Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gruesome Foursome/Archive

23 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both Mabuska and the Cartoon Buffoon WP:SPA have leveled highly inappropriate charges of hounding against User:Psychonaut at a recent AE case. Nobody else involved there held a position that extreme. Also both of them are rooting for Mo ainm. That said, Cartoon Buffoon could be any of the (I'm sure) numerous editors banned from that topic area, and Mabuska could have simply replayed his talking points. But worth a check-user to be sure. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A new arrival at WP:AE Special:Contributions/SixtyNineSixtySix, certainly seems well acquainted with the various players in that topic area, despite the fact that he or she edited only between April 14-19 before making a comeback today. The IP of SixtyNineSixtySix (but the not the account) was blocked for two weeks back then after this ANI report with the comment  "obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, almost certainly a sock". So it might be related to the Cartoon Buffoon account. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Cailil thinks User:Zoombox21 might be related as well, although he seems to be arguing mostly from the opposite POV and editing from NY as Special:Contributions/199.198.223.107. (SixtyNineSixtySix's IP was apparently editing from Birmingham back in April.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' While I agree a SSPI of Zoombox / Cartoon Buffoon is useful I doubt its Mabuska. For the wider pattern User:SixtyNineSixtySix might be more likely. See also User talk:Sven the Big Viking, User_talk:Toug_ma_Tojer, Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound/Archive, Sockpuppet investigations/MickMacNee/Archive, Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Maiden_City/Archive and Sockpuppet_investigations/Factocop/Archive. Its more likely to be a MMN, HH or Factocop troll, if indeed those are 3 different people rather than 1-- Cailil  talk 12:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by Cailil

I assume that it is customary to notify an editor that they have had a sockpuppetry case filed against them? Otherwise it is quite bad faith to do something like this.
 * Statement by Mabuska

CheckUser away, you will find it isn't me, and Someone will owe me a second apology for making baseless allegations about me.

How was my mentioning of Psychonaut's behaviour in regards to SoS extreme? Other editors queried it also, and what use is a sock for AE or AN/Is? Wikipedia is not a democracy so head-counts don't carry the day. Admins make up their own mind from the evidence they see no matter how many people may shout "off with their head".

The evidence provided here is as frivilous as the time Facotcop tried to claim I was a sock of O Fenian, an editor who is the exact opposite of me.

Someone seems to already have a pre-determined viewpoint of me going by their comment at SoS's AE case despite their short existence and absolute lack of interaction with me on any article that I know of, which in itself I find curious. Their complete unwillingness to provide evidence to back it up is also strange. I'm not surprised SoS at their recent AE appeal has claimed Someone not using his own name to be a sockpuppet.

Mabuska (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: having said that I am not claiming Someone as being a sockpuppet, just stating I'm not surprised someone else did due to the curious nature of their comments and the choice of words they used at that AE case. Mabuska (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Would I be right in filing an AN/I for this unsubstantiated SPI? Going by this talk page comment where someone asked that question, it would seem I would be vindicated as no actual evidence has been provided other than that some editors voiced supposedly similar views - are people not allowed to think the same as others? Mabuska (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As per the clerk's comment below there'll be no investigation of you in this case Mabuska. Only Cartoon Buffoon will be examined. The page will (if anything is found) be moved (i.e have its name changed) where appropriate when it closes. At this point I think you can relax-- Cailil  talk 13:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that and I am relaxed, I even said CheckUser away on me, I've nothing to worry about - however Someone has recently made two baseless claims about me providing no evidence at all in any shape or form (even when asked to), and failed to even notify me of this SPI. This is uncivil behaviour, and tantamount to personal attacks by calling an editor's integrity into question with no evidence of any form. For now I'll let it go, however I will be making a note of these instances for future reference. Mabuska (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have imitated a clever, serial troll in that discussion. I apologize for confusing you with him. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, you need to back off! I have followed this whole thing since the beginning. Mabuska has never talked or acted like that troll. In fact Mabuska has never, in a long career on WP, acted like a troll of any sort. There have been far too many accusations thrown around in these discussions. You need to apologise properly, not a backhanded "apology" like the above. Scolaire (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - on Cartoon Buffoon only, because that is obviously not a new editor and is a violation of scrutiny and all that. But not convinced it's Mabuska. Rschen7754 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * is a ✅ sock of . Will a clerk please move this to the appropriate page?
 * A check on is  due to lack of evidence.  Tiptoety  talk 06:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Rschen7754 06:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record the following are ✅:
 * For the record the following are ✅:


 * All of the above are already blocked. Tiptoety  talk 06:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

28 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

SixtyNineSixtySix trolled the 2nd AE discussion on SonofSetanta, while Cartoon Buffoon trolled the first one. Strangely enough SixtyNineSixtySix was not picked up by the check-user above, so I've filed a separate report. It's possible he might be someone else, but worth checking out... Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Also added The Humbler because of this interaction with a confirmed sock. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:29, 28 August 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

 * ❌ to each other, to the previous. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, one was a troll and one was highly disruptive and had disproportionate experience so I'll let the blocks stand. We don't know who they belong to, but the blocks are justified. Closing. NativeForeigner Talk 06:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

02 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Identical editing pattern - sudden appearance on WP:ITN/C, walls of text, preoccupation with the obviousness of terrorist activity by people whose guilt had not been established, forum shopping, reluctance to provide sources for sweeping accusations, accusations of bad faith all over the place. Example diffs from GF:  and from LD:   AlexTiefling (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree with Alex. Lokie Dokie's MO is exactly the same as Gruesome Foursome and their sockpuppets who subsequently afflicted ITN. The same style and rhetoric, the long walls of text, the accusations of bad faith, the refusal to accept disagreement and consensus that is contrary to their opinion, the attempts to raise their objections in countless different locations when they don't get their way. It's all very ducky. Neljack (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Would a talk page block be merited? They haven't got the hint yet. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked indef, fairly obvious sock (and even if by an amazing coincidence it isn't, the WP:NOTHERE behaviour is enough for an indef anyway). CU not needed, Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)