Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freakee73/Archive

Evidence submitted by GPHemsley
All of these users and IP addresses (with the possible exception of Netitude) are sockpuppet accounts of, operated by Charles F. Groves III. He is currently under investigation (in real life) for the stalking and cyberstalking of Heather Vickery and Adam Kontras. He has publicly admitted (on the wiki) on multiple occasions that he has a personal vendetta against Adam Kontras, and he has chosen to pursue that by vandalizing Wikipedia and posting libelous comments against living persons. He has also taken to impersonating the very people he is under police investigation for.

Here on Wikipedia was (up until today) an article, written primarily by me, named. Groves' persistent vandalism began there back in March. The admin I enlisted to help with the vandalism decided to put the article up for deletion, arguing against notability. Groves repeatedly disrupted the otherwise civil debate using a number of sockpuppet accounts. That debate wound up closing as no consensus.

(As an aside: Kontras has an account on Wikipedia, originally named (like all of his other accounts across the Internet) but later renamed to  in order to avoid any possible violation of self-promotion policies.)

Less than a week later, Groves, operating under the account (with a lowercase 'k'), posted on the talk pages of a number of people involved in the AfD pretending to be Kontras and "thanking" them for helping to keep his article up. Groves then posted on the talk page of the admin who closed the debate,, again pretending to be Kontras, and asked him to open a new AfD in order to get a true consensus, saying that he "would love to not go through the last week again, in fear of losing" the article.

Without investigating the authenticity of the request, Shimeru did just that. This AfD discussion, from my point of view, focussed on that fact: that the new AfD was listed on the untrue basis that it was requested by the subject. However, opponents of the article from the previous AfD began anew the debate about the actual article. Despite the article not having changed in the 6 days between AfDs, the latter AfD was deemed to have reached a consensus of delete, and the article was deleted.

Thus, I conclude that Groves did in fact influence the outcome of a vote, as well as evade various bans and blocks that had been placed on his accounts and IP addresses. He has also participated in a number of revert wars, especially on the original article about Kontras (that has since been deleted). Since he appears to have committed offenses in every category available, I ask that appropriate action be taken against Groves and his numerous sockpuppet accounts. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 17:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 17:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Something is definitely up here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ for:
 * These also appear to be:
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These also appear to be:
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These also appear to be:
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These also appear to be:
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These also appear to be:
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These also appear to be:
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These also appear to be:
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These last four were active on the IP where User:Adam kontras created his account. If they're not the same person, they're another person editing under four different accounts, all inserting links to one particular website, all from the same IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. The IPs look dynamic, so I don't see the point of blocking atm, except for one that geolocates to Germany, which I've hardblocked for 1 month as a proxy. Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by GPHemsley
We just went through this 4 days ago. Now, Charles Groves is apparently using his Renaissance fair alter-ego to continue to evade the ban on him. Simply reading his talk page should provide enough evidence that this is the same person as described in the previous report. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 05:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 05:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

appears to be fairly likely, edits like this continue to try and remove references to Adam Kontras, he also has the same style of writing as previous Freakee73, and has fairly similar editing times. If a check could please be made to check the link and, if confirmed, to run a sleeper check that would be brilliant. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

. It's if you take the behavioural evidence into account too. --Deskana (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, tagged. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 14:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ibbn
Appears to have admitted it here. Ibn (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Veritas parit odum made an edit to Video blogging identical to those of other socks,, the IP was at my talk page pleading a case in favour of such edits. Ibn (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

All right, here we go. This is what I was hoping for actually, and maybe now this will be given the attention that it deserves, and a proper investigation, and not just the typical block. It seems that there can be more to a story than the average Wikipedia administrator can imagine. I would love to have a competent administrator look at this case and evaluate it properly. Maybe a week or so ago, I lost my editing rights due to an editor, User:GPHEMSLEY reporting me for having sockpuppet accounts. I tried to explain at the time that I had used no other accounts, other than the ones that were my IP addresses. I stated which those were on my talk page for freakee73. I had gone through being blocked before, and regained my account, all of which is detailed on my talk page. I agreed to make no more disruptive edits, and until yesterday I had not. This is all an orchestrated move to gain some sort of legitimacy for a certain Adam Kontras, I have no idea how the check-user could believe me to be all of those other names other than Hemsley (who as Adam Kontras' website points out is Kontras' own personal 'Web Guru') He could be such the guru as to jack an ip address or something of that sort. I did find a keylogger on my system a bit over a month ago. This is all a conspiracy to silence anyone who interjects anything into a page that could degrade Kontras' self created worth.

I hate to accuse other editors, but it is what it is. I have been accused of some fairly wretched things over the past month or so. Every time I defended myself I identified myself, just check the histories of pages that I was involved. I being freakee73, or the two IP addresses that I had access. Now this may require a bit of investigation, so that is why I call for a competent editor, and not a block happy rouge that will accomplish nothing. The people that have accused me are turning Wikipedia into a social networking site, I would love to see it become a true source of information, and would love to have my account back. The edits I was making were very accurate and well done if I do say so myself.

Just to clarify, the socks listed above are me, absolutely, but not the others that I was accused of in the past. I simply decided that if I were going to be accused of something then I should be damned for something I actually am doing, So it appears that this is war! Fix it! Find the truth! Charles F Groves III Richmond, VA 95.211.27.5 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: I aways admit when it is me, no huge conspiracy here from me I assure you all. Will someone finally investigate this? Will someone finally come up with something a bit more creative than blocking me just because of the accusations against me? Look at the evidence, and the legal threats that have been made against me in all of this. Look at what those who accuse me have done all in order to create a career for someone based on a Wikipedia page, instead of that person actually having some notability, and then having that notability translate into a Wikipedia page. I have been one of the voices upholding the honour of encyclopaedic content, and the 'administrators' believe the attackers. I should be awarded for pointing out what I have, not attacked. I want my one account back, and end this agenda of a self promoter, and his lover GPHemsley. CHECK THE HISTORY!!! Do a Google search on these two ] I always have identified myself! The treachery is not (or was previously not) mine!!! Charles F Groves (freakee73) and whichever of a million ip addresses follow....

Comments by other users
Added F.U.A.K. (didn't see that one listed in the archived cases). Usernames are clearly violation also (his actions are against someone with initials "A K". This is becoming a long-term/repetitive problem; could CU find us other sleepers and maybe a static-IP to block? DMacks (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention. Yes, this person is starting to create some rather significant problems which seems to including IP and proxy-hopping. –MuZemike 22:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

✅ No other obvious unblocked socks that I could see. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugggghhhhh DUH!!! I told you that these were me!!!! Now could you check the ones that an obviously biased check user (who will not reply to my messages) supposedly checked before. I became disruptive only after being accused of being such. I only became a sockpuppet after being accused of editing as such!!!! I CANNOT SCREAM THIS LOUDLY ENOUGH AT ALL OF YOU!!!! So now I am forever in puppet land, thanks to some sloppy 'investigative' work.... FIX THIS!!!! I am as always Identifying myself Charles F Groves. Freakee73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.81.156 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hardblocked. This isn't going to be the last we hear from this user, either. –MuZemike 07:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by GPHemsley
Charles Groves is at it yet again, this time disrupting the "Parodies" section of the Barbara Ann article. Only IP addresses this time, though. Isn't there some way to block some of these? I really don't think he's going to stop.... (FYI, I'm pretty sure is just a regular user who's rather protective of the Beach Boys; that's a separate issue unrelated to sockpuppetry.) &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709;  17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

per privacy policy. CUs don't generally reveal connections to specific IP addresses. Note that the two IPs do not geolocate to the same location. One geolocates to Illinois and the other to Virginia, which are several hundred miles apart.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 23:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Closing case. Neither of the IPs have edited in a couple of days; I'll watch both articles right now, but if the similar disruption occurs, I think semi-protection will be necessary. –MuZemike 01:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by GPHemsley
Each one of these IPs has reverted constructive and referenced edits to Video blogging, with comments that reference Wikipedia policies that don't actually apply to the situation (namely, NPOV). Please note that the first IP address has been listed for SPI many times before. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Video blogging semi-protected 6 months for continued socking. –MuZemike 22:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)