Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott/Archive

Report date June 4 2009, 04:46 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Wildhartlivie

There is conclusive proof that an account was created and used to post by the banned sock master ColScott, who seems to have an obsession regarding Charles Manson and others related to crimes committed by the Manson family, tonight. User:ThePizzaMakingCaveman came in, made two edits to Bobby Beausoleil  and a post to Talk:Helter Skelter (Manson scenario), which he then re moved. I have since removed the post as content posted by a banned sock puppet to be reverted on sight. The post to Talk:Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) included a link to the blogspot page used by User:ColScott that made reference to both myself and another Wikipedia editor, User:JohnBonaccorsi. When I reverted posts made by the sock master account, I then received a confrontational post on my talk page. I think this is conclusive enough proof that this is ColScott. On more than one occasion, actions by User:ColScott's sock puppets have resulted in intervention by Wikipedia bureaucrats to remove the posting of personal contact information of Wikipedia editors in good standing because of outing, including myself. This is an extremely serious issue. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk)

Additional: While this report was being prepared, the editor also posted content to Matt Damon here that references a film said to be produced by Don Murphy, who has postively been identified as the person to whom the User:ColScott belonged, based on past history as well multiple postings by Murphy on his website, and who also has admitted to outing Wikipedia editors on his site. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * an accurate and properly cited edit (that is also mentioned on other pages) that was then removed by the complaintant. ThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I made a post to a different USER about something I thought they should see. I did so on their talk page. Every other post I have made has been reviewed now by multiple editors and proven to be legitimate. This user violated 3rr many times and in fact followed me around for an hour reverting and attacking me until they were stopped. I have done NOTHING to be ashamed of and this person has actually a lot to answer for with her strange behavior tonight.ThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I please add that the User who my message was intended for has seen it and could care less while this user still follows me aroundThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users-

I find it interesting that an account that made its first edit less than two hours ago even knows about 3RR.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  05:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks much but I got a warning about it too!ThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that an account that made its first edit less than two hours ago knows how to revert edits, knows how to leave user talk page comments and understands terms such as "sock puppet", "cited" and "reverted" without explanation, and knows how to format references. None of it is rocket science, but a lot of newbies struggle with these basics. I find it even more interesting that this brand new editor, who knows nothing of User:Wildhartlivie is confident enough to assume gender and use references such as "she" and "her" several times. Including once on this page. I'm also puzzled by this edit, which asks "Why should I be blocked again?"  Why would a brand new editor ask a question like this? Rossrs (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears you are being willful but I will assume good faith. I was accused of being a sockpuppet.  So I read what that meant.  I was told an edit was not cited. And actually go back and look- multiple references were mis referenced.  So you are wrong (we assume not lying).  Livie is a girl's name.  A quick google confirms that on her Myspace page. and the user had said I should be banned and my reply was "why should I be banned again?" as in Come again.  So we'll assume you aren't looking to make things up and there are the true explanations.  Rather easy ThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I am not being "willful".  I am merely commenting on the level of understanding you have gained during your first couple of hours as a Wikipedia editor.  It's good that you've also quickly grasped the Wikipedia custom of assuming good faith and have added that to the discussion, even while questioning my motives three times in your short reply.  Rossrs (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The similar edits that showed up through this report makes it clear that the account is a sock and at this point a checkuser will not be necessary. Icestorm815 •  Talk  06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by LadyofShalott
At Talk:Neil Gaiman, this editor made comments the same in tone and style as User:EchoofReason, another previously blocked sockpuppet of ColScott. (Also see the relevant ANI thread.) The user has been indefinitely blocked already, and has made threats (since deleted) essentially confessing his identity. The reason for this request is that as he is known to have had multiple socks in the drawer at once, it seems a checkuser for additional socks could be useful. Lady of  Shalott  21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Lady  of  Shalott  21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NW ( Talk ) 22:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . All I'll say for now. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Will close the case up then. NW ( Talk ) 00:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by ChrisO
At, this editor reverted to a version of February 7, 2010, overwriting about 30 edits, with the summary: "returning page to status before attacked- everything is referenced and accurate- preferred state". The editor subsequently said on WP:AN/I: ". Earlier this year User ERIK, NOT half a dozen editors,and likely the IP, edited the article to cause consternation and turmoil. Indeed he purposely mislead people into thinking he was someone else which led to real life phone calls and stress. The entire war can be seen on WR. It was very intense. Many Wikipedians were hurt in the ensuing battle and no one dared to touch the article since. This is the version preferred by all right thinking people." 

It is obvious that this is not a new editor. The account has just enough edits to get it past the semi-protection on Don Murphy. From the comments, it seems likely that the editor is associated with the subject of the article. Given that Don Murphy (who edited as ) has used multiple sockpuppets, an investigation of this account is recommended. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * No idea who this is, but given the sequential creation of Tiger... and the following accounts, I've blocked them all.
 * jpgordon:==( o ) 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * tagged. Doesn't look like there's anything further to do here. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * jpgordon:==( o ) 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * tagged. Doesn't look like there's anything further to do here. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * jpgordon:==( o ) 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * tagged. Doesn't look like there's anything further to do here. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * tagged. Doesn't look like there's anything further to do here. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Burpelson AFB
There is a histoy of COI edit warring at Don Murphy, with the subject of the article editing under the puppetmaster account as well as numerous socks. The Dave Chaparral account has very few edits since appearing in 2007, had not edited at all since February 2009, and suddenly logged in today to perform a large-scale revert on the Don Murphy article with similar edit summaries used by ColScott's socks (all making bogus claims of BLP violation in order to force the article into his own preferred version). Current article is neutral, very well referenced and contains no BLP violations. Dave Chaparral appears to be a sleeper sock. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I reverted Chaparral on the Murphy bio, and noted it at ANI, which got this rolling, and the article has oscillated, further: prolly Greg, prolly Don. What ever is going on here needs sorting. Jack Merridew 04:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I added from your diff above. There was an outbreak of sockpuppetry from multiple accounts in early 2008 (see the bottom of ). These two accounts look like sleeper socks created around that time. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue has a lot of history. I see that the Chaparral account took another dip in the "revert pool". I also see that the bio has been protected on The Wrong Version; if these accounts are dinged as socks, that will be grounds enough to revert it back, and there are multiple editors who's reasonable good faith edits have been discarded, so the editorial questions need sorting on the talk page (which I've not checked) in a sock-free environment. I've no dog in this; both versions of the filmography are reasonably formatted ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is indicative of anything, but Jean Santeuil is the title of an unfinished novel by Marcel Proust. Can't find any literary references to "Dave Chaparral" though. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave Chappelle??? Speaking as a sock, I'll confirm that the choice of user names is often intended as a hint, as an allusion to a theme or an issue. Most of my accounts do this. ;) Jack Merridew 20:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet another absurdly obvious sock: . -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, for the record, I should add that (with reference to Burpelson AFB's comments above) I do not think these are actually socks of User:ColScott - they do not have his, ahem, distinctive style of commentary. I would speculate that this is probably someone who was involved in the 2008 wave of sockpuppetry. Why that person has returned now, when things have been quiet on that article for some time, I have no idea. However, it makes sense to deal with all the sockpuppetry related to this issue in one place so that a consistent record can be kept. Hence the tagging of the suspected sockpuppets as being related to the ColScott account. We don't have a "suspected sockpuppet inspired by" template - maybe we need one... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we'd be a lot better of WP:DENYing in both cases, as a matter of fact. What we actually need is "This user is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user". That's all the information that's needed. Why bother recording and rewarding the five hundred socks of Bartholemew Cubbins? It's no longer useful bookkeeping -- it's just us carving notches for miscreants and malfeasors. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough. I think I have a pretty good idea now of who the person behind the sockpuppets is (and it's not Don Murphy - it's another banned user seeking to stir up trouble). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not Don that's for sure. He's too busy on his own site and the Review offering a reward to find out who you are.  Just saying.BassandAle (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. Since the sockmaster has been identified now I've amended the remainder of the sockpuppet tags accordingly. They've all been blocked, so I suggest closing this SPI. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)