Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latitude0116/Archive

30 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

MarkB40n is a sockpuppet of indefinitely-blocked user Plateau99. Plateau99 was blocked for a month, and this was when he started using MarkB40n. The first thing his sockpuppet attempted to do was make Zoophilia a sexual orientation,, similar to what Plateau99 tried to do in the past. Here both are undoing "blanking" when it doesn't fit their pro-Zoophilia POV: Plateau99: but was later reverted. His sockpuppet but later reverted. An IP was involved with valid concerns stated on the talk page and his reasons for removal, but MarkB40n accuses it as vandalism because it doesn't fit his pro-zoophilia POV and tries to get the page protected. They both have the same edit summaries, and both edit a few times a month only to add non-neutral content to the Zoophilia articles. MarkB40n tries to hide his Zoophilia-related edits by making minor changes to other articles. For such a "new" user, MarkB40n sure knows his way around Wikipedia (using the book citation format in one of his very first edits, requesting page protection, warning users on their talk pages, etc.). Someone963852 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

06 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

MarkB40n is pushing the same sort of POV as Plateau  I was alerted to this on my talk page on the 29th but I was too busy to follow up on this until now. Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  04:55, 6 November 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
✅: AGK  [•] 16:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly AGK -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to oldest account, Latitude0116 and tagged socks.

21 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All three exhibit similar editing patterns as User:Plateau99, who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing on Zoophilia related pages. Plateau99's sock User:MarkB40n was also blocked after Plateau99's indef, and this leads me to believe that he has not stop sock-puppeting.
 * User:BlackF8's first few edits are towards the Zoosadism article, which I've edited before, and includes him adding in comments in parenthesis and quotes from Beetz, both of which Plateau99 commonly did. Edit summaries are similar. New editors are unlikely to add in quotes with refs like that. BlackF8 also made small changes on different articles before editing the Zoophilia one, so his sock puppeting wouldn't appear obvious to others.
 * User:Paperynl is an obvious sock of Plateau99, editing only Zoophilia related pages and trying to add in materials that Plateau99 tried to add in the past.
 * User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast This sock is harder to spot, but the account is created a week after Plateau99 is blocked in August. Edits only include adding icons/ tables/ or rewording phrases on different article so to appear different from Plateau99. Similar hours of editing as Plateau99, and if edited on the same day, edits only hours after Paperynl (4 hours after on April 11 and 20).

If these are indeed confirmed socks, I highly doubt Latitude0116/ Plateau99 will stop sockpuppeting in the future. Someone963852 (talk) 13:45, 21 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

 * - - Strange parenthetical usage by both Latitude and previous sock plateau. . Limited usage of edit summaries, similar editing times, and similarly strange POV pushing all make me highly suspicious. There are some differences in editing but the underlying edit behavior seems highly similar. If all the accounts are related, they are surely related to Latitude.  NativeForeigner Talk 22:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Paperynl and BlackF8 are now blocked because they were completely using proxies/tor to evade CU.
 * ✅ to . Archive is.
 * A clerk should make sure I come back and block the proxies before closing this, as I have not yet blocked them yet. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast a confirmed sock of? Plateau99? User:Fbbfan was created in 2013, after User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast in 2012. Recent edit summaries by User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast are highly similar to Plateau99's and his other socks. Someone963852 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Essentially bodybuilder is related to Fbbfan. The other two users used proxies to evade linkage, so there isn't a technical relationship between them and Female bodybuilder enthusiast. I think there is enough evidence to block bodybuilder on behavioral evidence alone though. I'll look into it later today or tomorrow, I'm quite swamped right now. Other clerks are welcome to act on it as well. NativeForeigner Talk 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on behavioral evidence, I'm blocking the other two accounts. I'll go remind DeltaQuad to block the proxies too. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Proxies are now blocked. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

21 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Account created after the latest socks were blocked; seems to know his way around Wikipedia very well for a "new" user. Similar editing patterns as the previous socks User:Plateau99 and especially User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast (with the editing of tables and such). Similar edit summaries as the other socks. I don't think he will stop socking in the future. Someone963852 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(added)
 * CentrumZero was created a day after the other socks were blocked.
 * Not a new user as seen from the account's first few edits. (Already knows how to use tables, for example)
 * Similar edit summaries as the other socks. this this this this for example
 * Same editing patterns as the blocked sock User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast with LGBT articles (mainly editing tables and such).
 * Both editing the same articles, especially with the edit to Zoophilia and the law, which leads me to believe this is a sock of Plateau99's.
 * Trying to hide his edits to the Zoophilia article by editing LGBT ones, similar to what the other socks did. Someone963852 (talk) 14:00, 22 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

 * Can you please provide some more diffs that show similar behavior to the known socks? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Compliments for the exceptionally clear follow-up evidence. The following are ✅:
 * , . WilliamH (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closed. Rschen7754 11:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , . WilliamH (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closed. Rschen7754 11:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

12 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Account was created on 22 October 2013, which was after the date the latest sock was banned. Exhibits the same editing patterns as the other previous socks, specifically 'CentrumZero' and 'Female bodybuilder enthusiast'.
 * GayTenn contribs
 * CentrumZero's (latest sockpuppet) contribs
 * Female bodybuilder enthusiast contribs

All three have edited random LGBT articles, such as LGBT rights in the United States, LGBT rights in [state], Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States (with all three accounts editing the tables), Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States, List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States   , List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States   etc. All three socks don't leave edit summaries.

The user is trying to 'legitimize' these socks by editing a bunch of LGBT articles, then later adding non-neutral POV material to the zoophilia articles (the purpose of Latitude0116's socks). Someone963852 (talk) 05:59, 12 September 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

 * With the evidence provided above coupled with the similar interests in Zoophilia, as seen with other socks, I've blocked the account. Mike V  •  Talk  17:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

17 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

-- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:29, 17 September 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

 * ✅ with previously used technical information in the archives to the sockmaster. This is a for the record SPI. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Gdca1 is another account created by the user Latitude0116/ Plateau99 after the account and its socks were blocked.
 * The account's sole purpose is to add non-neutral pro-zoophilia POV to zoophilia-related articles, mainly on the articles: Zoophilia, Zoophilia and the law, Legality of bestiality in the United States, similar to the purpose of the previous socks.
 * First thing the user did after creating the account was to edit zoophilia articles, remove what they deem as “anti-zoophilia”, and add non-neutral POV
 * Similar edits that mention speciesism: similar to
 * Use of the terms “zoo” and “zoosexual” similar to
 * Using the same arguments about human/animals and consent similar to
 * Similar edit summaries (starting the sentence with a capital letter and not ending it with a period or punctuation) similar to   also parenthetical usage
 * Similar edits to tables similar to

AHC300 was created a month after the previous sock was blocked. User also has similar contribution history to previous socks. Reasons are similar to the previous socks. These socks are all trying to appear "legitimate" by editing a bunch of LGBT related articles (mostly to edit templates and maps, while not leaving edit summaries) to hide their zoophilia-related edits. All socks had a lack of edit summaries. This user edited a female bodybuilding article, and one of the past socks was named Female bodybuilder enthusiast.


 * Someone963852 (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I am not this other user, Latitude0116. I find it offensive that I am being accused of being someone I am not. I am also not User:AHC300. AHC300 has done a great job adding information to zoophilia-related articles. The only commonality is that we have edited zoophilia-related articles -- nothing more.

Looking at User:Someone963852's contributions history, it appears he accuses anyone who adds "pro-zoophilia" material of being a sockpuppet of this one user (Latitude0116). That is to say, if anyone adds anything perceived as being "pro-zoophilia", Someone963862 will then proceed to accuse that person of being a sockpuppet of this one user (Latitude0116).

Also, the accusations are baseless. Starting an edit summary with a capital letter? That's something most people do. Using the word "zoo"? That's also a commonly-used noun when discussing articles related to zoophilia. Gdca1 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Gdca1, you are pro-zoophilia/bestiality. That's easy enough to see from this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am neutral on the issue. Citing a lawyer making a constitutional argument (either for or against) does not necessarily mean I agree with them. Gdca1 (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * said the same thing when being blocked. Your editing patterns are identical to the previous socks. It's hard not to notice when users edit the zoophilia-related articles since those articles are rarely ever edited. Someone963852 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * First ever edit (after a "user page" creation) was a removal following the old patterns.
 * The use of the word reverted in the edit summary of their 4th edit proves a level of Wikipedia knowledge non-consistent with the account age.
 * The account was used on 14/15 May, then 7 July, and after that we have a gap of ~2 years; it is used again after 28 November 2016, with their come-back edit being on the very same article as the previous (Zoophilia and the law).
 * These facts above as well as those presented by the filer demonstrate an SPA, owned by an experienced user. Therefore it appears to be a WP:DUCK case. --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that a CheckUser can't be done since the last sock case was opened in 2014, but this case appears to be a WP:DUCK case like Kostas20142 stated. Someone963852 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that a CheckUser can't be done since the last sock case was opened in 2014, but this case appears to be a WP:DUCK case like Kostas20142 stated. Someone963852 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Closing because of inaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

is a disruptive editor who exhibits the same agenda editing as the previous blocked socks, such as adding a bunch of original research and false claims not supported by the references in order to push a pro-zoophilia POV (see diffs from the archive). The user focuses on zoophilia-related articles such as Zoophilia, Legality of bestiality by country and territory, Legality of bestiality in the United States, Enumclaw horse sex case, etc. as did the previous socks, and edits other similar articles as the confirmed socks, such as Female bodybuilder enthusiast, CentrumZero, 61-1099lm, Chiseled abs cutter, GayTenn and Dawkinsfan44 (sort the first column of the table to 'F').

Here is an example of AHC300 adding original research, non-neutral POV, undue weight content in the "Arguments for bestiality" section in order to promote the legalization of bestiality.

AHC300 was created less than a month after 61-1099lm/Chiseled/GayTenn were blocked.

AHC300 also has a particular interest in editing female bodybuilding-related articles and one of the past blocked sockpuppets was named '', who was blocked back in April 2013. The Editor Interaction Analyser tool shows that and blocked sock :  edit at least 80 articles in common. AHC300 has 135 overlapping articles with the confirmed socks, based on AHC300's edits matching theirs: ; these are very distinct and niche topics revolving around zoophilia, bestiality, female bodybuilding, same political views, LGBT rights in ____, etc.

'Female bodybuilder enthusiast' created the Legality of bestiality in the United States article (which was previous reverted by another editor  because "some or most of the 'references' do not support what is written in the article") but the sock reverted it back in. After the socks were blocked, popped up and became the main editor of that article, adding their own OR/SYNTH/deceptive content to the article  and still continues to do so. 'Female bodybuilder enthusiast' created an image to add to the Legality of bestiality in the United States article and AHC300 also created a very similar image file to add to that same article  (accuracy of those images is debatable).

This is a clear case of WP:DUCK, but please let me know if you have additional questions. A checkuser on AHC300 would be helpful to check for sleeper accounts, since the previous blocked socks had multiple accounts at once and used proxies. Some1 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC) copy-edited, Some1 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Small additions, Some1 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Very likely based on behavior IMO. Previous sock created Rising Phoenix World Championships for example, and AHC300 has pretty much been the only other person interested in this topic. Both edit female bodybuilding, zoophilia/beastiality, LGBT legislative history and US elections. This seems quite a niche... AHC300 also registered a month after the last sock had been blocked. Sadly, this is probably another sock that has evaded their block for years. --Pudeo (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have been an active and respected member of the wikipedia community for years now. I have voted in every wikipedia poll and active with other users. Everything I post on wikipeida is sourced and verified information. I am not "disruptive", nor am I "misuse of two or more accounts by the one individual". My edits are critical for expanding wikipedia and I have spent countless free hours of my time creating and editing articles. These accusations are completely absurd. AHC300 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I notified you because comments can be useful in behavior-only SPIs. Given that you don't do mass-scale automatic edits but actually work on the aforementioned topics, I'd be pretty amazed that there would be another editor that was focused on zoophilia and female bodybuilding, which have nothing to do with each other, and registered one month after the last sock was blocked... Also what all these accounts have in common that they rarely participate on talkpages or leave edit summaries, and do similar gnomish updates to legislative templates or maps. That accusation is not absurd; it certainly looks like you have previously edited with these accounts, although it is not impossible that you were a new editor. --Pudeo (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just curious, what do you mean by "voted in every wikipedia poll"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see your username in the 2020 ArbCom election voters list, nor the 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015 ones. As for your other claims, since this is an SPI about you abusing multiple accounts and evading your block, I'll hold off on providing examples of your disruptive behavior. Some1 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All previously confirmed accounts are . A checkuser won't be able to pull anything useful. This will need a behavioral investigation...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am looking into this, so please don't close the investigation because of inactivity, even if I have not got back within a couple of days or so. (But obviously if there are other good reasons for closing the investigation then that's a different matter.) JBW (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Having checked the editing history of AHC300 and of numerous known sockpuppets I have now seen enough evidence to leave no reasonable doubt whatever that this is yet another Latitude0116 sockpuppet. I have blocked the account. JBW (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)