Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IronKnuckle/Archive

22 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

IronKnuckle is at ANI for discussion of socking. Maydews contribs indicate that he is a likely sock, posting 2 hours after IronKnuckle to support an obscure AfD as his first edit. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Whats so obscure? IronKnuckle (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Link to ANI discussion. Recommend checkuser here. NickCT (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If the checkuser came back as false, is the evidence strong enough for a ban? We have just one AFD comment? Suspicious yes, but proven? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't have blocked IronKnuckle over it, but after a sanity check with Deskana, I'm confident enough to stand by my indefinite block of Maydewsl. ('ll change the tag momentarily, to reflect that it might not be IronKnuckle's.)  A new account making a lone edit voting at an AfD with a rationale of "per someone else" within ten minutes of account creation and two hours of AfD creation is way too suspicious, even without CU findings to link it to IronKnuckle. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If CU says unrelated, why is he blocked? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me, so I can't really say, but I'd speculate that De saw WilliamH's close before Deskana posted, spent some time checking other things without seeing that the SPI had been updated, and proceeded to block, which is basically what happened with my block of Maydewsl. Like I say, I'm standing by mine (Maydewsl can always post an unblock if necessary), but you should ask De to re-evaluate, given the close. (Also keep in mind that CU isn't an all-seeing eye.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given there was only a three minute delay between me posting my comments and the block on IronKnuckle, this seems to be the most likely possibility. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And looking at IronKnucke's talk page, he appears to have done so. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had just blocked IronKnuckle when the negative CU report by WilliamH came in. But I have also made it clear at his talk page that the block of IronKnuckle was upheld for his disruptive behaviour. Regarding Maydewsl, I'm fine with WritKeeper's decision to block here as well; see also WilliamH's endorsement ("obvious sock"). De728631 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Can be whacked as an obvious sock. WilliamH (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I started running a check before WilliamH declined as I felt that a check on IronKnuckle was warranted based on the ANI thread. The result was ❌. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although they appear to be unrelated, Maydewsl is definitely a sock, and blocked indef. IronKnuckle blocked for disruption. Closing. ( X! ·  talk )  · @145  · 02:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

17 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

IronKnuckle has a history of POV-ish and (WP:SPADE) bad-faith AfDs on articles with regard to gun-rights issues. GladiusHellfire, meanwhile, started out as an MMA editor, but recently has started nomming gun-rights articles for deletion - with similar apparent POV issues, see for instance Articles for deletion/Sarah Brady, Articles for deletion/Legal Community Against Violence. IronKnuckle, meanwhile, has !voted delete on every AfD started by GladiusHellfire, often being the first to !vote after the nomination. In addition, a check of IronKnuckle's and GladiusHellfire's contributions shows precisely zero overlap temporally, never having edited at the same time - and, more telling, many of the days IronKnuckle made no contributions on, GladiusHellfire was also absent. I believe that this is quacking loudly enough to be CU'd. The other two accounts are SPAs that appeared making simlarlly-phrased !votes to IronKnuckle on the second AfD listed, as their only contributions immediately after creation - the quacking is much softer but, given the other evidence, I decided to include them here as they're clearly somebody's socks and this would seem the most likely master. The Bushranger One ping only 07:01, 17 February 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

 * Compliments for the concise and clear report. Looking at the contributions pages with that in mind, I agreed that there was more to this than met the eye.
 * GladiusHellfire is a ✅ sock of IronKnuckle.
 * Dinkleberger is a sock too.
 * J1nx1337 is ostensibly ❌, editing from a very long way away as the other two. I had the faintest inkling that it could be a proxy, but I'm unable to demonstrate it. Another individual may be a better explanation. WilliamH (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * GladiusHellfire and Dinkleberger blocked indef; IronKnuckle blocked for a week. I will have no objections if another admin feels that block should be extended, or for that matter reduced if a compelling argument is made that the disruption will not occur again. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As this is the second set of disruptive actions within a month, and IronKnuckle was on notice, the argument will have to be extremely compelling, otherwise the block should be extended.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reset it to 2 weeks. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

05 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The only diff of this editor links to this and this. It's a clear sock of IronKnuckle Ryan Vesey 22:05, 5 April 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

 * Clearly the same. I had already blocked them for 31 hours.  It is a static IP, not sure if it is a phone, company or coffee shop, however.  If they come back on this same IP, they should be blocked longer for block evasion, regardless of edits.  Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 22:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

05 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

WP:DUCK. IronKnuckle was blocked for socking, then indef'd for disruptiveness, then had TPA removed after a spectacular anti-Semetic meltdown; his editing pattern involved heavy participation in MMA-related AfDs, including nominations with simple "doesn't appear to/fails to pass WP:NMMA nomination statements:, ; also signifcant editing, with a POV slant, of articles on advocates of gun control, and, as an IP sock post-blocking, anti-Semetic vandalism . NodachiFury appeared promptly after the block of the most recent IronKnuckle sock, and is heavily involved in MMA editing, particularly AfDs, nominating with the same simple statement ; he is also adding "Judaism" in the "Religion" section of BLP infoboxes on gun control advocates: ,. I'd say that ; requesting CU check for confirmation. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 5 May 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

 * Just a note that if it's a DUCK, then we don't need CU for confirmation... --Rschen7754 03:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's quacking loud enough that I'm convinced, it's just I'd like a "second opinion" to be sure before hitting the block button, if possible (and also, sleeper check). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - solely on the basis of a sleeper check - DUCK generally means that there is no confirmation needed, and CU requests solely to confirm DUCKS are generally declined. Rschen7754 07:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. No obvious sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, closing. Rschen7754 09:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)