Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nemesis of Reason/Archive

Evidence submitted by Orangesodakid
only two contuibs/first 2 contribs were to strike through my edit to NoR's talk page | here and then he falsely gave me a level 3 warning to me | here. Isnt it funny how this user magically found NoR's talk page and then figured out how to make a level three warning in only 2 edits? (With a link to the edit that I made). He also has a confirmed sockpuppet called Poornutz. This sock was discussed at the ANI when NoR was talked about, however nothing came out of it and Poornutz has remained unblocked.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not a puppetmaster of the IP user. Please drop these accusations. thank you -- Nemesis of  Reason  18:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I would like to request that this case be reviewed - User:Nemesis of Reason has been an extremely problematic editor. Tan  &#124;   39  19:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I already know that Poornutz is a sockpuppet (as I know NoR in real life) I dont know that the IP is a sock though. I too would like this case reviewed.-- Coldplay   Expert  20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Although NoR has been a very probematic editor in the past, hes just trying to get the hang of things here. I've tried helping him with editing, because of the little problem he had with editing correct information, and i think that if he was using a sock puppet for any purpose, he would tell me. I dont see any reason he would use one anyways though. I think that if {user:orangesodakid} can have another chance (and osk isnt vandalising or sockpuppeting any more is he?) then we should give NoR another chance.-- Penguin   Warchief  14:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the above - "he would tell me if he was" and "there's no reason for him to have one" doesn't preclude a check when there is evidence that socking occurred. Tan   &#124;   39  14:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there against him?-- Penguin   Warchief  14:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is submitted above. If you disagree with the presented evidence, say so and give reasons, but simply denying it exists doesn't help. Tan   &#124;   39  14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That evidence is a bunch of crap. If you read my story, it explains it all, the REAL story -- Nemesis of  Reason  15:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so a random person came on his page and left him a message, but still that doesnt mean it was him. So basically the idea here is that osk was rude and so NOR logged out or switched computers or whatever just to comment on his own page. Now lets stop and think. If i was gonna say something because i was mad at someone, would it be to myself, or the person i was mad at?... Well i think i've stated my point.-- Penguin   Warchief  15:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In cace you don't know PW, I was giviven a false warning by the IP user (there is a probility that this is NOR, or possibily someone who is connected to him.) So he actuly did do something to my talk page to vent his/her anger. So your point is as of now invalid. regards.-- Orange soda  kid  16:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have we already established the fact that Poornutz in a SOCK?-- Coldplay   Expert  17:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * yes sir, we did (or at least we should)-- Orange soda  kid  17:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

to NOR, I take your comment above, "That evidence is a bunch of crap" as offencive. Please try to be civil. As for your so callede "real story" all that is is the sequence of events that happend up until now. Also this all seems fishy that a new IP user is able to cross out my comment, talk to you, go to my page and give me a level 3 warrning. Because of this, it seems that this is eather your doing, or the doing of someone conected to you. So tell us why it is not you.-- Orange soda  kid  18:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
All right, I am not entirely sure what is going on here.

From the checkuser results, at first glance, it appears that, , , , and  are all socks.

Upon further inspection, though, I don't think that these people are socks. I think that what I am seeing is a few (likely rather young) people who all know each other in real life, and who edit from each other's houses/schools/whatever. I don't know for sure if Poornutz is Nemesis of Reason, but I am leaning towards ❌, mostly because of this edit. In any case, I would say that the Poornutz account should be blocked. Besides that, none of the accounts I listed above appear to require any action. The IP appears ❌ to any of these accounts; it is probably someone that else that they know.

Other than that, all I really have to say is, a lot of the people that I listed above need to stop using Wikipedia as if it is Myspace or Facebook. It is awesome to have many friends who all like the same things that you do, but if you want to hang out online, this is the wrong site to do that on. J.delanoy gabs adds 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Reviewing the behavioral evidence, I agree with J.delanoy's conclusion, and warning. Please take WP:NOTMYSPACE very seriously; there are plenty of other places to socialize, both online and in real life. Wikipedia should not primarily be used for that reason. I am going to archive this case, but leave a note to all the editors that J.delanoy mentioned to heed this warning. NW ( Talk ) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Soap
I'm not sure what we can do here, if anything, since there was a previous SPI/CU case on Nemesis not long ago, and the checkuser determined that while they were probably a group of friends that knew each other in person and therefore a CU couldn't determine much. Also I want to make clear that the Penguin Warchief above is not the same one whose signature appears in the archived case, but rather a likely impostor. Lastly, it's possible that all three of the names in this checkuser request will be blocked before this case gets reviewed. However, I'm deciding to go ahead with the request anyway in the hopes that it can turn up more information. Anyway, the evidence:

Nemesis of Reason was the first one blocked of the users who were investigated in the last CU, while the others managed to survive. It would not surprise me, then, if he were involved in trying to drag the others down and get them blocked as well. A couple of days ago somebody registered a new account Penguin Warchief, which was the old name of that user who is now doing business as Lammidhania, and used it to vandalize, and was quickly blocked. Earlier tonight the IP address 24.127.102.207 appeared and began vandalizing some more, while accusing various other users of being socks of Nemesis. I assume the Penguin Warchief impostor and the IP are the same person, and I figure it's likely that they are a reincarnation of some other user, and hope that this SPI can turn up who that other user might be. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: As I had expected, the IP just got blocked (it wasn't when I started typing this up). So now, all three of the users at the top are currently blocked.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * IP hard blocked. Brandon (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)