Admitted: "Sock puppet here. [...]")
 * (Admitted: "Sock puppet here. [...]")
 * (Admitted: "Sock puppet here. [...]")

So far the evidence that I have is their modus operandi, i.e.:
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility
 * brand-new user, with no past edit history, is fully aware of every aspect of the subject except any discussion in the talk page (along with a disregard for .) I have never seen a brand-new good faith editor who is fully aware of the edit history and still commit a revert, especially when the matter is trivial. At best they attempt some sort of compromise, even if crude.
 * wording (pay attention to edit summaries specifically)

Now, I know, this user is far milder than any previous incarnations but 173.53.127.55 has tried the mild approach before. For while I believed 173.53.127.55 was just a good faith editor.

What connects the others to each other includes:
 * tendency to chase me around
 * the fact that they seek to dispute and then decide why
 * not seeking out assistance from admins or others, even when I taunt "report me"! Other editors have filed ANI cases against me for far, far less; so less that their ANI request have never gone anywhere. (I believe I know why: there has been one ANI case alleging User:FleetCommand and I are either the same person or "in cahoots". Administrator Atama attended to that request and denied it. The harassment of this stalker started after that incident. c.f. 675168173 created on 8 August 2015)
 * geolocation (for IPs)
 * occasional instance of unfliching lying. (i.e. he gives a link and says such and such is correct but the link does not verify the claim).

A checkuser should be able to ascertain these aspects. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My main evidence is that took up exactly what 73.40.108.10 had left off:
 * 01:49, 17 December 2015‎
 * 13:03, 17 December 2015‎
 * 23:01, 19 December 2015
 * 07:50, 20 December 2015‎
 * 13:04, 23 December 2015‎
 * The IP got blocked here by Materialscientist; see Special:Contributions/73.40.108.10. MrEWhite took over.
 * 06:44, 27 December 2015‎
 * 04:54, 28 December 2015‎
 * 05:49, 29 December 2015
 * 23:25, 29 December 2015‎


 * Also, please pay attention to the edit summaries:
 * 'I think I agree with others... "Apps" are for mobile devices. "Programs" are for desktops.' (There were no "others" at this stage.)
 * 'More people agree on the "program" wording than the "application" wording. As the definition (as shown here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app) Shows app as being mainly for mobile devices (which the Office in question is for desktops.)' by MrEWhite.
 * Both of these hint the discussion at.


 * I am not saying these are ironclad evidence; but they are instances of the goose test coming positive. I thought a checkuser can affirm definitely.
 * Above, MrEWhite tries to justify this by saying " I was actually watching the discussion/edits on the Office 2013 page before I started making edits". Really? He was watching and yet decided to repeat exactly what he watched the stalker doing, expecting different results?
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Hi, I was actually watching the discussion/edits on the Office 2013 page before I started making edits. And I am in no way associated with the IPs/Users listed above. I have no intentions to follow you to other pages and edit them. I did make 1 edit on that page before I made an account, which was 2606:A000:1017:3A:7970:55E0:A982:BEBA, other than that I am not associated to anyone you mentioned. I also did try to report you for vandalism, but was told to talk it out on the talk page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported)
 * MrEWhite (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I can assure you I have nothing to do with that other person. I just share the same opinions as the other person does, must mean i'm the same as the other person, right? I also said i'll leave it alone in my previous post on the "talk" page on Microsoft Office '13. By "others" I meant Billybobjoe321 and pcuser42.
 * MrEWhite (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand. You may very well be telling the truth. Although that means you read my counterargument too and decided to continue what the stalker have been doing all along, ignoring 30 sources and edit warring. It is said that insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time. (This quotation is misattributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, and Mark Twain.) In Wikipedia, we have WP:DR to avoid such situations.


 * That said, I assure you that I am bound by the result of this investigation. After all, I even gave the stalker my offer of having a clean start. Normally, I would not even dream of arguing over a trifle such as "app" and "program". But this stalker is not "normally".
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry. I didn't see your comment with the 30 sources and stuff like that. Sorry
 * MrEWhite (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You should probably add since he admitted to being an SP in his edit summary here and changed it to programs. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on the diffs below the whole disagreement is about when to use 'apps' vs. 'programs'. Instead seeking the dispute resolution Codename Lisa choose to attack and disqualify the others. Discipline Codename Lisa, please.--65.220.39.91 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC) - struck comments by banned User:Velebit --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't looked at the diffs below properly! The editing IPs of half of the diffs below are already blocked. Per WP:EVADE, "anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block"; the editor has no right to have a genuine dispute with me in the first place, let alone this pseudo-dispute whose only purpose is harassment.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocking others for not agreeing with you or to something is a dirty business.--65.220.39.91 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC) - struck comments by banned User:Velebit --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I guess it is a good thing it hasn't happened yet. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can acutally go a head and run a checkuser or whatever on me if you want. You'' see I share absolutely no connections with any of the other users/IP's listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEWhite (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Not guilty until proven otherwise. I keep an open mind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare to .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * is a ✅ match to . is . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is frustrating to not know what "inconclusive" means: presumably it implies that sockpuppetry looks reasonably possible, but how possible? Well, in the absence of such knowledge, I have spent a long time carefully examining behavioural evidence, and here are my conclusions. CodName Lisa and TrollOnTheGo are already blocked; I shall tag them as sockpuppets. 73.40.108.10 is without much doubt the same person, and in any case there are reasons other than sockpuppetry why that IP address should be blocked, so I have blocked it. 173.53.127.55 and 73.152.188.151 appear to be the same person too, but they have not edited since October, so there is nothing to be done there unless they start editing again. Similar remarks apply to 2600:1003:B025:F6C4:2C3B:7CC2:7E9E:B51C and 2600:1003:b86e:84b2:48c3:8f07:e010:716c, except that their last edits were in December. MrEWhite is difficult. Apart from what has been reported above, I have seen some features of his editing which are common in sockpuppet editing, and much less common in editing by genuine new editors, but I really did not see anything conclusive. He may be, as he claims, a new editor who happens to agree with the opinions of a troll/sockpuppeteer, or he may be the sockpuppeteer under yet another name, but in the absence of really definite evidence, I have to assume good faith, and give the benefit of the doubt. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Postscript to the above: I have now found that the 2600:1003:... IP addresses listed above both belong to a range with a very extensive history of vandalism and block-evasion, with many blocks in the past, so I have placed a range block covering both the IP addresses listed here. However, it is a very large range, so I have blocked for only two weeks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Evidence: Similarity of username, same goal: Revert-based harassment with plausible edit summaries. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2017 (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

 * I've blocked the sock. Closing. GABgab 14:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)