Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GarnetAndBlack/Archive

Evidence submitted by Magog the Ogre
I'm sorry to have to file a report on this user, but a completely new user stepped in to edit war on a dispute on this article. Mind you, there was already some other likely socking going on, but obviously that doesn't make it OK. I am requesting checkuser evidence in order to determine a possible block on the accused sockpuppeteer (I have blocked this user separately). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - accused sockpuppeteer is blocked for 24h; you can see the user's defense at User talk:GarnetAndBlack. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. This is a frivolous report in my opinion. I have never used, nor plan to ever use more than one account to edit Wikipedia. I welcome a CheckUser to prove that I am unrelated to this other account. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is certainly an interesting development. In a sockpuppet investigation I opened on it has been confirmed via CheckUser that  is one of that user's sockpuppets. So this user would appear to be edit warring with himself. That's a level of disruptive behavior that I don't believe I've witnessed before. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
just a brief reminder that the checkuser tool should only be used to try and determine guilt; it should not be used to try and prove innocence. Best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, with Scdemetrius shown to be a sock, but of a very different editor, there is nothing to do here. Amalthea  08:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

12 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets






 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

It seems quite evident from comparing the chronically abusive histories (& user:talk, edit summaries) of User:GarnetAndBlack and 129.252.69.40 in the last several months and years,WP:Duck, that the patterned behavior of constant edit-waring, spiteful reverts, bullying, IP Hopping, and vandalism is from the same user; several blocks notated by an administrator as "personal attacks" and "harrassment" over the same content.. This behavior can be traced back on both the histories of both GarnetAndBlack and IP 129.252.69.40 sockpuppetry dating back to October of 2009, which apparently matches similar patterns revealed in a previous investigation of the same user (October 2 2009), that I just discovered filing this investigation, coinciding around the time that User:ViperNerd's account and various socks were blocked indefinitely. In the case of 129.252.69.40 and GarnetAndBlack, notice the same exact reverts & edit wars have been made to the same detailed content on multiple pages and sections:


 * GarnetAndBlack: identical reverts/edit warring
 * 129.252.69.40: identical reverts/edit warring


 * Evidence applied with WikiStalk tool (since CheckUser was declined): Out of the millions of wiki pages, user/ip has been trolling, harassing, and reverting on the same 42 pages.


 * 129.252.69.41: Blocked
 * Tag Removal:
 * ViperNerd: Blocked

User seems to particularly focus attacks on new and various users mostly on Clemson University & athletic related pages (hindering edits), as well as South Carolina athletic and rivalry related pages. Particularly on the first mentioned pages, various users have had difficulty making healthy edits, or are rarely able to make contributions WP:DE. Examples shows page watching/stalking, Anon IP-hopping, taking both biased and opposing stances in reverts, & ripping down logos and "use" tags on rival pages in retaliation.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

Which is identical to an older pattern of sock puppetry behavior:


 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:
 * 16th revert:
 * 17th revert:

Unfortunately, it seems that this user's patterns are not going to change even after over 2 years of chances. The usual "slap on the wrists" and blocks don't seem to be stopping the cycles of abuse & chronic behavior that is disruptive to more well meaning editors. Not even sure if simply banning him from the pages he most frequents will be enough at this point. How many more years is this going to continue? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical proof certainly would not hurt at this point, especially a cross-reference between User:129.252.69.40 and User:GarnetAndBlack, and also because this IP has been blocked multiple (7) times involving "personal attacks / harrassment," spanning several years.  I only listed the older socks to establish a connection and pattern of behavior.   TN X Man, I have noticed in other cases that you have allowed CheckUser on the basis that users have come from the same "city."  It's been established that the IP is coming from the same place that the user claims affiliation.  I think the same computer and same chair might be more accurate here.  Any guidance or assistance would be appreciated, also for future knowledge.  Thanks again. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what WilliamH and I have said - there is no technical proof we can provide, for two reasons. First, the named accounts, CockNFire and ViperNerd, have not edited in so long that the system has purged any technical data about their edits. Secondly, the privacy policy prevents checkusers from generally disclosing connections between IPs and named accounts. I hope this helps explain. TN X Man  17:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There would be technical data on GarnetAndBlack however, and the suspected IP. I just needed some clarification.  One would not expect much technical information from 2 accounts that were blocked indefinitely.  Just letting you know why I presented them in the investigation. Thanks. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After doing more research, I have added data from the newly found "WikiStalk." Although a cross-reference tool, results are revealing. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like your plate was full. I lost an account do to move / death in the family, & have more than "mere 76" edits.  Not concerned about "boomerang" but thanks for the "heads up." ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but my account didn't notify me you responded. You forgot to put a block on the sock master's current account, which is key here.  Don't think a week is going to cover it.  Previous sock master's username was blocked indefinitely, IP 6 months-- it's in the archives.  Pattern seems to have worsened while "undetected."  Respectfully, this user appears to be somewhat of a chronic stalker/troll/warrior, and a sneaky one.  GarnetAndBlack also needs to be tagged out of respect for the other editors.  It's all "illuminated" in the edit summaries.  I was thorough: don't like to see this, & because I really don't want to have to file another investigation.  Respectfully.  ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Nope, sorry...I've been accused by people (Clemson fans) on more than one occasion of being this ViperNerd character, but it wasn't true then, and it's not true now. I also don't edit Wikipedia from computers on USC's campus, so any edits from IPs there aren't me either. Sorry to burst any bubbles, but I've got far more keeping me busy when I'm at school. I do my editing from my home computer, and always while proudly logged in under my username. I don't need to hide behind the anonymity of an IP address. As in the other cases, I welcome CheckUser or any other tool which can be used to demonstrate the truth of what I'm saying. I have no doubt that there are many students and others at USC who edit articles dealing with Gamecock athletics and those of our rival, the Clemson Tigers. Due to things heating up in the rivalry this year, there has been more mischief and vandalism than usual across these articles. I do my best to try to fix these issues when I see them, but to attempt to link me to an IP address that might possibly be accessible to thousands of people at USC (depending on where the computer is) is specious in the extreme, and would seem to violate WP:AGF. I'd also like to add that it was very nice of my accuser to conveniently fail to notify me of this report on my Talk page. I'm fairly certain that was no accident. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiStalk? Seriously? Does anyone but me think that sounds incredibly creepy? Well, I thought I'd throw a couple names into this foolproof tool, and see what it spits out. According to WikiStalk, CobraGeek and I must be the same user, because out of the millions of Wiki pages we've edited on 35 of the same articles. If I'm CobraGeek, I guess I've also filed a sockpuppet report on myself a couple years back, and been recently blocked for posting harassing comments on my own Talk page. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All three IP addresses geolocate to the University of South Carolina. ViperNerd and CockNFire are, so they are un-CheckUser-able. WilliamH (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As WilliamH said. I've marked the case as "CU-declined" for that reason. TN X Man  14:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 129.252.69.40 for a week. Now having said that, I do find it mildly curious that an account with a scant 76 edits would ask, "How many more years is this going to continue?" And I'd certainly hope that the boomerang wouldn't come back on this one... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

20 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I requested a possible checkuser on the user's main account User:GarnetAndBlack just to have more definitive evidence that it is in the same range as 129.252.69.40, even though he has practically admitted as such, and previous findings have concluded as much. I find it disturbing that even after being warned by SPI last January, that the user has continued to edit war on the exact same articles and "content" that he was told by various administrators on other occasions to cease editing on:


 * 1st diff: as GarnetAndBlack
 * 2nd diff: as GarnetAndBlack
 * 3rd diff: as GarnetAndBlack
 * 4th diff: September, 2010
 * 5th diff: September, 2010
 * 6th diff: September, 2010
 * 7th diff: as 129.252.69.40
 * 8th diff: as 129.252.69.40
 * 9th diff: as 129.252.69.41
 * 10th diff: as ViperNerd
 * 11th diff: as ViperNerd
 * 12th diff: as 129.252.69.41

Which is the same type of retaliatory / edit-warrior behavior editors have encountered before, concerning rival University articles with no regard to other editors, consensus, or policy:
 * 1st diff:
 * 2nd diff:
 * 3rd diff:
 * 4th diff:
 * 5th diff:
 * 6th diff:
 * 7th diff:
 * 8th diff:
 * 9th diff:
 * 10th diff:

And similar behavior involving another user and GarnetAndBlack's 129.252.69.40 sock here:


 * 1st diff:
 * 2nd diff:
 * 3rd diff:
 * 4th diff:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

This IP, which is attributed to the University of South Carolina computer services division, has been edit warring especially on Clemson University pages to delete factual, relevant, & manipulating sourced information. GarnetAndBlack's account (the focus here), became identifiable due to the obsessive nature of the same exact reverts, constant edit-warring, and bullying over the same content as his blocked socks. Thus, I am requesting that User:GarnetAndBlack be blocked indefinitely from articles related to "The Clemson University" or their student athletic programs. I don't think that the user cares about consensus or what is written in article talk pages, even though multiple editors have spent too much time trying to reason with him ; GarnetAndBlack has continued to try and suppress healthy edits on these pages, which, unfortunately for more well meaning editors, seems to be his ultimate goal. (may need to make additions or omissions if able) ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2012 (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
As you've been told before, checkuser generally do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. Secondly, every single account/IP you've listed has been inactive for years (with the exception of 129.252.69.40 -and that IP has been inactive since February). As far as I can see, there is no current problems here. Unless you can provide evidence of current sockpuppetry, I'll mark this for close. TN X Man 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt close of what is clearly a retaliatory report (this user seems to enjoy using Wikipedia's reporting pages as a battleground ). Now if you could turn your attention here . GarnetAndBlack (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not retaliatory; this is time consuming. The case you cited above is retaliatory. This is your pattern:
 * I thought I chose checkuser only for User:GarnetAndBlack / 129.252.69.40? I could have filled out the top portion of the template incorrectly with {};  I could refile it without the checkuser.  Yes, most of the other socks were blocked sometime ago, with the exception of User:129.252.69.40, who was blocked only recently for edit warring over similar content by another administrator.  However, I feel there is too much behavioral, editorial, & content evidence (which is why older socks are referenced) here to simply dismiss the case. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Argue somewhere else. NativeForeigner Talk 18:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)