Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley/Archive

Report date March 26 2009, 20:37 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Mafia Expert (talk)

User:Evenmoremotor's behaviour is very much the same as User:Mynameisstanley, disruptive editing on articles related to organized crime and Jewish issues (in particular in combination of both) and not reacting to comments on his editing. Suspicion has been raised by others as well, see:. Mynamisstanley has been blocked in the past for sockpuppetry, see. - Mafia Expert (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This is hardly surprising. I knew this would happen again. Check out the list of five suspected Mynameisstanley sockpuppets as well as one confirmed sockpuppet. He had been blocked in the past for sockpuppetry. Yet, he continued to evade the block, under new identities. In spite of repeated warnings and advice by myself as well as User:Malinaccier who is an administrator, he refused to listen. Eventually, Malinaccier banned him from editing Wikipedia. I agree with Mafia Expert in that the edits are very similar, with the edits being made in the very same Organized crime and Jewish related articles, nearly all of which were previously vandalised by Mynameisstanley. As a matter of fact, i can confidently vouch that it is Mynameisstanley, since the user page was created with one sentence, specifically to make the link appear blue. He has followed this approach in the creation of all his other accounts. This is a typical Mynameisstanley trademark, which confirms my suspiscion. Joyson Noel (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Mafia Expert (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

clearly common purpose with the master, although there are differences between the editing patterns that suggest that this may not be the same person. Mayalld (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * is (last edit 2008-09-14). However, if I interpret the (limited) CU logs correctly  is   to be the same person.
 * is to be  and . --  lucasbfr  talk 11:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

I have indef'd all three William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 16 2009, 17:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * not a registered username
 * blocked users
 * not a registered username
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users
 * blocked users


 * Evidence submitted by User:Joyson Noel

User:Persistent Organic Pollutants and User:Morningmistblue both behave very much the same as User:Mynameisstanley, disruptive editing on articles related to organized crime articles. A look at the contributions made by them bears some striking similarities to the edits previously made by Mynameisstanley. Both these accounts have made only a few edits and all to the Organized crime related articles which were previously vandalized by Mynameisstanley through his many sockpuppets (the articles being Stephen Grammauta, Mickey Cohen, Gaspare Mutolo, etc). They both seem to have a pre-occupation with deleting references, merging the "References" section with the "Further reading" section, minimizing image size, etc, all hall marks of Mynameisstanley. Above all, both identities were created this month within three days of one another. The first identity was created on 11th May, whereas the second was created on the 14th. Mynameisstanlry is a convicted sockpuppeteer who has been indefinitely blocked in the past for sockpuppetry by User:Malinaccier. See . Even after getting banned, he has deliberately attempted to circumvent the ban many times by creating new accounts. See this and this for a list of confirmed and suspected sockpuppets of him. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just checked the John Gotti, Salvatore Gravano and many Jewish American gangster articles which were previously vandalised by Mynameisstanley. I found a few more accounts which i suspect to be his sockpuupets: User:Angeloja, User:You once you, User:Kong fishing villages, User:Italianjoemike, User:Peachicetea21, User:Sizzleman212, User:Anyothername, User:Thereistheoffer, User:Tylerson, User:Eastern central mountain, User:Pastros rock, User:Thefreezewarning, User:Wannabe gangters and User:Tubeporch1111.

They have all been created during the past three months. They have made very few edits, mostly to the same articles and another striking co-incidence is that all have exclusively edited to Organized crime articles previously vandalised by Mynameisstanley. Many of the user pages have been deliberately created with no content or a sentence in order to make the red links appear blue. He isn't doing it for all, because that was how they were identified the last time. He is creating a lot of sockpuppets in a deliberate attempt to evade detection. Joyson Noel (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have once again identified another one: User:Wearetheselfpreservationsociety, It vandalized this page and made personal attacks against me calling me "gay" (as if that is some kind of insult). See this. It was created yesterday. Please hurry up before he does more damage. This is taking unusually long. Joyson Noel (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep on delaying this. Bravo! I have completely lost faith on the ability of administrators to conduct quick and speedy action. I have been waiting 10 days without any response. This guy just created another sockpuppet today User:UR a Dope and started harrassing me by reverting all my productive edits. Fortunately, he was blocked by another administrator User:Gimmetrow. Are you all going to wait until he does more damage? Joyson Noel (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I agree there are some similarities. Mynameisstanley has a record of returning under other names, see Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley/Archive. Better check before he does more damage. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I'm endorsing a checkuser request to help move this case along. As evident by some of the sock's contributions, there are issues of 3RR and harassment. Icestorm815 •  Talk  18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, 2 big sockfarms (I massblocked the users but left them untagged):

The following are ✅ to be a single user:

The following are (open proxy) but are ✅ to be a single user:

More to come... -- Luk  talk 11:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The rest looks either or ❌ to me. -- Luk  talk 12:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  14:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * All tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 31 2009, 10:28 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets








 * Evidence submitted by 72.74.201.182

It was suggested by several registered users that I bring this issue here. This would be my first time posting in this forum and if I've overlooked something I hope I can be given some leniency. I'll try to make this as detailed as possible. If there's anything else I need to do, please let me know.

Over the last two months or so, a large number of articles have been blanked and redirected by a series of IPs and newly registered users. References and other relevant information have also been removed without discussion or explanation, often under dubious or misleading edit sumeries. I reported this to User:Joyson Noel and he told me that these edits were likely made by a previously banned user, User:Mynameisstanley, who has returned under various usernames (as demonstrated in his previous case). As he wasn't active on Wikipedia at the moment, Joyson Noel suggested I talk to either User:Mafia Expert or User:William M. Connolley, both having been involved in the previous sockpuppet case. I left them both a message  and waited for a response.

Shortly after reporting this, I found myself being harassed by several IPs, namely 77.94.32.40, 81.28.112.36 and 81.93.180.217. These IPs began reverting my edits, accusing me of being a sockpuppet myself, and spammed this information on the talk pages of everyone I talked to. ,, These IPs left similar messages on my talk page and threatening notes in the edit summary when I attempted to revert them. It was around this time that the IPs began reverting my changes to List of Jewish-American mobsters. I had been updating this list from names in Category:Jewish American mobsters, which is partly how I stumbled across this in the first place, and had added five additional cited references. There was never any attempt by this IP to discuss these changes, the only response left in the edit summary was "RV sockpuppet". 

I informed William M. Connolley of this but, receiving no response from him, reported the incident to Administrator intervention against vandalism. User:PhilKnight banned one of the IPs, and I thought the matter was over. As soon as I started editing the list again, another IP appeared (77.94.32.40) and again revered my edits. I reported this to PhilKnight which was spammed  as well as Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I left messages at two forums and it was suggested I wait a bit longer for a response from one of the administrators. If nothing happened then I should file a report here, as did Joyson Noel recommended. Since then, I've been prevented from editing for almost two weeks now and I have had no response from anyone.

Another IP has popped up, 193.188.70.3, and has reverted all the blanking/redirects I'd previously reverted. This IP has since been blocked but I feel he'll simply return under another IP. I've unfortunately decided to report the incident here since there doesn't seem to be any alternative.

In short, the behavior of Mynameisstanley, Evenmoremotor and these IPs/usernaames are virtually identical. This is apparent, not only in behavior (e.g., sockpuppet accusation. deceptive edit summaries), but general editing. Both Joyson Noel and Mafia Expert, having had previous experience with Mynameisstanley, agree. I hope this situation can be resolved.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

72.74.201.182 is the sockpuppet. All of his posts seem to overturn a very narrow group. He refuses to get a user name as it has been recommended to him. If you look at the posts from the IP addresses, you can see the pattern.
 * Comments by other users




 * This request seems sound, but is excessively complex to attempt to handle without a checkuser. Nearly impossible to accurately sort this many accounts on behavioural evidence alone.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * for a CU to sort this out. Nathan  T 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am just noting in passing that the "Comments by other users" above was added by an open proxy. I also note that most of the IPs in the first list above are open proxies. Checkuser may find it useful to be mindful of similar obfuscations. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other, and matches for the group below:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are related to some of the other groups:
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, overlap between the above groups is difficult to establish, given what seems to be extensive proxy use as zzuuzz mentioned; behaviorally speaking, overlap seems likely. – Luna Santin  (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the accounts are blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * - All 76 tagged. Marking to close. NW ( Talk ) 15:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by User:Joyson Konkani
User:Not So Public Property and User:Ul78q34's behaviour is very much the same as the banned sockpuppeteer User:Mynameisstanley, with regards to disruptive editing on articles related to organized crime. Mynameisstanley has a history of returning under new identities and there have been at least four other sockpuppet investigations against him to date. Look at the Archive. Both the accounts were created three days apart. User:Not So Public Property was created on 14 December 2009, whereas User:Ul78q34 was created on 17 December 2009. Both the accounts have made strikingly similar edits as the banned sockpuppeteer on articles previously vandalized by Mynameisstanley. Their behavior is identical. Both accounts do not sign with tildes after comments. They have similar user pages created only to make a link there appear blue. In fact, the edits of Not So Public Property bear an uncanny resemblance to Thefreezewarning, a confirmed sockpuppet of Mynameisstanley. Moreover, both accounts voted on the same side, a day apart.  Joy son Kon ka ni  17:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
User:Mynameisstanley has a record of returning with other sockpuppet accounts. A investigation is needed before he does more damage. - DonCalo (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by  Joy son Kon ka ni  17:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

– While this is normally WP:DUCK, every time a CU is run on this user, a huge sockfarm gets uncovered. Let's see what we can get here. MuZemike 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅



J.delanoy gabs adds 04:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
All blocked and tagged. MuZemike 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ktr101
Well an AN/I thread was opened up here after it was pointed out that the three users randomly popped up and started participating in AFDs. I suspected Dalejenkins, but Superhappy has been here too long for that. Evidence of vote evasion can be seen here and here.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I am in NO WAY connected to any of these two users, in fact; I haven't even heard the names of these two users until now! I don't see how I am a sock-puppet of this guy when I am the sole owner of this account and I have never used another account other then this one. Also, many people vote the same in the AfD debates, but that doesn't make them sock-puppet accounts. Regards: Joker264 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * For the reasons stated in the ANI thread, I do not believe there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry here warranting checkuser. It is not uncommon for AfD regulars to intersect at the same AfDs. There are far more AFDs in the users' contributions where they do not intersect. The users each display different editing patterns (eg use of edit summaries). In my view, this is fishing. All we have is some poorly reasoned AfD !votes that ought to be given little weight by the closing admins. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they vote the same. If there was a difference, it would be acceptable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They voted the same in two AfDs. Random intersection is a perfectly viable explanation for that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

to check and  against the latest confirmed sock of Dalejenkins: I'm positive that SuperHappyPerson is related, based upon the account name and MO. Lời chào và lời chào also displays a similar style to SuperHappyPerson, in that they include " *delete " in their edit summaries. is pretty off from the typical MO, so I haven't endorsed to preform a check on them. Note that last time a check was preformed on Dalejenkins the range was too wide to effectively search for sleepers, so there's no reason to suppose that these accounts can't be related just because they didn't show up in the last check. SpitfireTally-ho! 23:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅; these are all . I've just blocked:
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these are tagged and bagged. jpgordon:==( o ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

archived from Sockpuppet investigations/SuperHappyPerson SpitfireTally-ho! 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Snigbrook
New user (account created 8 March) removed comments from Talk:Ozone Park, Queens; other sockpuppets of User:Mynameisstanley have removed or edited other users comments on the same page. Other edits by User:Richmond Hillbilly include, an article previously edited by Mynameisstanley. Both new accounts have tagged several files for deletion for the same reason and about the same type of subject; these include File:Vpalermo1.jpg previously nominated on three occasions by accounts now blocked as sockpuppets of Mynameisstanley. snigbrook (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I think he is back again as well, please also check User:MohawkedMan. - DonCalo (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, a huge pile of socks uncovered at Sockpuppet_investigations/SuperHappyPerson seems to apparently also be Stanley.  —  Soap  —  15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention. The above accounts are likely socks, and there are probably sleepers in there also. –MuZemike 20:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

All above accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 20:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, but nothing else to do here. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

tagged SpitfireTally-ho! 19:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Snigbrook
New user with two edits: the first is to create a user page, the second is to add an invalid deletion template to File:Ianniello.jpg, previously tagged (although with a different template) by. snigbrook (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another user, tagging images for deletion as orphaned after they had been removed from the articles by other sockpuppets. snigbrook (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tnxman307
I am copying this request from the Help Desk. This looks suspicious to me as well. TN X Man 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "All of these accounts removed cited statements, blanked further reading and reference sections or simply redirected articles like [1]. If you look through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley/Archive these edits seem to follow the same exact pattern. 72.74.199.90 (talk) 9:02 am, Today (UTC−4)"

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
That is unfortunate. I do not have details on the latest request, but I do know that this user is a persistent sockpuppet. - DonCalo (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Agreed. I am also submitting one piece of evidence to the CU mailing list. We may have a bigger problem here. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Email sent; sorry for the delay. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 23:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the title of the e-mail? I don't see it. --Deskana (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not checking these accounts without some evidence. If evidence isn't provided shortly, the case will be closed. --Deskana (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * - On hold until the CU mailing list gets its evidence from Shirik ( X! ·  talk )  · @714  · 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Found the email (for reference: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:42:28 -0700, was forwarded to the list by Tiptoety). The following are all ✅ as Mynameisstanley: Amalthea 20:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)