Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Free Hans/Archive

Report date August 9 2009, 18:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All the users have been created when a user was blocked or recently unblocked, only for making it look like the blocked /unblocked account has been sockpuppeting. I know of some more so I will add them later, because I don't know the exact name. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * The Benmols2 appears to be mirroring WebHamster's style. Far to closely to be a genuine sockpuppet of that user, its just too obvious that this is meant to look like that user. This needs to be looked into, and much more deeply then I could. A check on all involved IP's plus (if posible) a wider search to see if any other black Sock accounts exists masceradibng as WebHammster.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse. WebHamster can be difficult, but this doesn't feel like his style.  Probably worth a passing mention is that one of many people WebHamster has managed to annoy is, currently indef-blocked for sock-puppetry.  Ben Aveling


 * It might be but there are other possibles (including myself) who WebHammster has had issues with. Untill a greater analysis has been carried out (by checking all IPs (regardless of who they are) relating to WeBHammsters actions over the last week or so) I don't think we can apportion blame (after all there are a lot of reasons this could have occured). All that I think we can say is that some one somewhere is not playing the game. Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

}}   Requested by  Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

MuZemike 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So is anyone going to actualy do it? by the way if i can i wish to endorse it too.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Be patient. It'll get done. Checkusers have a life, too. MuZemike 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Worth noting that these accounts have been checked in the past, see cases Frei Hans and Arab Cowboy for two of the three - don't remember the case with Benmols off the top of my head. Nathan  T 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * is a pretty new account: "09:04, 8 August 2009 Benmols2 (talk | contribs) new user account". I doubt it could have been checked before.  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... looks like whoever's behind Wolof359 may also have been behind Free Hans (as opposed to Frei Hans). Benmols2 is ✅ for and,  match for . –  Luna Santin  (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagged. — Jake   Wartenberg  21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Tags all fixed; accounts blocked by PeterSymonds. NW ( Talk ) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 12 2009, 00:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Same troll trying to make others look bad. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  00:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)
 * Actually, I do not think it is necessarily someone who wants to make Noloop look bad, but rather Noloop himself. Pantherskin (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Noloop isn't stupid. He/she wouldn't make it so clear, just like others. And what would a sock of Noloop want Noloop topic banned? Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  13:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well (playing devils advocate) if you want to create an account for attacks but wish to draw attnetion awat from you that would be the way to do it. that is why I belive all parties involved in dispute (including Noloop) need to be checked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well don't put it in the sockpuppet area. Tell the checkuser in the user area. Making Noloop an "Accused" sock is going to help much. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, back to the real reason I submitted this. User:Free Hans is a clear troll trying to make another user, User Frei Hans look bad by making it look like Frei Hans was socking.[] I forgot to get diffs, so just a sec. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  19:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then the user whose name begins with Man (I didn't want to write the whole name out) edits this as his third edit. []. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cutting to the chase, notice the similarity between these edits? Transportation=[], Man=[], and Noloop= []  Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Requested by Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  00:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) MuZemike 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * What this case needs to move forward is actual evidence linking the listed accounts to eachother, in the form of diffs. Please don't rely on folks reviewing contribs of posted accounts to notice what you noticed - make it obvious for us. Thanks, Nathan  T 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note left for filer. —  Jake   Wartenberg  20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please list which accounts are requested to be checked with their reasons. As this request stands now, it is an amalgam of requests and fishing. -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, reading through the new evidence, I think there is enough similarity between the edits to back up a checkuser. NW ( Talk ) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * could be based on geographic location. The rest is . Brandon (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * and blocked indefinitely. Rest is too inconclusive to determine effectively. NW ( Talk ) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)