Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hearfourmewesique/Archive

19 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Hearfourmewsique was indefinitely topic-banned from Israel/Palestine articles on 16 December. Israelite1 was created on 17 December, and immediately made identical contentious edits to the article Israelis. Hfm: ; I1:    RolandR (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To Hersfold – I travel frequently (job requirement), hence the changing IPs. I can also give you my travel itinerary, should you become especially interested. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * As an addition: RolandR links to five edits. Of these, #2 (Hfm), 3, 4, 5 (I1) are reverts (undos), each marked "minor" manually (Undo is not minor by default). -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no connection to these edits whatsoever. Also, are you really taking me to be this stupid? At least I'm experienced enough to know better than create a mindless consequent reverts account – does this look even remotely like a pattern of mine? Do you really see me as 100% tendentious troublemaker with absolutely no constructive contributions, that will go through the trouble of creating a sock just to make a few dumb reverts that would surely be reverted back? By all means, please conduct as many checkusers as you need, and while you're at it please review my contribution history. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A reply to DePiep: if you pay closer attention, the edits I marked as minor are indeed minor grammar fixes, the second diff is not marked minor, you are referring to this diff and to this one. Regardless, what is the point of your remark to begin with? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit, no relevance any more. There is no "minor" Hfm revert in this. I struck. Point is almost irrelevant here now. (What remains is: new user Israeli1 starts editing and reverts marking that "minor" three times manually). -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This user is not Hearfourmewesique, I think it is Ledenierhomme/AFolkSingersBeard. Id wager that is also the case for.  nableezy  - 03:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "editing from a proxy that was blocked shortly after the account was created", please could you provide company details of the proxy ? When Ledenierhomme edits via a proxy it's often possible to recognise him from the various proxies he uses. I would like to check whether this is a new one.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Socks come in pairs, not? -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
per of Israelite1 following Hearfourmewesique's topic ban. Also per the edit made by Israelite1 here (immediately following registration) reinstating edits made by Hearfourmewesique. Should also be noted that Israelite1 is clearly a SPA. CU needed to confirm the link here, as this is not actionable purely on the behavioural evidence. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * , however that's because Israelite1 is editing from a proxy that was blocked shortly after the account was created. I'm now hardblocking the proxy; this could use a recheck in a day or a few. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Side note, I'd appreciate another CU taking a look anyway - there's possible evidence of socking on some of the IPs used by Hearfourmewesique. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything of note. As an aside, as an admin (and not as a checkuser) I have blocked the Isrealite3 indefinitely as leaping right into articles like that and undoing peoples revisions with no discussion demonstrates that the owner of the account is not here to edit constructively. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * With Israelite blocked and the accused master using only one account now, I'm closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

12 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Account creation of sock was within the daily time window in which all recent edits by master have been made. All edits overlap with articles related to South Park episodes, are disruptive, and related to a dispute with User:Nightscream. VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi, I don't know Hearfourmewesique; indeed, I don't even know how to pronounce their name. I've used WP for years, but I never bothered to register and edit until I saw what a dick Nightscream was being. I'll almost certainly lose interest by tomorrow. O. long johnson (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, is it like, "here for music"? Yuck.  O. long johnson (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Its not clear how those difs connected to the alleged master--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The above accounts are ❌ The Cavalry (Message me) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't see any convincing evidence of abuse of multiple accounts here. Closing as no action. Jafeluv (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)