Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metalvayne/Archive

25 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I recently brought Metalvayne to ANI over his extended period of disruptive editing, mainly changing music genre without sources, explanation, and against consensus. It was an ongoing issue, but the ANI trip was sparked once it went into homophobic vandalism, which can be seen hereYou can see that ongoing case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Metalvayne

Basically, at the point that consensus was building that he should be topic banned (see ANI case again), he conveniently "retired", and right after he "retired", the two suspected socks started editing. And what did the socks do?
 * Vandalize the ANI case.
 * Homophobic vandalism/genre changing again
 * Virtually every edit either suspected sock was vandalizing the ANI case, my User Page, or articles that are clearly related to topics I mark as ones I work on on my talk page.

I realize the 2 suspected socks are already indefinitely banned, but I wanted to see if they were connected to Metalvayne, and if so, it should probably be presented at the ANI case as far as what to do with him. Thanks! Sergecross73  msg me   00:55, 25 August 2012 (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 very and for all extents and purposes, ✅ socks of Metalvayne: WilliamH (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 48 hours for the master and indeffing the remaining sock. Tagged and closing.

04 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Bloomgloom started editing three days after Metalvayne "retired". Just prior to his "retirement", Metalvayne was unanimously topic-banned "for one year from making any changes to genres in article space, whether in the text or the infobox". The new sock Bloomgloom is almost exclusively editing genres on pages related to the rock bands Alice in Chains, Soundgarden and Nickelback, just like Metalvayne.—indopug (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note their similar style of commenting., . (no spaces after periods and commas, for eg)—indopug (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The overlap here is pretty damning. Some people just never give up. Яehevkor ✉ 19:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have informed both accounts. Яehevkor ✉ 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I had a feeling that someone in that mess was taking it in the way-to-personal manner that a returning sock does. Note the remarkably identical overlap of interests, and the tone/style of writing about them, in their entries at WikiProject Metal/Members;

A metal (& certain rock) enthusiast originally from South Asia. Been following many bands for some time. Currently Progressive & Doom/Death I mostly enjoy bands that play down-tempo materials e.g.Doom metal, Stoner rock, Sludge metal, grunge etc.I also enjoy Thrash metal, Speed metal, traditional Heavy metal, Progressive rock, Blues rock & Alternative rock
 * Bloomgloom

Fan of Rock,Blues,Metal,Jazz.Huge fan of 60s & 70s progressive/psychedelic phase.Photographer,gamer,reviewer at My Metal Bin[1].Some of my favourite subgenres of metal/rock are Progressive metal,Post Metal,Doom Metal,Stoner Rock,Sludge Metal,Funeral doom,Atmospheric Black metal,Classic rock,Thrash Metal & traditional Heavy Metal.
 * Metalvayne


 * Tarc (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A metal (& certain rock) enthusiast originally from South Asia. Been following many bands for some time. Currently Progressive & Doom/Death this is stated by the user Bloody_bimo, not me. Honestly DGG how good are users like Tarc when they can't identify two different comments by two completely different users?  Bloomgloom   talk   07:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As the person who reported him the first time he was caught with (3!) socks, I was considering reporting this one as well. While Bloomgloom has been slightly less abrasive to me than Metalvayne, there are still some pretty big similarities: editing style, genre tinkering, starting as soon as Metalvayne "retired", etc. Sergecross73   msg me   20:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I always had a feeling he was that metalvayne guy, i mean it's pretty obvious, but i couldn't be bothered reporting him since (most) of his edits are in good faith I call the big one bitey (talk) 21:33. 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? To me, it looks like he's up to his same old antics, aggressively arguing about genre. Just a different article, and mostly not with me this time around... Sergecross73   msg me   03:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I call the big one bitey, he's created this sock account to avoid his one-year topic ban from editing the genres in the articles. There's no question of his acting in good faith.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * User acknowledges the case without denial here User talk:Bloomgloom. I'll let others decide how to interpenetrate that. Яehevkor ✉ 10:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * His reaction at the Alice In Chains talk page was similar, where he acknowledges the case, but his only reaction is that this was "Indopug's revenge" or something, not any sort of defense that it was an actual mistake or that he was innocent. Again, similar to how Metalvayne acted when he was taken to ANI, it was an unanimous that he should be topic banned, even he didn't contest it. Sergecross73   msg me   12:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I admit that I'm a sock/meat of Metalvayne. During the first year I've had a lot difficulties to understand the Wikipedia policies. I've done unconstructive edits & got involved in arguments specially with Sergecross73. But he never quite helped me to understand the guidelines, instead since the first encounter between him and me he continuously threatened to report me. I've got nothing against Sergecross73 at present so, peace. Now, I did some terrible things from Metalvayne account in the past due to frustration & stupidity. Most notably the homophobic vandalism for which I got accused & taken to ANI & got topic banned for a year. I've spend some time reading the wikipedia guidelines. And I believe that my methods of editing are now different. That's why I've started a discussion over at talk instead of random dubious editings which I used to do in the past. And I provide third party citations for majority of the edits now I make. I repent for my past actions and just want to contribute wisely now. That's all I have to say. Now it's all upto the admins.  Bloomgloom   talk   14:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't get any clearer than that; the user has not only admitted to Sockpuppetry, but using Sockpuppetry as a means to get around a topic ban. Sergecross73   msg me   17:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was quite confident that this person was Metalvayne; I was suspicious early on. I feel that this person has exploited Wikipedia enough, and that his crusades and harassment have been disrespecting Wikipedia and the folks who positively contribute to it. I would also venture to say that he has exploited some of the bands and musicians that he claims to enjoy so much, in order to spread his personal agenda. I won't deny that he's done a few constructive things on Wikipedia, but let me emphasize the part which says "a few", which means not a whole lot of positive contribution. For the most part, he has pushed his personal agenda on anyone and everyone he comes across, which is usually "this band is this genre, and not that one" or "let's do an in-depth discussion about what genre this band is, and focus on nothing else about the band or article"; he doesn't care when he grievously wastes the time of others so that the spotlight is on him and what he wants. He retired from his Metalvayne account, under the public pretenses that he would abandon contributing to Wikipedia, only to make this shallow account so that suspicion would be diverted from him and that he would have a "free pass" to sneak around or something. This, as well as other activity, makes him a dishonest Wikipedian. Because of his long-term, disgusting behavior (back when the relevant ANI case was fresh, he even gave me two unwanted contacts via last.fm mentioning a fellow user, one of which was an especially uncomfortable contact), and the fact that he has not been apologetic for it, I've decided to be permanently done directly communicating with him. I'm sick of this person still hanging around and making such grandiose scenes around himself; we need to move on with our lives here, and Metalvayne needs to realize this and move on as well. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Drink a few peg of icy cold Foster's & then jam on with some Zeppelin.Peace bro.  Bloomgloom   talk   07:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's something to note. Metalvayne posted on a fellow talk page the following, "What happened to me was not justice by any means. Many of the so called good editors are bias in a very cunning way." This is the same guy who has continuously genre warred and also admits to being a sockmaster. It looks like he is going to "retire" this Bloomgloom account, by some of the stuff he has posted on user talk pages. He calls it injustice, even though he's done those activities blatantly against Wikipedia guidelines. Backtable <font color = "5F9EA0">Speak to me<font color = "DA70D6">concerning my deeds. 05:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, cunning e.g. this in which I call the big one bitey clearly stated that the edit with third party source was made by him. Thus, it's clear that so called good editors are showing an overwhelming obsession with the entire Alice in Chains article through the camouflage of protecting a featured article, making sure that any other user can't contribute to the article in a healthy manner. This user from Illinois is causing much more instability to many wikipedia articles & he's way more vulnerable than any of my edits, an infant would notice that, but has any of the good editors paid any attention?  Bloomgloom   talk   06:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to ask one thing, I expect a straightforward answer. Sergecross73 has given me a good deal of tuition regarding original research in the past. I'd just like to ask that his quote Genre is also obscure, not helpful or commonly used, does it fall under original research/personal opinion?  Bloomgloom   talk   07:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That does not excuse you from creating an alternate account to circumvent a topic ban, which is what this is all about. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're cherry-picking your arguments, Metalvayne. You only added part of my edit summary, which actually read "Removing edit by User who is topic banned from dealing with genre. Genre is also obscure, not helpful or commonly used". I undid the edit based off of the fact that you, who had been topic banned, had most recently added it to the article. You'll note that after someone reverted my change explaining that they had put it in there prior to you re-adding it, I left it in there. Things make sense if you look at the whole picture... Sergecross73   msg me   12:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin - I'd like to point out, in addition to Backtable's comments about Bloomgloom/Metalvayne going about complaining about "injustices" and whatnot, that despite admitting to being a sockpuppet of a user that is topic banned from music genre topics on October 5th, he still kept breaking his topic ban, as shown by this edit on Oct 6th. It just goes to show that this user has no intentions of constructive editing here on Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me   14:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I do nothing but unconstructive editing. If that edit was unconstructive & you may understand Bengali or may have listened to that bengali pop-rock band then why don't you just revert my edit & put Classic rock back which is not a genre but AOR/radio format for 70s & 80s.  Bloomgloom   talk   14:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of, or interest in, editing that article topic. The point is that I'm showing you're making zero effort to abide by this topic ban. Sergecross73   msg me   14:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this immensely unconstructive, if you make it constructive I'll be most obliged.  Bloomgloom   talk   14:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you folks know, the Metalvayne account is active again. Also, one of the first things performed since the reactivation of the Metalvayne account was to delete three of the talk page threads which would cast him in a non-presentable light. The three threads concerned the time he was blocked for edit warring at the Opeth band page, the homophobic genre field vandalism, and the notification about this sockpuppet case. I know he can technically do that, since it's his talk page, but that doesn't erase the events from existence by any means. Also, I would be for the one-week sockpuppet block and the restart of the topic ban, but I don't know if I'm allowed to post that in the Clerk, CheckUser, or Patrolling Admin comments area, since I'm not any of those. <font color = "2F4F4F">Backtable <font color = "5F9EA0">Speak to me<font color = "DA70D6">concerning my deeds. 21:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I was the admin who gave the one year topic ban. You have clearly come back under another name with the deliberate intention of violating it. If  you say you are now reformed, that reform would have to have been later than this edit two days ago. Now, you may have been correct there for all I know about the subject, but you know perfectly well that you were not supposed to make that change on the article but propose it on the talk page. I see similar edits from earlier this week. I also see your extensive discussions of genre on the talk page of that article. I also see good edits to genre,in various articles to resolve disambiguation,  which are clearly appropriate, but where most people in a similar situation to yours would not have risked making. I also see the very long discussion of genres on the AiC talk page where you clearly are single-handedly trying to get your own way with the article. This is a FA, which ought to be relatively stable, and therefore about the worst place possible for you to do these types of editing.
 * I think you need a good break to rethink how to work here. This sort of editing is diverting too many good editors from their proper work, and harming the encyclopedia. If you're going to carry on a crusade about genre or anything else, WP is not the place for it.   I'm proposing to ban you for 6 months, with the provision that when you return, which must be only your original account (Metalvayne), you refrain from all edits or discussions involving genre anywhere on WP including talk pages and WP space for an additional six months. I see no need to wait for checkuser, as the socking is admitted.  Are there any objections?  DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no justification to allow Metalvayne to evade his ban as User:Bloomgloom. The Bloomgloom account was created on 27 August. He didn't even let the ink dry on his ban before he started to violate it. I propose that Metalvayne's topic ban be reset so that the one year ban starts now, and that Bloomgloom  be indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've now done the blocking part, and I also support reinstating Metalvayne's topic ban. De728631 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, someone just needs to make it formal on his talk page - I support the 1 year ban restarting from now. <FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 13:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason not to give a 1 week block for socking? I'm inclined to do just that and note that if there is a next time then it would lead to an indef block.
 * I'd support a one-week block but still think that a reset of Metalvayne's one-year topic ban should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocking master 1 week and will notify that their topic ban restarts today and closing.

21 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Metalvayne has been indef blocked for using sockpuppets to evade his one year topic ban, and this username does all the things he used to do.
 * Sarcastic comments about "humor not being allowed on Wikipedia"
 * Metalvayne, Ravenlord
 * Arguing that grunge is dead
 * Metalvayne, Ravenlord
 * Constant pushing/discussing of the genre sludge metal, a relatively obscure music genre.
 * Metalvayne, Ravenlord
 * Beyond this, all you have to do is look is skim through their contributions to see that most of their edits in general involve changing or arguing about music genre, the very thing he was topic banned/indef banned for. Also, for extra reference, look over the edits of User:Bloomgloom, who is a confirmed sock of Metalvayne in the past, and also has extreme similarities to Ravenlord. Sergecross73   msg me   16:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

It's a matter of inspection whether am I a sock or not but why did you revert this edit? All I did was make the infobox much neat and I've explained that in the summary. You're a candidate for adminship am I right? So this is what we'd expect from a future administrator? who reverts constructive edits? And I've fought against couple of vandal IPs in past few days as well besides participating in discussions. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was necessary. Someone restored it, challenging me, and I left it there. Clearly within the bounds of WP:BRD, no edit warring what so ever. Now that we've got this non-issue out of the way, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the topic at hand, this sockpuppet investigation. It's nice you reverted some vandals, but if you're Metalvayne, you've block evading an indef ban and a topic ban. Sergecross73   msg me   17:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another example of a common trait of Metalvayne. Instead of defending himself he nick-picks other editors edits (see last case). Perhaps it's time to pursue a community ban - after being given a clean start last time they messed it up pretty quickly. And now socking. Again. <FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 19:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like the infinitely disrespectful Metalvayne to me as well. He's been banned indefinitely and needs to stop wasting our time with his genre bickering and exploitation. I'm glad that I hadn't heard from him in over a month until this point, but this indulgently self-righteous, self-justifying person has repeatedly proven that he just doesn't have interest in doing anything productive or good for Wikipedia. I'd be all for a community ban right now, let alone in the future. <font color = "2F4F4F">Backtable <font color = "5F9EA0">Speak to me<font color = "DA70D6">concerning my deeds. 21:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 17:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocking, tagging and closing.

16 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Once again, extensive editing primarily of the genre tab of the infobox of grunge/metal-related articles. In fact this account's very first edit, made barely a month after his last avatar was blocked, was a revert to an album's genre. Especially note his preference to overload infoboxes with metal subgenres:, ,. Quack quack and all that. —indopug (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2014 (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

 * blocked indef. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)