Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lbrad2001/Archive

13 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Back in 2010 user Lbrad2001 was blocked for disruptive edit warring and personal attacks. A number of unblock requests by him were denied due to more of the same behavior. Immediately after he was blocked, Jakebradson was created, and together with another account (Jgilkinson) the user apparently continued edit warring on the 2 new accounts. Against my better judgement, I warned the user I would open an SPI if he continued, instead of actually doing it. That was enough to make him stop temporarily, but in hindsight I should have just opened an SPI, because he returns about once a year and does this same thing all over again.

This time so far it appears he is doing his edits from Lbrad2001 and 24.199.253.82 and 173.93.187.68, using the main account to insert his edits and then using the IPs to back himself up with comments of artificial support (and reverts). Furthermore, please note that both the main account (Lbrad2001) and the IPs have suddenly started editing this article (with virtually identical revisions) following years of being inactive, and this article normally gets very little traffic. I noted that doing a Geolocate on that latter IP matches up with 173.93.185.39, who made similar edits on the same article (Walther WA 2000) awhile back. If you look at the contribs for all 3 of these accounts and the 3 IPs, they're essentially single purpose accounts edit warring and repeatedly adding the same bit of text into the same article. ROG5728 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A followup comment on this. Please note that IP 173.93.187.68 also just signed a comment as Lbrad2001 in this diff. ROG5728 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That also means he just hit 3RR at Walther WA 2000. ROG5728 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

This is a blatant sock puppet, all of the IP addresses happen to link back to the same area of South Carolina. I can tell that without running check user.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Amazing how Mike and ROG agree on everything. Almost like they are the same person. Everytime ROG makes a comment on a page that in his words "normally gets very little traffic." Mike backs ROG up. But according to him I'm socking. I would have to use his own argument right back at him.


 * I post from the University of South Carolina's library. So any and all posts you see from that IP are coming from the 30k students that attend the University including myself. Go ahead and hunt down the IP some more, don't stop now. You're misuse of power on Wikipedia has been discussed at great length in my journalism class. Also glad to see that you misused Wikipedia's system to actually track my address without permission. I have made no attempt to track you because my argument speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize for putting this in the wrong area of the page. I'm not great at editing this stuff. Please put it in the proper area for me.


 * Of course, because Mike is the project coordinator for WP:GUNS, and the Walther WA 2000 article falls under the scope of that project. However, this is an SPI discussing you and your editing behavior. Every account/IP listed earlier is a single purpose account being used for edit warring on one isolated article, and at least one of those accounts (Jakebradson) was created immediately following your last account block. All of the IPs and accounts come from the same area of South Carolina. Several years back I explicitly warned you (Lbrad2001 et al.) about Wikipedia policy on socking, so you can't claim ignorance. ROG5728 (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike and ROG and I'm not a member of WP:GUN. This is a very clear example of disruptive behavior and likely WP:SOCK violation.  . -Justanonymous (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, can the harassment stop now please? DRMIES, MIKE, and ROG...Leave me alone, and stop attacking me with no proof of anything. Team up on someone else next. Lbrad2001 (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lbrad2001, contrary to your comment here, you haven't been "cleared" of anything. The CU was declined because the other accounts are old ("stale"). Regardless, edit warring and/or hopping from one IP to another is still against Wikipedia policy, and could earn you a block if you continue. ROG5728 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry ROG you don't own Wikipedia, and if your stupid attack on me succeeds I hope you sleep well knowing you spent 4 years to erase one truthful sentence in an article for no reason other than your own pride and ignorance. Lbrad2001 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Anyone from the state of South Carolina has obviously violated the rules of Wikipedia. Well hell lets just make it anyone from the Unites States. Lbrad2001 (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone from the United States please don't agree with me. We would have to know each other somehow and that would be against ROG's rules. It doesn't matter that he uses the same people over and over again to back up his arguments. They obviously don't know each other because their IP address's are different. Ignore the fact that they post on each others pages all the time. He certainly wouldn't use the same group of internet friends to back up his arguments. Lbrad2001 (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Blatant sockpuppetry, frenzied denials that are turning into personal attacks... the quacking is loud with this one. (British user, so don't try and throw the American comment in here...). I moved you comments from the CU section, as you aren't a clerk, a CU, or an admin. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Such "Blatant sockpuppetry" that the block was not granted. I tend to make "frenzied" denials when I'm innocent but you can do whatever you want. Evidently the word sarcasm is lost on you. Lbrad2001 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a difference between a checkuser being declined and the SPI being closed. A checkuser being declined simply means there is no need for one; the other named accounts have not edited recently enough to make use of a checkuser and you have already admitted to editing from the same location as the IP addresses and signed your comments from one, so there's no point in running a checkuser.  That does not mean the issue is closed, because it is painfully obvious that you and the IP addresses are the same person.  Given that you used multiple IP addresses to create a discussion with another on the article's talk page it seems to be an issue of attempting to create an illusion of support.  That is sockpuppetry, and is not permitted.    - SudoGhost 06:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that this user's addition at Walther WA 2000 was rejected, he's removing valid content there in order to be facetious. This is a disruptive editor in more ways than one. ROG5728 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I removed a misquote, and then you corrected it and put it back in. As is the proper protocol. Lbrad2001 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DRMIES for your unsolicited and unprofessional recommendation that "it's silly beyond belief" and that I should "Go get a MySpace account." I'll keep that in mind. In the mean time your CU request turned up nothing. Meaning you have nothing other than you're own opinion which is meaningless to me. Lbrad2001 (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I was about to block the IP and the account for edit-warring, but there's not much of a point to it given that the article is protected. That they deserve a block is without question, but it's worth waiting to see what this CU request turns up. Also--adding this bit of trivia is silly beyond belief. Go get a MySpace account please. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All but Lbrad2001 are ; there is nothing that CheckUser can do here. WilliamH (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed with Drmies that no blocks are called for and the case can be closed without further action. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)