Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules/Archive

Report date March 12 2009, 11:47 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by DrKiernan (talk)

On 11 March, this IP address vandalised 3 user pages in the same minute:. There is only one place in the entire encyclopedia where the three targeted editors have contributed together: User talk:LOTRrules.

Note that the IP is blocked, but autoblock is disabled (rightly so, since it is a shared IP).


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by DrKiernan (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC) PMCU identifies this user with 78.144.24.146 based on this edit. As such, this is quacking like a WP:DUCK Mayalld (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The IP appears to be a dynamic range on 78.144.0.0/16. If any of the personal attacks continue, the block will be extended on LOTR's account. There's nothing we can really do from a SPI point of view, though. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 19 2009, 15:31 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * (suspected)
 * (blocked)
 * Other possible IPs edited under:
 * Other possible IPs edited under:
 * Other possible IPs edited under:




 * Evidence submitted by Otterathome (talk)
 * His previous account AncientUni mostly edited including asking for a peer review, before being blocked.
 * edit history is not very active apart from these two user accounts.
 * Son Goku is a major character from the Dragon Ball series, part of SonGoku786's username. Also LOTR stands for Lord of the Rings.
 * User created Template:Anime and manga portal from a Lord of the Rings template . Like how LOTRrules edits.
 * last edit was 19:55, 16 April 2009 and was blocked on 20:36, 16 April 2009, was created on 10:10, 17 April 2009. 14 hours afterwards.
 * User:SonGoku786 is certainly not a new user, first edit is 5 minutes after registering, and editing at a high rate and using a custom signature.
 * Both accounts intended to get the Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks article up to good article status
 * All three user accounts have the same edit schedule/time zone, editing from 9:00 onwards.

Am I doing this right? Oh well, ignore all rules.
 * Evidence submitted by Raijinili (talk)
 * Accused has stated that they used a dark monobook, which was why their sig was light-colored. The "contribs" link of suspected sockpuppeteer was also light-colored, which may be evidence of a dark monobook.

It's not much, and it's also not Earth-shattering evidence but...
 * Evidence submitted by sgeureka (talk)
 * Both LOTR and SonGoku786 are not keen on submitting edit summaries - however, this is nothing special for newbies.
 * It is unusual for fan newbies to remove trivia from articles since they are usually the ones adding trivia. However, SonGoku786 removed trivia on his first day. Also, he seemed familiar with the wiki-term "fan crufty" in that edit, which is unusal for newly signed-up editors unless they hung around project space as IPs (also unusual)
 * SonGoku786 used the terms "as an IP" and "as an anon" on his third day - again, unusual wiki expressions for newly signed-up editors unless they hung around project space as IPs


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * 1) That wasn't me. I also offered help on editing the page but I've only done it several times. I also decided to create another page so I could make the article better as I had stated on the talkpage. I also noticed the user was banned, a few days after user:AncientUni did not reply. SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Not likely, other users have edited as well - See history SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) What does that have to do with anything. This is a dubious and irreleant SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) How does LOTRrules edit like me? The two links prove nothing. And the template was from the Middle-earth one becuase I'd seen it before on another article. I've been editing anonymously too as an IP, so I was bound to use it. The middle earth articles seem all to have that template more so than the anime ones. I tried to locate an anime one and found no such template page so I copied the middle earth one and tried to edit it with shaky results. I had to edit it several times before it was good. SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) How does this prove I am whatever you think I am? Many users join wikipeidia simultaneously. It's not fair you're singling out for one coincidence.  SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) I had problems with my signature before. As I said on my userpage I copied the signature from another user and I did not now how to edit it because User talk:Raijinili seemingly pointed out that I had to change it. I could only change the colours and thats it. As user:Otterathome pointed out user:AncientUni managed to add a border when I couldn't and asked Raijinili (See link and The History of Trunks talk page when AncientUni went under the name of "Dumbledore"). I am not a high level editor, as I've said before I edited annoymously with an IP so I would know some things but not all. SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also you seem to have something against me as I checked my "what links here page" and I see you have suspected me long before this. Why do you have somthing against me? You've reverted my edits as "off-topic" - how are they? SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:Raijinili - see below on my exprimentation paragraph. The "Gadgets" on preferences was one of many things I experimented with. SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * I have suspected this editor was a sock as well, I just could not remember which puppeter this reminded me of. I've added a check user request, as well, to seek any other underlying socks. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CU fishing trips are not appropriate. Mayalld (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Came here by a note from the accused on my talk page. I also have to ask about why you had the usernames as a separate point.
 * The times of the edits isn't really very strong evidence, with such a small sample size. I'm sure many of his schoolmates/colleagues are bounded by the same times.


 * On the other hand, does the accused have any response to knowing how to edit a signature in the first place? This isn't something available to anonymous IPs.
 * The fact that your template came from the Lord of the Rings articles indicates a common interest in both Dragon Ball and Lord of the Rings. --Raijinili (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really edited any of the LOTR articles, however I am interested in anime. I was checking out the LOTR articles as well as any other article such as Star Wars, and final fantasy articles to find a template as I had come accross them before from reading an as anon. I also accidentally discovered how to edit them. I just happened to find it was easier to locate a middle earth template than the others. Obviously I decided to create an anime one because there was no other one. So I modelled it after the middle earth one as they seemed the most common. Almost all the article have one. I was just trying to help and boost my rep as a good editor. (LOTR is obviously the most recent since the Hobbit movie is coming out too). To be honest it was just a random selection - I chose LOTR articles is that such a mistake?

In response to the signature - I was checking out the "benifits" wikipedia offers so I experimented with them when I joined. The signature was the most intriguing because it was blank and had something to do with "raw". So I decided to copy and paste another users sig style to see if I could get a siggy like those on article discussion pages. I found that I could change the colors but thats about it and I was happy I'd achieved something like that. As stated above User:Aditya Kabir was the one I copied it from and so I pasted it onto my sig bar. Then I changed the colors to see if it would work, the colour did change in the preview. So I replaced her name with mine. I don't know further how to edit it, I also asked you how to add a border - which LOTR seems to already know how to do on The History of Trunks talkpage under the username of "Dumbledore". SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at his edits before this, about a third of them were adding a template he created to different articles (about 25 in 12 minutes). --Raijinili (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added some evidence above, but it could be nothing. – sgeureka t•c 07:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * This is a borderline case, I think, and could use some additional evidence to support a connection between the sockmaster/previously confirmed socks and the SonGoku786. If none is available, the case is premature and should be refiled at a later date. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 18:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The times of the edits and similarities show it is very unlikely they are not the same person.--Otterathome (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit many different times and the most common are in the (lunctimes and) evenings when I get back from work. Many other users do the same - why am I being singled out for such a case as editing after 9.00? SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

AncientUni and LOTR stay up longer than me as proven by you links. SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Any update on this case? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw this today. I'm thinking about it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 18:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * . It seems a bit suspicious after someone is blocked, a new user shows up a week or so after the block, on the same ISP as the previous user. You'll have to go off behavioural evidence alone. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 19:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am prepared to indef block User:SonGoku786 as a sock of LOTRrules, but will wait to hear objections. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence above, but the most striking thing I noticed (per Collectonian) was this dialog on the Talk page, where SonGoku786 comes along and agrees with the three suggestions just made by AncientUni, and expresses surprise that AncientUni has just been blocked. ('Whoops! User has been blocked.') LOTRules had previously been told he could come back as a new account if he did nothing to connect the two accounts. This certainly doesn't fit the bill. I hesitated for a while because LOTRrules and AncientUni were much more disruptive, but SonGoku786 was recognized so quickly (over a few days in mid-April) he may not have had enough time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just contributing like any other editor, I haven't vandalised any page or been disruptive. So far I've been nice to people, and I haven't violated any policies (that I know of). People have expressed problems with collectonian before (about her bully tactics as some have called it) and I just agreed. She then had the nerve to delete and never reply back. I think she took offence. As far this goes I'm not sure why new users like myself are being subjected to harrassment. I'm on the verge of leaving. I can't believe you people mistake someone else for me. If this is how you treat new users then I'm sorry to say Jimbo Wales project is a failure. I, like anyone else here, just wants to edit. I thought this project had some potential but sadly it doesn't with you people blocking users just because some there are some coincidences. Why don't you all just jump of the bandwagon and block me and any other new user who has joined. I'm sure this is what you signed up for. SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you'll look at this then I'm sure you'd find that this is not being "incivil" - I suggessted the grammar of the article was bad and so was the structure that needed to be improved. I think this hardly points out that I'm a vandal or being disruptive. You'll also notice on her page that she remarks that my edits "are mostly just bad form, bad grammar as opposed to out right vandalism" - does this not seem like a personal attack against me for what I said? This is double standards.  SonGoku786 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Socks blocked, IPs inactive. Marking for closure. – Toon (talk)  16:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have indef blocked the SonGuku786 account for abuse of alternate accounts; as well as the previous concerns raised I found the remarks about Collectonian indicated some previous experience of the editing environment regarding this article. I also note that the editor had placed a "retired" template on their user pages before posting a last comment on User talk:Collectonian. I think their departure needed to be made pernament. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked accounts tagged; everything looks good. Archiving.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  20:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 30 2009, 15:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * obvious
 * only edited User:LOTRrules/Guestbook
 * obvious
 * only edited User:LOTRrules/Guestbook and 3 other pages in that usernames space, given self barnstar
 * given self barnstar
 * given self barnstar

Per this edit to the case archive, block evasion to have a rant!
 * Evidence submitted by Mayalld (talk)

I added another 5 IPs I found that weren't in the previous archive. There's little else to do apart from a range block or an abuse report.--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Otterathome


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

I've blocked as an obvious sock following this. The two 90...s and the 117 haven't been used since 2008, same with 78.144... If he pops up on another 78 it might be worth a rangeblock, but as it stands these two are easy enough to manage. – Toon (talk)  22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Syn  ergy 05:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 23 2009, 16:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Otterathome

User continues to harass and attempting to edit and maintain their original User:LOTRrules account under many IPs. Above IPs are new and/or not listed in in the previous SI archives.--Otterathome (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Requested due to large amount of usernames and IPs user has continued to edit under, see Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules/Archive.--Otterathome (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a rangeblock would be appropriate yet, as the user has stopped petty vandalism/attacks and instead started to WP:STICK and WP:HOUND.--Otterathome (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are these checkusers across all of the Wikimedia sites? As this user has also decided to attack me at Wikiquote via
 * On pages User talk:Otterathome and User:Otterathome.--Otterathome (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is for EnWiki only. Each project has its own checkusers, and for those which do not, you have to ask a Stweard on Meta. -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have requested ones at the relevant wikis, Note to clerks please do not archive until the requests at the other wiki's have been done.--Otterathome (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have requested ones at the relevant wikis, Note to clerks please do not archive until the requests at the other wiki's have been done.--Otterathome (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Otterathome (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

I think it would be appropriate to find all the IPs and issue a range block (if possible). Icestorm815 •  Talk  17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Another sock found: . The IP ranges are too wide and too dynamic for a rangeblock, I am afraid. -- Avi (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 23 2009, 11:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * sent password request on June 11th
 * sent password request on June 13th


 * Evidence submitted by Otterathome

IPs on the same range this user has been abusing, sending passwords requests on my account. Their last edits were on the 23rd of May.. 19 days before those requests were made.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Otterathome (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

, this does not need a CheckUser. OPAL DSL is a big dynamic ISP range. I suggest you simply ignore the password reset emails. I get some of these sometimes so I have set up a rule to trash them. -- Luk  talk 13:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be a simple matter to block these accounts in such a way that they could not send email. Neither of the ones you listed here has ever edited Wikipedia. This edit by a different IP, 92.27.4.230 seems to be good evidence that that particular IP is really LOTRrules. You have not asked for a rangeblock, and the evidence of wiki edits that you supplied does not incriminate these two IPs. Is a block of those two IPs worthwhile? Is it possible you made a mistake in creating the list of IPs you submitted here? EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * In the email sent for the password change, it lists the IP that requested the change, so I think it is doubtful that the list is incorrect. As far as I know, requests for password changes via e-mail aren't logged publicly. To Otterathome, I agree with what Luk said. Sometimes you get these e-mails from other users, so your best bet would be to ignore them. As long as your e-mail account's password is secure, you have nothing to worry about. Icestorm815  •  Talk  19:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions