Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctor Doomsday/Archive

Report date May 8 2009, 20:32 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Editor appeared the same day Doctor Doomsday was indef'd, and immediately began reverting to Doctor Doomsday's edits, almost all of which relate to Amalgam Comics characters. admin J Greb can offer more on this case.
 * Evidence submitted by ThuranX (talk)

In light of the rapidity of the socking, as described by J Greb below, a RFCU may be needed to ferret out other socks, and prevent more disruption. ThuranX (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Some small clarity:
 * Doctor Doomsday's editing had been in spurts. And when the editor would edit it would generally be to re-insert his preferred text block in to articles. There would be nil discussion and nil edit summaries, just re-inserting it. This garnered warning for disruptive editing.
 * During the last spate, he did drop notes on ThuranX's and my user talks . The first of which garnered him an npa warning from an uninvolved editor.
 * An uninvolved admin, Toddst1, took him up on those posts, and based on the on going disruption, blocked him on the May 5.
 * Doc's last two edits were attempts to wipe the block notice (May 6) and  (May 7).
 * V for Venganza's first was 7 minutes after that.
 * V's initial edits were to revert to Doc's versions on half a dozen articles.

I agree with ThuranX. This feels like Doc having created a new account to evade a block he essentially asked for and continue editing disruptively.

- J Greb (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Syn  ergy 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Luk  talk (lucasbfr) 11:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All tagged and blocked. Icestorm815  •  Talk  04:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 15 2009, 02:13 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by ThuranX

Early edit was to blank the User and user talk pages of Doctor Doomsday; all other edits were to reintroduce the same repeatedly objected to SYNTH/TRIV vio material to comic book characters about the Amalgam promotional event characters.ThuranX (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * The above user has been indef blocked by . Tiptoety  talk 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 15 2009, 02:16 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by J Greb

This seems to be a second sock created by Doctor Doomsday, the previous being (cf Sockpuppet investigations/Doctor Doomsday/Archive).

To date "Kluh Erad"'s only edits have been to
 * 1) reinstate, verbatum, Doctor Doomsday's prefered sections, and
 * 2) blank Doctor Doomsday's user and talk pages.

At this point it appears to be a blatant sock.

It's also worth noting that after Kluh Erad's blanking of Doc's talk page, was reverted, Doc blanked the page himself.

- J Greb (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by J Greb (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

It appears, given the positive CU from the previouse SPI, that Doctor Doomsday is more than willing to just jump accounts to continue to be disruptive. This account looks to be an extention of that pattern.

If this account traces back to link to Doc and V, it maybe that the base IP may need a shake.

- J Greb (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * at this time. The above user has been indef blocked, and as there is no evidence to suggest this user has been evading his block via IPs I see little to justify an IP or range block at this point. That said, if he continues I feel it would be a good idea to better explore the idea of some form of IP block. Tiptoety  talk 04:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety talk 04:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 19 2009, 02:10 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Identical initial edit to Hulk (Comics) as his prior socks. He has now escalated to creating multiple socks impersonating, and/or mocking, a user in good standing and admin, J Greb. I think an IP block may be warranted. ThuranX (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by ThuranX


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * All blocked/tagged. Tiptoety  talk 02:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 19 2009, 03:00 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Identical initial edit to Hulk (Comics) as his prior socks. He has now escalated to creating multiple socks impersonating, and/or mocking, a user in good standing and admin, J Greb. I think an IP block may be warranted. ThuranX (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by ThuranX


 * Christ this thing turned into a clustefuck of a report. Apparently it doesn't matter what button/field you use, it dumps it in the same place, which I didn't realize either. So you cna't use the old in a tab to fix the new in another tab. What a mess. Hope it's all fixed now. ThuranX (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on whether 'archived case' refers to something about an hour old,(then yes), or days old (then no.) ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AND - A CU is needed to find the underlying IP to block it, since after six puppets in two weeks, he's not going to stop, but escalate, unless blocked.ThuranX (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by ThuranX (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * For underlying ip block and please check for sleepers.  Syn  ergy 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * There are no accounts listed, and this appears to be a duplicate of the recently closed case. Maybe this was a mistake? Tiptoety  talk 03:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This popped up when the SPCUClerkbot went through. Must have been a goof there.  Side note...slightly related, I have marked the ANI post resolved. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All listed accounts already blocked, are you sure this is not the same case as the archived case? ——  nix eagle email me 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, obviously. His editing range is 189.181.0.0/16 (looks like it's broken down into several /24 but I don't see them using the same /24 twice). There are several other users there though. -- Luk  talk 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If no block can be done I'll go ahead and suggest it be closed for now.  Syn  ergy 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Syn  ergy 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 26 2009, 20:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by ThuranX

Special:Contributions/TherenX. Follows the pattern of creating names based on those of his opponents, and readding the same exact Amalgam Fancruft that he's been asked not to, which has a project opposition to, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Blocked and tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)