Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dantebish/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Dantebish, a promotion-only, disruptive SPA, was indef blocked yesterday. Two brand new SPAs have now appeared to do the same thing. The wording is not identical but the style unmistakable: Dantebish, Jill Baker, Dr. Josh Corban. That's apart from the fact that Dr. Josh Corban was created just after Jill Baker's edit was reverted, and within one minute reverted it back - the master account was warned and then reported for breaking 3RR, so they may be trying to get around that. bonadea contributions talk 12:49, 14 February 2018 (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

 * . Favonian (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK. bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 14 February 2018 (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

 * Account now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Protection for Dr. Phil (talk show) recently expired, and this brand-new account has now posted the same Sexy Vegan text to it as the earlier socks did. bonadea contributions talk 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding who self-identified as Jaymcgraw here. --bonadea contributions talk 22:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

And who quacks loudly in this edit. --bonadea contributions talk 21:23, 3 July 2018 (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

 * Sockpuppets tagged and page protected. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Recreated the nonsense page about Sexy Vegan in their sandbox. Comparing the sandbox text to e.g.this makes it obvious that the same person is behind the keyboard (not that it's likely that anyone else would create that particular draft...) bonadea contributions talk 06:59, 20 September 2018 (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
✅ to each other: — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it's not the same person, it's at least undisclosed paid editing and meatpuppetry spam. But I agree with the filer. . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
User is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting Sexy Vegan across multiple pages, and gets combative whenever they are confronted about it, much like other Dantebish socks. In my view, very much a DUCK situation. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

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


 * I strongly disagree with the assertion that is a sock of this account. As opposed to Dantebish, Kristin has not (from all I've looked at) put any screaming, comments, accusations (etc.) anything but article content within the article. I think that the the type of following that  ugh  Sexy Vegan generates are likely to appear very similar, especially those that take them serious enough to try and defend them on the project. Kristin is stubborn, yes, and they don't have a wonderful grasp on how we do things here yet, but they are trying, and showing some understanding of wikipedia principles. Hell, they respected WP:BRD when I reverted a lot of their actions. They came to me and other experienced editors to ask for help to correct falsehoods in the article and deal with someone they thought was a vandal, instead of doing it themselves. The two users also seem to have very different manners of 'speech' in talk spaces. If this case continues as such I will try to provide some better hard evidence and diffs (assuming the article mentioned isn't deleted beforehand) but for now I just want to humbly request you take a closer look at the actions of these two. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Dane Bish" is the name of a fictional character in Sexy Vegan's [as "Hanz DeBartolo"]'s self-published Createspace book After Death (he is a protagonist who invents a technologically-advanced toilet that completely cleans away feces from people's rear ends). I'm not sure about Kristin carlicci. As best as I've heard, that's another name of a fictional character in one of Vegan's self-published works, but I'm not paying the fifteen bucks to buy the book and find out. It wouldn't really be fair to label this second account a sockpuppet unless it can be proven to be Vegan's, but Kristin carlicci did admit to being a very strong fan and follower of Vegan's in an argument over the information being posted to a Sexy Vegan Wikipedia article, so there is a conflict of interest there. This does not mean that Kristin carlicci is Vegan, though. PetSematary182 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Oy vey. So, it turns out that "Kristin" is not quite a sockpuppet by definition, but rather something a bit more insidious. This is the archived ad posted by Sexy Vegan offering monetary payment to anybody who could forcibly have what he considers "defamatory" Wikipedia articles removed... and it looks like Kristin carlicci was his mercenary. I would not go so far as to call her a sockpuppet, but she may have accepted money to have the Sexy Vegan Wikipedia page forced into deletion to hide Vegan's criminal conviction for that incident involving the pit bull. Note that Kristin carlicci's only Wikipedia edits ever made were to the Sexy Vegan page, which she suddenly dropped once it had been slated for formal deletion. I honestly have no idea how Wikipedia might handle a thing like this. It is monetary coercion occurring at least in part between collaborating parties, and I can think of no other case where this has happened before. On top of that, technically Kristin carlicci did not do anything wrong by getting the page slated for deletion. She removed large chunks of information and replaced it with praise for Vegan, she almost got two confirmed members' accounts blocked, but she did not act in bad faith in getting the page slated for deletion, at least not within the bounds of Wikipedia, even if she was paid by Vegan to do this. PetSematary182 (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - What evidence do you have that Kristin carlicci accepted money to get the article deleted? There's an ad where someone is offering money to get the article deleted. There is an editor that worked towards deleting the article, and then stopped editing after it wound up at AfD. But, that alone isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that there is definitely a COI there. Is there anything else? Besides that, even if it were true, there's obviously nothing a checkuser could do to verify whether or not this editor was paid to delete the article. No comment on whether this editor is a sock, as I'm not familiar with Dantebish's editing patterns.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 02:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would ask for diffs of adding praise for him if it weren't impossible. I don't recall any of that occurring, and most of what the user was deleting was actually problematic content that other users affirmed the deletion of. Your interactions with this specific user raised some flags with me, this isn't the first time I've seen you stretch the truth or make snide remarks regarding them. That combined with this accusation of paid editing... which I've seen repeated as fact elsewhere... makes me hope you're trying to keep things factual and stay neutral regarding the matter. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already long-since lost interest in this matter. I have no wish to remain involved with the subject matter of "Sexy Vegan"; he is clearly a contentious person and I really don't need to be involved with that right now. I primarily try to keep myself limited to creating articles on Canadian personalities and true crime cases, although occasionally I will create articles on YouTube personalities (Doug Walker, for example). The Sexy Vegan article is the only time I have ever found myself caught up in controversy on Wikipedia before, but he is not the first self-proclaimed "celebrity" I have dealt with on this platform. There is another, Ian Bernardo (you may recognize him from American Idol), who pulls the same crap as Sexy Vegan in terms of reputation defense. For this reason, I try not to actually create articles of figures like these; Sexy Vegan is the first of such figures I have created articles for in a long time, and after this experience, I will probably stay away from that type of public figure and just let some other Wikipedian deal with them. I have no opinion on Sexy Vegan as a person, beyond that I find him rather creepy and grotesque, but not enough to remain involved in some edit war with a lackey of his, and certainly not enough to try and maintain any article of/about Sexy Vegan to the point of putting my own account at risk. How does that old saying go? "Don't roll with a pig in the mud. You'll only get dirty, and besides, the pig enjoys it." I don't want to roll in that mud, so I'm just going to leave this thing alone. As for the paid editing, there is a record of this online shared by another Wikipedia member. I would hope that Wikipedia strongly discourages paid reputation defense as a form of information curation. PetSematary182 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I just noticed that besides the Sexy Vegan page, DanteBish and Kristin carlicci edited the same few pages, a school SV went to, the Dr. Phil Show and a psychologist who works for Dr. Phil, adding similar content. This is an SPI case that will have to be judged on behavioral evidence any way. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw that earlier. The edit to the psychologist (Charles Sophy)'s page is perhaps the worst, because Kristin not only labelled Vegan a "celebrity" (which he clearly is not), but the edit also had the name of Paris Hilton, a real celebrity and person, edited so that it would link back to Vegan. It's this type of thing that could really cause a lot more harm than him simply editing a page about himself. PetSematary182 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Based on writing style and interests... probably, yeah. More likely than not. Either way, NOTHERE, so I've indeffed per that and tagged as suspected. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)