Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600/Archive

Evidence submitted by Newross
Summary

Grundle2600 (banned) = Captain Lance Murdoch = You sunk my battleship! (banned) = 96.235.53.18 = Magnum! This is all your fault! based on:
 * Precocious edit history
 * Editing identical articles, making identical edits
 * Chronology of edits
 * Identical writing/editing styles

Details (chronological by sockpuppet)

Grundle2600 - sanctions
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607 – banned indefinitely from Wikipedia, April 8, 2010
 * User talk:Grundle2600 – request declined, April 11, 2010
 * User talk:Grundle2600 – April 17, 2010

Captain Lance Murdoch
 * 13:52, 22 April 2010 Captain Lance Murdoch (talk | contribs) new user account
 * 13:54, 22 April 2010 N User talk:Captain Lance Murdoch – Captain Lance Murdoch (←Created page with 'Hi there!')
 * 13:55, 22 April 2010 N User:Captain Lance Murdoch – Captain Lance Murdoch (←Created page with 'Hi there!')
 * Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
 * 18:53, 4 April 2010 WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607 – Grundle2600 (→Request to modify my topic ban: new section)"I am asking that my topic ban be modified specifically and exclusively so that I may be allowed to make suggestions at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am only asking to be allowed to edit that article's talk page - not the article itself. And I am only asking to be allowed to edit that one particular talk page - not any other talk pages.

I believe that such a modification to my topic ban will give me a chance to prove that I am capable of making constructive suggestions at a talk page for this topic. This would give everyone a chance to see that I have become a better editor in this topic area, without putting any of the articles at risk."


 * 13:56, 22 April 2010 Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – Captain Lance Murdoch (→Senate votes 57-42 against amendment that would have prohibited federal funding of Viagra for convicted rapists and child molesters.: new section)
 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states, …
 * 17:17, 23 September 2009 Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama – Grundle2600(→This article is unbalanced.: new section)"Neutral point of view states, 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.'"
 * 17:19, 23 September 2009 Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (→This article is unbalanced.: new section)"Neutral point of view states, 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.'"


 * 14:13, 22 April 2010 Talk:Tea Party protests – Captain Lance Murdoch (→Breitbart offers to donate $ for video evidence of slurs)"I'd like to remind everyone here that NPOV states, 'All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.' Therfore, any and all well sourced points of view must be included."
 * 16:57, 22 April 2010 Talk:Tea Party protests – Captain Lance Murdoch (→Breitbart offers to donate $ for video evidence of slurs)"NPOV states, 'All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.'"
 * 01:10, 23 April 2010 Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories – Captain Lance Murdoch (→Article has weasel words: new section)
 * GM bailout
 * 15:52, 25 September 2009 – Grundle2600's 3 month topic ban expires
 * 16:51, 25 September 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (→Economy: Auto bailout - these aspects are notable, because they are so rare, and unprecedented during peacetime)
 * 22:43, 12 October 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (updating article with current info as discussed on talk page and talk page archive)
 * 23:01, 19 October 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (Undid revision 319522448 by PhGustaf (talk) Please see talk page section, "Saying 'nope' is not a legitimate reason to remove...")


 * 01:15, 23 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – Captain Lance Murdoch (→Economy: auto bailout)
 * 02:54, 23 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – Captain Lance Murdoch (Undid revision 357737026 by DD2K (talk)These are objective, well sourced facts. Improve if you can, but don't delete.)
 * 20:01, 23 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→Economy: adding reliable sources on GM - this has been in the news constantly for a year - it deserves one sentence in this article)
 * 21:27, 24 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→Economy: As suggested, I am "trying again." I have rewritten it to be more neutral, and am only citing one source.)
 * User:Grundle2600
 * 02:47, 29 April 2010 User:Grundle2600 – You sunk my battleship! (add collapse template for banned user's info)
 * 03:38, 29 April 2010 TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) blocked You sunk my battleship! (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Creating a new login to edit banned users' user pages is not an appropriate use of an alternate account.)


 * 09:37, 29 April 2010 User:Grundle2600 – Captain Lance Murdoch (Revert vandalism)
 * 15:20, 29 April 2010 User:Grundle2600 – Captain Lance Murdoch (Resotring banned user's personal info to banned user's user page. Let's not get all Orwellian and pretend that the banned user never existed.)

You sunk my battleship!
 * 19:18, 23 April 2010 You sunk my battleship! (talk | contribs) new user account ‎
 * 19:18, 23 April 2010 N User:You sunk my battleship! (←Created page with 'test')
 * 19:21, 23 April 2010 User:You sunk my battleship! I am a new editor who is learning how to edit. This is my account. Please do not delete it.
 * 19:23, 23 April 2010 User talk:You sunk my battleship! I am a new editor who is learning how to edit. This is my account. Please do not delete it.
 * GM bailout
 * 15:52, 25 September 2009 – Grundle2600's 3 month topic ban expires
 * 16:51, 25 September 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (→Economy: Auto bailout - these aspects are notable, because they are so rare, and unprecedented during peacetime)
 * 22:43, 12 October 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (updating article with current info as discussed on talk page and talk page archive)
 * 23:01, 19 October 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (Undid revision 319522448 by PhGustaf (talk) Please see talk page section, "Saying 'nope' is not a legitimate reason to remove...")
 * 01:15, 23 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – Captain Lance Murdoch (→Economy: auto bailout)
 * 02:54, 23 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – Captain Lance Murdoch (Undid revision 357737026 by DD2K (talk)These are objective, well sourced facts. Improve if you can, but don't delete.)

Seems to me that 'try again' could lead to edit war, which seems to be against policy. So like it says in the rules, I'm taking it to the talk page. As I said in my comment, this has been in the media constantly for a year. It's also notable because this kind of nationalization of privately owned industry by the U.S. government during peacetime (FDR did it to convert manufacturing facilities for use in World War II, but that's totally different) is unprecedented in the U.S."
 * 19:41, 23 April 2010 N User:You sunk my battleship!/sandbox – You sunk my battleship! (←Created page with 'In 2009, Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors. ...')
 * 20:01, 23 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→Economy: adding reliable sources on GM - this has been in the news constantly for a year - it deserves one sentence in this article)"In 2009, Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors.[125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147]"
 * 06:52, 24 April 2010 N John Edwards sex tape (←Created page with 'The John Edwards sex tape is an alleged celebrity sex tape featuring former U.S. Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards and his mistress...')
 * 13:42, 24 April 2010 Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→It should say Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors: new section)"Another editor erased it and commented 'try again.'
 * 17:11, 24 April 2010 Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama – Newross (→It should say Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors: You sunk my battleship! is an obvious WP:SOCK of Grundle2600)
 * 21:10, 24 April 2010 Kevin Jennings – 96.235.53.18 (Illegal drug use by the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools)


 * 21:24, 24 April 2010 User:You sunk my battleship!/sandbox – You sunk my battleship!   (←Replaced content with 'In 2009, during the bailout of General Motors, Obama reluctantly had the U.S. government take ownership of 60% of the company in order to protect the ta...')
 * 21:27, 24 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→Economy: As suggested, I am "trying again." I have rewritten it to be more neutral, and am only citing one source.)
 * 21:28, 24 April 2010 Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→It should say Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors)"I see on your talk page that this 'Grundle2600' has accused you of multiple violations of an ARB-COM ruling."
 *  Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation 
 * 11:13, 26 April 2010 N Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation – Magnum! This is all your fault! (←Created page with '{{infobox Book | name = Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation | title_orig = | translator = | image = | image_...')


 * 20:24, 28 April 2010 Template:Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (add book) Obama Zombies
 * User:Grundle2600


 * 02:47, 29 April 2010 User:Grundle2600 – You sunk my battleship! (add collapse template for banned user's info)
 * 03:38, 29 April 2010 TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) blocked You sunk my battleship! (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Creating a new login to edit banned users' user pages is not an appropriate use of an alternate account.)
 * 09:37, 29 April 2010 User:Grundle2600 – Captain Lance Murdoch (Revert vandalism)

96.235.53.18
 * Kevin Jennings teenage alcohol and marijuana use
 * 12:55, 24 September 2009 Talk:Kevin Jennings – Grundle2600 (→Jennings often got drunk and stoned during his high school years.: new section) 
 * 15:52, 25 September 2009 – Grundle2600's 3 month topic ban expires
 * 18:03, 25 September 2009 Kevin Jennings – Grundle2600 (Given his job, his past illegal drug use and underage alcohol use is highly notable.)
 * 14:05, 12 October 2009 Kevin Jennings – Newross (→Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools director: rewrite paragraph about Christian right criticism, support by Education Dept., White House, NEA, NASSP; rm outdated, inaccurate, unreliable sources)
 * 03:36, 24 December 2009 User talk:Newross – Grundle2600 (→Please don't delete relevant information from reliable sources.){{blockquote|text=In this edit to the Kevin Jennings article, you removed the information about Jennings' admission in his autobiography that he had a past history of illegal drug use.}}
 * 06:42, 24 December 2009 User talk:Newross –   Grundle2600 (→Please don't delete relevant information from reliable sources.){{blockquote|text=I would like to point out this ARBCOM ruling}}
 * 13:42, 24 April 2010 Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→It should say Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors: new section)
 * 17:11, 24 April 2010 Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama – Newross (→It should say Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors: You sunk my battleship! is an obvious WP:SOCK of Grundle2600)


 * 21:10, 24 April 2010 Kevin Jennings – 96.235.53.18 (Illegal drug use by the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools)
 * 21:24, 24 April 2010 User:You sunk my battleship!/sandbox – You sunk my battleship!  (←Replaced content with 'In 2009, during the bailout of General Motors, Obama reluctantly had the U.S. government take ownership of 60% of the company in order to protect the ta...')
 * 21:27, 24 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→Economy: As suggested, I am "trying again." I have rewritten it to be more neutral, and am only citing one source.)
 * 21:28, 24 April 2010 Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (→It should say Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors)"I see on your talk page that this 'Grundle2600' has accused you of multiple violations of an ARB-COM ruling."

Magnum! This is all your fault!
 * 10:24, 26 April 2010 Magnum! This is all your fault! (talk | contribs) new user account ‎
 * 10:32, 26 April 2010 N User:Magnum! This is all your fault! – Magnum! This is all your fault! (←Created page with '.')
 * 10:32, 26 April 2010 N User talk:Magnum! This is all your fault! – Magnum! This is all your fault! (←Created page with '.')
 * 10:34, 26 April 2010 Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories – Magnum! This is all your fault! (→Hawaii birth certificate issue description)
 * 11:13, 26 April 2010 N Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation – Magnum! This is all your fault! (←Created page with '{{infobox Book | name = Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation | title_orig = | translator = | image = | image_...')
 * 20:24, 28 April 2010 Template:Barack Obama – You sunk my battleship! (add book) add link to Obama Zombies
 * "buy American"
 * 14:19, 25 May 2009 Public image of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (→Around the world: Obama's perceived effect on lending, investing, and international trade)
 * 17:53, 25 May 2009 Public image of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (→Around the world: That's a personal attack, not a reason for reversion. What's wrong with showing that not all international opinionof of Obama is positive? Why can)


 * 11:35, 26 April 2010 Public image of Barack Obama – Magnum! This is all your fault! (→Around the world: This section wrongly implies that all worldwide opinion of Obama is positive. Surely some negative worldwide opinion can be allowed in the article.)
 * Communist support
 * 18:59, 10 May 2009 Public image of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (Communist support)
 * 20:23, 10 May 2009 Public image of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (To remove the section on communist support ,but not the section on conservative support, violates NPOV.)


 * 11:40, 26 April 2010 Public image of Barack Obama – Magnum! This is all your fault! (→Conservative support in 2008 elections: add more support)
 * 18:03, 26 April 2010 Public image of Barack Obama – Magnum! This is all your fault! ("Paranoid" is a matter of opinion. Regarding the other edit, OK, we don't need a "positive" and "negative" section, but the info is still relevant, and the section shouldn't be just positive.)
 * Health insurance
 * 15:52, 25 September 2009 – Grundle2600's 3 month topic ban expires
 * 16:23, 25 September 2009 Political positions of Barack Obama Grundle2600 (→Health care: add Obama quote about private health insurance)
 * 15:51, 26 September 2009 Political positions of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (Politico, Breitbart, and Reason are all reliable source. Please see talk page. I am also adding San Fancisco Bay Times as a source too.)
 * 22:09, 5 October 2009 Political positions of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (→Health care: Added quote. Please see talk page section titled "Politico and Breitbart are reliable sources.")
 * 02:01, 13 October 2009 Political positions of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (Adding a small amount of relevant, well sourced info about Obama's positions on health care and medical marijuana. Please see talk page.)


 * 18:14, 26 April 2010 Barack Obama economic policy – Magnum! This is all your fault! (→Health care: adding positions on private insurance)
 * Helen Thomas
 * 15:52, 25 September 2009 – Grundle2600's 3 month topic ban expires
 * 16:57, 25 September 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (→Transparency: Administration's refusal to adequately explain dismissal of chagres against New Black Panther Party; coment from Helen Thomas about lack of transparency)
 * 17:31, 25 September 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (Undid revision 316158225 by Splette (talk)I did discuss this on the talk page. Your claim that I did not discuss it is inexcusable.)''
 * 22:43, 12 October 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (updating article with current info as discussed on talk page and talk page archive)
 * 23:01, 19 October 2009 Presidency of Barack Obama – Grundle2600 (Undid revision 319522448 by PhGustaf (talk) Please see talk page section, "Saying 'nope' is not a legitimate reason to remove...")


 * 17:48, 28 April 2010 Presidency of Barack Obama – Magnum! This is all your fault! (→Transparency: White House veteran reporter Helen Thomas quote)

Newross (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tarc


Gerald Walpin was an early and frequent target of Grundle's particular brand of POV-pushing. The Rabbit account was created 20:24, 29 April 2010, and it was already hitting the Walpin article by 02:02, 1 May 2010. The red flag is this edit, a paragraph rejected on the article talk page and addressed at AN/I where Grundle received his initial topic-ban. This same paragraph of information was previously introduced to the article here, here, and here by Grundle. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum; User_talk:Tarc. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
This investigation looks like a witch hunt, the violation seems clear but it is in no way egregious. Also, I have the suspicion that the previous poster was an impersonator, I guess we'll find out soon enough. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Grundle is a regular poster at the DVD Talk forum, and often talks about his alleged persecution on Wikipedia, including this investigation. In the course of the discussion, he admitted the charges were accurate. See this thread , in particular post 21. Seantrinityohara (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I came here to start a case on Grundle and, surprised to see that there was already an extensive case begun on other possible socks. I assume it is proper to simply add additional possibilities to an existing case rather than a new one, so an evidence section shall follow shortly. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These are undoubtedly the same person based upon, if nothing else, the peculiarities of the first several edits of each of them (per WP:BEANS I will not list them here, but experienced sock hunters will recognize an easy-to-spot signature). Even if they are not Grundle2600, they are the same person.  They may very well be Grundle2600 based on their specific interest, but there are also several other editors, now banned, who could fit this mold.  -- Jayron  32  01:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just had a quick glance at these, and my first thought was that it looked a bit like . -- Scjessey (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, but User_talk:Tarc. That is Grundle to a T. Tarc (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not Grundle, it's somebody doing a very good Grundle impression, and occasionally being funny at it. But he's wasting a lot of people's time, and angling for a longer ban than indef.  I briefly suspected another banned user, but he's having his own sock problems right now. PhGustaf (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Newross (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually seems quite DUCKY, but awfully complex. Maybe a CU will cut through this like a hot knife through butter. Auntie E. (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do, since all the socks are blocked. If you want a sleeper check, please say so explicitly. --Deskana (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that term. If it is to check to see if there's other new accounts created at the same IP of Grundle2600, I'd say "yes please". Tarc (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was more talking to the clerk who endorsed the case. They normally leave a short note making it explicit what the user wants, so don't worry about not knowing the terms we use. --Deskana (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, thought it was a general question to the filers and commenters, but I shoulda taken note of what section this was. :) Tarc (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

✅ that the following users match the patterns of the blocked sockpuppets listed above: --Deskana (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tarc
Another "new" user hitting the Gerald Walpin article, attempting to insert the same bias. Also shows the same interest in food/fauna/fungi/etc... as Grundle has shown in the past by editing Agaricus bisporus, as Spinoloricus cinzia was an article created and edited by earlier socks. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Pooka" and "Fygar" are characters from a classic video game, Dig Dug, as is the Grundle name itself, i.e. Adventure (Atari 2600). He isn't exactly trying to hide. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Already blocked and tagged by NawlinWiki. –MuZemike 15:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Stonemason89
"Learn Something"'s edits tend to center around similar topics (such as Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation, which was started by User:Magnum! This is all your fault!, who is a confirmed Grundle sockpuppet). Also, "Learn Something"'s user page features many of the same userboxes (such as the "totalitarians love gun control" one, the "Star Wars Rebel alliance and a traitor", the "chocolate milk", the "likes Greek mythology", the "blood donor", and the "supports nuclear power" userbox) that Grundle2600 featured on his user page before he was banned. Finally, this edit looks very Grundle-ish (using a rhetorical question to push a similar POV). Stonemason89 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yohann4's first edits were a few months after the first edits from Grundle2600. Notably, at one point Yohann4 created Grundle Guard and Grundel Guard as redirects to Helmet (both of which constituted vandalism and have since been removed). This looks like it could have be a self-referential joke on Yohann4/Grundle2600's part, if they are indeed the same person, although it's possible this could all be an incredibly freakish coincidence. I think a checkuser would be warranted. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP addresses have only made edits (to this SPI page) in which they all but admit to being Grundle2600. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tarc
. Same "hello!" creations of user page and talk page, same "he said that but did this" synthesis style of editing...a well-documented Grundle weakness... at Presidency of Barack Obama. Also note in his ever-charming cuteness;
 * G-MMDC
 * G for "Grundle"
 * Roman numerals; M is 1,000, D is 500, C is 100
 * Grundle - 1,000 + 1,000 + 500 + 100 == Grundle2600.

Tarc (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

User:Yohann4 is not me. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:It says ANYONE is allowed to edit was blocked but not listed here, so I added it to the list, because it is me. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit."

Banning legitimate editors such as myself who only wish to make good faith edits such as writing articles, only drives our editing into the "underground economy." If you people would focus on writing articles instead of harassing the people who write articles, the encyclopedia would be better off.

I edited wikipedia for two years with exactly zero blocks, bans, or other disciplinary actions. It was only after I started adding true, relevant, well sourced info about Barack Obama that the admins started punishing me.

72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The following articles were created by my socks.

If I'm such a horrible editor, why haven't these articles been deleted?

Why won't you people admit that I made the encyclopedia better by creating these articles?


 * Chanin v. Teva


 * Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking


 * Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation


 * Spinoloricus cinzia

72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's my proposed solution: Unban and unblock me. Give me a topic ban on all political articles, with the rule that if I break the topic ban, I get blocked for one week. There is no legitimate reason to not let me edit articles about animals, science, technology, and pop culture. Community bans for editors who are weird but not malicious is inhumane. I have sometimes displayed an odd sense of humor with some of my edits, but I have never been malicious. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon my French, but you are out of your fucking mind. Here's my solution; go away.  Come back in a year...hell, time it exactly so it matches up with your partner-in-crime CoM...and then try an unblock request.  Go spend some time somewhere else, maybe Simple wiki, and prove that you are able to work collaboratively with other people. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Chanin v. Teva may very well be deleted, as it currently has a speedy deletion template; I don't see any reason why it is notable, in any case. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Chanin v. Teva has been deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * This is becoming tiresome. Could an experienced checkuser please look into the possibility of shutting this down at the IP level, either by rangeblock or hard IP blocks?  Grundle used to be the sort of editor that merely needed some guidance to steer him towards proper Wikipedia conventions, now he's just being annoying just to piss off the admins and play with us.  There's got to be something better than whack-a-mole to deal with him.  Anything at all would be helpful; he's so obvious that most of his socks are blocked per WP:DUCK, and so most of the time he avoids a full checkuser; but we really need to attempt to take this to the next level.  It is eating up WAY to much of the admins time... -- Jayron  32  19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I will quote Grundle from offsite, to show you the mindset that you're dealing with here; "If you make your sock puppets at wikipedia so obvious that anyone can tell that it's you, it's not being dishonest. It's breaking the rules, but it's breaking the rules in an honest way." Tarc (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In other words, he's intentionally being obvious just to avoid the checkuser. Can we PLEASE stop this at the IP level, if at all possible.  Pretty please!  -- Jayron  32  20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit." Here's my IP address - but it'll be different after I reconnect. 96.235.50.123 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Here's my IP address - but it'll be different after I reconnect." That's a taunt if I ever saw one. He's basically saying "go ahead, block me, but I'll be back under a different IP". Now I understand quite well what Tarc said about a "mindset". Stonemason89 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning legitimate editors such as myself who only wish to make good faith edits such as writing articles, only drives our editing into the "underground economy." If you people would focus on writing articles instead of harassing the people who write articles, the encyclopedia would be better off. 96.235.50.123 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Next time, maybe you should leave your comments in the "Comments from accused parties" section, rather than the "Comments for other users" section (which is for other users). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Every time I commented in that section last week, it was erased. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited wikipedia for two years with exactly zero blocks, bans, or other disciplinary actions. It was only after I started adding true, relevant, well sourced info about Barack Obama that the admins started punishing me. 96.235.50.123 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So attempting to create a separate article about Michelle Obama's arms constitutes "true, relevant, well sourced info"? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not just "attempt" to create it. I did create it. And yes, it was very "true" and very "well sourced." Whether it was "relevant" is perhaps a matter of opinion, but it was "notable." You can see my original version here, which is indeed very "true" and very "well sourced." 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Coincidence: A few minutes ago I noticed that Grundel Guard and Grundle Guard both redirected to Helmet, and that both "junk redirects" had been added by the same account, Yohann4. Both redirects have since been deleted as vandalism due to the fact that I reported them to the administrators. This might be a complete coincidence, but Yohann4's first edit was in July 2007, a few months after the first edits from Grundle2600. For these reasons, and due to the fact that Yohann4's edit history consists almost entirely of disruptive editing, I suspect that Yohann4 might be a possible bad hand account used in the past by Grundle2600. This is only a hunch on my part, and since it doesn't quite pass the duck test I think a checkuser is in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yohann4 is not me. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please excuse us for not believing a thing you say. You are banned, period. There is no wikilawyering, no compromise, no negotiation. You have no privileges here. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Stonemason89 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

on Yohann4. The IPs and the other now-blocked accounts are bloody obvious. –MuZemike 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yohann4 will be stale, hasn't edited since January of 2009. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * then per my lack of hindsight. There no other reason to really check here. –MuZemike 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless it would be to check for possible IP blocks or rangeblocks to stop the sockfarming at its source.... -- Jayron  32  02:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the wide range of IPs, I doubt that a rangeblock would be useful. Closing. Tim Song (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tarc
The same sorts of edits done to the same set of articles as Grundle2600 and his mighty, bottomless drawer of socks. Gerald Walpin has long, long been an obsession of his.
 * Grundle2600, 10-5-09
 * Rabbit Seasoning 5-1-10 (confirmed sock)
 * Pooka and Fygar 5-10-10 (confirmed sock)
 * Did You See the Sunrise? 6-20-10
 * Little runt... 7-8-10
 * Herculoids 7-8-10

Similar edits are littered throughout Presidency of Barack Obama, specific diffs there can be done if need be, but the above Walpin fixation is IMO enough behavioral evidence. Even the usernames follow Grundle's video game, media, and pop culture fixations, i.e. The Herculoids, a Magnum PI episode, and a line from Weird Al's Yoda. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding "Spirobranchus giganteus", edits made to Walpin here. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Note: See also this forum entry where Grundle admits (again) block evasion and socking.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Comparing against Learn something - read a book today!, the following accounts (in no particular order) are sockpuppets of Grundle2600: --Deskana (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 20:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

11 August 2010
✅ . Amalthea  10:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Jeff G.
This edit. —  Jeff G. ツ  02:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Account blocked, either as a sock or for impersonation. CU may be able to tell us which. T. Canens (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

✅:

67 socks total, 19 unblocked. I strongly urge that somebody create edit filters here after looking at some of the similarities. –MuZemike 03:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. I'm so glad I wrote a certain script... T. Canens (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Grsz11
Per WP:DUCK:

 


 * (by User:SummerPhD)
 * , (by User:PhGustaf)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Well. As you'll see in this archive's history alone, IPs and  previously claimed to be him, so the ranges would match. Along with the strong topical overlap, it's certainly a case of WP:DUCK. However: Those IP ranges are highly dynamic and highly trafficked. Specific IP blocks are useless, and rangeblocks would lock out too many decent editors. Leaves two options: 1) WP:RBI and WP:SEMI where appropriate. 2) WP:Abuse response. Amalthea 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Grsz11
Account created and created user page and user talk page, similar to, , and. Then suggested obscure information for inclusion at Presidency of Barack Obama.

Oh, and Grundle's IP was active yesterday.  Grsz 11  21:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, helps when he answers to Grundle.  Grsz 11  22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked as obvious. Prolog (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ plus



–MuZemike 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All accounts tagged and blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tarc
Grundle has had an almost manic fixation on the Gerald Walpin case over the years, and this account has created Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service, et al. tonight, which has also been edited by 71.182.182.14, an IP in the range Grundle has edited from in the past. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Obvious sock, already blocked, nothing left to do. Amalthea 09:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Grsz11
Looks like we missed this one before. Account created userpage and user talk first (typical of Grundle socks), then created Firing of Gerald Walpin, a Grundle pet project. Check this archive if you need more evidence, but this is a WP:DUCK.  Grsz 11  19:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Blocked Amalthea  14:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Grsz11
This. Also, per the contributions, an interest in outer space. Edited this article, created by an already-blocked Grundlesock. Requesting checkuser for sleepers.  Grsz 11  15:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - T. Canens (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he edited the sandbox? That's what it originally was for. :) Anyway, I just sleeper-checked Grundle, but only found blocked socks. Binky is ❌. Amalthea  16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Grsz11
Created User:Skiing in Switzerland/sandbox, a cut and paste of Grundle's previous work. Re-added all of his pet projects at Presidency of Barack Obama. Request checkuser to determine any sleepers, as he never just has one.  Grsz 11  22:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ and IP rangeblocks extended and some hardened. I'm afraid if he keeps going, we're going to have no choice but to either full-protect Presidency of Barack Obama or unblock him. –MuZemike 22:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety  talk 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tarc
Same Gerald Walpin obsession. Created an article on the firing and made the name into a redir to that shortly after Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination) closed as delete. Bag & tag. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
WP:DUCK, but a check user would be helpful. These accounts usually come in batches.  Grsz 11 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Could be sleepers here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, no sleepers. TN X Man  15:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

03 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This is blatantly Grundle. Request CU to find any sleepers.  Grsz 11 17:34, 3 December 2010 (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
✅ the following are Grundle2600:
 * - Been a week. Who knows what we'll find! —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 18:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

13 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Obvious sockpuppet is obvious. Sceptre (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2010 (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
✅ the following:
 * TN X Man 20:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a quick check. All blocked & tagged. Prolog (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since full-protecting these articles are out of the question, perhaps we need to seriously reconsider the ban we have on him. It's obvious that he's going to keep going with this indefinitely. –MuZemike 21:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to do an IP block here? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe not; otherwise we would have had said IPs blocked by now. –MuZemike 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay. But with 173 confirmed socks, I don't think we can really consider unblocking such a prolific socker. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the issue at WP:ANI for any interested users.  Grsz 11 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to do an IP block here? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe not; otherwise we would have had said IPs blocked by now. –MuZemike 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay. But with 173 confirmed socks, I don't think we can really consider unblocking such a prolific socker. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the issue at WP:ANI for any interested users.  Grsz 11 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

19 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

65 fdt 6a has already been blocked as a Grundle sock, presumably on behaviour pattern. One of its article creations (Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. Sebelius) has been edited by a number of new accounts (editing very quickly after account creation, showing good knowledge of WP e.g. nominating the article at WP:ITN/C) and an IP. Request checkuser to confirm and to flush out anything else lurking. BencherliteTalk 23:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of G5'ing it anyway (and had G5'd another of 65 fdt's creations), so I've deleted it in the light of The Resident Anthropologist's tagging. BencherliteTalk 00:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. Sebelius is being speedied under CSD G5 and ITN nom has been collapsed as it was not ITN material anywayThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All accounts blocked, several IP ranges blocked. –MuZemike 00:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

20 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

A brand-new user turns up at my talk page to complain about my G5 deletion of a Grundle sock's article a few hours ago (see the last SPI). Quack blocked, but any sleepers or other IP ranges? BencherliteTalk 03:31, 20 December 2010 (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

 * - It's been at least three hours. Any sleepers? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 07:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, no sleepers. TN X Man  14:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

27 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

See recent edits - common Grundle targets. Checkuser is for any socks. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (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

 * - Been a week since the last check, Let's see what's going on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

✅, blocked, and tagged. I have hardblocked one open proxy, and I have now raised the current rangeblocks we currently have to hardblocks. Please let me know if other users get caught in these blocks, as I have already granted one IP block exemption as a result. Barring that, the only other things we can do are either full-protect all the affected articles (which still won't prevent him from using other IP ranges and open proxies for creating pages under different usernames), or consider unbanning and unblocking him. –MuZemike 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

04 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Odd behavior for a New User, First edit show knowledge of Wiki at a page involving Affirative action a topic known for right wing criticism. Second and third edit removes redlinks from user space to hide the newness of the account. Pretty quickly come to for a new user. ITN ITN is a known Grundle Target See the Dec 19th case. based on these unusual patterns by a brand new user. I request a check The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Checkuser should probably be run on this one, but this has all of the standard Grundle tells, including creating stubby articles on marginally notable topics. I suspect that after we block this one, an IP will show up at ANI demanding that we delete those articles he created.  It's super ducky, but lets get a checkuser in here to do the standard sockfarm sweep/IP blocking.  -- Jayron  32  05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Yes, I think a CU is needed as well. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

27 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Tagging old Grundle socks, editing articles related to American politics and Barack Obama conspiracies. Seems rather ducky, seeking checkuser confirmation before blocking. Jayron  32  05:50, 27 March 2011 (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

 * - Jayron, per the privacy policy, CU won't match an IP to an account. It might be worth doing a CU to see if there are sleepers here, though I doubt it.. (and it may be fishing anyway.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Grundle2600 is simply stale. No need to go so deep into the privacy policy. Ruslik_ Zero 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though - a confirmed sock - is right on the verge of being stale, but may still be usable. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ❌ Not Grundle. Amalthea  16:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets move on then. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

17 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Al Gore has been a usual Grundle target. See the most recent attempt to add a criticism section today on alleged enviro hypocrisy and slamming his son's transgressions. This is a word-for-word copy of this edit last year by, a confirmed Grundle sock. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a long period of inactivity, Dec 2010 to July 2011, but note that one of Grundle's other targets Presidency of Barack Obama, and  were blocked as socks already so it does indeed seem that our buddy here is once again active. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2011 (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

 * Prolog already blocked, but I'll add a CU for sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Grundle2600 is on a new range. As such, Al Gore has been full-protected for 24 hours. –MuZemike 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

09 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The same POV-pushing edits on Presidency of Barack Obama, such as and. Asking for Check User because there may be more. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 9 February 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
✅ the following are the same:

All socks blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

14 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Editing standard Grundle honeypot, Presidency of Barack Obama, in the same manner as Grundle always does. This one has been blocked and tagged by others, but I am submitting here to check for sleeper socks; Grundle creates them prolificly (see archives) and last week's run didn't catch this one, apparently. Jayron  32  22:12, 14 February 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

 * - Let's see if there's any sleepers. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 02:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't see any, nothing more to do here I'd say. WilliamH (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

15 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same POV edits on Presidency of Barack Obama, please check for more socks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 15 February 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

 * Running another CU not 12 hours later is overkill. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that so? In those 12 hours, the sockmaster created this sock, and might have created others. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a very prolific socker. The next time they identify themselves, we'll run another CU. The CUs may have even declined this one if I had endorsed it for the same reason - they do that sometimes. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

18 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Passes the duck test. While past socks have made the edits directly to Presidency of Barack Obama, this editor took the slightly different tactic of posting on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Requesting checkuser because this is a prolific sockmaster who may have sleepers. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 18 February 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
✅ plus:



--MuZemike 00:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

13 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Inserted similar material to as the previous socks after  was semi-protected. . <span style="font-family:'Courier new',monospace">Klilidiplomus+Talk 07:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Here's another suspected duck: I suspect that his interests are vandalizing the Presidency of Barack Obama's talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All accounts already blocked, closing. Amalthea  20:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

05 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Additional account. See diff as the one and only edit of this account which was a revert to this diff to restore content added by User:6ty4e (diff) who has been blocked as a sock of Grundle2600. Also note similarity in the name. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Added as pretty obvious. Prolog (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I was already way ahead of the blocks there, and yes those are all ✅ as Grundle2600. --MuZemike 01:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

05 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Claims to be Grundle2600. Another sock was just blocked. TFD (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding User:Barbara at the desk, see, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Would be nice if CU could be used to root out the underlying IPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked an open proxy used to create the accounts, but there's nothing else to do. WilliamH (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

7 more ✅:



. --MuZemike 02:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Lacardis could be another sock too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 02:53, May 6, 2012
 * This edit is reminiscent of Grundle, on an article he used to edit. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Marking case for closure. AGK  [•] 12:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

06 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Per earlier alert by JoeSperrazza, similar style of forumy questions posted twice on another South American related article page - Talk:Falkland Islands (1 & 2). -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

whatever. If you want to say that I'm a sockpuppet for someone I've never heard of... have fun saying it. For the record--I suggested that the Falklands article would be better if it were to explain why the dispute persists. I also suggested that the Hugo Chávez article would be better if it had a criticism section. After reviewing the wiki policy, I acknowledged that I was wrong, but expressed my concern that one editor has taken it upon herself to delete my suggestion from the Talk Page. I stand behind my original suggestion for the Falklands article. I'm not sure why Dave1185 doesn't think an encyclopedia article should mention why a border dispute remains unresolved. Is that "forumy"? I have read and re-read his replies. His justification for closing the discussion was that "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia." I agree, and suggested a way to make it a better encyclopedia. Another user replied that Wiki Talk pages are not a forum. I didn't treat it as a forum, nor did I suggest that the article should take a pro-British or pro-Argentinian stance. I even acknowledged that my suggestion might be better-placed in the "Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute" article instead of the "Falkland Islands" article.

FYI, I don't think I've espoused a pro or anti-anything view. My edits and suggestions have been neutral--I think. If I'm wrong, please tell me. I'm not sure why Grundle was banned (nor do I care), but I'm sure he had a non-neutral view that reflected in his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No editor deleted your suggestions. TFD (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm using the wrong word. User:SandyGeorgia "archived" my suggestion by "making it disappear" in the "history." When I went back to see whether or not other editors agreed with my suggestion, it wasn't there. Call it what you want. Either way, can someone who understands the in's and out's of Wikipedia please compare the banned user's IP with my own? --Lacarids (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't "make something disappear in history"; only oversighters can do that.  I archived a discussion which was almost entirely posts by Grundle that had been struck by other editors and was filling up a talk page, going off-topic, so that you could start over with a fresh discussion of your concerns, sans Grundle feedback.  If you need help understanding how to read archives, read edit summaries, or follow diffs, please ask on my talk and I'll be glad to help.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, I no longer believe the editor in question is a sock of User:Grundle2600. The revert of the removed comments from Grundle triggered my concrn (and at least one other editor). However, his responses here lead me to believe he was just ill-considered in that action, and not WP:SOCKing. Apologies to all concerned. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added 0uXHQpcEJbjuXeOP because it was self-declared.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Although the claim that Lacarids shares a "forum" tone with Grundle is unsubstantiated, I see other behavioural similarities in their contributions. AGK  [•] 12:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lacarids is to be related.  AGK  [•] 12:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

10 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New account with a precocious knowledge of arcane Wikipedia syntax shows up with highly critical, POV edits at Grundle's favorite honeypot, Presidency of Barack Obama. Style of editing (lots of tiny criticisms with cites in individual paragraphs) pretty much matches earlier known socks almost exactly, see for one example from this past february. -- Jayron  32  01:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Jayron  32  01:13, 10 May 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
Blocked and tagged plus. --MuZemike 01:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

17 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Per WP:DUCK - New account User:Toot toot hey beep beep with extensive non-WP:NPOV edits to Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories pushing familiar User:Grundle2600 positions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding new account User:QfB6Kqqd5u, same editing as above, admitting to block evasion here: JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added newly registered account User:Magenta 447 and others. Performing the exact same edits with the same edit summaries. Grundle2600 continues their obsession with Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, which they were heavily involved in before getting banned, and Solyndra loan controversy at which several of their socks have been recently blocked. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Added missing SPI case status, along with two accounts. Prolog (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * When asked if this Magenta account is a sockpuppet, his response was "Yes - quack quack!". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Can someone with more knowledge of the sockmaster tell me, does it fit the behavioural pattern for this user to edit articles about (and related to) U.S. presidents other than Barack Obama? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, such edits don't fit his usual MO. Prolog (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. In that case, I found nothing of note. --12:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC) --Deskana (talk • contribs)

27 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is yet another Grundle 2600 sock (ten or so have been blocked in the last few weeks, see checkuser below). Account was created yesterday and immediately started performing same edits with same edit summary. Even restored some two year old comments from Grundle2600 and again referred to self as a sock. . Seems more intent on just wasting editors' time than actually fooling anyone at this point. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added the newly created User:Sixty-seven million and User:Sunshine and chocolate, User:Epowerfan and an IP, all created yesterday, performing the same edits on the same article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:50, 27 May 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
Epowerfan is ❌, while all other accounts have been appropriately blocked as socks of Grundle2600. No comment with regard to the IP address. --MuZemike 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

01 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As another editor added a sock tag, and there have been a number of Grundle socks picked up this week, this one seems to be worth investigating as well. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 1 June 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

 * Sock already blocked my MuZemke. Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

05 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Brand new account, edit warring to keep critical material in Presidency of Barack Obama article, standard behavior for Grundle. Also has a name which matches pattern of prior Grundle socks. Fairly ducky, asking for checkuser to confirm and to flush out sleepers. -- Jayron  32  17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Jayron  32  17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

is not a behavioral match. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There is ample enough reason based on evidence to warrant CU <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  18:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ match to . is a technical match, but I don't know the behavior well enough to comment on that. Blocked a proxy too.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3328lzc and are blocked and tagged.  remains an open question.  <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say a clerk can close this one. Given Grundle's range, it is possible for unrelated accounts to occasionally pop up.  If Ralphie72 shows his ass, and ends up obviously being Grundle, we can block then.  It's been documented as a technical match, but we don't have to block until it becomes a behavioral match.  If it really isn't Grundle, it won't cause problems.  -- Jayron  32  18:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Jayron32, need to just keep an open eye. Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  18:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

07 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Per WP:DUCK, when a brand new account shows up at one of Grundle's targets and starts making the same Grundle edits, it's Grundle. He usually creates a dozen or so sleeper accounts when he makes a new one so requesting checkuser to find those as well. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Loonymonkey (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added 871lacc as another obvious one. -- Jayron  32  17:48, 8 June 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

 * - Need to see if he created other fresh accounts when he created these.  <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  00:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ that all the 6 socks belong to Grundle2600. I think we've got all of them for now. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All are blocked. This is ready to be closed.  -- Jayron  32  03:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

10 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same content addition as made by recent sock here. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:18, 10 June 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

 * Shonuff. Blocked.  Checkuser could probably look for sleepers.  -- Jayron  32  03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * to check for sleepers. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 10:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ obviously, nothing else to report. WilliamH (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

11 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edits to a Grundle honeypot, Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, with Grundle's POV. This may also be User:Epowerfan, who has the same POV, but who checkuser cleared earlier. Looking for confirmation that this is grundle. Jayron  32  00:20, 11 June 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

 * Another Duck. Endorse for sleepers. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  01:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. All socks cleaned out for now. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Already blocked, now tagged, so closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

11 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Blocked Grundle sock, requesting check for sleepers. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:35, 11 March 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

 * - - Requesting checkuser to find sleeper accounts. The recent edits to Barack Obama and User talk:Jimbo Wales are duck evidence, for which he has been blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any obvious related accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing, then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

15 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * retracted - see reasoning below –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * retracted - see apology below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * retracted - see reasoning below –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * retracted - see reasoning below –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * retracted - see apology below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * retracted - see reasoning below –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * retracted - see reasoning below –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


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

was recently blocked as a Grundlesock. Shortly after, This stuff is interesting shows up with this edit with the edit comment about "Sock or no sock". The other editors are posting only at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article with a style similar to Grundle. See 1, 2. CU is for a sleeper check. Given the current climate, I cannot image Grundle staying away. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 13:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' *I added Odg2vcLR. Evidence: similar subject matter and POV, SPA, precocious behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Retracted - see apology below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This_stuff_is_interesting and 34rtbc76 were confirmed and blocked shortly after Xcmn4512. InterpreDemon is still awaiting CU. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added 173.220.253.114 to the list, given that InterpreDemon signed a talk page comment left by 173.220.253.114 here: diff –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised that I'd be accused of being a WP:SPA, even though most of my edits have primarily been on one article; but many have not. Of course, this is somewhat a moot point since I've apparently been confirmed as unrelated, but perhaps be a bit more cautious when outright accusing someone of being an SPA or similar? Odg2vcLR (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, checking some of those other users' contributions, it appears they all have a strongly anti-ACA POV. If anything, I could perhaps be described as having a somewhat pro-ACA POV, if I've exhibited any significant POV at all (which I've tried not to.) So that's another whacky allegation...not really important now, but it seems like "POV" and "SPA" were just tossed out here with no basis, simply to pull additional editors into being checkusered. Please try to base your allegations on demonstrable, consistent facts. Odg2vcLR (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, Odg2vcLR, you are clearly not Grundle (even without the CU) as you have a very different POV. I somehow got your user ID mixed up with another one, I'm not sure which. Please accept my apologies and I hope my mistake caused no lasting harm. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, apology accepted; I can see how my random-ish username might look spammy or be confused with that other user with a similar username style. I'm a bit paranoid about privacy these days, thus being a bit annoyed at having my IP information looked into without real cause. I guess I trust the checkusers not to do anything untoward with that information, so it's not a huge deal. Odg2vcLR (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I added Cyclone Fred. This account was just created and has a highly similar editing style to as shown by this edit (diff) to Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: this user's comment has a long subheading, contains excessive spacing, and consists of a large block of POV material—all of which was prepared in Cyclone Fred's personal sandbox shortly beforehand. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added 109.65.213.231, which posted a comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shortly after Cyclone Fred did with another large block of material with excessive spacing, see diff. Even more tellingly, Cyclone Fred, shortly before being confirmed as a sock and blocked, directly edited 109.65.213.231's comment with this edit: diff. Also, note that this behavior is similar to InterpreDemon directly editing the comments of 173.220.253.114, as noted above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the IP users from the list. 173.220.253.114 was added due to its relationship to InterpreDemon, who has since been determined to almost certainly not be a sock. Furthermore, 109.65.213.231 was added chiefly because the user posted on a talk page in temporal proximity to Cyclone Fred, and because Cyclone Fred then inserted his own comment directly into the IP user's comment; however, as time has passed, it has become apparent that their patterns of behavior are quite different, and the IP user does not appear to share Cyclone Fred's POV-pushing desires. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is ✅ to xmcn. However I did not do an in depth check of other users, so more CU action still needs to be taken. NativeForeigner Talk 01:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * is highly to be Grundle2600.  is definitely ❌ to Grundle2600. . Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

22 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self-admitted sock but with today's block of User:Xqpoiu98, requesting check for sleepers. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:01, 22 November 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

 * ✅, blocked, tagged,, no other sleepers. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

01 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User admits it: Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Resolute banned user now. Closing.-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

01 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New user who openly admits connection to Grundle2600 and has a similar POV and editing style. See diff. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:16, 1 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
See immediately below. -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

01 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&diff=584073440&oldid=584046797 same] as Special:Contributions/Plokws76 who was just added to Grundle's ever growing list of accounts earlier today. George Orwell III (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Checkuser for sleeper check and IP block. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 18:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Accounts already blocked are on an enormous range but owned by same entity with the same, butrather generic. technical information. Other accounts on range seem to have somewhat different technical information, so there are no immediately apparent sleepers. Ranges are not amenable to a rangeblock; vigilance will be necessary. -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to do here, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

27 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All the accounts listed above have been blocked, but it's been quite a while since the last check. Prolog (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2014 (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

 * - Worth a look for sleepers. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All sleepers already blocked. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

09 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Similar behavior to Grundle's previous incarnations: This may be worth a check for sleepers. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Creating a userpage with the text "blue" (similar to previous socks' behavior of creating their userpages with a single period); the text may be a reference to making the username link blue
 * Edited King v. Burwell and its talk page ; the article was created by a previous sock (User:Dfwe3401) under the title "Halbig v. Burwell", and was edited extensively by them.  The editing style in the first linked edit (including the edit summary consisting of naming Jonathan Gruber and a quote from him) is similar to that of sock User:This one's for my boys in this edit, which introduced the same Gruber material to the article.  The editing style of the second link edit is similar to that of previous Grundle socks on various talk pages (see, , , ).
 * This edit to Shooting of Michael Brown uses the same reference style of [weblink in brackets], Newspaper, date used by Grundle socks (e.g., , , ), as well as a similar kind of edit summary.

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

Of course it's me. I am Grundle2600. I never try to hide the identity of my socks. It's interesting that everyone was OK with the edits from this particular sock until they started to suspect that it was a sock. The only reason I was banned in the first place was to prevent me from adding reliably sourced info that was critical of Obama. Many articles created by my various socks are still in existence, and the content that I added is still in them. I never should have been banned in the first place. Lkiode43 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Re "It's interesting that everyone was OK with the edits from this particular sock until they started to suspect that it was a sock." — Not sure what you mean by OK. An edit of yours that I encountered before I knew you were a sock had erroneous info that I thought was an honest mistake and I corrected it. Later,  RJaguar3 removed my corrected version saying that it was added by a sock puppet and I undid that removal, indicating that I had worked on it and corrected it.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
After reviewing the presented evidence and prior cases, I think a check for sleepers would be appropriate. Mike V •  Talk  03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There appear to be no sleepers, CU can't even see the last blocked account as it is stale. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The lone account has been blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

05 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Edits to Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act similar to those of previous Grundle socks. Diffs include, ,. The first edit contains a similar fascination with Wikipedia policy shared by Grundle and their socks. The other two edits are similar to these edits by Grundle socks:, ,. I'm bringing this here because of this revert of the removal of the suspected socks' contributions. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 05:30, 5 December 2014 (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
IP socks tagged as obvious. Prolog (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We almost always don't tag IPs as the people who use them change over time. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

10 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Compare by a confirmed GrundleSock and by Bvfg7756. Same edit and summary. Also compare and.

CU would be for any sleepers. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (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

 * - There is nothing to compare with, all Grundle2600 accounts are . But, according to provided diffs, .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  12:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked per behavioral evidence. Prolog (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Gavelchive created an account on 8/13 and immediately waded into editing on controversial topics, generally espousing a combative, far-right position. Pleatreal shows up on 8/29, immediately creates an edit in his sandbox and tries to add that edit to Jeffrey Toobin. Edit is rejected, and Gavelchive, who has never edited Jeffrey Toobin before, adds the comment in its entirety to the article (ostensibly taking the text from the talkpage, where Pleatreal had posted it). Both userpages are identical, having followed the same pattern--both users created their userpage with their first edit by placing their username on the page, and both users then created their talkpage by placing their username on it as the second edit; usernames also follow similar construction (i.e., two unrelated words smushed together to create a name). Likely sockpuppeting, but could also just be coordinated creation of accounts to do some POV-pushing. Checkuser requested on the possibility that other accounts may have been created in the same timeframe. Grandpallama (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2018 (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

 * ✅ plus:
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. Please merge into Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sro23 (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. Please merge into Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sro23 (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. Please merge into Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sro23 (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. Please merge into Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sro23 (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. Please merge into Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sro23 (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. Please merge into Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sro23 (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I have blocked these accounts per behavioral evidence, but a sleeper check could turn out to be very fruitful. Prolog (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2019 (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

 * - Per long history of socking. Thanks, GABgab 17:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * per below. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:35, 9 October 2019 (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

 * Obvious socking from a behavioural standpoint and the technical data aligns with the CU log. All blocked and will tag as proven.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Wanted to file this to mention 2024012310000954. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.