Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Football/Archive

21 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * }
 * }
 * }


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

User God Football created this deletion discussion shortly after he added a delete vote but attempted to make it appear as a vote from the first IP above. The bot added his signature here & he remove it here, deceptive act of manipulating consensus. The use of this particular IP wasn't a coincidence as it is connected to his own account. He used it here & here to back up his own argument at Talk:FIFA Club World Cup. Then User:Soccer historian a WP:SPA voted at the same deletion discussion with the exact same oddly formatted edits &. I know there has been a string sockpuppets & spas AfD'd articles so this may be connected with further sockpuppet investigations I haven't been privy to. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 177.192.10.223 publicly identifies as Soccer historian here. Godfootball needs to explain the removal of his signature. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a second IP above, now Soccer historian first became active on 22 November 2012 & his first ever edit was to request for mediation on Intercontinental Cup (football), far from the norm for a first edit, that very same day also became active. Where, on Intercontinental Cup (football) talk page & the article itself obviously the same person. Now your going to ask how are the IPs & Soccer historian connected to God Fottball, well that very same IP 177.192.9.25 unlike Soccer historian is able to format their messages adding indentations etc. but also has the same tendency as God Fottball to bracket certain sentences,  & . I think its clear that God Football it using multiple accounts & IPs to enhance his argument against User:Dantetheperuvian across a number of pages. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although CheckUser states that they are unrelated it doesn't change the fact that he could have edited from a friends house/library etc. with the second account the evidence above needs to be looked at before closer after all he did endorse the CheckUser so it was highly unlikely he was going to be caught that way. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I endorsed a check user to get rid of this ridiculous accusation. However, at this point it is becoming more of a witch hunt. Close this now or I will let several admin know about this. This is becoming a very blatant misuse of the feauture and it is looking like there are personal interests involved between you and some others. God Football (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what? I have been more than patient enough. I already started an investigation on this DUCK IS JAMMMY . He/she is clearly abusing their powers now. God Football (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, DUCKISJAMMY is not abusing any powers, he was raising a legitemat concern shared by a number of others - and your RFC will never be accepted. I also strongly suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was very lame of you, to be honest. Trying to intimidate a new user by making he/she recant doesn't speak very good of you. There is nothing to come back and hit me. Anyway, I have opened an investigation on this matter. You are welcome to comment on it. God Football (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you're making unfounded accusations about established editors. Just to let you know - I will be deleting the RFCU in exactly 48 hours, because "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed" which has not happened. RFCU is always a last resort, and the fact that you have gone straight there shows your love for drama. GiantSnowman 13:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

When I first saw this, the water I was drinking literally shot through my nose lol. Anyway, you are free to look around. From what I understand, this came from me copy and pasting a message left on my talk page. Hopefully, Soccer historian leaves far away from Midtown Atlanta to disperse all doubt. God Football (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not God Football. But actually, I must say that I agree with him in his feud with Dantetheperuvian over the "world status" over the Intercontinental Cup. Based on a single non-official FIFA-site news text ("We are the Champions"), this Dantetheperuvian insists in enforcing his personal view that the Intercontinental Cup was "a world championship" of the same worth of the Intercontinental Cup. He insists on that based on a single FIFA text, while there are many many other FIFA texts making clear that FCWC is held by FIFA and by everybody else as being more relevant than the IC and as having a bigger dimension than the IC. Not only FIFA, but also a great many of relevant sources worldwide (Japanese FA, UEFA, CONMEBOL, BBC, several if not most IC-winning clubs, etc) make clear that the IC did not have the same dimension and "world status" of the FCWC. See the Talk Page of the IC article and the links in the far more complete Portuguese-language IC article. To anyone who sees these evidences, it is crystal clear that the supposed "club world cup status" of the IC is far less certain and pervasive than Dantetheperuvian thinks in his head. In order to show how Dantetheperuvian's stance on this subject is purely his personal view, and very wrong, I must say that Dante himself created two "new expressions" to refer to the IC and the FCWC, "de facto world championship" and "de jure world championship" , there existing no original source whatsoever with these two expressions, as these expressions were merely the result of Dante's imagination. I once suggested to Dante that the "de facto world champions" stuff should be dropped of the IC article, as it is a matter of opinion and not an officially determined and inescapable fact. However, he insists on enforcing his personal views (and personal expressions...) as being the truth. If there is anyone here whose behavior should be checked, that´s Dantetheperuvian. I must also point out that Dantetheperuvian alleges to be "so certain" about the alleged-by-him "club world cup status" of the IC, but (according to the FCWC page history and talk page) Dante tried to ERASE MUFC's Chairman's stance that the FCWC was the first world club title ever (thus not considering the IC as a world title). We can see that Dantetheperuvian insists that "everybody in the world agrees that the IC was a world title" but, funny, he tries to ERASE solid evidence against his point. Through this, we can see how this Dante guy is intelectually dishonest and unreliable, really this guy acts dirty. I strongly support anyone who wants to do away with the lie that this Dante has been insisting on at Wikipedia: that the IC and the FCWC have the same value as world titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone just go ahead and do a checkuser, please? This is getting ridiculous and borderline laughable. God Football (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
As Kevin McE notes above, the IP and User:Soccer historian self identify as the same person. I think User:God Football is a different user, who copy pasted SH's comments from the article talk page to the AFD to bolster his argument. I've removed that copy/paste job, as you don't get to do that with other people's comments. However, this is a gut feeling, based on how each user communicates, not a final decision. If another admin thinks differently and thinks a Checkuser is warranted, I won't argue.
 * - - Clearly suspicious, CU may be helpful for the two named accounts.  Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 15:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Both editors are editing disruptively, and will need to alter their behavior if they wish to continue editing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

❌. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's that. Closing. ( X! ·  talk )  · @236  · 04:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

15 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Via an ANI discussion I came across this discussion which alluded to an article where a EpidemiaCorinthiana tried to speedy delete the article as a hoax, and that the article had a recent AfD where the nominator, God Football, was recently blocked for disruption. That raised a bit of a red flag since EpidemiaCorinthiana then tried to speedy the article and opened an ANI discussion where he accused another editor of disruption concerning the same article. I looked and sure enough the EpidemiaCorinthiana account was created after God Football was blocked, and there's an overwhelming amount of overlap concering the articles both editors have edited; most of God Football's edits are on articles that EpidemiaCorinthiana also edited, and the frenquency in each article is also almost too consistant. By far the most edited article for both is FIFA Club World Cup, and the second most edited article for both is Records and statistics of the FIFA Club World Cup. Both editors use ellipses in a specific way, by beginning a sentence with a single word followed by an elipsis (usually "again") which is common from both editors and in the titles of sections. In this diff the ellipsis was present in the same manner, but EpidemiaCorinthiana also answered concerns about his "knowledge of Wiki-"rules" for someone who's been here for such a short time" by explaining that he previously had an account but forgot the password. - SudoGhost 18:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I completely agree with SudoGhost. Also I added his IP with four edits. The same activity in such articles as FIFA Club World Cup, Intercontinental Cup (football). Disruptive editing against consensus. Mass renaming of the articles by moving text without any discussion on WP:RM. See diffs. Also  NickSt (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Desperation sure smells strongly around here. This CU is pointless and fruitless. Now, anyone editing heavily an article has to be related to someone else? What a way to game the system.

NickSt was blocked after I reported him over his disruptive editing yesterday. His behaviour was so childish that he was even banned from editing his talk page due to not complying with simple instructions (leaving his block status visible). I have reported this user again because this is getting ridiculous. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As you know I was wrongly blocked on 24 hours for technically 3RR violation by reverting of your hidden-vandal edits. It was your local win, but not global win. NickSt (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
As someone who dealt with God Football during the last SPI (in which I said it was not the same person, correctly as it turns out) and eventual indef block, I am familiar with GF's discussion style and editing goals. I think GF and EC are very, very likely the same person. Certainly likely enough to justify a CU. If the CU comes back inconclusive, I'll dig deeper through the contribs and see if I'm comfortable blocking based on behavior alone. But I suspect a CU is going to make that unnecessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * God Football and EpidemiaCorinthiana are ✅ matches. I also found . I would request another CU with more IPv6 experience than me to give this one a second look in case I've missed any other accounts. As usual, no comment on the listed IP address. WilliamH (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks WilliamH, I've reblocked EC indefinitely, and the IP for a month based on behavior evidence. I'm confused if LDUCampeon is confirmed, or you think it's the same but are awaiting another CU's second look, so holding off on that for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume that is confirmed as a sleeper. --Rschen7754 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's how I interpreted the comment, too, but wanted to be sure. Also, similar editing history.  LDUC also blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was a confirmed sleeper. WilliamH (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All three ✅. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything already blocked so closing. Rschen7754 22:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

10 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Football history falsification   in the same articles: FIFA Club World Cup, Intercontinental Cup. Corinthians fan, similar editing history. NickSt (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2013 (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

 * NickSt I'm not seeing enough to warrant a block. Would you please present diffs of a blocked account making the same or very similar edits as Hawaiifive0. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Addition of the same image, for example. Calling Intercontinental Cup as "friendly tournament" or "unofficial competition".   NickSt (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the addition of the same image by both God Football and Hawaiifive0 is suspicious, but I don't see enough in this one thing (or enough similarity between your second pair of diffs) to support a socking charge. In the absence of something significantly stronger, I recommend this SPI be closed with no action taken.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point I think this should be closed without action per Callanecc and Richwales. If more evidence emerges then it can be reopened. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)