Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh Woolstenhulme/Archive

Report date February 14 2009, 02:27 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Nukes4Tots (talk)

User Josh Woolstenhulme got banned and the short list of articles he'd been 'editing' immediately got edited with exactly the same things by the Dominick1283. User Dominick1283 immediately begins editing in exact same style, the same articles, and with an instant knowledge of how to edit pictures, upload, etc. See edit histories of both. For example, here Josh adds a picture he uploaded: and here Dominick adds another picture: Well, since I reverted it, I recall it was the same exact picture, uploaded a second time by the newbie. User Theserialcomma is a low probability, but he was acting odd and defending Josh in a quite peculiar way by stalking another editor who was reverting Josh's additions.

ha! i defend a newbie against incivility [] and i get accused of being that person. awesome! can someone finish the checkuser on Nukes4Tots while they're at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nukes4Tots - it was filed 2 weeks ago. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * by the way, this joshwoolstenhulme sock passes the WP:duck test. it's obviously the same person. nukes deciding to involve me is just lame retribution for catching his own sockpuppetry with his accounts User:Winged Brick and User:Nukes4Tots that always seem to agree with each other. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comma, you involved yourself in this well before you acused me of sock puppet abuse. To be clear, you went on Kaolorka's talk page and jumped into a conversation though you had no vested interest in it other than, as I stated above, that you might be the same person engaging in sock puppet abuse. Here's that diff: . Further, you went and posted a message on Josh's page with this dif: . Taking into account that you had no previous interaction with either of these users I may either conclude that you are stalking one or both of them or that your defense of Josh was a SUSPECTED act of sock puppet abuse. Will you agree that if you are not engaging in sock puppet abuse, you have nothing to worry about from this investigation? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i only agree that your grandmaster detective work used to accuse me should be studied at the smithsonian and taught at harvard. either i'm a stalker or a sockpuppet. oh, the options! i am gonna go with neither, my electronic sherlock holmes. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You might recognize this as a false dilemma. Nobody ever acused me of being good at this. You're the expert. However, being the expert, you'd probably be quick to recognize all of the logical fallacies you've commited in our short interaction. That is, if you were acting in good faith instead of trying to punish Koalorka and I for disagreeing with you. I just assummed that you'd conjured up this Josh character to further punish firearms article editors. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...warning a koalorka for calling a newbie a moron is not a logical fallacy or bad faith; he violated WP:NPA policy. reporting you to admins and getting you blocked for incivility wasn't a logical fallacy or bad faith either. you went around calling people retards and morons and you got blocked for WP:NPA. reporting you for blatant sockpuppetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nukes4Tots and then having you try to do the same to me but on false premises to me is just comedy. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I reported you here because it was odd, to me, that you jumped to the defense of this guy who was obvioiusly stealing content and posting it here even though you had NO INTEREST whatsoever in his edits or the articles that he edited beyond the fact that somebody whose edits you were nit-picking was in the process or undoing his vandalism. Sounds awful suspicions since I KNOW that you weren't wikihounding him or wikistalking him after I'd warned you so many times before about it.  At any rate, you're protestith...ing a bit too much as, if you didn't engage in sock puppet abuse, this investigation will end with no finding and you can walk away. If you've got some crystal ball as to why I reported you... in other words if you're reading my mind... please disclose the method by which you are doing this. It's okay for you to hound me, Koalorka, and DanMP5, however when your hounding leads to legitemate suspicion that you are engaging in sock puppet abuse, you protest?  Hmmmm. You pick and choose the WP guideline that you're going to acuse others of violating while you violate others on the side? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * speaking of logical fallacies, because i "protest too much," i must be guilty. sure. way to waste everyone's time because you have a grudge against me for reporting your gross incivility. way to go. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * by the way, your non stop claims about me wikihounding you are lies and are to be construed as personal attacks, unless you can prove otherwise. i would report your WP:lame personal attacks, but i'm not sure which name to report. do i call you Nukes4Tots or Winged Brick? Which sock name do you prefer to be called by? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you're not hounding me? Really?  Did you read the Glock talk page?  Did you read what you wrote on multiple reports, be it ANI, Reliable Sources, or Sock Puppet investigations?  So, your vendetta, stated by you here:, against people who edit gun articles isn't real?  Your hounding three separate editors (Myself, Koalorka and DanMP5) even going so far as to question DanMP5's pick for a handle... Well all of that is okay.  But, if I call you out on it I'm suddenly making a personal attack?  Yeah, I'll let that one stand on its own. Please, describe in detail how I called somebody a "Retard".  Please. Or do you think you can toss these things out and expect people to believe them.  Your style of editing is confrontational combining quibbling and nit-picking with vendetta rides where you try your best to ruin whoever disagrees with you.  That's an observation.  I've read your edit history. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for calling me out on making the claim that you've called people retards. i'm glad you didn't let me just 'toss it out and expect people to believe it'. here are the diffs, in case you are still skeptical of your own words: retard1 [], retard2 [], retard3 [], retard4 []. good day. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * bad detective work or bad faith? this is where i actually first interacted with Koalorka on the Glock pistol discussion page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlock_pistol&diff=268988495&oldid=268971678, 20 minutes before i mysteriously and stalkerishly visited his talk page, saw that he was being uncivil to a newbie (he called the accused sock a moron), and warned him for incivility []. yes, it's so stalkerish to interact with someone on an article page for the first time, click their name, and 20 minutes later comment on their user page for the first time. nukes, you are just wasting everyone's time. the accused sock is obvious and you just threw my name in because you have animosity towards me. very poor judgment. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkusers have no interest in reading long arguments on SPI pages. You just wasted all of that time that you spent arguing. --Deskana (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is no doubt a sock of Josh Woolstenhulme, he did not heed to the warnings and has taken nothing out of his ban, uploading the same copyrighted images. Either this user has a poor grasp of English, is mentally incapable of understanding copyright status or is intentionally uploading stolen material, for purposes unknown to me. I don't think TheSerialComma is involved. Koalorka (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Looking at this, it would strain credulity if Dominick isn't Josh. Looking at it, 11 of the 14 firearm articles Dominick has edited were also edited by Josh, and Dominick did so quite soon after the banning of Josh, and the actions have been identical, adding images of unusually high-quality for someone who isn't a professional photographer. In a number of other cases, Dominick has changed images in articles, but the new image (which he claims as his own) is also of unusual quality, in some cases, being rather good sketches of animals, that are drawn in a style that is quite uncommon in modern sketches. In one case, he has added a picture of a ship, claiming the photo to be his own work, when the ship in question sank over a century ago!--LWF (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dominick is clearly Josh - see user creation log. No opinion currently on the other users listed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

. And don't argue on SPI pages. Really. We don't read any of it. --Deskana (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  12:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions