Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dreaded hall monitor/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Having exhausted the 3RR, two nearly identical IPs show up within minutes of Oneshotofwhiskey being reverted and within minutes of each other to reinstate Oneshotofwhiskey's changes, both at 2016: Obama's America and my talk page. See diffs:,. I don't see how the socking could be more obvious. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
This is the second time this disruptive editor has falsely accused me in as many of days of socking. His last 'investigation' ended with an admin accusing him of "muckraking" and calling him out for his anecdotal reasoning. Correlation doesn't equal causation. It's an election �year, maybe the most volatile one is American history. The pages we are editing are contentious for that reason, and experiencing high traffic. Reviewing the edit history of this disruptive editor shows that this isn't the first time his edit warring has stirred up the emotions of other editors. I have nothing to hide and perform whatever behavioral or IP tests on my that you would like. If it needs to be said, I have no relationship or connection to the anon editor who reverted this disruptive editor (i.e. JUST in case this disruptive editor tries to spin this into a meatpupppeting accusation as well). He was in the middle of an edit war, I can hardly blame readers for taking him to task.

Also, as an FYI to those checking out this second SPI by this editor: he is in the middle of an edit war and has blatantly reversed my edits in violation of 3RR. That would only be possible if he was also WP:WIKIHOUNDING and stalking my contributions. I would expect an editor who knows the rules as well as him,(and is quick to lecture others about the rules) to know better than to engage in an edit war.

It is interesting to note that in the first SPI this disruptive editor attempted (only a few days ago) he accused me of socking in a knee-jerk fashion by trying to use old, stale settled SPIs to bolster his case. This attempt to stack the deck was called out by the admin as an attempt to give weight to a fresh accusation using old and irrelevant evidence. If I'm allowed to speculate, I think it is safe to assume it was in the service of manipulating whoever would read it by making it look like it was a mountain of evidence. Once that was removed by the admin, it was obvious that the accuser was relying solely on anecdotal observations and bad faith. Again, thankfully the prior admins saw through this and dismissed the accuser's anecdotal reasoning; going as far as accusing this editor of "muckraking".

Here is the FIRST SP where the first editor (falsely) accused me of socking and where his fallacious reasoning was called out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SkepticAnonymous/Archive#13_October_2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneshotofwhiskey (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? How many IPs follow my talk page?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You tell me. Ask him (or her) and find out. That's how good faith works. For such a seasoned editor (as you brag about being) you seem to ignore the part of this page when editing that says) "Do not make accusations without providing evidence." It's basic logic 101 that says a correlation doesn't equal causation. If you removed your agenda to disrupt me, there are a dozen OTHER more thoughtful and civil assumptions you could have also arrived at. Maybe another editor who is on our page following us (and, yes, there are more than a few) forgot to log in (it happens). Or maybe you are behind that IP and trying to frame me. You were quick with this SPI after the anon showed up. Most thoughtful editors take their time before jumping to conclusions, especially after just being admonished for an SPI that went nowhere. Or maybe it is a coincidence - like your amazing evidence about "whiskey" in my name being similar to another user name you (falsely) accused me of socking with. See what I did there? You are in for a little surprise if you actually believe that anon is connected to me. How is this working out for you? The burden of proof is always on the accuser, never the accused. Both this SPI and the other failed one you attempted were based upon the fallacy called an appeal to ignorance: a lack of evidence doesn't mean we owe your assumptions or opinion the benefit of the doubt, without real evidence we have the right to dismiss your claims. No one here owes you anything in the way of false equivalence.

P.S. For any clerk who tunes into this: If you examine the disruptive editor above and looking into his edit history, you will see a pattern of assuming bad faith and edit warring with emotional accusations. The fact that he did NOT learn from his lesson the first time a few days ago when his first SPI was found to be unwarranted (which I only mention here because the admin who closed it was quick to point out that he was "muckraking") is telling. If I'm allowed to speculate, this editor is using this strategy in service of WP:GAMING, hoping to use this process to censor me in some fashion. I would speculate he is hoping to use the WP:DUCK provision of the SPI, hoping to get be banned on that so he resume his unilateral editing of page where is he is currently engaging in an edit war. But for now, I concede this is only speculation though his second SPI is as many days suggests he is not learning from his past failed investigation. In other words, he should've been more thoughtful this time around and assumed good faith before threatening to get people banned who dared to disagree with him. That much, I think is more than speculation. For, at the very least, he's at least guilty of emotional reasoning with regards to his conflicts and investigations of me. Sorry for the long-winded response but my patience is at and end. Unless the editor provides something compelling, then my responses will be limited on this page moving forward. I extend my apologies to the clerk who has to read through all of this.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to the clerk: I noticed that the disruptive editor who has made this knee-jerk SPI has accused TWO IPs above of socking. By the look of it (and, yes, I could be wrong, but hear me out) it would appear that maybe that is a dynamic IP given how close the range is. From the look of it, it is most likely the same user and the dynamic IP changed ever so slightly as often they do. I don't see evidence that the two anon IPS are pretending to be different users. And, again, this is more evidence supporting my contention that this disruptive editor is engaging in emotional knee-jerk accusations hoping to shoe horn evidence to fit his disruptive agenda. I would imagine a thoughtful editor would've picked upon this nuance right away and I just barely caught it upon a cursory glance. But in defense of the user "TheTimeAreAChanging" it is possible he overlooked this, and I can't speak for those two anon IPs. Again, I'm only offering my take on it. So it is possible that the person or people behind those two IPs could speak up and tell us if they are in fact different people or the same person (since anything is possible). But for now, if assumptions is all we have, I think it is safe to assume that the user "TheTimesAreAChanging" is making a rush to judgement about both IPs being two different anon socks. I only spoke up so that the most-likely-innocent parties behind those anon IPs were properly advocated if need be. My 2 cents, and my final thoughts on this dispute.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * looking at this -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like everything has been resolved. Mike V • Talk 01:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * "Alan Dershowitz offered his personal opinion. He did not investigate or research this case. He was not involved directly or indirectly. There is not strong evidence for your conspiracy theory that D'Souza was selectively prosecuted. In fact, there is NO evidence for it. Only partisan right wing blogs and propaganda sites make this claim. This is WP:UNDUE and fails WP:CITATION. Please do an API so you can learn the hard way that we don't use Wikipedia to slander the President. Speaking of BLP, what you are claiming is that Obama and the government imprisoned D'Souza which suggests Obama broke the law and that the government engaged in unconstitutional behavior without real evidence to support that claim. We dont do that here. D'Souza himself before a judge confessed to knowingly engaging in wrongdoing. The rest is your WP:OR. So perform your API or move on."—IP 204.96.25.202


 * "As for Dershowitz, to be clear, I was not indicting him on those grounds. Since he was not involved in this trial of D'Souza, his opinion is a form of WP:SYNTH. He offers his anecdotal opinion without evidence to back up his claim and it is weasel words here to include it. D'Souza himself confessed to knowingly committing wrong doing when he told Judge Berman, 'I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids. I deeply regret my conduct.' He was also prosecuted in a fair trial."—Oneshotofwhiskey


 * "Some editors are being misleading here. No one is saying that we want to label D'Souza a 'conspiracy theorist.' But his most of his major 'theories' are conspiracy theories. His biggest, most defining one is his conspiracy theory that the government through Obama directly or indirectly imprisoned him unfair as part of some retributive plot against him. There is no real evidence to support that claim, yet he devoted a major portion of his anti-Hillary propaganda piece to that conspiracy theory, stating it as if it were fact."—IP 204.96.25.202


 * "Some editors are being misleading here. No one is saying that we want to label D'Souza a 'conspiracy theorist.' But his most of his major 'theories' are conspiracy theories. His biggest, most defining one is his conspiracy theory that the government through Obama directly or indirectly imprisoned him unfair as part of some retributive plot against him. There is no real evidence to support that claim, yet he devoted a major portion of his anti-Hillary propaganda piece to that conspiracy theory, stating it as if it were fact."—Oneshotofwhiskey

It strains credulity to assume, in a contentious RfC, that a random IP would make comments so nearly identical to those made by a like-minded registered user. The IP appears to be a vehicle for Oneshotofwhiskey to continue edit warring after we were both warned to stop, and possibly to evade a topic ban that has not yet been imposed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to broaden my attack here. I have previously argued that Oneshotofwhiskey is very likely to be a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous (perma-banned in 2012) but—despite many behavioral similarities—this could not be confirmed with checkuser, and Oneshotofwhiskey attacked me in vituperative terms for launching a "witch hunt". In the archive, I further suggested that Oneshotofwhiskey had been socking with two dynamic IPs—IP 208.35.180.106 and IP 208.35.180.109; those IPs appeared within minutes of Oneshotofwhiskey being reverted and within minutes of each other to reinstate Oneshotofwhiskey's changes—not only at 2016: Obama's America but also at my talk page. Again, however, Oneshotofwhiskey recounted "Once that checkuser was actually performed, it became clear there was no link between my IP and the anon you confused with my edits."
 * I'm probably just paranoid, but I need some peace of mind: Even if (somehow) the IPs don't match Oneshotofwhiskey, do they match each other? If so, (a.) What are the odds that an anonymous user is regurgitating Oneshotofwhiskey's edits/arguments nearly verbatim across several pages without his involvement?, and (b.) If these IPs don't geolocate to Texas, like SkepticAnonymous, is it possible that he moved to a nearby state?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I had simply forgotten to login, hence the IP edits. Had this bad faith editor simply employed good faith within me and just asked me, I could've fixed it then and there. As this editor regularly complains, I am fairly new to all of this. As for the edits I made when I was not logged on, I never claimed to be someone else. Again, rookie mistake. My accuser who is a seasoned editor clearly knew this when he responded to me on the article talk page. However, when he saw I failed to login, he saw a chance to exploit this and has deliberately misled the clerks here. It is not like I responded to him with a separate account or something along those lines! This is now the 3rd SPI where he has attempted this. There is an ongoing API where I have called out his gaming of the system with procedural complaints like this. Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to respond until after I learned I was blocked. I'm still fairly new to wiki so I will try to appeal this properly as well. But I thought it worth while enough to mention here for the record. Signed, Formerly Oneshotofwhiskey204.96.25.202 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If WhatIsMyIPAddress is working properly, then it looks like all three IPs are from the same area in Kansas. While it may be a stretch to suggest that SA moved from Texas to Kansas, it is far more of a stretch to suppose that Oneshotofwhiskey could be innocent of the charges in the archive if guilty of those before us today. If guilty on both counts, then his premeditation is obvious.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The IPs geolocate to the United States, and the geographic center of the lower 48 happens to be Kansas. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, retracted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - We will not publicly disclose any connection between named accounts and IP addresses. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The behavioral similarities are clear enough here, so I have blocked Oneshotofwhiskey for a week for editing while logged out in an attempt to appear as more than one editor. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oneshotofwhiskey has continued to evade DoRD's block, so I have extended the block on the account to two weeks. Mike V • Talk 19:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

While it would be very foolish for Oneshotofwhiskey to violate his current block again, the bizarre actions of this IP suggest he may very well not have learned his lesson. Untangling the IP's ANI rant requires a bit of background information on the edit wars that have recently plagued Dinesh D'Souza. The IP is supporting a topic ban I proposed, but in a way that makes it appear I am the one socking to fabricate consensus; as such, the whole post is riddled with allusions to remarks I made during previous disputes with Oneshotofwhiskey:
 * "It should come as no surprise that this mentality has caused her to violate the basic norms of WP:BLP" is a reference to my "this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets of WP:BLP."
 * "SPECIFICO is simply mocking Wikipedia policy" echoes my own "Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy."
 * "The vandal mass deleted thousands of bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz and others" is borrowed from my "Oneshotofwhiskey has mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight times now."
 * "I'm also going to broaden my attack here" is based on this edit summary of mine—which clearly infuriated Oneshotofwhiskey, as he has been raving about it on his talk page.
 * "It is a strain to assume, in a contentious RfC" makes no sense in the context of the ANI discussion, probably because the IP was copying my "It strains credulity to assume, in a contentious RfC, that a random IP would make comments so nearly identical to those made by a like-minded registered user."
 * "When you take into account her renewed attempt to take control of the page and her pivotal role in defending, promoting, and enabling the worst behavior of the vandal under investigation, the simple fact remains that SPECIFICO knowingly violated BLP several times based upon the political points of views of the living people in question. This is troublesome behavior warranting serious intervention" is very similar to my own complaints regarding SPECIFICO's conduct: "Combined with her crucial role in supporting, encouraging, and enabling Oneshotofwhiskey's worst behavior, the fact that SPECIFICO knowingly added content she thought constituted a BLP violation in one case, while removing it in another—all based on the political beliefs of the living persons in question—is very problematic behavior, meriting a warning at least."
 * Also supporting the thesis that the goal was to impersonate me is this meaningless edit to WikiProject Video games/Sega/leftpanel (a list of Good and Featured articles promoted by the largely defunct task force devoted to the Japanese video game company Sega), which the IP self-reverted nearly instantaneously. Nothing could be gained by socking there, but someone familiar with my edit history might have noticed that I recently added an article to the list. Those two were the only edits the IP made outside of ANI, yet they were planted in the IP's edit history for a reason.

To be fair, it's worth questioning why Oneshotofwhiskey would consider this a good idea. He may desire revenge for what he considers a "fraudulent SPI" that I initiated against him (how it was "fraudulent" when he admitted to both the socking and the evasion is far from clear), but if he had any sense he should have known antics like this inevitably tend to WP:BOOMERANG. It's almost as if, instead of framing me, he's framing himself—or, rather, framing me "frame" him in the same way he feels I framed him with the "fraudulent SPI." On the other hand, perhaps he just wanted to provoke me into a 3RR violation by continuously re-adding the IP's two cents at ANI. Beyond the fact that evading his block a second time would make him even less sympathetic than he is already, several of the IP's edits come across as blatant slip-ups exposing more than Oneshotofwhiskey could have possibly intended. For example, the IP revealed its actual location—Utah—and claimed to have moved there from Texas, which would validate my past suspicions that Oneshotofwhiskey could be a sockpuppet of Texas-based SkepticAnonymous (although I had since abandoned that theory as groundless). Moreover, on two occasions the IP paraphrased Oneshotofwhiskey rather than myself:
 * "I'm guilty until PROVEN innocent. No one should have to endure that violation and burden when the stakes are my freedom to express myself here and my reputation. :^(" (IP); "I'm guilty until PROVEN innocent. No one should have to endure that burden and violation when the stakes are my freedom to express myself here and my reputation. :^(" (Oneshotofwhiskey)—the IP had the gall to plagiarize the emoticon!
 * "removing vandalism by disruptive editor engaging in pathological WP:OWN behavior here on my comment!" (IP); "removing vandalism by disruptive editor engaging in pathological WP:OWN behavior elsewhere and now, crazily, here on my own page!" (Oneshotofwhiskey).

For these reasons, while something fishy is obviously going on and the evidence superficially satisfies WP:DUCK, reasonable skepticism is in order and I am requesting checkuser. I have made enemies and encountered stalkers before, so it's not inconceivable that Oneshotofwhiskey could be innocent, even if the odds strongly favor his guilt. If proven, this would certainly be a new low for Oneshotofwhiskey; then again, no-one ever accused serial abusers of Wikipedia of being particularly smart. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Oneshotofwhiskey has been railing against me on his talk page: "He is clearly IP socking and engaging in WP:BAIT. Somehow, in a series of coincidences, while making several active edits a mysterious IP tries to rail against me and SPECIFICO in an API only for moments later for "A Times" to show up to admonish the anon IP, accusing him of being me. ... It would then seem he foolishly edited a video game article he was working on while Im assuming still logged into the fake IP, forcing him to quickly revert it when he discovered that misstep....only digging himself in deeper when he realized he would need to address it in his laughable attempt at an SPI, which seems more and more like a pathetic attempt to cover his ass after taking his wp:gaming finally too far even for himself. ... if you look carefully at the SPI he used to frame me you will see this manipulative behavior and gaming is right up his alley." To me, that reads like an admission of guilt. Oneshot: You're going to have to do better than that if you want to frame me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, and now he's literally asking for a block: "More false accusations from an abusive admin.If it was so 'obvious' your little SPI would've ended in another block. I get it now... you are enabling that troll to cover up your own corruption. That coverup speaks volumes. You're a joke!" "You're a joke!" is a reference to another edit summary of mine, thus providing incontrovertible proof that Oneshot is, in fact, the IP's master.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Checkuser won't link an account to an IP, so I'm changing this to no CU request. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IP blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Sockpuppeteer Oneshotofwhiskey was indeffed as a result of his previous attempt to frame me, and it looks like he's at it again. IPs 71.218.129.181 and 174.16.214.83—purporting to be an impartial observer—reported IP 2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F to an admin, claiming to be concerned that I was using the latter for "socking ... AND trying to use an anon IP to get around ... ARBAP2 Sanctions." The IPs proceeded to make a number of revealing comments about yours truly, including "TTAC ... is a long-time disruptive cunning member who will edit war when possible and exploit his experience on wikipedia to advance his POV"; "After closely reading the account summary on TTAC's page, it seems like that user views wikipedia in terms of opponents and gaming"; and "He's been getting away with edits on articles suggesting Obama is the 'founder of ISIS' and is politically jailing conservatives (all lies)" (that's for sure!). On his talk page, Oneshot engaged in strikingly similar rhetoric, referring to me as a "disruptive editor" with a penchant for "cunning but clearly transparent editwar tactic(s)." Moreover: While I think the evidence above more than satisfies WP:DUCK, it would be interesting to confirm that the IP being "reported" is a likely match for the other two, and thus that I was in fact being framed from the beginning. (On the admin's talk page, the IPs hint at this possibility: "That would aid him in some attempt to game the system if he tried to boomerang a response into a charge of trying to frame him.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The IPs misrepresent the following message from my userpage as a POV battle cry: "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents. But where did they even get the idea to do such a thing? Apparently, from Oneshot's close collaborator SPECIFICO, who left the following message on Oneshot's talk page: "At the very top of Times' user page he reveals his approach to editing Wikipedia: 'I do a better job of it than many of my opponents.' Having seen him in action recently, that attitude pretty well sums up his behavior. It's as if he views WP as another online video game, similar to the many games he lists having edited."
 * I've never suggested Obama "is politically jailing conservatives," but the IPs's assertions to the contrary constitute solid WP:DUCK evidence regarding their master. (This requires a bit of explanation, so bear with me.) During a recent edit war at Dinesh D'Souza, Oneshot replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot and mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight separate times, alleging it was "WP:SYNTH" to include Dershowitz's attributed opinion because "he was not involved in this trial of D'Souza," and adding: "Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes." Dershowitz's sin? He had argued that D'Souza's conviction for campaign finance violations "smacks of selective prosecution"; Onehot and his sockpuppets conflated Dershowitz's assessment with "claiming ... Obama and the government imprisoned D'Souza which suggests Obama broke the law and that the government engaged in unconstitutional behavior," and sought to label D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist" in violation of WP:BLP, citing "his conspiracy theory that the government through Obama directly or indirectly imprisoned him unfair as part of some retributive plot against him." (As another user noted: "Most people who have been prosecuted believe that they have been unfairly treated and lawyers routinely say that. We do not label all convicted criminals and defense lawyers conspiracy theorists.")
 * Like the IPs, Oneshot repeatedly accused me of "gaming the system."
 * Finally, the IPs mention that their goal is to ensure "a fair hearing for everyone else involved, most important of all for his victims." In this context, I think it's obvious that the "victim" in question is none other than Oneshot himself, as he maintained that the previous SPI was somehow "fraudulent."

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

The TL:DR quality of this - and especially the tone - scream suspicious on the part of TheTimesAreAChanging (talk).

The convoluted nature of it is misleading and belongs as a complaint on the noticeboard for administrators for - at best - long term IP abuse or block evasion and not as an SPI. Even then it is a flimsy accusation-->>> The purpose of using sockpuppets to evade scrutiny doesn't fit the fact pattern here as I'm not seeing much evidence of that and if the idea was to evade scrutiny then what scrutiny was the IP hoping to evade? The "accused" editor hasn't even edited any articles or weighed in on any debates involving content disputes. Even then it doesn't strike me as terribly disruptive if an anonymous editor was only asking an administrator for an opinion about an AE that involves TheTimesAreAChanging (talk).

For that reason, after reading the AE, I would be careful trusting TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) as he or she is currently being investigated in that AE: : for exploiting his many years of experience editing to abuse the system.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) is accused for "serious breaches of policy" and "gaming wikipedia to advance edit wars." It is very possible he or she is exploiting SPIs in a similar vein to possibly deflect attention from his or her own bad behavior elsewhere: using his or her reputation and experience as an experienced editor as camouflage to get away with harassing members and disrupt articles under sanction. Rather than show contrition and take responsibility for what looks like a pretty straightforward violation of the discretionary page restrictions on political articles, he or she responded deceptively with this response. He or she accuses others of a "witch hunt" and "stalking him." The tired old argument that there is a conspiracy to frame an editor is almost always indicative of a guilty mindset when trying to shift blame elsewhere without evidence.

Unironically 2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F is also very possibly TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) given the similarities of obsessions and edit histories and the all too convenient way it fits into this SPI. He only listed this IP in this SPI after being accused of socking here: A few weeks ago when it came up he self-consciously and suspiciously convinced an administrator that this IP was NOT socking, or OSOW. He conveniently forgot to include this here. Maybe this fits into a larger pattern of trying "to game wikipedia" by trying to flip the charge against his intended target. If so then we need to boomerang this SPI.

Recommend closing this SPI and filing an ANI if the anonymous editor engages in truly disruptive behavior. Then RPI where necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.241.122 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2016‎ (UTC)


 * The IP's claims above are factually incorrect. I determined that IP 2A01:4F8:191:84C3:0:0:0:2 was likely not Oneshot (after first reporting it to the admin DoRD) because it geolocated to the UK; that IP has made no edits since November 1 and is currently blocked. The IP I reported above—IP 2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F—made all of its edits on November 7, is not currently blocked, and geolocates to the U.S.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean CU can't even confirm whether or not the IPs are likely matches for one another? (Because that's all I wanted to know.) If so, I did not realize that; my bad.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - As before, we can't use CU to connect named accounts to IPs. GABgab 03:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * These IPs very well may have been used by Oneshotofwhiskey, but the IPv4s are stale for blocking purposes, so there isn't much we can do at this time. I did block the IPv6 range because it is belongs to a web hosting provider. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that and  are also likely this user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Oneshot's been on a roll with IP socking lately, but several of his IPs have been blocked and his antics have resulted in several pages being autoconfirmed protected (see, e.g., here and here), including Dinesh D'Souza, which has been the scene of the most sustained disruption. Among other things, Oneshot and his many Colorado-based IPs have been trying to remove attributed commentary on a legal case involving D'Souza by renowned Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz for the better part of a year (here are just a few diffs involving Oneshot's named account, not the far larger list involving his IPs:, , ). With that history in mind, perhaps you can understand why I would be suspicious when, out of nowhere, Dreaded hall monitor reappeared to purge the content yet again, employing a rationale strikingly similar to Oneshot's: "no evidence he was 'selectively prosecuted' (NPOV,WEASEL) Dershowitz and conservo-commentators were in no way involved in this case." Oneshot previously expounded the same preposterous theory that "Since [Dershowitz] was not involved in this trial of D'Souza, his opinion is a form of WP:SYNTH. He offers his anecdotal opinion without evidence to back up his claim and it is weasel words here to include it." Note that this account actually predates Oneshot's, which is consistent with the high-level knowledge of Wikipedia policy demonstrated by Oneshot's earliest edits. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Dreaded hall monitor is reinstating more of Oneshot's edits, with the same sources and nearly verbatim text, to Dinesh D'Souza:, This includes egregious, gratuitous WP:BLP violations such as "[D'Souza] was required to perform a day (eight hours) of community service each week during his probation and to undergo therapy on a weekly basis." Even if you can't do a checkuser comparison with Oneshot or his previous socks because they've been inactive for the better part of a year, the WP:DUCK evidence is overwhelming—compare Dreaded hall monitor's comments here to those of previous Oneshot IP socks defending themselves at SPI, replete with the same attacks on me for supposedly WP:GAMING the system. Let's block this sock before he can do more damage to the encyclopedia!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As Dreaded hall monitor notes below, I garbled the one piece of evidence I struck out above: In these diffs, Dreaded hall monitor is merely editing text previously added by Oneshot, while also restoring content about a judge's "scolding" of D'Souza that had been part of a dispute involving Oneshot among others. As a more general point, I started this SPI hoping for a clear checkuser result one way or the other, and can of course understand the reticence to indef someone based on a mere 90% confidence that someone is a sock—what about that other 10%? Yet it remains incomprehensible to me that an innocent editor wrongly accused (and with no prior history of interaction with Oneshot or I) would respond as Dreaded hall monitor has done here—suggesting that he and Oneshot might be two brothers from Colorado, then retracting the claim once checkuser was taken off the table; going through my edit history, bringing up a months-old diff related to my six-month topic ban from American Politics, and accusing me of gaming (more on that later) in a comment posted three hours after the SPI was filed—did Dreaded hall monitor become an expert on my past conduct on Wikipedia and on the long history of Oneshot's Colorado-based IPs in three hours (or less, depending on when he noticed the SPI and began composing his response)??? How could anyone possibly believe that?

I assume that the biggest question admins would have is why an earlier Oneshot account from 2011 is resurfacing now. But there are several reasons why the timing and the master actually make perfect sense. First of all, many users edit sporadically as IPs before creating a named account, and many editors have old accounts they've long since discarded. (I myself have a truly cringe-worthy account from 2009,, that I could theoretically reactivate if I wanted to sock—well, maybe not now that I've spilled the beans.) Take a good look at the relevant edit histories: Until abruptly disappearing after September 2011, Dreaded hall monitor primarily edited film articles, just like Oneshot did during August and September of 2016; both users caused edit wars wherever they went, exhibited an extreme WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and dubbed their opponents "pov vandals". Both accounts display similar interests, similar syntax, similar personality quirks—even similar userpages, each consisting of a single large image with a quote at the top. Cut to late August and early September 2017, with Oneshot's IP socking under intense scrutiny and Dinesh D'Souza having been autoconfirmed protected on August 13: Dreaded hall monitor makes a series of bizarre dummy edits to explain his reappeance, claiming to have "Returned from China" and been "Encouraged by old friend to clean up articles" before changing his story a bit, saying "a facebook message from my brother"—who may or may not be Oneshotofwhiskey—"triggered an interest in rectifying the filmmaker article"). Is something truly fishy not going on here? Finally, without getting too much into Oneshot's weird relationship with/admiration for SPECIFICO, it is extremely significant that Dreaded hall monitor indulged in sweeping assertions about "the game you (TTAAC) evidently want the whole world to know you are playing" in his initial response to this SPI, despite supposedly only knowing of my existence for a couple of hours: Ever since SPECIFICO left a message on Oneshot's talk page personally attacking me for my involvement in articles related to both video games and politics ("It's as if he views WP as another online video game, similar to the many games he lists having edited. ... It's perfectly clear that editing American Politics is not like wrastling primates in Super Monkey Ball or chasing the cute little cartoon characters in Sonic R -- but I'm not convinced that TheTimesAreAChanging sees any difference"), Oneshot and his IPs have constantly regurgitated SPECIFICO's argument and seem to have taken it as a source of inspiration in their crusade against me. As one Colorado-based Oneshot IP put it: "After closely reading the account summary on TTAC's page, it seems like that user views wikipedia in terms of opponents and gaming." I could go on, but you get the idea. Frankly, for this all to be a giant series of coincidences boggles the mind.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
, how is this case "stale"? Because Oneshot's been indeffed for a year? (Note that Oneshot's previous two socks, User:You'llNeverCare and User:AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am, were subject to checkuser blocks somewhat more recently, last January.) In point of fact, Dreaded hall monitor was anticipating a checkuser block as much as I was, hence the elaborate fable about how he and Oneshot are brothers that both live near each other in Colorado—a pretense he more or less dropped by bringing up my six-month topic ban from American Politics in one of his diffs below.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TheTimes,
 * Please refrain from putting words into the mouths of others. I never wrote that User:Oneshotofwhiskey was "my brother." The information I volunteered to the investigation was meant to afford you the benefit of the doubt. I conceded it was within the realm of possibility I could be the victim of a prank or the scheme of a stalker. It is a small world. Anything is possible. You also confessed to being stressed out for similar reasons so anyone can make a mistake. That was your plea for empathy and, all things considered equal, I would like to believe I also deserve the same benefit of the doubt:


 * I could understand if you were having a hard time. It would explain your overzealousness. However, your experience and history is also "consistent with the high-level knowledge of Wikipedia policy." You should know better than to twist my words like you did when you spun that deliberately misleading incriminating narrative about me; what with conflated language like "elaborate fable". That behavior alone should raise a red-flag with anyone reviewing this. My original hope was you were acting out of the greater good and were actually sincere in your concerns. A mistake I plan not to make again now that we can see the man behind the curtain. Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

With respect to this claim
 * -- It is not necessarily "damage to the encyclopedia" every time a user disagrees with you in a content dispute. For all we know, this account could be a false flag like some of the ones that came up when you were socking to evade your TBAN.  Since there can't be a checkuser, I suggest you back away from this and treat edits on their merits rather than using "revert sockpuppet" in content disputes.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Admins could easily do a checkuser on me. Are you sure that you aren't the real mastermind, given your history of collaborating with Oneshot (e.g., reinstating IP edits, fighting—unsuccessfully—against page protection) and the tendency of Oneshot's IPs to reinstate your edits verbatim ? (Sarcasm.) In all seriousness, why would you fight against page protection if you actually believed that I, rather than your comrade, was using IPs? If you actually believe that Dreaded hall monitor is my sock (created back in 2011), why would you want this SPI closed? For the uninitiated, the only "false flags" on record are Oneshot's repeated attempts to impersonate me as part of what admin called a "joe job" earlier this year (the named accounts User:You'llNeverCare and User:AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am were part of this smear campaign). A more plausible interpretation of the evidence is that SPECIFICO will countenance anything to advance her political POV, including IP socking and harassment—disappointing, but irrelevant to this investigation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is a lie. TheTimesAreAChanging is now deliberately lying when he is saying that I am "reinstating more of Oneshot's edits, with the same sources and nearly verbatim text, to Dinesh D'Souza." Examine my history for proof. I also never authored the edit content which says "[D'Souza] was required to perform a day (eight hours) of community service each week during his probation and to undergo therapy on a weekly basis." even though TheTimes falsely asserts that I did. However, I did move the felony sentence content from the beginning of section to the end. Actually, this was done out of respect for the BLP so it would no longer stack the deck against him. This is a wonderful example of TheTimes taking things out of context and proving my point that events are never always as they appear to be: You can not blame me when you are caught-redhanded gaming the alleged evidence. This is now the second time you have done this. No less than a day after I pointed it out. With this page growing into an one-man wall of text that is rapidly TL:TR, I wonder out loud if being banned would put me out of my misery.(sarcasm) Don't want to ever again climb this wall of his tired emotional reasoning. Dreaded hall monitor talk 19:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Hold your horses. Really?
 * Another possibility

For what it is worth (and it may be worth nothing), a facebook message from my brother triggered an interest in rectifying the filmmaker article. As I recall, my brother pointed out bad information over several Wikipedia pieces. The discussion took place outside of Wikipedia:
 * The decision to dive in and correct those errors were mine and mine alone. Did I step into it by design or his "antics"? He very well could have Wikipedia accounts of his own. Do not know. He resides in Fort Collins. I live in Loveland. But no coordination beyond that harmless exchange. Not in a Wikipedia sense to advance any pov. Unless manipulated, never was I asked to alter anything on anyone's behalf.

OK, if I can sum up what I think is known at this point:
 * "Involved" and "weasel" from a talk page exchange. Compared to my edit summary remark? A troublesome editor who possibly may or may not be pulling the strings. Combined with my ignorance.

Does intent matter? I only bothered to address the accusation because: If I have erred by unintended involvement, or violated the rules in some way, I apologize and accept the consequences regardless of ignorance. But my intentions were in good faith for what it's worth (and it may too be worth nothing). Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And if you believe that, I've got some prime swampland in Florida to sell you!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TheTimes,
 * No need to make this personal with juvenile remarks. More likely than not, it would seem you will get your wish and block my account. You have successfully exploited my ignorance and literally made a sport out of Wikipedia, here and elsewhere, in the game you evidently want the whole world to know you are playing. Block or not, one way or another | I will sit it out. Ignoring the rabble-rousers and the troublemakers for a moment, I would still like to extend an apology to the community for any problems I may have unintentionally caused.
 * Sincerely,Robin a.k.a. Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The page is spiraling out of control. Will sit the rest of it out. Nothing else to add. Either this is on me or it is a misunderstanding taken out of context. I reiterate I would still like to extend an apology to the community for any problems I may have unintentionally caused if I have somehow erred. Sincerely, Robin a.k.a. Dreaded hall monitor talk 19:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The case is, . Sro23 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * . GABgab 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what to make of some of the tl;dr commentary here, which seems like petty bickering. However, there was enough evidence presented here to make me curious, so I did a bit of digging via the Editor Interaction Analyser.  The results leave me fairly satisfied there's enough evidence to say this is sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved casename to Dreaded hall monitor as that is the oldest account. Correct tags already in place.