Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mk5384/Archive

Report date April 28 2010, 01:32 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Kind Journalist entered a discussion as a spanking new user to support Mk5384's side on Talk:John J. Pershing when he asked for consensus, seemingly very familiar with wikipolicy. Kind Journalist then went to another page Genesis creation myth and voted the same way as Mk5384 in an RFC there. Note: that page was mentioned on the JJPershing page, but for both to vote the same way with an anti-censorship bent on the Pershing page but a seemingly different "pro-sensitivity" bent on the Creation Myth page seems a bit too much. Excessively Brief showed up brand new to support Mk5394 as well, then found the report on Kind Journalist User:OberRanks created on AN/I on his third edit. I've considered the possibility of meatpuppetry here, but seeing as how Mk5394 has threatened to sock previously, I think socking should be ruled out with a check. Auntie E. (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Auntie E. (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Comment: I never threatened to sock. How can the accuser come here, and tell outright lies about me? Yes, I did make edits whilst blocked, and I was punished for block evasion. I did not sock, as I stated clearly whom I was each time. Socking would have been if I had pretended to be another user, sympathetic to the plight of MK5384. I find it very hard to believe that Auntie doesn't understand the difference, and I believe that she has deliberately twisted the facts. As for this Genesis Creation myth nonsense, Auntie seems to be of the extremely bizarre opinion that I am not entitled to have two different opinions about two different articles. On her talk page, I have offered to explain to her to my reasons for my opinions, even though I owe her no explanations. It has been several days, yet she has not replied. One more thing, Auntie; who is MK5394?Mk5384 (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am completely innocent. As usual, OberRanks only offers apologies for "all of this trouble". He needs to apologise for his behaviour.Mk5384 (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A very common pattern for MK is to claim that others are completely lying about what he is doing, yet these same lying users provide diffs and edit histories showing clear patterns of behavior. MK also has stated several times that I need to apologize for my "behavior", yet seems to forget that on three recent occasions he has committed offensive and serious personal attacks, making snide comments with regards to my being a member of the United States armed forces and later implying I am making that up about even being in the military   .  Also, everything is a conspiracy.  Even though Auntie E. came here totally on her own, somehow this was now a joint effort.  The first I heard of this was when Auntie E advised me that the investigation had begun .  Prior to that, I knew nothing about this.  If we are all these lying, conspiring, sinister users, where are the edit diffs to back any of this up?  Why have administrators not blocked us all for such disruptive behavior?  The answer: because it is MK, not those who speak out against him, who is behaving with incivility, disruption, and disregard to Wikipedia policies. -OberRanks (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did not commit any "personal attacks". I do not believe that OberRanks is a member of the military, for various reasons. Stating my opinion is not a personal attack. OberRanks continues to come up with these ridiculous things (i.e. reporting me at ANI for using the word "horseshit"), and it needs to stop. First of all, this is an SPI. This is not the place for him to discuss alleged "personal attacks". And whether it's ANI, here, someone's talk page, or anywhere else, he needs to be made to stop these twisted and untrue allegations.OUCH.Mk5384 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Openly calling someone a liar without providing any evidence is a personal attack. And, if I am lying about being in the military, then I have really cooked up some story here, not to mention violated the Stolen Valor Act.  MK, I've served in the Navy for 15 years.  I've served under various Admirals including Walter Doran and Daniel S. Mastagni.  I was an aide in CNFK and met General Leon J. LaPorte.  I commanded a patrol boat for nine months in the Middle East and have received both the Commendation Medal and three Achievement Medals.  I also spent two and a half years on a frigate out of Yokosuka.  So, if I am making this all up, please lead the charge to the admin noticeboard and request an immediate ban on my account for serious falsification of military service. -OberRanks (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will also add that MK is actually correct that this is not this place for this. My posting was only in response to that statement above that MK is stating I am not really in the military. -OberRanks (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? He agrees that this is not the place for it, then does it anyway, which is concurrent with his behaviour at the Pershing article. (The fact that he gets so bent out of shape about it, is one more reason I don't believe him.) As far as my "leading the charge" to ANI, no thank you. First of all, I am an adult. It is he who perpetuates the childish behaviour at ANI. And falsification of military service is no grounds for a ban anyway. People are welcome to come here and make stuff up- there is no penalty. I will, however, lead the charge to ANI once this is over, for his falsifying accusations of sockpuppetry.Mk5384 (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the SPI guidelines recently (this is the first formal one I have commented in) and it does indeed say that these side conversations are not to be permitted. Having realized that now, I offer everyone apologies for cluttering up the page. As for the subject of this, I repeat that if MK thinks I am fabricating military service on Wikipedia, report it immediately. For such an act, I would certainly receive a lenghty block or ban if it was proven to be true. -OberRanks (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * NAA IAW NW. Excessively Brief (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, you have my full permissions, blessings, and even insistence to investigate this fully. I am not either one of these users. I do not know either one of these users. I have never met either one of these users. I have never had any contact, outside of Wikipedia with either of these users. The charges are both baseless, and false. I believe that this whole SP nonsense is just part of a plan to harass me until I go away. OberRanks has repeatedly reported me at ANI for trivial nonsense; much of it outright lies. The idea is, that if they keep me busy defending myself against bullshit charges, both at ANI, and now here, I won't have any time to focus on the Pershing article. This has gone far past the point of being about the Pershing article; it is now simply an attempt to hang me by any means necessary. At this point, all I want to know is, once this is over, what punishment will OberRanks and Auntie E face for falsely accusing me?Mk5384 (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Likewise I am inclined to agree that a checkuser is needed to put this to rest. It's perfectly obvious the "new" users are not new to wikipedia (KJ even admitted it). I'm more suspicious of EB as either a sock or more likely a rabble-rouser. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My suspicions of Kind Journalist can be found here and of Excessively Brief here. Kind Journalist may very well be a different person from MK- they don't write in the same style, have different grammatical prose, and seemingly a different personality.  EB, while perhaps also unconnected to MK, is quite obviously a single purpose account created to lend support to the votes currently underway at Talk:John J. Pershing.  As for MK being a part of this, that is debatable and I never had enough evidence to act on my suspicions.  MK could in fact be completely innocent here  and, if he is (as hard as MK may find this to believe), I offer my apologies for all of this trouble. -OberRanks (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Based solely on similar behaviour towards and wording of posts to myself and one another, I wonder if should be given a look as an "opposite hand" account. Not an accusation, just a thought.-  Sinneed  14:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "second hand account", whatever that is. It is, worth mentioning, however, that when OR used to edit as "Husnock" he was indef blocked for the same behaviour of which he falesly accuses me. Look at the archives; he a) lied, b) refused to apologise for causing the misunderstanding, and then tried to get the user punished for daring to be upset (sound familiar?), c) refused to take responsibility for his actions, blaming someone else for everything (the very nonsense of which he accuses me- WP:OUCH), and d) unblocked himself, after being blocked. It is also worth mentioning that, as Husnock, OberRanks was accused of making death threats to a female user. People who live in glass houses...Mk5384 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not even remotely relevant. Not only is it a clear case of WP:NOTTHEM, OberRanks makes no secret of his past account - and your comments are far from an accurate reflection of that case, which I remember as being quite complex. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied it straight off the page.Mk5384 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The User:Husnock account can be examined by anyone who wants to. I'm responding to MK's comments on the talk page to avoid posting irrelevant data here. -OberRanks (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested by Auntie E. (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * NW ( Talk ) 01:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disappoint but all are ❌. Excessively Brief should remain blocked as an obvious sock though. May I suggest deep breaths all around? Brandon (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deep breaths all around is an excellent idea. After that, please explain what punitive actions will be taken against those who falsely accused me.Mk5384 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The answer is no action. We don't sanction users for filing requests in good faith, and the fact that a check has been endorsed and ran means that the request is per se not frivolous. Tim Song (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Kww
We had already blocked 12.50.80.224 and 70.89.52.237 when Alysheeba edited. There's no doubt that the three accounts are related, and everyone is blocked. I would like a checkuser on Alysheeba so that we can look at extending the underlying block and converting it into a hard block. Mk5384 has been continuously threatening to sock both in his post as Alysheeba and in a childish e-mail to me (I can forward it if you want). We might as well lock down the door in advance. &mdash;Kww(talk) 13:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
–MuZemike 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All ✅. Nothing else of interest on either IP besides a couple of already-blocked socks on Mk's.. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
User is already confirmed sock of banned user. CU for sleeper search. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * No sleepers. Tiptoety  talk 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)