Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhazard9/Archive

Evidence submitted by Stor stark7
Mhazard9 has a disagreement with DBaba on the content in the articles Hitler's Willing Executioners and Daniel Goldhagen. In the article on Hitler's Willing Executioners an IP claimed to be a third person and reverted the edits by DBaba to a version by Mhazard9, with the summary "Reverted edit war between DBaba and MHzard9.". In the article Translation, which has no thematic relationship to the other articles except for being recently edited by Mhazard9, it looks like Mhazard9 accidentally was logged out while editing, thus editing with an IP address., and this IP is the same IP that made the revert above. Another IP in the same range has edited in the article A Moral Reckoning in sequence with Mhazard9 and with the same type of summaries as the other IP, reinforcing the likelihood of those edits being login-slipps of Mhazard9. Stor stark7 Speak 10:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
for privacy reasons it is not desirable to use checkuser to disclose links between IPs and accounts, see CheckUser. That said, the link seems fairly obvious: is supporting Mhazard9 on Hitler's Willing Executioners (and apparently Daniel Goldhagen, but that case seems more complex), yet the IPs appears to have previously been used in accidental log outs by Mhazard9 (As Stor stark7 points out above). The edit summary of the IP on Hitler's Willing Executioners also suggests that this was not an accidental log out (e.g. referring to Mhazard9 in third person). Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly obvious attempt to evade scrutiny. In addition to Spitfire's observations, Mhazard9 has been unresponsive to requests for an explanation. Mhazard9 has been blocked for two weeks and the IPs have been blocked for one week. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by DBaba
I had a difference of opinion with User:Mhazard9, in two articles. He has ignored my talk, and an IP has reverted my edits in each article. The IP appears to be Mhazard9 pretending to be someone else, as per these consecutive edits by the IP and Mhazard9 in an unrelated article. Also, the edits conform to his distinct style (e.g., edit summaries:, , ) and viewpoint. DBaba (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
per Spitfire. I will not repeat what he has said above. –MuZemike 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

17 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edit-warring on an article subject to ArbCom sanctions using an IP to avoid scrutiny. These disruptive edits concerning Slimvirgin (referred to as "administratrix") also match Mhazard9's style. (cf ) This pattern of using a Chicago IP to evade scrutiny has led to blocks in the past. Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 17 September 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

 * Blocked both IP - 1wk, master - 3 weeks per previous and warned about ARBR&I. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

12 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As you can see from his SPI archive page, I have some history with O and this is a long-term problem. He is highly active in plastic surgery related articles, an area of interest I share with him. He disregards WP policy and the WP:MOS and overtly refuses to accept edits or suggestions by anyone who is not a physician. His reverting is so persistent that I have given up editting articles that he has taken ownership of. I never had any contact with M until he appeared out of nowhere to make a personal attack against me. He is very often logging out to make contentious reverts and comments as an IP—most recently here.
 * As you can see from the SPI archive pages, both have been banned before for sock puppetry


 * Both are associated with the same 99.x static IP range that traces to the same Chicago medical district. There is a large number of edits from this IP range out there that could each be attributed specifically to M or O, but but at this time I don't think that sort of digging is necessary.


 * Both have quacked about losing family in the holocaust

I suspect M made the account O to edit plastic surgery related articles under his real name to gain some exposure for his practice. I have looked through all the edits by both users and have found some striking patterns:
 * Both have placed importance on physician vs. non-physician status of editors and have implied they are above challenges by non-physicians
 * Quote: In fact, in July, the plastic surgeon Dr. Oliver warned Dr. Placik of an anti-plastic-surgery editor - It's interesting that this comment came from M. How would he even know that?
 * They have a very similar and distinctive editing and discussion style. Floods of rapid-fire edits to articles.  Lots of big words.
 * Here, people are discussing O's edits. M has come to defend O while O remains silent.  M even tried to recruit help.
 * O has never once edited an article unrelated to plastic surgery
 * Before 21 Oct 2011, when M first attacked me, edits related to plastic surgery by M were very rare. Since then, they are more common.
 * M's first edits to plastic surgery articles (18–21 Jan 2011) were during a long period of inactivity by O (12 Dec 2009 – 16 Mar 2011).
 * Also during this inactive period, M has a string of edits on Rhinoplasty from 14–16 Mar 2011. Then, O ends his inactivity to take over this string of edits.
 * With the above-noted exceptions, M has made only three edits related to plastic surgery. Taylornate (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

On organization vs. organisation: I think the sample size may be too small as O has only used it in the edit summary twice. I don't think it changes anything but I will point out one instance where M used organization. I do think your point is interesting.--Taylornate (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with these compare reports but the similarity of normal edit time, given the sample size, I think is compelling. Mhazard9: Edit count: 2198 Normal edit time: 32.1999 Otto_Placik: Edit count: 1425 Normal edit time: 31.5844 --Taylornate (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, take a look at O's first few edits. I'm not completely sure what to say about them other than they seem kind of interesting.--Taylornate (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that they both have experience with sockpuppetry, I'm not surprised there is no definitive CU evidence. Sorry for all the separate new comments, I guess I'm sort of thinking out loud.--Taylornate (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both of these accounts have been around for a long time, but I think the behavioral evidence is strong enough that I'll endorse to clarify. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

, but I cannot establish a definitive connection via technical evidence. On the behavior side, Otto Placik says organization, while Mhazard9 says organisation; if they're not the same person, then it's quite plausible to believe that they know each other. –MuZemike 23:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this with no action taken. I'm not wholly convinced of the behavior - I mean yes, they do have a lot of articles in common, but there's a lot of articles that one account edited that the other did not. There's enough doubt that I don't feel confident on a block, and the fact that this case has been open for awhile seems to indicate that other clerks feel the same way. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

25 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Otto Placik was previously implicated in the sockpuppet investigation of Mhazard9 (see archive). Mhazard9 was recently blocked for a month for IP socking. Further evidence linking Otto Placik and Mhazard9 has since come to light via likely IP socks of Mhazard9:


 * is a Chicago-based IP (it's not from Indiana, as Mhazard9 claimed in the unblock request on their talk page), which on 9 June 2013 continued an edit war between and  (edit summary: "Undid revision of edit-war vandalism 558916912 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"), in the process re-inserting clear violations of the non-free content criteria.
 * This was reverted by, with the edit summary, "rv - obvious sock and NFCC violation".
 * On 20 May 2013, the same IP also edited Free flap breast reconstruction, an article whose main contributor is Otto Placik.
 * The IP and Otto Placik edited the article within eight minutes of each other.
 * The previous edit to this rarely edited article, about three hours prior, was by Otto Placik too.
 * The most likely explanation is that the IP edit was made by Otto Placik while accidentally logged out.
 * The June 2013 revert thus ties Otto Placik and this IP to Mhazard9.


 * In September 2011,, another Chicaco-based IP, made this edit reverting to an article version by , and eight minutes later made this edit to Labiaplasty, reverting  to reinsert an image by Otto Placik, providing further evidence of a strong link between Otto Placik and Mhazard9.


 * Like Mhazard9, Otto Placik exhibits an ongoing pattern of Chicago-based IPs and sockpuppets coming to his aid. This is documented in the ongoing AN/I discussion: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.


 * It might be argued that the real-name account Otto Placik and pseudonymous account Mhazard9, if they are indeed operated by the same person, are legitimate socks, used to separate a professional real-life identity from a private pursuit.
 * However, both accounts have edited the same articles, alternately.
 * Furthermore, Talk:Labiaplasty/Archive_1 and following contain vigorous defences of Otto Placik's edits by Mhazard9.
 * Legitimate socks must not be used to sway talk page consensus, or to create the impression that two different editors have made similar edits to an article. See also the quality of interaction at Talk:Mastopexy – the IP there, which only edited Wikipedia for a single day, looks very much like yet another sock.


 * Also note substantial evidence previously supplied here and the discussion here, which to me now seems prophetic.


 * I believe the new evidence further reduces the room for reasonable doubt. Andreas JN 466 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' This IP outed himself as "Dr. P". Just looking at the list of pages he has touched, even without looking at the content, it's painfully obvious that the IP is also Mhazard9. As an aside, I think his "say hello to so-and-so" remark was an attempt to intimidate me.--Taylornate (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Using the editor interraction analyzer, I found that the IP edited Mhazard9's user page-- so basically the IP has outed himself as both users. Oops!--Taylornate (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See also the following diffs by the same IP, which is based in Chicago, like all the others:
 * , deleting a duplicate talk page message by Mhazard9;
 * , re-inserting Dr Placik's image in Labiaplasty (edit summary: "Reverted vandalism; NPOV."); the very next edit three hours later is by Mhazard9, logged in. Andreas JN 466 17:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Otto Placik account was (1) topic-banned from plastic surgery and (2) indefinitely blocked by on 28 August. --Andreas JN 466 05:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the persuasive evidence presented above, note the very similar style of edit summaries used by both accounts, terse, conclusively phrased, and virtually never addressing the substance of the content edited. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mhazard9 and Otto Placik (and 24.1.181.44) share some specific wordings in their edit summaries, some of which are relatively or even highly uncommon in edit summaries generally:
 * "image transposition": ,
 * "typesetting": ,
 * "thematically pertinent":, ,
 * "composition":, ,
 * "narrative integration":, ,
 * "factual corrections to": ,
 * "layout corrections":, ,
 * Edit summaries formulated as a list of things, ending with "NPOV.":, ,
 * As for the previous closer's qualms, note, . Andreas JN 466 01:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My response here has been slow because I am briefly back in the UK following another spell in hospital. I vaguely remembered the short period of editing by Mhazard9 related to R&I; but also remembered a report at WP:AE on a long-term user who had edited in R&I out of the blue. It took a while to dig through old reports and find out that they were two different users (the second was Gwern). In 2011, Mhazard9 made disruptive edits to the lede of History of the race and intelligence controversy, presumably aware that it was covered by arbcom sanctions. He then used a Chicago IP to evade scrutiny and restore his changes. After the SPI report he was blocked for three weeks. Given his more recent editing history, including the choice of topics and highly individual edit summaries, his account seems technically indistinguishable from that of Otto Placik. In addition his recent response (a sort of rant) at WP:ANI is concerning and indicates WP:NOTHERE. It is hard to believe that the accounts Otto Placik and Mhazard9 are operated by different users. Mathsci (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Topic ban and block

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorse absolutely. Mhazard9 and Otto Placik, in addition to the evidence above, both exhibit this pecular behavior: Both have standard form edit summaries they use almost all the time, and on Wikichecker they actually look like the same person: .  Otto and Mhazard were checked a couple years ago and came up as technically possible. I would like that rechecked, as I am beginning to suspect that Mhazard is going to great lengths to conceal socking here. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ L Faraone  15:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Both named users indefblocked and tagged. No action taken on IPs. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  09:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A couple of days, these IP edits (2601:240:E181:E880::) cropped up all over my watchlist (again). The IP is obviously blocked user Chas. Caltrop. The IP is engaging the exact same disruptive behaviour as Chas. Caltrop: - edit warring - not talking - large swaths of copy edits that are no real benefit - nonsense edit summaries - an interest in all kinds of topics related to Marxism, or in general sociology - an interest in Edward Said and Orientalism - etc etc

I'm pinging, because I saw them reverting Chas/IP and they can probably back me up and ,  and  because I remember them arguing with Chas on their talk page and at ANI the last time - I hope that's okay.

It's impossible to track all the changing IPs, but one just has to look at the page histories, the pattern is completely clear. Obvious diffs:   

Special:Contributions/2601:240:E181:E880::/64 all contributions of the /64 range.

Lastly, since this is such a curious case, I scrolled a bit down in the page history of Cultural_hegemony and found out that Chas. Caltrop is actually a sockpuppet of banned user MHazard9, so I'm filing this here? There are loads of old IPs that edit the same pages (in the years 2012-15 or so) with the same behaviour, but I suppose there is no use hunting down old IPs... But one just have to look at the contributions of MHazard9 and Chas Caltrop and they edit the exact same pages over and over again. Mvbaron (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2021 (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 edit summaries are incredibly distinctive, even if there weren't substantial overlap, which there is. The ESes at Special:Contribs/Otto Placik and the similar geolocation to Chicago confirms that this is indeed Mhazard9. CC as a proven sock. :
 * No edits from 24.15.37.108 for a few days, but those edits in July look to also be by Mhazard9, and their most recent gap in editing on that IP was for 6 days, so for now please block them for two weeks . If they return to editing from that IP after the block, the next one should probably be 3-6 months.
 * Mhazard9 has used 2601:240:E181:E880:0:0:0:0/64 on-and-off since April 2020, but basically continuously (for over 1,000 edits!) since late July. So please block that range for four months.
 * Thank you, Mvbaron, for catching this! --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 00:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * . I went with 6 months. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)