Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins/Archive

Evidence submitted by Ktr101
The user has commented on many AFDs. Usually Bravedog comments, and GaGaOohLaLa comments a little while later. Two examples can be seen here and here. A discussion here is rather interesting because Bravedog starts something, but GaGa continues it as though they might be the same user. Both users also nominate articles for deletion with similar rationale. They also tend to focus around songs and albums for their deletions. This might be normal, but the fact that they both also work in deletion areas for most of their edits strikes me as a bit odd. This might be normal, but I certainly have never encountered this before.

The GaGa was even brought to ANI when it became clear that they knew a lot for a new user on deletions. See here for the example. The issue was resolved, but not after a little quarrel between a few users. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Update GaGa is referring to me being "ticked off" that the Lame Horse incident was nominated for deletion. At a discussion here on AN, Bravedog accused me of doing exactly that. He also looked through my page contributions and nominated an article for deletion that you would have a hard time finding unless you knew where to look. I find the talking between userpages also suspicious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Note Both users have stopped editing after they responded on this page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Update Gaga and Bravedog have still quit editing. Gaga, the fact that both of "you" stopped at the same time is also a sign of suspicion. There is a logical argument that could be made that at least one editor would continue editing since different people think differently. I've also never seen a vote of "Keep" from these editors (Damiel just informed me that Bravedog had one "Keep" vote), although it is possible that one came out. The overwhelming votes towards deletion show signs of a hidden agenda in that a normal user has a mix of both types of votes. The fact that both "users" communicated in a sudden "Wow, we're being implicated!" discussion is weird, but not necessarily odd. I also don't find it odd that people editing together wouldn't communicate, but people like to reach out, so this is rather suspicious in itself. We aren't twisting your arguments, we're trying to prove our point as you prove ours. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Note GaGa started a thread at ANI for me here. It was declined as I am not an administrator. He is also trying to say that I am telling others on AFDs about this. Daniel is also doing this. I have also not used ITSNOTNOTABLE at all and I don't plan on doing so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to GaGa GaGa, we aren't breaking Canvass as we are already not supporting your arguments. I never indicated that I would get someone on board with this. I only was talking to him because I have been responding to all these accusations by myself, and it gets really old after a while. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel never said that Lady GaGa, The Saturdays and Rihanna are obscure. He just stated how odd it is that you both happen to edit the templates with eerily similar summaries. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fences and windows
Both accounts are solely used to nominate articles for deletion, argue for deletion, or remove links after deletion, and they both focus on pop culture. GaGaOohLaLa was immediately suspected of being a sockpuppet as their first action was a deletion nomination, see Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive580. GaGaOohLaLa has nominated two articles that Bravedog has also argued to delete, see Articles for deletion/Una Healy and Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song).

User:Daniel Case has noted that "A review of their respective contribs finds that since the GaGaOohLaLa account was created on 11/25, it and Bravedog have never been logged on at the same time. Yet they have contributed to the several of the same AfDs, not all of them having to do with Lady GaGa." Indeed, Bravedog finished a two-day series of edits at 17:47 on 25 November 2009 GaGaOohLaLa was created at 20:13, 25 November 2009, and immediately nominated three members of The Saturdays for deletion, at Articles for deletion/Una Healy. Bravedog only returned to editing on 23:08 30 November 2009, to !vote for deletion at... Articles for deletion/Una Healy!, just over an hour after GaGaOohLaLa commented there. Interestingly, both used the word 'violation' in their comments.

I also suspect that User:Bravedog is itself a long-term 'bad hand' sockpuppet, especially as it nominated Jimmy Wales for deletion in August 2007, then promptly stopped editing for over a year.

Evidence submitted by Daniel Case
(As I compiled and filed, apparently Ktr101 and Fences and Windows were doing so as well. So we may have found some of the same diffs. Apologies)

Bravedog has been intermittently active since registering in August 2006. He primarily has edited in pop-culture topics, specifically music, and has initiated many deletion discussions (twice on Jimmy Wales: here and here).

My attention was drawn to him by his listing Perm Lame Horse club fire (which, I must disclose, I'd been working on myself occasionally, including reviewing some Russian-language sources and adding facts from them) at AfD. In reviewing his contribution history I found a surprising amount of edits with GaGaOohLaLa.

GaGa was created on November 25. The next day the account drew an AN/I from the awfully high amount of deletion noms it was making for a new account. There were some allegations of sockpuppetry there, but it was resolved without anybody being sanctioned.

However, the AN/I filer didn't identify a possible puppeteer. But I found that GaGa and Bravedog have never been online at the same time since the former account was created. Yet they have edited an awful lot of the same pages, including dicey AfDs:


 * One of GaGa's first edits was to nominate Una Healy of The Saturdays for deletion. Five days later, Bravedog supported the nomination.


 * On December 2, GaGa nominates Speechless (Lady Gaga song) (then on the Main Page in DYK) for deletion. Two and a half hours later, Bravedog casts a support vote.


 * Both accounts have edited Template:The Saturdays: and (Note the similarity of the edit summaries)


 * They have also both edited Template:Rihanna: and  (Here note similar edits as well as similar edit summaries).

I believe I hear some quacking. Since some of these instances tainted votes, and I am not sure if there are other accounts out there, I believe Checkuser would be helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Since this was filed, the two accounts have not stopped the suspicious activity. First is this little "I'm Nobody! Are you/ Nobody too?"-type exchange between the two accounts, which hadn't communicated before, in an apparent attempt to prove they're unrelated:,, , and.

Today, December 6, GaGa has also nominated Katy Hudson (album) for deletion. Right on cue, Bravedog votes for deletion (and with a misleading edit summary as well). Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to GaGa: (In Vincent D'Onofrio voice from Law & Order: Criminal Intent): But it's sort of ... funny, that only as it seemed that an SPI was imminent, did you and GaGa communicate for the first time, despite such ... similar interests.(as myself, as ominous droning synthesizer music begins): Saying "You got it!" after "you" commented on "GaGa"'s talk page that you should be expecting a notice about an SPI qualifies as "some sarcastic and nonconstructive comments"? But whatever ... And that old "just an amazing coincidence" defense really won't work, since for two people with similar interests you so assiduously avoided each other. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to further obfuscation by GaGa: Two people who have already filed an SPI communicating regarding that SPI does not constitute canvassing. GaGa also says their non-contact for two weeks prior to this SPI despite editing some of the same pages does not argue for them being the same person, but doesn't provide any underlying logic. It's my experience that if I edit an article about some obscure subject, and some new editor starts showing that interest (i.e., it shows up on my watchlist), I'd drop them a note along the lines of "Hey, I see you like this subject too ..." as a spur to further productive collaboration. For that not to happen in two weeks, especially one of which was a U.S. holiday week, is odd. Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor does it mean anything that you have both been editing at the same time this evening. You could have two browsers, or two windows, open at the same time. Or you're logged on through an open proxy or something on the second account. Others have tried such dodges, especially when their similarities were called into question, and failed horribly. Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You used "this evening" and since it's evening US Eastern time I presumed you were on that time as well. That, I could be wrong about, but only that (and your editing hours aren't inconsistent with that assumption either ... if you're on UK time, you do a lot of editing in the wee hours of the morning). Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, GaGa, I'll concede you're at least not a speaker of American English. But only that, and now we have something to look over Bravedog's contribs for. Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And so, too, is Bravedog. Yet another amazing coincidence. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's yet another amazing coincidence. Not the only one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And now we see you have the same IP. You're going to say that's another coincidence, right? Oops, you can't, you got blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Bravedog: "I was simply browsing through my history to check the basis of these accusations and decided to have my say. That is not illegal, is it?" If I were accused of sockpuppetry, the last thing I would do would be to vote in support of a deletion that the other accused account had nominated. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Further observation that needs no diffs: Note how both accounts personalize this ("this is only happening because Kevin Rutherford is mad at us me!"). And it has continued. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Er...what can I say? I appear to have the same/a similar taste in music as bravedog and we, therefore, edit some of the same articles and would (understandably) vote in the same AFDs. It appears that somebody was very hacked off that an article they like was nominated for deletion and has therefore tried to make a drama out of something that doesn't exist. User:Daniel Case has also left some sarcastic and nonconstructive comments on my talk page. The comments about me and this user not editing at the same time is also nonsense- a check of both of our contributions this evening shows that we have both been editing continuously at the same time all evening, sometimes during the same minute. There is no substance to these accusations. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am as stumped as the other user involved. (S)he says almost everything there is to say really. Regarding the comment about me !voting in the Katy Hudson AFD that the other user started: it was not stated that I commented his talk page regarding these accusations about a minute later. I was simply browsing through my history to check the basis of these accusations and decided to have my say. That is not illegal, is it? Bravedog (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And the phrase "ticked off"? It's very popular - . Bravedog (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's now been stated that, in the 2 weeks in which I've been editing, that it is "unusual" for the 2 of us not to have been in contact because we edit similar articles. I'd argue in the completely opposite direction. It's also been noted as "unusual" that we both stopped editing after commenting here. Um, if your actions were constantly being twisted and used as "evidence" against you every time you hit the edit button, wouldn't you get off the computer? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Kevin Rutherford has now been using WP:ITSNOTABLE and the fact that this investigation is occurring in order to !vote keep for articles that I have nominated for deletion (evidence. I have notified the admins about this behaviour. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence here of Daniel Case and Ktr101 breaking WP:CANVAS. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Daniel Case, the music of Lady GaGa, Rihanna and The Saturdays are "obscure topics". Also, I'm not American (can't speak for bravedog, but as the former are not famous outside of the UK I can assume he's a Brit too) so it wouldn't make a difference to me or my editing if there was a holiday on the other side of the world. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's now an "amazing coincidence" that both myself and the other user are British, despite the fact that over 60 million people live in the UK and we both edit UK-based articles. It's moments like this that I really wonder why people call Americans too self-interested and ignorant. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
This was somewhat bizarrely taken to ANI here. Just FYI. Tan  &#124;   39  22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tan, I don't think it's "bizarre" to object to unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusations being given as actual rationales to !vote one way or another in XfDs. That's blatant argumentum ad hominem.  — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The accusations are far from "unsubstantiated"; au contraire, there is much substantiation. Simply see above. But you're right, I retract the "bizarre" part. Tan   &#124;   39  00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope we learned something today, Sizzle. Tan   &#124;   39  05:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What an ad hominem abusive is? "This tactic is logically fallacious because... even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. ... 'Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003.'"  — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see reasons to argue at this point. A checkuser will clear this up nicely.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * . This case needs a CheckUser. The evidence is there, and at this point we need a confirmation as to whether or not it proves true. Jamie  S93  00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * ✅ Bravedog = GaGaOohLaLa, and also . It's a toss up on whether the master is Bravedog or Dalejenkins, both accounts have existed since 2006. -- Versa geek  02:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked all three accounts indefinitely. I am open to any admin reviewing the duration for the master account(I chose Bravedog as the master) and considering a fixed duration. Chillum  02:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If he does not request unblock, I am fine with leaving it at indefinite. NW ( Talk ) 02:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that I might not be allowed to comment here since I am not an administrator, but looking over Davejenkin's history, it seems like he is the sockpuppeteer as he has the majority of edits. Bravedog seems to be the deletion sock of him and he only worked in those areas. In a way it seems he did the dirty work of Dale. Gaga just was a sock of Bravedog in a way since they worked on deletions together. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Case renamed appropriately. NW ( Talk ) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by A Nobody
User:Dalejenkins was recently blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. Before being blocked, Dalejenkins had a history of renominating articles for deletion. Dalejenkins had made the following nomination: Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy. New account, User:Starwarsdeathstar's very first edit is to create Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (2nd nomination). A glance at this new accounts edits also reveals a slew of talk page notifications of the discussion that are consistent with Dalejenkins's behavior in another Star Wars related renomination discussed at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by A NobodyMy talk 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * per below. NW ( Talk ) 22:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * The evidence seems convincing to me. I have blocked the account, speedily closed the AfD, and reverted any unanswered-to edits made. NW ( Talk ) 22:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fences and windows
Dalejenkins was blocked for sockpuppetry on the 7th December; this account was created the next day. Dale and his sockpuppets have focussed on editing and deleting pop culture articles, as does this user.

Has edited articles the other accounts have edited, including articles on Lady Gaga such as Speechless (Lady Gaga song) that the sock GaGaOohLaLa nominated for deletion. WikiChecker shows the same peak in editing at 18:00 GMT. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Overlap with Dalejenkins:; GaGaOohLaLa:; Bravedog:; Windhover75:. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

–MuZemike 23:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ socks of ;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 23:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's "WossOccuring" with one "R", but what about "WossOccurring" with two "R"s? –MuZemike 00:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They're the same person. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I want confirmation from CheckUser. We've had imposter accounts before. –MuZemike 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. User:WossOccuring redirects to User:WossOccurring. –MuZemike 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ✅ too. Also -  A l is o n  ❤ 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alison. –MuZemike 00:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by A Nobody
User:Dalejenkins and a slew of his socks have been blocked throughout December for sockpuppetry and incivility. Dale is a notorious delete-happy account that used the socks to antagonize members of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS). See for example one sock dismissing those he disagrees with as “fan boys”. He is also allegedly from The United Kingdom. The IPs listed above that are acting in a similar fashion also trace back to Britain and have been viciously attacking some of the same editors that Dalejenkins targetted in AfDs by calling ARS members "moron" and "retard". At a minimum, these IPs are violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as well as WP:POINT by removing and rewriting the ARS member's comments. But more likely than not they are socks of a banned user. I strongly request that a checkuser be done so that we can appropriately tag the IP pages as socks for future reference as well as to be sure that no additional socks have been missed. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I don't think that tagging the IPs will serve any great purpose - BT broadband is possibly the biggest ISP in the UK and these IPs are allocated dynamically every time a router is reset. pablo hablo. 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, they banned one IP address after another, the person taunting saying he'd keep changing it, so a wide spread block had to be done to stop him. He even taunted people at the discussion for the block by making three totally new IPs to use. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents is where that happened at.   D r e a m Focus  22:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by A NobodyMy talk 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - sorry. There's no point to this exercise, given the IPs being cycled here. One IP assigned to this one sock-puppeteer could be in use by a completely different editor within hours. All the other accounts mentioned here have been previously checked and blocked - A l is o n  ❤ 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone contact the ISP and ask them who was using these IP at that exact time? Most ISP do have policies to block their own customers who are using the internet to harass people.  There are even laws in place in some areas.  Otherwise, there is nothing to stop the same person from constantly attacking, they not appearing to be stopped, and rather arrogant about it.   D r e a m Focus  23:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, it's a /10 IP range.

route:       86.128.0.0/10 descr:       BT Public Internet Service origin:      AS2856 mnt-by:      BTNET-MNT source:      RIPE # Filtered


 * We cannot possibly block anything of that magnitude here. Checkuser shows the /16 IP range to be stuffed with activity from many, many thousands of editors - A l is o n  ❤ 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Report date March 14 2010, 21:21 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

In February, Chrisbuzzard has repeatedly been involved with trying to get the page, Star Wars sequel trilogy deleted by making AfD's and PROD's, which Dalejenkins and his confirmed socks have been doing as well (with the exception of the PROD's). SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 21:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994).
 * I put this down for an SPI due to the amount of times Jenkins has renominated that article which resembles how many times Chrisbuzzard tried to get it deleted. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 21:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The current revision of this talk page shows the kind of language from Chrisbuzzard that looks familiar compared to the language Dalejenkins used on talk pages and Afd's. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 15:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the IP as WHOIS reports that the IP is from the US and Dalejenkins has previously been identified as a British user. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at Chrisbuzzard's edit history, I have removed him as a suspect as it is unlikely that this is Dalejenkins due to Chrisbuzzard being around before Dalejenkins. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I added Supertart to the mix as they come here, supposedly brand new, and nominate two articles for deletion.When I originally saw the AFD nomination for Siobhan Magnus, I believed that something was up. I looked into Supertart's contributions to see that he only edited Siobhan's article and that of Katie Stevens, also another American Idol contestant. Once I saw this, I felt that this was Dale, as he is the only one that I know of who would go about editing in this way. The fact that Dale used his original socks for deletions is exactly what is worrisome with this user. He also reverted the contributions of an editor here under the auspices of canvassing, which wasn't the intent of the notice. Clearly this user has been here before. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Ktr101 talk

I don't know why it would be assumed I'm a sockpuppet. Simply examining my account shows how long it has been registered, what I have edited, and if I've had conflicts in the past. I log on from two places, work (a university) and home (both in the USA). I have on rare occasion (out of laziness and being a novice at wikipedia editing) made edits without signing in. I believe this accusation is "Bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack") because of my (admittedly) slightly unprofessional criticism (criticism which was extremely brief and ceased nearly a month ago). So good luck with this.Chrisbuzzard (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Your constant attempts to try and get Star Wars sequel trilogy deleted raised suspicions as Dalejenkins had a habit of doing that. I made this in good faith to do the right thing and I'm not attacking you. We'll see what Checkuser has to say. Socks can go undetected for a little while (e.g. a month) and they do get caught eventually. One SPI I know of, a sock wasn't blocked when they should have been due to its late report. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to the editor of the page I originally criticized (TheRealFennShysa) apparent involvement (reverting my user pages) I'm think I'm going to have to stand by the "bad faith". I'm also going to go ahead and state that the person who opened this case used poor judgement, and probably did not examine my user history, going on nothing similar to "Dalejenkins" other than we both criticized a wikipeida entry. Chrisbuzzard (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough you may not be Dalejenkins (CheckUser will find that out) but don't forget that Supertart is also a suspect in this SPI. I only considered you to be Dalejenkins as of the constant attempts to get Star Wars sequel trilogy deleted. I apologize in advance if it turns out you're not Dalejenkins but as it has already been Clerk endorsed, as well as a second user being suspected, the SPI stays and the CheckUser decides your fate. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 15:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree that he probably isn't Dale. Dale was a lot more aggressive when defending the accusations against him. Also, when he was found out, he virtually stopped editing. Supertart has stopped editing ever since I added him while Chris seems to not be like him except for the deletion thing. Chris's account is also two years old, so it is unlikely that Dale would use this account on one computer the entire time and not log in any other socks from it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that subjecting me to CheckUser is an unnecessary invasion, when simply checking my user history would have shown that is extremely unlikely I am related to "Dalejenkins" (as stated above).Chrisbuzzard (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at Chrisbuzzard's contributions, I have removed him as a suspect due to the account being older than that of Dalejenkins' original account. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I mentioned that you should examine my user history twice. You only decided to remove me after someone else did it for you.  This shows that you failed to listen to (or were actively choosing to ignore) what I was pointing out (the accused).  You may need to reexamine your methods.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbuzzard (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested by SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 21:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

– Star Wars + AFDs cannot be good. –MuZemike 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:SuperSonicSpeed has been indefinitely blocked as a CU-confirmed sock of banned user User:GEORGIEGIBBONS. –MuZemike 19:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Rather dumb place for a sock to be hanging out... Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ in comparison to User:VaginicaSeaman, who fortunately wasn't stale yet. The range is too large to effectively search for sleepers. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the suspected socks of Dalejenkins? –MuZemike 19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked Supertart, and that's who I was referring to. Is a check still needed for Chrisbuzzard? He's no longer on the list. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris doesn't need a check as SuperSonic withdrew it. Chris wasn't acting like how Dale acted, and it was agreed upon by both of us that there was no link between Chris and Dale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Supertart indefinitely blocked and tagged. I suppose I overlooked the last statement by SuperSonicGIBBONS withdrawing the request on Chrisbuzzard. –MuZemike 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Shockmetric
GaGatelephone has made a third nomination on the Afd for Star Wars sequel trilogy and minutes after that, Starwarsdeathstar was created and commented on that Afd saying, delete per nom. They then commented each others talk pages with this and this. This indicates they have been here before. A check isn't needed unless someone wants to look for sleepers. Shockmetric (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Pretty consistent with the other socks especially with regards to Starwarsdarthvader. Both accounts blocked and tagged.  E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 22:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Shockmetric
Another duck of Dalejenkins. Created this afd for Star Wars sequel trilogy. The name is also very similar to yesterday's blocked, User:Starwarsdarthvader and User:Starwarsdeathstar, both socks of Dale.
 * Starwarschewbacca has just recreated this afd on this page which Starwarsdarthvader made yesterday. Blatant sock. ShockMetric 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Bagged, tagged, and junk he created has been deleted. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Shockmetric
Another Dalejenkins duck recreating the Afd for Star Wars sequel trilogy (the name Starwarsdroid is similar to his past socks, Starwarsdarthvader, Starwarschewbacca and Starwarsdeathstar). Note the threat of further socks on this page. Is it possible for the blocking admin to semi-protect Star Wars sequel trilogy so that there are no further Afd's from socks of Dale? Shock Metric  10:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by MuZemike
First edit was to nominate Boba Phat for deletion (see Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination)). Fits the class MO of banned user Dalejenkins. –MuZemike 17:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding as that user's only edits were to that abovementioned AFD. –MuZemike 17:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Feel free to run whatever checks you feel necessary. You'll see, I'm sure, that the other users and I are, in fact, separate people with separate IP addresses and physical addresses. You'll also probably be able to note that I have made several edits prior to this with no account; I'm sure my IP address was recorded. I assumed that, given I chose to vote for the deletion of an article, it would be prudent to create a new account.Rogueslade (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentI must concur. Having a sockpuppet accusation against me, and then not letting me defend myself in the designated section seems a bit shady. I may be misunderstanding this area of the site, but there is a section labled "Comments by accused parties". However, when I look at the tabs up top, I see nothing that allows me to edit the page to add such comments. Is this normal? Feel free to run CheckUser on my account as well. I know I'm not a sock puppet, and a CheckUser will verify that.Biohazard388 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems I've also been added to this accusation. I can say without a doubt that I am not a sock-puppet account.  Run a check on my IP as well if necessary.  Is it not possible to have the same opinion as those above me without the accusation that I am just a sock-puppet? Mandoman89 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
These three editors appear within hours of each other and immediately only go to the same AFD. Appears to be a duck test for sockpuppets. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I added Mandoman89 as they have also edited at the AFD in question. Ktr101 (talk) 20:37, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

I added the rest to see what else might turn up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I love that all three accused parties found this discussion and commented on it already.--Milowent (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the whole point of the notice put on each party's page? --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we did kind of alert them of this, so it's not like they are superhuman or something...or are they. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by –MuZemike 17:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) rather a long term sleeper it seems, like. Endorsed to check the link. If a sleeper check could be run too that would be great. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gagatelephone and the three Starwars ones are all, whoever that is. The other three are technically ❌; they're on the same continent as each other, but that's the closest relationship to be found. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that produced some interesting results. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

17 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

I was suspicious that this user was Dale a while back, but their latest series of edits seem....odd - on 12 Jan they vandalised the data, and uploaded blank versions, of two files Dale had previously uploaded - File:BrianDowling.jpg and File:BrianBelo.jpg, and they also made this edit to one of Dale's sub pages, and that was the last time they editted. Before that, they had interests and traits similar to Dale, namely a huge interest in Big Brother / The Apprentice and various songs. They also file Afds based on non-notability, but which are kept pretty easily - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: Tonight's the Night and Articles for deletion/2010 Times Square car bomb attempt. Their very first edit in March 2010, a detailed keep Ad vote, also suggests they weren't a new user. Another link to Dale is this edit, where he asks at AN if a recreated article previously deleted by Dale (Articles for deletion/Hitmixes) can be speedy deleted. MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2011 (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

 * No checkuser could be done here, as Dalejenkins and all of his socks are stale. Still, I've blocked the sock per behavioral evidence. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)