Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbz1/Archive

29 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Ip block evasion, this editor used to extensively use sonnets in communications in wikipedia. If you check the most recent comment by 69.x you see he uses sonnets, part of the meltdown after the indef block and the request and umpteen other references he decried that he was a donater to wikipedia and the same is being used by 71.x This is behavioral only as obviously checkuser can't comment on named accounts/ip and super stale but i have never seen a duck if this isn't Proof77 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm very confident that these IP's are Mbz1. I'm also very confident that Mbz1 and Proofreader77 are not the same person. I've been in email contact with Proof on and off since his indef block, I really don't think they'd be able to pull the wool over my eyes for so long. The personalities are very different. I don't know why Mbz1 mentioned Proofreader77's talk page when she was talking to me, but I think linking the two accounts is a red herring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Proofreader77 used to write his own sonnets, whereas Mbz1 here is quoting Shakespeare. Also,  has written sonnets on WP before; I assume you don't think he's Mbz1/Proofreader77 too.  "Having something to do with sonnets" is a pretty weak duck test. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a general sanction on Proof itself, alone I would definitely agree with you, the mentions of the donations and that put together is why I think it's a duck test. It's an overall look that leads me to it. I've been wrong before though as you well know so I'll leave that up to others to decide. I'm just presenting the evidence I see. The User:Gwen Gale comments is also what tells me, there was several IP comments about her on various pages that was most definitely him. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mbz1 has always taken a strong interest (if I can put it that way) in Gwen Gale, for several years now. Maybe Proofreader does too, and maybe they were both involved in the same incident or incidents sometime in the past, but they are very clearly distinct people. On a side note, I'm not sure that material in the form of sonnets would be an approved component of recognised Brad-speak. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Floquenbeam is clearly correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK I'm not familiar with the other editors habits so i'll take your words for it. lol like it would've mattered anyways but it sounds better that way :) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Floquenbeam is correct. No checks done, there is no indication that the IPs are Proofreader77. Risker (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything's blocked anyway, so closing. Rschen7754 03:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

21 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The user is banned and has been editing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination) and also been editing other pages over a period of time.Please note the user is entitled to make any number of appeal regarding his ban but is clearly not allowed to edit others pages which appears to inflame the debate.Please check this where the user admits being banned.Through banned the Userpage and User talk:Mbz1 and list the user as retired but the User is clearly editing using IP and hence it is clearly not retired. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note this is leading to editing conflicts | Here, | here and | here today alone and it only inflames the situation nothing positive will come out of this.The Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit there is a comment about another editor which is close to a personal attack. This has been gone continuously ,I can provide IP with clear behavioral evidence even in January 2014 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Isn't it a long-standing norm of SPI to not flag IPs as socks due to privacy concerns? Tarc (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No one can report IP in SPI if they are socking openly otherwise it give Carte Blanche to sock with IP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Checkuser comment: We will not be linking IP addresses to a specific account, particularly one that has not made edits in several years and thus is. Block IPs that are violating policies such as WP:NPA as appropriate to the situation. Risker (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only IP in the list which is still active was blocked as an open proxy. Closing as nothing else to do here.