Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CrazyAces489/Archive

22 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=CrazyAces489&user2=24.103.234.74&user3=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=. I have noticed some recent activity at certain MMA AfDs that appeared suspicious. They have a high cross-over in the few AFDs they have participated in and both are devoutly in the minority of consensus (sitting at 18% and 28% matching consensus outcomes)


 * Behavioural tendencies:
 * Frequently does not capitalized bolded lead !vote word (keep, delete, comment)
 * ,, , , ,
 * ,,.


 * Spacing errors between words at the start of end of a sentence. (e.g. "comme ntMA NOTE" or no space after the signature: "Meets WP:GNG.CrazyAces489 (talk)")
 * ,, , , ,
 * ,, , ,


 * Both editors do not use edit summaries (Special:Contributions/CrazyAces489 and Special:Contributions/24.103.234.74, specifically between the dates of Dec 16, 2014 to present where they had overlap)
 * Both editors have only ever supported each other at AFD and in some cases been the only two keep !votes in the discussion. They also rehash each others arguments sometimes using the same words like "pioneer" at Articles for deletion/George Cofield: diffs and.

There are quite a few more examples and it should be noted that the diffs used above are only taken from AFD discussions in which these two had overlaps within 24 hours of each other.

In the eighteen (18) AFDs that 24.103.234.74 has ever participated in, fourteen (14) have been in common with CrazyAces489. What is important in looking for similarities between editors, is also looking at this dissimilarities in where they show independence of each other. I believe the IP possibly rotates, but this would constitute a time where CrazyAces489 possibly used !voting at with his IP to change the direction of a number of AFDs.

Lastly, it should be noted that CrazyAces489 has filed an SPI against a few other participants of these AFD discussions. I did comment there as I was preparing this SPI when I noticed it among the list. Obviously it's concerning if these articles have been the subject to sockpuppetry so I think it should be looked into where evidence is available and where by due process it's clerk endorsed and CU investigated. Mkdw talk 18:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to add user Boogiecabc to the list of sockpuppets. At the discussion at Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse user Ivanvector makes a good case that Boogiecabc is a sockpuppet. How many editors make their first edit at an SPI?Mdtemp (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also Ivanector also pointed out, Boogiecabc made the same spacing error between the bolded lead word and the rest of his comment. Mkdw talk 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I don't believe I was notified of this. This is pretty interesting.  I support a checkuser of this case against me.  There is no protest.  I know that that I only use one account.   The quicker you do a checkuser the quicker we can move on.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history of 24 and outside of the AFD's over 2 different days. There is NO similar articles that we have edited on over a period of 4 years. . CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 24.103.234.74 is a shared IP likely used by multiple people such as at a school or public library. Generally under the CU Policy, IPs are not openly stated to be associated with a user account except for in clear cases where a conflict or disruption has occurred. Factors like geography and IP range are also used along with how willful the acts were to disrupting the project. WP:DUCK also comes into play as some editors are known to use rotating IPs but enough similarities between behavior and actions can result in a block even if a CU is found to be inconclusive.  Mkdw talk 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For about half of the alleged edits by 24 on one of the days in question, I haven't participated in votes that 24 participated in such as, , , , , . CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * comment I do wonder why a checkuser was declined in this case for user Mdtemp over an IP but for me it was endorsed.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In your summary where you question is that is some kind of "BIAS?", then the answer is that you need to read more carefully what has been approved. In the section below where the clerk endorses "CU should compare CrazyAces489 and Boogiecabc", no IP involved. So no there isn't an inconsistency or conspiracy here. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks 86, I did not notice that at all.  The problem I see also is that based off of one edit that could be just mimicked I could be punished based on behavior.  I know for a fact that I am not Boogiecabc. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well a few things to take into account. I cannot tell you with certainty that checkuser evidence will be 100% correct all the time, it takes interpretation of the various data points and depending on lots of factors that can be really easy or quite difficult. I would suspect checkusers err on the side of caution. The other thing is that blocks etc. on wikipedia are not supposed to be punishment they are supposed to be preventative. (Got to admit that I'm really not up to date on what typical responses to cases like this are). Reasonably I can't tell you what the outcome of this will be, but one thing perhaps to consider is how easy it was to find yourself in this position, do you believe it would be fair and just for this incident to be seen as a "no smoke without fire" event? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Having many exchanges with CA489 in the past couple of weeks, I don't suspect socking as much as just an IP editor that has decided to support CA in some AfD's. I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - CU should compare CrazyAces489 and Boogiecabc. Although Boogiecabc made just one edit, it was on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse (suspicious per se) where he supported CrazyAces489. They also have the same writing style as pointed out here.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint is ❌ to .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing as no action taken. Please refile if there is further evidence.

08 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

CrazyAces admitted in several discussions on various talk pages that he'd created the NegroLeagueHistorian account to avoid the scrutiny he'd come under. Searching for his name at WP:ANI will show his many involvements. An example can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive891#Proposed:_CrazyAces489_banned_from_creating_new_articles where he admits to creating an additional user (see also User_talk:Tokyogirl79/Archive_20, User:Bishonen/Archive_19, User_talk:Papaursa). There are also many suspicious looking instances of votes coming from IPs to support CrazyAces and then never editing again. Examples can be found at Articles for deletion/Jose Landi and Articles for deletion/Sadaki Nakabayashi--both of which CrazyAces took to WP:DRV. At DRV, suddenly another IP, 96.127.236.62, appeared to support him. Out of the blue, this IP made the same racist claims against other editors that CrazyAces had made at Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse/Archive and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive881. It was at the PRehse SPI that user Boogiecabc suddenly appeared to support CrazyAces with his first and only edit. Ivanvector noticed that Boggiecabc even had the same idiosyncratic editing style as CrazyAces. The behavioral evidence that at least some of these are sockpuppets seems strong to me. Papaursa (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just came across some more examples. Ip 148.74.254.186 made his only 4 edits soon after CrazyAces and supported his comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability. Also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts, IP 74.58.125.130 made his only edit where he makes the same nonsensical (because something can only be 1 tier at a time) argument that IVT should be moved "to "second tier status and to first tier status" virtually identical to CrazyAces' desire for "moving of International Vale Tudo Championship to second tier status and to first tier status". Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * CrazyAces489 has a history of getting in trouble by attacking other editors and making false accusations and then saying he's retiring from Wikipedia only to pop back up when he thinks the heat is off. That's the only reason he avoided an indefinite block at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881. At User_talk:Bishonen he admitted removing an AfD template using an IP.Mdtemp (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is pretty crazy. I admit that I tried a "fresh start" under Negro League Historian.  I was outed by Prhese and followed around by TheGracefulSlick.  I speak about the whole situation here.  .   I haven't used or logged on to Negro League Historian in a while (June 2015).   It is now November 2015.  Admins were aware of my using 2 accounts (I didn't edit the same articles) .  There was no point in using a freshstart when I  was still being followed around.       Even now I'm followed by TheGracefulSlick.  as I was with my other account that I do not use anymore.     I am just going to ignore him.

I have tried to stop using even this account but when some articles I wrote were nominated for deletion and IP comments discounted. I realized that I have to use my account for some things. I only have one IP and one username. Both correspond to the same location. Anything else is NOT me. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is obvious ill-will as a result of previous interactions.   I have stayed away from certain places to avoid these fellows.    I was shocked to see this, but not really.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just adding this comment to clear things up on my part. CrazyAces I only "follow you" around because, as I've said many times before, you continue to make edits that are against policy, start unwarranted conflicts, or are just plain wrong. Per policy, it is not stalking if a user is only fixing errors another user consistently makes. At this point, I believe you are just purposely ignoring users' pleas to assist you and make you knowledgable in Wiki standards. I, too, have noticed the IP edits, as has, but for some unknown reason you have been spared any consequences. It's really a shame it's come to this, I even offered to review your articles so you can continue what you want to do here (but actually improve too) yet another pattern of disruptive editing continues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey GracefulSlick, I was wondering when you would chime in! My attempts to have an IBAN against you simply failed! Lets put the cards on the table. You follow me around because I nominated a few articles of yours for deletion and when you retaliated I reported you which got you blocked. You followed me on 2 accounts and anywhere I might come around. I am not using any socks so I am fine. I have been been banned from creating new articles, which was a big thing that I used to do. I was chased around and other users noticed it. . There isn't really much on wiki for me to do, as this is what I liked to do. No reason for me to sockpuppet, so it doesn't bother me to have this up. I don't sockpuppet. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Have you checked the archive of this case? Are you providing any new evidence concerning Boogiecabc that was not already presented before?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Boogiecabc was checked by Checkuser, but there was no comment about behavioral evidence. I believe it's highly unusual for an editor to make their first, and only, edits at either SPI or DRV.  All of the instances I cited above occurred after the appearance of Boogiecabc and I included that user because it appears to have been the beginning of a troubling and suspicious trend. Papaursa (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I had stopped using CA489 but was outed by Peter Rhese in my new account. I believed I was using WP:VALIDALT when I was outed. I was closing out NegroLeagueHistorian (finishing up loose ends) and shifted back to CrazyAces after being outed. I cut down on my use of CrazyAces but have been a bit more active recently. I went from over 500 edits in a month (averaging around 300) to 30. At no point were NLH and CA using the same articles as can be seen. I stopped using NegroLeagueHistorian a few months ago. So a block on NLH isn't a big deal to me. If you feel it is necessary, I am ok with it. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You claim that you created NegroLeagueHistorian to make a "fresh start", but then you used two accounts interchangeably. That is totally against WP:Clean start, so I blocked NegroLeagueHistorian as illegitimate alternate account. I'm still reviewing IP edits.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you did not stop using CrazyAces489 account. The diffs you cited is from 28 May, and you was using CrazyAces489 account on 24 May.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I did stop using it. (CrazyAces) I last edited on it on April 28, 2015 and edited again on May 24, 2015 to create an article that was martial arts related but I didn't want to create that article using NLH as to stay off of the topic  of martial arts as per WP:CLEANSTART. I stopped again that day May 24, 2015 and my next edit was  June 23, 2015. . Almost a month between the edits I believe is stopping using an account. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As per WP:CLEANSTART, .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, It was clearly not used for a month. I jumped on for a few hours for one thing create an article.  I was outted on my new account and came back.  I stopped using NLH after being outed and followed around by TheGracefulSlick.  I closed up a few things I was working on and totally stopped using NLH in late June.   Other admins were aware that I used NLH and  this account.  I chose one account to stick to.   Even when choosing one account my edits declined tremendously.  I barely even use this account.  Look at my edit history from April to now.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I blocked CrazyAces489 for a week because of the sock/meatpuppeting. He (a) created alternative account in clear violation of WP:Clean start and (b) used IP sockpuppets (or meat puppets, whatever) to influence decisions (see: and ). Closing the case.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

21 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I am here to prove that I did NOT use any sockpuppets outside of my attempt to clean start with NLH ( I do have one IP address that is associated with these accounts. You will see that one IP traces back to Canada, one IP traces back to Massachusets.  , the last IP traces to Eastern NYC . I am simply trying to prove that I did NOT use multiple accounts to violate "sockpuppet"  Please take perform a checkuser. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:15, 21 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

 * Checkuser may not be performed on someone on his demand. This is a venue to report sockpuppetry, not to report the lack of sockpuppetry. I'm closing this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * WP:DUCK. One contribution, Bishonen &#124; talk 09:09, 7 August 2016 (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
. Reporting for the record only, closing. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC).

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Master is just a guess based on previous AfD abuse. Suspected puppet's actions look sock-ish to another user as well, so seems worth a report and CU. Murph 9000 (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2016 (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

 * The WP:QUACKing is making my ears bleed. Indeffed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, since it hadn't been archived yet, I've re-opened, added User:Car blocking, blocked and tagged per quack quack, reclosed. Thank you. Getting to be time for a LTA page, perhaps, especially since the individual targets one particular user with all this malicious socking. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC).
 * And yet another, User:Are you serious with your boyfriend. It's easier to create these than to list them, so I for my part am done with the CrazyAces SPIs, I'll just block and tag in the future. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC).
 * I've full-protected User talk:TheGracefulSlick as there seem to be a number of sleeper socks that repeatedly add nonsense to their user page to get above ten edits so they can circumvent the semi-protection. Checkuser assistance is really needed here to ferret out any more sleepers and maybe hard block if we can. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ritchie, I've gathered a couple of them are another well-known harasser, not that it matters. You're right that CU assistance is needed, so the case had better be marked "open". Done. Sorry, Vanjagenije, but there are developments as we speak. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC).
 * I'll sort through these and report my findings shortly. Mike V • Talk 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Group 1 ✅ to each other:


 * Group 2 ✅ to each other:


 * Group 3 ✅ to each other:


 * All 3 groups are ❌ to each other. Group 2 & 3 are ❌ to CrazyAces489. From a technical perspective, I'd say group one is to CrazyAces489. Mike V • Talk 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * As below. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:37, 12 January 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

 * Given the preponderance of behavioural evidence, combined with overlapping checkuser evidence, I've blocked as a CrazyAces489 sock. Given this editor's extended socking and persistent denials of wrong-doing, I'm limiting the amount of information I'm posting here per WP:BEANS. Any admin or CU can email me directly if they wish to know the details, though a review of their edits are pretty obvious on their own if you know what you're looking for.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)