Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor XXV/Archive

Report date November 15 2009, 18:10 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Admitted this account is a sock here A8  UDI  18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by A8  UDI

I have only one thing to say:
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * This SPI's name is incorrect. --Native to Saturn (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty damn sure he's a sock of (refer to my talk page), who is a sock of. Saturn claims to be on a dynamic IP, if that's worth anything. Aims to reach 100 socks, claims NtS is his ninth, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Same here he claims to have 9 socks and it trying to get 100. We need a block NOW.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Editor XXV is meant to be the master sock. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 18:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Décémbér21st2012Fréak   &#124;  Talk 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

- To check for sleepers. Tiptoety talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Request for CheckUser
 * Requested by Tiptoety  talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Case merged from Sockpuppet investigations/Native to Saturn;
 * All the above accounts have been blocked and tagged;
 * I have requested a CheckUser be ran.
 * Tiptoety talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Added . Tiptoety  talk 19:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

All ✅ (shocking, I know). I rangeblocked him for a bit, but it's a large range, and busy, so I can't leave it in place for too long. J.delanoy gabs adds 19:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Captain-n00dle
User claims to be:, & User_talk:Magmatron  Captain n00dle  T/C 13:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano
These two accounts seem to be trying to get and  in trouble for some reason; requesting SPI to root out any further socks and find the true sockmaster beneath this mess. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

–MuZemike 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ =

. This page should probably be redirected to Sockpuppet investigations/Editor XXV. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Accounts blocked & tagged; case merged. NW ( Talk ) 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 2 2010, 02:04 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This is a similer username of many other Editor XXV socks. December21st2012Freak  Talk to me at ≈ 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by December21st2012Freak   Talk to me


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Well, I think someone beat you to the punch, as they're both blocked right now. Since the SPI bot is down, Im not sure this SPI is even going to get seen ... is there some way we can archive it or does it have to be at least looked over as a matter of process? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Changed my mind; a CU could really be useful here. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

To check for any more sleepers and a possible IP (range)block. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

✅. Also,, who is blocked. No rangeblocks would be possible. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date February 10 2010, 00:48 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Another Editor XXV sock, see his 2 edits and his username. December21st2012Freak  Talk to me at ≈ 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)  December21st2012Freak   Talk to me at ≈ 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by December21st2012Freak   Talk to me


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Does policy allow really really obvious socks to be reported to AIV or to an administator's talkpage, rather than giving them a proper SPI? I get a feeling that XXV just gets a kick out of seeing this page grow longer and longer. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Certainly, although AIV would not be that great a place, unless the account is vandalising, and you want to be careful that you aren't going to the same admin over and over, or just going to random uninvolved admins, however, in principal, there's no need to file an SPI if the sock is exceedingly obvious (or vandalizing enough to justify a block). Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

blocked by Closedmouth SpitfireTally-ho! 09:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

24 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

after attacking Afd's yesterday as "The Needle", he's back again today Wuh  Wuz  Dat  23:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Seems to have already been blocked. NotARealWord (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * User blocked by  Nakon  19:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This and the other one are both Wiki brah as confirmed by a CheckUser I spoke with. Bsadowski1 22:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

25 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

The account's first edit was to an re-AfD. the earlier AfD was previously voted in by a sock of Editor XXV, and the discovery that said account (Divebomb) was a sock changed the original outcome and then led to the AfD being listed on deletion review. Noticeably,it was commenting on the sockpupppeting and deletion issues of the Transformers WikiProject with what appears to be quite extensive knowledge for a new user. Extensive knowledge of Wikipedia seems to also be a tell-tale sign of Editor XXV socks. Their "good hand" account was suspected to be one because of their suspicious amount of knowledge on WP. Also, the suspected sock's user page contains a "Native of X" phrase, the likes of which seem to be a trait for Editor XXV socks. (like this) Also, user has made this edit to the SPI for another sockmaster that's been disrupting the Transformers Wikiproject. NotARealWord (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I am the accused party in this whole affair. I am absolutely, positively, 100% not guilty. And yes, I'm quoting O.J. Simpson's plea in the Nicole Brown murder case, who, as I'm sure you all know, was totally exonerated on all charges. Thanks in advance, 1977 Style (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * 1977 Style was blocked by Bsadowski1. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 08:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

07 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

same as always, AFD discussions, then slipped into merger and Afd discussions for Transformers. Wuh Wuz  Dat  16:44, 7 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

 * - Requesting CU for sleepers, not to compare to the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No sleepers. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked two weeks for evasion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:20, 7 January 2011 (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 " ~ "''

Seems to be the same activity as Editor XXV does. Joined and immediately started voting in Transformers deletion nominations. Could also be one of several other Transformers targeting sock masters, but I'm guessing this one from his wording. Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 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

 * Sock was blocked by J.delanoy. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

20 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 " ~ "''

Going over the history of this user and Editor XXV's sock puppet Divebomb, I see they voted together on dozens of deletion nominations and seemingly always the same way. Mathewignash (talk) 21:53, 20 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

 * Hmm.. it's possible, I guess. Adding a CU to check against, and . —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Diffs, please? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skyburst
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rail_Racer
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hurricane_(Transformers)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Splashdown_(Transformers)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raf_Esquivel
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Darby
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clench_(Transformers)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fan-mode
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kicker_(Transformers)
 * I could provide dozens more. Mathewignash (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's good, thank you. The result is ❌. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Hmm, alright then.. closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

10 February 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 " ~ "''

Started a new account with working on Transformers deletions and mergers with this XXV usually dwells. Very suspecious activity for a new user. Mathewignash (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I had reverted some work done by XXV's sock puppet named User:Divebomb, which this user has seen to revert. I suggest he not only be blocked/banned, but his edits reverted as vandalism. (this is user Mathewignash). 198.51.174.5 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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

This investigation is nothing short of a farce. Simply because I choose to begin my editing under this new account (see WP:CLEANSTART) by editing Transformers-related topics does not mean I am some vandal I have never heard of before.! --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Watch your words, you're now being watched (especially your latest troublesome edit here). Don't think I need to remind you of AGF, right? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find your comment extremely hypocritical, especially after you reverted my removal of a stupid link at Facepalm as "vandalism". --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your unexplained deletion of page content or links are considered as vandalism, read it up. The consensus is on my side. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of links to random sites. --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not when the article page is about something humourous and the sole external link relevant to the subject was deleted by you for reasons known only to you. Take it to the talk page if you disagree. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure it was relevant. But I also bet that there are huge Photobucket/Flickr/whatever galleries full of facepalm pics, shall we link to them as well? --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out to me, thus exhibiting to us all your disruptive editorial behaviour, which is no different from that of those socks found on those "Transformers" article pages. Obviously, you have failed to discuss this on the relevant talk page and you still haven't gained any CONSENSUS on your side before you carry out such unexplained deletion of article page, and that's TENDENTIOUS EDITORIAL BEHAVIOUR. Be forewarned that ANI is the next stop for you if you carry on with this kind of behaviour. I'm done talking to you here. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(alright, back to the investigation) Mathewignash reverted valid redirects that just happened to be made by a banned user. I reinstated them. That does not make me him.

I see this as nothing more than an attempt to get someone who has performed an action Mathewignash takes issue with into trouble, which he has done before. --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is I started this investigation BEFORE you started reinstating Divebombs edits, which only proves I am probably correct in who you are. Of course there about about 4 different sock puppeteers who frequent the Transformers articles. You could be any of them in the end. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Highly suspicious that a 'new' editor would ask for a clean start. And I don't think Editor XXV would be eligible for a clean start anyway, as there's a recent history of socking. Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * appears ❌. Different IP rangs, different geolocation, and different UA;
 * That said is ✅ (and now blocked);
 * Also, interestingly, shares the same UA, and IP range as Editor XXV.  Tiptoety  talk 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if Editor XXV and Wiki brah are the same, actually. I'm really leaning towards blocking Circle on behavioral grounds, particularly on one article (admins/clerks, you can email me about it if you're curious). Gotta think it through a bit more, though. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Circle. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, Editor XXV and Wiki brah are on separate continents; the UA and location more closely match Editor XXV than Wiki brah by quite a bit and, especially after looking at the behavioral evidence, has tagged as such. And no, WP:CLEANSTART does not apply when you try to evade scrutiny and continue editing in the same areas in which you have been blocked in the past before. There is also WP:BAN to deal with on top of that. –MuZemike 03:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

19 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (previously blocked)
 * (previously blocked)
 * (previously blocked)
 * (previously blocked)
 * (previously blocked)
 * (previously blocked)
 * (previously blocked)


 * 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 " ~ "''

On 17 February 2011, an ANI report in several single purpose accounts and one IP involved in an article naming dispute were blocked as sockpuppets. Now, another SPA, Neimoidian, has posted to the naming dispute. This statement, "Now, as for your claim that I have made no argument, it is false, as I have made many arguments." is very clear that the new SPA is the same as those that were blocked for sockpuppetry. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The sockmaster is singularly obsessed with this one subject, called Leo Prime. It would be nice to find out if the guy's on a stable IP or small IP range so his disruptive behavior could be permanently stopped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Among the 3 edits made by today's sock (Neimodian) is to label another already-blocked editor as a sockmaster. He might be trying to drop a hint as to who he is, or he might be trying to send us on a wild goose chase. He also filed a presumably frivolous SPI against another editor who's part of the Leo Prime debate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He is sending us on a wild goose chase. Though, there is really no way to confirm this seeing as he is using open proxies. Tiptoety  talk 20:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This is Editor XXV and he has a case already. :) Bsadowski1 12:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've merged the two cases, and am endorsing for a sleeper check - and also to see if we can get an IP block. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following:




 * (they are using proxies). Tiptoety  talk 19:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

09 March 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 " ~ "''

This user reinstated a lot of edits done by user IncinerateAfterThoroughExamination, who was a sock of Editor XXV. If he's not a sock, another sock puppeteer whose sympathetic with XXV (possibly user Divebomb), as after I reverted his edits, he contacted me on a message board threatening to use his socks to get his way on his edits here. Mathewignash (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This page should really be here, I think. — Gƒoley  Four  — 00:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, hello. I'm not a sock puppet of Editor XXV, I've even gone against his proposal for deletion on the David Willis (cartoonist) article. I just share the viewpoint in regards to bootlegs not being sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia Transformers pages. I have a load of edits to my repertoire that do not match his typical behavior. Also, MathewIgnash should know me better, as we've interacted on both TFWiki and the Allspark, where I go by the name "Detour". As for the similar edits, it was my curiosity that brought me there, as Editor XXV gloated about his deletion nomination on TFWiki, and I ended up taking a peek at his contributions. And lastly, I would like to point out I've been contributing on and off to Wikipedia without problems since 2006. --Hiryu84 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was sent a threatening personal message on the Allspark by someone named Beta Command, not Detour, seeming to be this wikipedia user. Is Hiryu84 the same person as Beta Command or not? Anyways, as for the inclusion of coverage from non-Hasbro products in Transformers related articles, I've recomended this be proposed in the Transformers Wikipedia project, where we can talk about it. DOn't just do in and delete it all because you decided it's not right. Mathewignash (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Beta Command is -Blackout-'s Allspark username. My Allspark username, again, is Detour. You've met me. As for the conflict, even before I was made aware of this I'd been discussing the matter on the Wikipedia IRC help channel to avoid edit warring, and have since started something on the subject at the Wikiproject TF page. --Hiryu84 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OKay, then sorry for the mixup, it was Blackout who was sending me PMs seemingly being you. I'll put my input on the Transformers wiki project talk page. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Grah, I guess I fell victim to bad timing, then. No harm (hopefully) done. --Hiryu84 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Matches style and:
 * 04:09, 9 March 2011 (diff | hist) Rodimus (Undid revision 417929044 by MuZemike (talk) MuZemike, those toys aren't real transformers toys. They're knockoffs. Not notable.)
 * 04:07, 9 March 2011 (diff | hist) Ultra Magnus (Undid revision 417929099 by MuZemike (talk) Banned or not, I sort of have to agree. Are Spider-Man knockoff toys listed on his pages?)
 * Move needed to remove space. 1) Delete target page 2) move this page 3) restore all revisions. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So done, DQ. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

– I very highly doubt this is Editor XXV. Look at the creation of the account. –MuZemike 07:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Missed that detail in original search. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  07:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

11 March 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 " ~ "''

confirmed "alternative" account of indef blocked user  Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 14:30, 11 March 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
There are quite a few accounts here, but they're all hiding behind proxies. I've blocked them all. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

These are all socks of banned user. –MuZemike 01:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

27 March 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 " ~ "''

Single purpose account focused on Talk:Leo Prime and other such pages. I get the sense that this is part of a larger sockfarm, so CU for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:10, 27 March 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
Already done, I've blocked and tagged some socks, blocked a proxy. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

09 April 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 " ~ "''

Started an account, put some glib remark on his user page and started being "helpful" on the Transformers wiki project, just like he always does. Mathewignash (talk) 18:39, 9 April 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

 * - CU for confirm and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

✅ plus:



–MuZemike 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

16 April 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 " ~ "''

Joined to make childish nonsense threats on my talk page about the last 2 sock puppets he used. Mathewignash (talk) 19:53, 16 April 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

 * - Blocked and tagged the sock, but endorsing for sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

16 April 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 " ~ "''

Seems to just have joined and is just deletion nominating articles I started for fun. The same articles sabotaged by another Editor XXV sock puppet earlier today. I would recomend blocking him and reverting all his deletion nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 23:02, 16 April 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
Blocked per WP:DUCK, also ✅ was if another CU can check for open proxies, that would be great, as I am unable to right now. –MuZemike 23:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Proxies blocked, marking for close. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  12:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

23 April 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 " ~ "''

Just joined and started with an attack post against me, then nominated one of my articles for deletion based on a complete lie. Should be blocked immediately and his edits reverted/deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 11:54, 23 April 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

 * - Likely; endorsing for confirm and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * . There are no other related accounts on the IP used, but that's about all I can say. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  12:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, Zzuuzz blocked the account anyway. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

23 April 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 " ~ "''

Started new accounts and immediately started "helping" in the same projects XXV frequents. Mathewignash (talk) 14:05, 23 April 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

 * - Yes, yes. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Muzemike blocked all the socks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Muzemike blocked all the socks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Muzemike blocked all the socks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

29 April 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 " ~ "''

Joined and immidiately started making claims against me for reverting Divebomb's edits, and Divebomb was Editor XXV. Mathewignash (talk) 21:47, 29 April 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

 * - Blocked per behavioral evidence, but endorsing for sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No sleepers, proxy blocked. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  03:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

02 May 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 " ~ "''

Uhm name make this WP:DUCK in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:47, 2 May 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
It's actually someone else whom I've blocked. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

04 June 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 " ~ "''

Seems to be following Editor XXV's pattern. Joined and IMMEDIATELY started nominating articles for deletion. Four pages from my userspace, and another two articles that I edited recently were targeted. I suggest his edits be reverted and all the AfDs be SPEEDY KEEP. Mathewignash (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Mathewignash (talk) 11:38, 4 June 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

 * I've blocked and rolled back the sock. Whether it's this banned user or the other one, I can never care enough to tell. CheckUser sometimes finds a few in the drawer, so I'll endorse that request ... -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * - The usual confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No sleepers. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

06 June 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 " ~ "''

Just came on and started vandalizing, and mentioning this user. Could be him or one of a couple other sock puppeteers. Either way a troll is a troll. Mathewignash (talk) 16:55, 6 June 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

 * CU won't connect an account to an IP. It's unnecessary here anyway; I've blocked the IP for a month. We ran a sleeper check a few days ago, and we'll probably run another in a few days' time.. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

08 June 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 " ~ "''

Same in and posted some stupid rant on the Transformers wiki project. It's XXV or one of the other trolls. Mathewignash (talk) 17:16, 8 June 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
It's a new wave of socks, related to. I have indefinitely blocked as a sock. –MuZemike 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The autoblock kicked in for the IP, but I hardblocked it for a week anyway. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

23 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (12:38, April 1, 2011 -- 13:24, June 23, 2011)
 * (07:21, April 13, 2011 -- 07:41, April 13, 2011)
 * (13:37, April 7, 2011 -- 14:47, April 7, 2011)
 * (14:27, March 30, 2011 -- 15:13, March 30, 2011)
 * (17:55, March 26, 2011 -- 18:27, March 26, 2011)


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This request is a bit backwards. I ran a checkuser on, who is requesting an unblock from an IP address blocked as a proxy (see user's talk page). When checking the IP address, I noticed a large number of accounts that shared the same useragent. These accounts are listed above. Note that is already blocked as a sock of Editor XXV; given the  to ✅ checkuser result, I'd like some others to take a look at behavioral evidence and possibly a second look by a checkuser - I don't have time at the moment to do more than check the blocked IP.

Again, to clarify, all of these accounts have been using the same IP address with the same useragent. This IP address is currently under a six-month block as an abused proxy. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Extra note: the timestamp ranges shown are when each account was active on that IP address. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:16, 23 June 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

 * Self-endorsing for further checkuser attention. Some behavioral analysis in the meantime would be awesome. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * for to the sock master.  The other accounts and editors are  to be the same account.  There are useragents targeting for several accounts on the IP, but none meriting disruption in contributions.  No merit in speculation.  Keegan (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion on the possibility of this IP being a proxy? I know EditorXXV isn't based where this IP originates, so it leads me to believe this one is an open proxy. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  11:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see it as a telcom addy. It is odd because it is registered as static, but it does hop.  Perhaps the provider does the switching or provide another way to access their service... /shrug/ Keegan (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (spotted this on SPI page and decided to comment) The IP is registered to the European Commission. I'm thinking multiple people on work computers rather than multiple people on proxies. -- The Silent Blues 13:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So... what's the deal here? I'm not really convinced by behavior on this one, so I'm inclined to close. Anyone else? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

25 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This user seemed to join a few weeks ago and immedately displayed interest in sock puppetry and deletion, playing he asking for help in SPIs, giving helpful advice that seems to be trying to get credit for his other puppets, PRODing articles that he always shows interest in, and following my edits to make his. Now he happens to find this SPI and makes a comment on it? Mathewignash (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Mathewignash (talk) 14:16, 25 June 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
❌ –MuZemike 14:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

05 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Harassing edits for the deletion nomination for the article Slugslinger by a new user. I first suggested another sock master, then it was suggested to me that this sounded more like XXV. Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 5 September 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

 * - Alright, there we go. I'll endorse to see if they match. should be viable for a check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's bloody obvious that this is either Editor XXV or ; in any case, I have blocked. –MuZemike 00:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)