Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathemagician57721/Archive

Report date September 17 2009, 21:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by TheFarix

These accounts have made the same types of edits, removing verifiable information, on the same set of articles, namely Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu, but also Pokémon Pocket Monsters, CoroCoro Comic, and Kodomo anime and manga. Mathemagician57721 has previously been banned as a vandalism only account. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I have done the following: All other older IPs remain unblocked. MuZemike 22:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet
 * 71.144.122.123, 75.50.52.103, 76.211.90.207, 207.160.233.153, and 70.247.249.17 have been blocked 1 week as IP sock puppets.
 * has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry and continued disruption.

Report date September 26 2009, 23:28 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by TheFarix

Same types of edits to Pokémon manga articles as, , and a series of AT&T IPs originating from Springfield, Missouri that repeatedly removed the demographic of the magazine the two manga series were serialized in. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

So the fact that I agree with another editor automatically makes me his sockpuppet? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, note that and  made no edits other than to Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu and Pokémon Pocket Monsters, but I have made several contributions which are indisputably constructive, as you can see here. --SuperNerd625 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that similar edits make an account a sock puppet, do you have any other evidence (Confirmed IP matches)? --Danielpop10 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Editing behavior is too similar to User:Kalium-39 and the sockmaster. Indefinitely blocked and tagged. MuZemike 19:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date October 4 2009, 20:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All of these IPs and named socks show the same obsession with Pokémon, particularly Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu. Regularly disavows being the sock, while performing the same edits and usually giving themselves away in a later summary or message. All are coming from the same ranges, and they all continue specifically harassing editor User:TheFarix, having vandalized his talk page and repeatedly making bad faith accusations and personal attacks against him. Most are being blocked on site, but an SPI would help confirm and determine if a range block would help, as he is changing IPs 2-5 times a day. Related ANI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs)
 * See also his edits at Boy or Girl paradox. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per his remarks after being blocked, seems there are sleepers and active socks to be found. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Looking at the large number of names on this list gives me the impression that Collectonian likes abusing process whenever someone doesn't agree with her. Making similar edits isn't automatically a sign of socpuppetry. Also, even if I were the same user as Mathemagician57721, I could only be banned as a sockpuppet if I were using my new account to vandalize or make unconstructive edits. As my edits aren't unconstructive, I couldn't be considered a sockpuppet even if I were operated by the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CombinationPermutation (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * CombinationPermutation has admitted to sock puppetry, being deliberately disruptive, and indicated that there are are other "sleeper" accounts. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC) to check for other sleepers, as this user has been rapidly creating multiple sleepers in the very recent past. MuZemike 21:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments ✅ as:
 * and a bunch more IPs. Brandon (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * and a bunch more IPs. Brandon (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * and a bunch more IPs. Brandon (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * and a bunch more IPs. Brandon (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * and a bunch more IPs. Brandon (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * and a bunch more IPs. Brandon (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * and a bunch more IPs. Brandon (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocked for 1 week. Registered accounts already blocked and tagged. MuZemike 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Usernames are blocked and tagged correctly. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tim Song
Per the nomination and response in this DRV. CU requested to check for sleepers. Tim Song (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Tim Song (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
but I'll make a quick note that the behavioral evidence of the IP's seems similar, however "searching for sleepers" may be declined as. GrooveDog &bull; i'm groovy. 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Have made note (not as an SPI clerk but as the deleting administrator) at WP:DRV of my view as strongly recommended by guideline. MuZemike 08:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend a reblock on 75.60.12.0/22 for a longer period of time. MuZemike 09:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

. No obvious sleepers. J.delanoy gabs adds 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
I went ahead and reblocked the range for 1 month. Don't know what good it's going to do, though. MuZemike 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 13 2010, 23:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Already self-identified and engaging in usual behavior. Both named and IP sock blocked, however requesting check users to check for sleepers and see if a range block is possible, especially if he's starting to try to impersonate other editors with a seeming deliberate attempt to try frame them for vandalism. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs)
 * As a further note, it appears there was an IP range block on this guy already instituted by User:MuZemike that has expired. I've notified him of this report so he can comment on that here. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May also want to check which suddenly reappeared after over a year, with the same focus and doing similar edits to the Pokemon articles except the genre change. May be a sleeper he has reactivated. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * was involved in the same editorial dispute on Aluminium that played a part in Mathemagician57721 original block. (Mathemagician57721 edit, very similar Aruseusu edit) This combined with similar edits to the Pokemon articles gives a good indication that Aruseusu is another sock account of Mathemagician57721. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

to see if that IP can possibly be hardblocked. –MuZemike 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has blocked the sock indef and the IP for 31 hours. Seems pretty cut and dried. TN X Man 11:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

--Deskana (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)