Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddiep803b/Archive

Evidence submitted by Kww
Locus of disruption is Hilary Duff and Santa Claus Lane. Eddiep803b edited the Hilary Duff article heavily through 2009. On December 23, 2009, Eddiep803b edited Hilary Duff discography for the first time. Those edits were reverted as a group. The first edits made by Iiismael were to Hilary Duff discography beginning 4 minutes after that reversion. January 18, 2010, Iismael got into another edit war on Hilary Duff discography. Hazzleboi was created that day, and the first edit was to comment on that edit war. Hazzleboi also has a strong interest in Dulce Maria, which Eddiep803b contributed to as well. The three accounts have recently been embroiled in an edit war on Santa Claus Lane. It is this edit war which is prompting the checkuser request, and the edits by the trio on February 20-21 would cross 3RR if done by a single account.

Virtually incoherent talk page contributions like this one from Eddiep803b and this one from Iiismael point to a linkage as well. Iismael has begun to leave abusive comments as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

– behavioral evidence clearly indicates that these three users are the same person. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

All accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Kww
WP:DUCK. Eddiep803p and a couple of socks were blocked for edit-warring over the treatment of Santa Claus Lane. Alxknight has a continued gnashing of teeth over "Santa Claus Lane" which he just can't stop talking about. Compare this painfully illiterate plea by Alxknight with statements by Eddiep803b and Iismael. Requesting checkuser because I think an IP block might be helpful: three socks is a good sign of a persistent sockmaster.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One more tidbit: Eddiep803b was blocked on Feb 21, Alxknight was created on Feb 24.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
the difrence between me and that person, is that that person from day one was arguing, about santa claus lane, i just came to that argument a couple of days ago, also the diffrence is that, unlike the user, i created a sandbox, and have been careful with my edits, and have talk in the discussion, administardors when i created by second user, told me the problem for i have been here at wikipedia for a long time ago with a diffrence user which is no longer active, (for i have lost password, ect.) alkknight was created after weeks (maybe less than a month) after my old user name (again, months ago) why accusation has nothing to do with that user, admistators and i emailed eachother with this issues, after days they emailed me back saying theire wasn't no problem, for teh IP is register to my school, (libary) with no problem, pls talk to me about the accusations before having any issues, again unlike eddoep803 i have been for respectful with my edits, one more thing eddiep803, and ismael, are unactive, i am! how will i be connected to socked??? pls let me know what other problems are accurinng??? i am willing to help work this out:)Alxknight (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC), the word chaos weas used, i dont know how that connectets to the users? i have noticed the other users have been disrespectful. i havnt said any so called "bad words" but have reaaly tried to fix issues,


 * i once again feel personally attacked, i am telling you again, and you know the albums arguemt came acrossd yesterday. if the ducks weher arguing since te begging why didnt i supposed abussed since the beginning? it dons't make sesnce??? pls help with this issue, i feel attacked, you are only here to help so am i, and becasue i gave an respesful oppossion, i am being put as a sock user, this isint fairAlxknight (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are innocent the checkuser will prove it. Please calm down, if you are not a sockpuppet nothing will happen. – Chase  ( talk ) 23:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I came to the conclusion that this new user is a sockpuppet last night, and planned to file a report sometime today. I didn't realize it first, but it became blatantly obvious to me when he referred to my edits as "chaos", something at least one of the ducks from the last report did. This user obviously does not know when to quit so I am in support of an IP block as well. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only does he erroneously accuse people of vandalism (just as the other socks), but also tries to apologize in some weird way (note the "let's work this out..." comment above) at the same time. Add the same bad English, logic, and shared interest in the same articles, and it's a rather obvious duck. Checkuser to catch sleepers and any newly created accounts after he discovered this SPI, is probably a good idea. Nymf hideliho! 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Kww this looks like a very likely link, however, if a checkuser could please take a look then that would be appreciated. Provided the link is confirmed please could you also look into the feasibility of an IP block, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, also . Blocked some IPs; might slow them down. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. TN X Man  13:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Kww
The contributions to Hilary Duff related articles and the talk page of Chasewc91 make it clear that this is just Eddiep803b back again, so I've already blocked. Every previous SPI investigation has uncovered multiple socks, so requesting checkuser to run a sweep. Looks like and  aren't stale, so there should be enough to run a checkuser against.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Sleepers are probably out there waiting to be found. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

✅

These accounts are already blocked. . J.delanoy gabs adds  03:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

02 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Going through my old talk page archives from 2010, I ran into sockmaster and some of his old socks (see archive). I also noticed, who writes similarly to Eddie, has a similar interest in Hilary Duff, and has a similar tendency to edit-war on Duff-related articles (receiving a warning as recently as December 15). Hardly a coincidence. Pretty obvious duck, but CheckUser is being requested as several of Eddie's previous SPIs revealed additional accounts and IPs.

Pinging who has extensively dealt with this editor's sockpuppetry. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
About as obvious as they come. Blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The past accounts are much too stale for a check. However, as Kww has blocked the account on behavioral evidence I'm going to close this case as resolved. Mike V • Talk 04:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)