Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnonimous/Archive

27 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Going back in time, Magnonimous was blocked on December 30, 2007, after he was edit-warring at the article Coral calcium. He was then re-blocked indefinitely on the following day because he was found to be using sockpuppets while blocked. He was only recently unblocked on July 20 of this year because it was believed that he has not used sockpuppets in the interim.

Now to Bentheadvocate. Ben's account was created one day after Magnonimous was indefinitely blocked (On January 1, 2008). On his user page at the time, he wrote, "I am not a new user, I have had some experience on wikipedia in the past. So don't be surprised if I seem to know more than I should."

One of Ben's earliest actions was to propose a new project called "CE : Commission for Collaborative Editing". Nobody else agreed to help with the project, yes an anonymous editor (coincidentally?) added a request that coral calcium be looked at for having unreliable sources. Ben then contacted Ronz, who was the last person Magnonimous was arguing with before he was blocked. Nobody picked up on any of this at the time. Nothing came of it so Ben moved on to other subjects over the next couple of months, then slowed down his editing in late February and after only a few more edits he completely stopped editing in May 2008.

Just recently, on July 8 of this year, Magnonimous returned to request an unblock. That unblock request was declined. Magnonimous made another request, which was put on hold.

Three days later, Bentheadvocate returned out of nowhere, to confirm to Ronz that the IP that was battling Ronz was truly Ben. (Again, arguing with Magnonimous's rival.) Bentheadvocate has run into other problems, see here for some evidence of the most recent problems, but at the moment is blocked for edit-warring (just as Magnonimous was before).

There are just far too many coincidences here. And since Magnonimous has edited as recently as this month, CU evidence should be available for both editors. --  At am a  頭 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

See User_talk:Bentheadvocate for response from User:Bentheadvocate. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Sure, let's have a look. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * enough that I wouldn't lose sleep about blocking one or the other. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They seem to be using Bentheadvocate now, so I've blocked Magnonimous. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

02 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This set of three accounts—self-admitted accounts of the same person—was created recently out of the blue apparently with the single purpose of supporting Silver seren's arguments on Talk:Lewontin's Fallacy. There has been a slight coordination of editing on User talk:Causa sui, where the first account made their first edits outside userspace just prior to an edit of Silver seren; and on the talk page of the now-deleted article that SlowhandBlues created which was speedy deleted by SarekOfVulcan. In a now deleted edit, Silver seren had added an inaccurate template on the talk page of that article (see this comment by SarekOfVulcan after the speedy deletion). I have no idea how Silver seren could have known that the fork article had been created. After it was speedily deleted, Silver seren moved the article, of which it was an unattributed copy, to an article of exactly the same title. It is possible that the new editor is a meatpuppet, rather then a sockpuppet, but that is impossible to tell. SlowhandMediator edited simultaneously on the same page as SlowhandBlues, against policy. This sequence of off-topic diffs by SlowhandBlues and Silver seren  again suggests a link between the accounts. Mathsci (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tnxman307. Since this turned out to be Bentheadvocate/Magnonimous, please could this case be archived under the name of the puppetmaster Magnonimous? (Apologies to Silver seren.) Mathsci (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (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
✅ the following are the same:
 * The last account is marked as a sock of . is ❌ to these accounts.  TN X Man  13:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The last account is marked as a sock of . is ❌ to these accounts.  TN X Man  13:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The last account is marked as a sock of . is ❌ to these accounts.  TN X Man  13:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

03 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This palindrome already occurred once today in one of the edits of Magnonimous. It could of course also be trolling by Mikemikev ... Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2011 (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

 * Account is already blocked, but I'll endorse for sleepers, I suppose. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing else there. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedurally closing this, since there's nothing else to be done for now. --  At am a  頭 01:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

05 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All likely, presently harassing. Please look for sleepers and block underlying IPs if possible. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Hardly surprising. I've added another IP used for harrassment. Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Very short rangeblock placed. No other sleepers at the moment. All the named accounts are matches, for what it's worth, no comment on the IP. TN X Man 15:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

11 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All three made the same edits, , to seemingly get around 3RR. Alexandria  (talk)  18:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently Silver seren redirects here, added as well. Alexandria   (talk)  18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I also add this user - I was wondering about this - a SPA in the Luke Evans (actor) homosexual labeling  issue in which Silver Siren was a high active contributor - a  google search for AlbionBT revealed a second result of the "Wolfdog.org forum" - User:Silver Siren is the main contributor to the wikipedia Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf article - Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Feel free to check this. None of those other accounts are me. Shanghai Sally also made the same revert. Are you also going to accuse him/her of being me as well? And my IP address is 128.194.3.80, since i'm at Texas A&M University. And i've never heard of the Wolfdog Forum until...well, just now. But, either way, check all you want. Silver  seren C 19:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Are self endorsed checks allowed, by the way? Silver  seren C 19:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Self endorse: potentional 3RR vio. Alexandria   (talk)  18:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * . Checking two editors only because they supported the same edit would be unjustified. AGK  [&bull; ] 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I ran a check earlier but was unable to post a result because of a network outage. I was initially concerned that Grawp might be involved (he's currently targeting this area) and there were personal attacks going on. Upon further investigation, it seems like came out of a year long wikibreak and join the dispute. My initial suspicions were that Shanghai Sally was related to  due to the sudden reappearance, but they are ❌. Checking Anguished56, it would appear that it is a ✅ sock of . Elockid   ( Talk ) 22:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've blocked and tagged Foo Bar Buzz Netz and Anguished56 per these findings. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)