Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fixer88/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I'm opening this more so there's a paper trail because I think the chances of this person trying to once again evade their block is fairly high. I'm also trying to make some sense of this since there's a long line of tags to various sockpuppet accounts, which I kept finding one after the other just as I thought I'd found all of them.

The main things that tie all of the accounts together is that all of them seem to edit in a rambling and occasionally incoherent manner. There's usually somewhat of a focus on religion in these articles, sometimes very blatant but in other cases it's more subtle, with words like "blessed" or the type peppered throughout the work. They do share some similar editing styles, particularly that some of the blocked accounts will try to continue creating articles and/or rambling blog posts via their talk page after they are blocked. Some of the accounts will edit on the same pages in similar enough manners to suggest that they are the same person. From what I can see they typically have one account at a time but they usually open the new one right after the old one is blocked, with only one exception. Because the most recent account (Moredecai) has been blocked, I'd say that a sweep to check for new accounts would be a good idea. It might also be helpful to detect any accounts that haven't been tagged.


 * The first account seems to be MetlifeWP, who signed up around April 2015 and was blocked in on 6 November 2015 for being incoherent. Examples of their work includes this AfC post where they tried to make an article about opinion journalism that was essentially an article about one specific journalist. There were also navel gazing posts like Draft:An inabitrary opinion of "mans' will", Creating video amaphotography, and Draft:Social Media, Alternative news, & Criticism. There's a definite emphasis on trying to insert personal opinion and a focus on journalism of different types.


 * Around the same time that MetlifeWP signed up, there was also an account named Metlifecc that signed up on 17 April 2015. They didn't make a huge amount of edits, but they did create a copyvio article here and the account was blocked by Diannaa on 13 November 2015 for block evasion for MetlifeWP.


 * The next account seems to be Networkccc, who signed up on 17 November 2015, a little over a week after the last account was blocked. They attempted to create Category:Criticism of Journalism, a category that MetlifeWP previously tried to create. There were also similar blog post type article creations like Mobile broadband width. They were blocked a month later by on 10 December 2015 for disruptive editing.


 * PCruiser is the next in the line and their account was opened on 17 December 2015, a week after the prior account was blocked. This one lasted a little longer than the prior one, as it wasn't blocked until 19 February 2016 by, who blocked them for total incompetence. This account has the same tendency to edit in a rambling manner resulting in posts like this one, where they tried to post content to their talk page after blocked them and tagged them as a sockpuppet of MetlifeWP. You can also see where they tried to create articles in the category space with Category:Transformative Systems.


 * Adolescentfiction is the next one I was able to find, however this account seems to have been opened around April 2016, which makes me think that there's likely another blocked account that hasn't been linked here. This account was blocked by on 21 May 2016 for abusing multiple accounts and it was tagged as a sock by RHaworth shortly thereafter. The account's talk page history shows evidence that they were editing under other accounts. They also made similar rambling posts like this and some of their favorite actions were to try to insert articles about Legal idealism and Category:Umhoefer's Rule & Axioms. What also helps tie them to the original account is the mention here of Metlifecc.


 * This brings us to Moredecai, the most recent account, which was created on 28 May 2016. Their primary actions on here was to cut/paste content from the Signpost, as well as attempts to try to add themselves as an interviewee in order to discuss various viewpoints, all of which were written in a rambling manner. Their editing patterns were fairly disruptive, which is how I discovered them - their various created pages were put up for speedy deletion. This account has also tried to edit about Legal idealism and Category:Umhoefer's Rule & Axioms, things that the last account tried to create. Like one of the prior accounts, they tried to get around the block and post cut/paste content after they were blocked, which led to me revoking their talk page access. This account also mentioned MetlifeWP and someone named "Eduardo" that they claimed was their mentor.

I think that there's likely at least one more sockpuppet here that hasn't been found given that there's a month gap inbetween some of the accounts and offhand MetlifeWP's editing style suggests that there are likely accounts from earlier that were never tied together. However since anything from that time period is likely stale, there's not much that can be done about that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:27, 10 June 2016 (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'm confident that there's a clear enough link between Adolescentfiction and Mordecai to warrant a further check to see if there are any other accounts sitting around, as these accounts are all blocked no other action on these seems to be necessary. Steven   Crossin  04:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The following accounts are :
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * is ✅ from the above accounts. The account is years older than MetlifeWP. It has over 34,000 edits with no blocks. However, there was an autoblock generated by the block of PCruiser, which triggered this discussion. I am pinging some of the participants:, , If the determination is made that Fixer88 should be blocked as the master, then their declared alternative accounts should also be blocked:  and . Fixer88 never talks. They did not respond to the discussion about the autoblock, despite being asked to do so. The statement on their user page is at best poorly worded: "What you should know know is that I'm an individual who uses Wikipedia frequently. I have been using it since 2005 and I having been usihubshsb this account of mine since 2009. In this site, editing and creatmy primary purpose." Finally, the IP used by Fixer88 and all the other accounts is not a typical IP used by consumers. It is questionable whether it should be used at all to edit Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just spent a long time looking at this. There is no doubt whatever that MetlifeWP, Metlifecc, PCruiser, Adolescentfiction, Adolescentfiction, and Moredecai are the same person, Networkccc is probably the same person too, and Blanka pop may be. It is much less clear whether Fixer88/City of Tragedy/Metal Velocidad is also the same person or a second person. The main difficulty is that Fixer88 is uncommunicative, rarely writing more than a sentence or two, and most often not even that much, most editing being things like adding categories, moving pages, etc, and this means that there is very little to compare with the editing from MetlifeWP/etc. In the few cases where Fixer88 does say enough to make an assessment, there is sometimes nonsense or weird use of English, as in the example you quote from the Fixer88 user page, and that is somewhat reminiscent of the much longer nonsense posts from MetlifeWP/etc. On the other hand the contrast between MetlifeWP's long rambling posts and Fixer88's terseness could scarcely be greater. Either we are dealing with one rather odd person who deliberately uses two different groups of accounts in radically different ways to give the impression of being two people, or we are dealing with two people who are both odd in ways which have both similarities and differences. On the whole I am more inclined to the latter view, in which case there is no justification for blocking the Fixer88 group of accounts as accounts. However, is there a case for an IP block including logged in editing, since you say that it is questionable whether the IP address should be used for editing? I wonder what you mean by "the IP used by Fixer88 and all the other accounts is not a typical IP used by consumers". Obviously you are not going to tell me exactly what that means, but is it possible to give a little more information, perhaps via email if it needs to be kept confidential? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you do not support blocking Fixer88, but you support blocking his IP so that he cannot edit. What's the difference?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Two points in answer to that. Firstly, I am not willing to go so far as to say that I "support" the one and "do not support" the other: I am saying that the situation is not entirely clear to me, but if Fixer88 is not the same person as MetlifeWP then there doesn't seem to be any justification for blocking Fixer88, and if the IP address he/they is/are using is one which should not be used for editing Wikipedia then that IP address should be blocked. Either, both, or neither of those may apply. Secondly, the effects of the two different blocks would be different in two ways: (1) the IP block would leave Fixer88 free to edit from a different type of connection if he/she has access to one, while blocking the account wouldn't, and (2) the IP block would also stand to make it harder for the known disruptive sockpuppeteer MetlifeWP to use yet more block-evading sockpuppets, while blocking accounts wouldn't. I have some more things I am inclined to say about this, but I need to do a bit more checking before committing myself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that message, I was forgetting Jpgordon's comments in the discussion at User talk:Fixer88 about the timing of edits suggesting that Fixer88 was "controlling" PCruiser. That puts a different light on the matter, and leaves me much more evenly balanced between the one-person-pretending-to-be-two theory and the two-people-who-have-similar-oddities-and-also-different-oddities theory, I'm afraid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * is ✅ from the above accounts. The account is years older than MetlifeWP. It has over 34,000 edits with no blocks. However, there was an autoblock generated by the block of PCruiser, which triggered this discussion. I am pinging some of the participants:, , If the determination is made that Fixer88 should be blocked as the master, then their declared alternative accounts should also be blocked:  and . Fixer88 never talks. They did not respond to the discussion about the autoblock, despite being asked to do so. The statement on their user page is at best poorly worded: "What you should know know is that I'm an individual who uses Wikipedia frequently. I have been using it since 2005 and I having been usihubshsb this account of mine since 2009. In this site, editing and creatmy primary purpose." Finally, the IP used by Fixer88 and all the other accounts is not a typical IP used by consumers. It is questionable whether it should be used at all to edit Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just spent a long time looking at this. There is no doubt whatever that MetlifeWP, Metlifecc, PCruiser, Adolescentfiction, Adolescentfiction, and Moredecai are the same person, Networkccc is probably the same person too, and Blanka pop may be. It is much less clear whether Fixer88/City of Tragedy/Metal Velocidad is also the same person or a second person. The main difficulty is that Fixer88 is uncommunicative, rarely writing more than a sentence or two, and most often not even that much, most editing being things like adding categories, moving pages, etc, and this means that there is very little to compare with the editing from MetlifeWP/etc. In the few cases where Fixer88 does say enough to make an assessment, there is sometimes nonsense or weird use of English, as in the example you quote from the Fixer88 user page, and that is somewhat reminiscent of the much longer nonsense posts from MetlifeWP/etc. On the other hand the contrast between MetlifeWP's long rambling posts and Fixer88's terseness could scarcely be greater. Either we are dealing with one rather odd person who deliberately uses two different groups of accounts in radically different ways to give the impression of being two people, or we are dealing with two people who are both odd in ways which have both similarities and differences. On the whole I am more inclined to the latter view, in which case there is no justification for blocking the Fixer88 group of accounts as accounts. However, is there a case for an IP block including logged in editing, since you say that it is questionable whether the IP address should be used for editing? I wonder what you mean by "the IP used by Fixer88 and all the other accounts is not a typical IP used by consumers". Obviously you are not going to tell me exactly what that means, but is it possible to give a little more information, perhaps via email if it needs to be kept confidential? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you do not support blocking Fixer88, but you support blocking his IP so that he cannot edit. What's the difference?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Two points in answer to that. Firstly, I am not willing to go so far as to say that I "support" the one and "do not support" the other: I am saying that the situation is not entirely clear to me, but if Fixer88 is not the same person as MetlifeWP then there doesn't seem to be any justification for blocking Fixer88, and if the IP address he/they is/are using is one which should not be used for editing Wikipedia then that IP address should be blocked. Either, both, or neither of those may apply. Secondly, the effects of the two different blocks would be different in two ways: (1) the IP block would leave Fixer88 free to edit from a different type of connection if he/she has access to one, while blocking the account wouldn't, and (2) the IP block would also stand to make it harder for the known disruptive sockpuppeteer MetlifeWP to use yet more block-evading sockpuppets, while blocking accounts wouldn't. I have some more things I am inclined to say about this, but I need to do a bit more checking before committing myself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that message, I was forgetting Jpgordon's comments in the discussion at User talk:Fixer88 about the timing of edits suggesting that Fixer88 was "controlling" PCruiser. That puts a different light on the matter, and leaves me much more evenly balanced between the one-person-pretending-to-be-two theory and the two-people-who-have-similar-oddities-and-also-different-oddities theory, I'm afraid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that message, I was forgetting Jpgordon's comments in the discussion at User talk:Fixer88 about the timing of edits suggesting that Fixer88 was "controlling" PCruiser. That puts a different light on the matter, and leaves me much more evenly balanced between the one-person-pretending-to-be-two theory and the two-people-who-have-similar-oddities-and-also-different-oddities theory, I'm afraid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to block Fixer88 until he responds to us. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I had exactly the same thought when I made my original post above, but didn't mention it. If Fixer88 is not the sockpuppeteer, then he/she would have a chance to defend himself/herself, and also any response of more than a few words words would give us a pretty good idea as to whether it's the same person or not, as it's unlikely that two people would both have the same peculiar way of expressing themselves (or rather of failing to express themselves). I also note that Fixer88's user page states that he/she is a native speaker of English, and native to the USA, which if true should make his/her use of English radically different from that of MetlifeWP. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixer88's user boxes are as crazy as everything else about this case. First, he says he was born in California and is of Filipino ancestry. Second, he says he "speak" (his grammar error) American English. Third, he says his mother tongue is Spanish, although he also says he speaks Spanish only at an intermediate level. Fourth, he says he speaks Scottish (!!) at a high level. Then there are all the wikis he edits at. Astonishing. For someone who suppposedly speaks so many languages and is able to edit so many different wikis, they are surprisingly uncommunicative. Back to the suggestion. If we block Fixer88, do we just put this case in a holding pattern until we decide whether to unblock or make them the master?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we should block Fixer88 and keep this case on hold for some time.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's probably the best thing to do, since it's the one thing that possibly may get a response out of Fixer88, and without any communication from him or her we are never going to make any progress. As for the statements about languages, I was aware that I was assuming good faith to a great extent. If and when we can persuade Fixer88 to communicate with us, it will be interesting to see whether his communications look like those of a native speaker of English. (By the way, on the basis of the few fragments of English that we have from Fixer88, I would say that he or she comes across far less like a native speaker of English than Vanjagenije, who isn't one.) Now, since three administrators (Vanjagenije, Jpgordon and myself) have indicated that we think we should block Fixer88, and another (Bbb23) has commented in a way which clearly indicates that he is willing to consider doing so, one of us should go ahead and do so. The only reason I'm not doing it myself now is that I'm not sure what to say to Fixer88 about the block. We need to make it clear that we will consider lifting the block when he/she communicates, but exactly what sort of communication should we ask for? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Fixer88 and left a normal block notice for sock puppetry on their Talk page. I don't see why we need to make this complicated in terms of what we say to them. When they were autoblocked, they knew enough to request an unblock. If they request an unblock here, we address it and engage in a dialog (if they are willing). If they don't request an unblock, they stay blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I thought we might tell him or her that we would like to hear his or her explanation of the connection to the other accounts, but I suppose you're right: that can come if and when he/she requests an unblock. I still wonder about an IP block, but in view of CheckUser confidentiality about IP addresses, I'll have to leave that to you. Meanwhile I don't see any further purpose that can be served by leaving this investigation open, so I'm closing it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One more point. You said above that if it were decided that Fixer88 should be blocked, then his/her declared alternative accounts should be blocked too, but you didn't do that, so I have done it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If a case is in close status, it says to a clerk that it's ready to be archived. This case should not be archived yet for two reasons. First, we decided we were going to wait to see what Fixer88 has to say in response to the block, if anything. We didn't specify an exact amount of time, but it hasn't been that long yet. Second, if Fixer88 doesn't respond at all or we deem their response to be further confirmation that they are the same person as the other accounts, then this case will be moved so Fixer88 is the master. For those reasons, I've put the case back on hold.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for explaining. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there is no meaningful answer from Fixer88, can we move this case to his name?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense,, but nonetheless I'd like to wait a few more days.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixer88 has said nothing more. They have also filed two WP:UTRS appeals, both of which have been closed. I've therefore designated Fixer88 as the master and adjusted all the tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-close addendum: I've had to block the underlying IP for a while, given that the block evasion and lack of useful communication continues. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I'm coming here to add this to the list more than anything else, as this user tends to only have one account open at a time. Recently I noticed that DivisionalB had made an edit to the userpage for Moredecai, a sockpuppet of Fixer88. Initially I was just going to ask them about this, but I noticed that they also posted to Fixer88's talkpage with this edit, claiming that they can verify their identity.

I also noted that they tried to list themselves as an interviewee for the Signpost, something that was also done by the Moredecai account. It looks like they realized that this would attract attention (or finally noticing that they were doing it wrong), so they reverted the action. They also made this protected edit request and a sandbox article duplicating the setup of the Signpost. (The sandbox article will be deleted, but I'm linking to it for the checkusers that have admin privileges.) While the stuff that Moredecai wrote is now deleted, that account did the exact same things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This account will likely need to be globally locked like Moredecai was, as the other account had cross wiki abuse. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:15, 23 July 2016 (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 blocked. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)