Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa/Archive

30 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP 24.2.203.107 has been editing articles with the edit summary of "User:LiteralKa here just helpin' out" and "User:LiteralKa here and editing nicely". It seems plain that the IP is a sockpuppet of banned user LiteralKa. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would appreciate it if people did not revert my edits in the future without providing a good reason other than "he's banned lol". I find it rather disturbing, unnerving, and offensive that literally all of my contributions were reverted as a result of this "investigation". Despite its outcome. 24.2.203.107 (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Or it's a troll trying to put blame on LiteralKa by masquerading as him. I'm closing this with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

05 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

LiteralKa, former "president" of the GNAA, was blocked on 13 August 2011 indefinitely. Ten days later, probably not to create suspicions, Mythpage88 appears for the first time, and their 56th edition was here, in the GNAA article. Then they proceed to edit (in a few months time) the article and nominate it for GA, with an interest on this topic comparable only... to himself (LiteralKa). This seems obvious enough to me, but I think you should clear any doubts anyway. Diego Grez (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

This is like the second or third SPI I've been accused in. All of them have resulted in me being exonerated of any wrongdoing. Diego_Grez clearly has a grudge against me, and is currently involved in an edit war with me. Numerous other editors have shown a significant interest in the article, as well. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A grudge against you? I'm sorry but all I've been doing is trying to improve the trolls' article. lol Diego Grez (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been editing back and forth, and now you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Sounds like a grudge to me. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pobrecito. Diego Grez (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In English, please. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparable with User:Ta bu shi da yu, User:Zscout370, User:Chocolateboy, User:Freakofnurture, User:Qrsdogg, and User:Chmod007, as well. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I edited the article sparingly (8 small edits in just under a year) until very recently (august 5th), when I decided to take up the challenge of making it a good article. I didn't even touch the gnaa article for like my first three months on wikipedia. What kind of "interest" does that demonstrate, extactly? I barely touched the page until just recently. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Only you and yourself (LiteralKa) have a comparable amount of edits and interest in the article. All the editors you mentioned but Qrsdogg haven't touched the article for several years, so I don't get the point of your reasoning (if there is any). Diego Grez (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that other users have demonstrated significant interest in the past, including Sysops and well-respected users. Mythpage88 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Myth, do not remove comments or reformat the page. Let the clerks do it.  It is improper for you to do this.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved the comments to the appropriate section. I'd appreciate it if you didn't remove my comments either. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Since Mythpage88 has suddenly been checkuser blocked, I can safely say that we can close this. I was bordering on blocking purely on troll grounds, based on his total history and it being obvious that he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, but it doesn't matter how we got here, only that we did get here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For reasons that are obvious or not obvious, there is enough around to consider this a sock of LiteralKa . -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Information provided later on by another CU gives a better indication that this is not LiteralKa. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

28 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Basedircrory has been promoting GNAA by editing a template to show full name including "Nigger" in several articles after only a dozen edits and in a manner similar to recently blocked sock Mythpage88 who is a blocked sock of LiteralKa.

Maractus has been interacting with the banned sockpuppets and the GNAA article, and on his userpage claims to be a both a "twink" and a Black youth pictured in a government photograph taken in the early 1970s.["this is me irl"]

Zaiger has a similar editing history covering GNAA and related articles including shaming me for questioning Maractus' claim that he is a "twink" who would have to be in his 50s by now, on the GNAA talk page. Zaiger's userpage is filled with internet meme references similar to the other editors such as Mythpage88.
 * https://facebook.com/zaiger
 * https://twitter.com/zaiger
 * Have I proven I am a real person yet? Would you like a drivers license scan as well? I would appreciate it if you would leave me out this paranoid nonsense. --Zaiger (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you ever make constructive edits on Wikipedia? It's easy to find examples of GNAA-themed vandalism in your edit history, e.g. . &mdash; Cup co  01:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? This has to do with me being a sock puppet, which I have proven that I am not. Cupco is obviously homophobic and harassment on Wikipedia should NOT be tolerated. Please stop. --Zaiger (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTHERE. You have previously tried to obscure the fact that GNAA members have been blocked for introducing photosensitive epilepsy-provoking material. Do you think personal attacks claiming I have been homophobic are helping you make your case? &mdash; Cup co  01:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sockpuppet, you're wrong. You lost. Get over it. --Zaiger (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is substantial evidence in the user compare report suggesting otherwise, not to mention WP:DUCK. &mdash; Cup co  01:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * lol a checkuser will prove that asinine statement wrong in a second, not mention I use my real name. Any Admin with an IQ above room temperature can safely assume that I am my own person and that this is my only account. what is your real name? You are the one trolling in anonymity. --Zaiger (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How did you learn about this report before you were notified? &mdash; Cup co  02:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I run a script that listens for my username on the English Wikipedia. Why, are you upset you weren't allowed more time to build a smear campaign based solely on speculation and the fact that my "userpage is filled with internet meme references"? I only count 2 Internet memes by the way, seems you know more about this than I do. --Zaiger (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Basedircrory believes I am a sockpuppet of ; I am not. &mdash; Cup co  21:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Yea how do I prove that i am not LiteralKa? Does wikipedia need my dox? Basedircrory (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can testify that I know for a fact that basedircrory is not LiteralKa either. This is obviously a HUGE manipulation of a sockpuppet investigation. Cupco, unless he lacks all common sense, should have easily seen that these accounts are not run by the same person. This is an ant-gay witch hunt and is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of knowledge, not ignorance and homophobia. Wikipedia, I am disappointed. --Zaiger (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have too opened a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026. Maractus (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Allegations of an "anti-gay witch hunt" and homophobia are pretty serious. Do you have any evidence to back up those allegations? --Conti|✉ 17:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * consider that Cupco may have opened this SPI as a retaliatory measure against anyone with a perceived GNAA connection, because his racist original research was removed from the GNAA article. 67.174.52.134 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would also like to point out that this has gone far beyond what is reasonable when attempting to weed out what is notable/productive and has turned into a game of WP:JDL. Maractus (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm on my cell here so can't comment re. checkuser data but I can say that I know who both and  are IRL and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated. Unfortunately for them, they both share a number of common interests, but they are distinct and unrelated editors -  A l is o n  ❤ 08:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow morning PST, I should be able to run a full check, if needs be - A l is o n  ❤ 08:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It looks like they all know each other quite well: "'If at once you don't succeed, create more Wikipedia sock accounts to destroy the Zionist agenda' - Gary Niger, 2012" (very shortly after Mythpage88 was blocked), Zaiger tweeting to LiteralKa and trolling victim, LiteralKa replying to Zaiger -- is there any evidence that any of these people want to build an encyclopedia? &mdash; Cup co  14:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More baseless ad hominem attacks, speculation and rumor mongering. I got a response from Charlotte Dawson on Twitter last week (before she closed her account) as well, so by your logic I guess her and I must be BFFs. In all seriousness though you are really reaching. I wish I could say you gave it a noble attempt, but it's obvious to everyone but you that we are not the same person. Anyone with rudimentary Google skills could have figured that out in less than the time you wasted out of your life to type up this page. It's time to let go, and please leave my name out of any future dramawhoring. Someone should close this page out of respect for common sense.--Zaiger (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you admit to acting in concert by trolling people on Twitter, what reason is there to say that you aren't acting as meatpuppets here? Again, if you can produce a shred of evidence that any of you have a serious interest in building an encyclopedia, that would be a far better defense for you than personal attacks. &mdash; Cup co  18:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't admit to trolling in concert with anyone. I made a single tweet to him in response to a conversation I saw in my timeline. That is the very fiber of what Twitter is. Your accusations are very broad and speculative. I have done nothing wrong except for specking my mind on what I felt was an attack based on my sexual preference, and even though I have been forced to promised not to speak my mind anymore, the speculative attacking and evidence-lacking accusations on his behalf continue. Am I not allowed to defend myself? I have proven without a doubt that I am not LiteralKa, yet he continues his silly argument that I am him. Why not make him come up with diffs proving that I am him or threaten to ban him? Is sockpuppetry not a heavy accusation? --Zaiger (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(pasted from administrator noticeboard these are my comments so I have a right to copy them) First of all I have to say that homophobia and transphobia are definate problems on wikipedia and should be handled harshly. However I do not believe that this is one of them. Also the fact that he uses his own communities slur word which I won't even type is really appalling. I wouldd also like everyone to be aware though that chances are Zaiger is really hurting and needs some help. That does not excuse what he is doing but it does say that something is impacting him. I would suggest having a moderator talk to him, inform him of the charges and the consequences, let him explain without criticism and then banning him if he hasn't explained his accusation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Amigo. --Zaiger (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry for the delay, but weekend RL called me away. Firstly, is, all other accounts are ❌ to each other, from what I can see, and all geolocate to very different places. Furthermore, nobody appears to be abusing multiple accounts at this time -  A l is o n  ❤ 00:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * indeffed for trolling and general disruption. blocked one week for filing a meritless retaliatory SPI case. T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think were done. -- DQ on the road   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)