Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Offender9000/Archive

03 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Engaging with the same set of articles (New Zealand criminal justice and political articles). Similar style of argument and POV pushing. First edit is a revert, then later claims I'm new to Wikipedia - I don't understand what you mean -please explain your concerns on the Talk page, having never edited a talk page other than their own. This edit seems very close to some of the arguments presented on User talk:Offender9000. Less than a month between the block and the new account appearing. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition: This edit by Offender9000 while the article was still at AfD contains similar content (but better writen and with better refs) to this content which Mainjane repeatedly added. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2013 (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

 * Please present at least one diff from the supposed master to verify the suspected connection. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the following are ✅ socks of Offender9000:
 * . WilliamH (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged per behavior and CU results. Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . WilliamH (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged per behavior and CU results. Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged per behavior and CU results. Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

07 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Magellan32 recently blocked as sock of Offender9000. Magellan34 has just started the same activity as 32 e.g. reinstatement of his conspiracy theories about crime and corruption in New Zealand  while claiming to be reverting vandalism. This probably doesn't need checkuser as it's obviously the same editor. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Magellan34 has been blocked as a sockpuppet by. I agree with their assessment completely. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also blocked - gadfium 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

29 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Swisspotato is a recently blocked sock included for reference as all Offender edits will be stale by now. Franklyseaking (whose user name is a single letter different from an unrelated NZ blog) and Freddyleboix are newly minted accounts which have waded straight in to articles which Offender had previously edit warred at - Franklyseaking and Freddyleboix. In this case the edits aren't as obviously from Offender socks as edits from previous socks were so have requested checkuser on the basis that there is a slight possibility that these are unrelated misguided but good-faith accounts. Thanks for your time. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree that these accounts all have suspicious similarities to Offender9000's behaviour, and I'd also suggest that be added to the request (SPA for adding negative material to the BLP Judith Collins. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Yunshui 雲 水  14:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All accounts blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  17:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

17 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

AndrewRobust is a recently blocked sock included for checking purposes as Offender's account is long disused. PeterBlue2 added this section of NZ-specific content to an article (created by an unconnected, established editor) after the last batch of Offender socks were blocked) on one of Offender's pet topics. Shotbyshot doesn't (from a quick look at contributions) to be mentioning NZ but both editors mainly edit the Noble cause corruption article, neither has ever edited on the same day (NZ time) as the other, and neither has ever edited after about 11 pm or before about 7.30 am NZ time; all of this together makes me very suspicious that the two accounts are controlled by the same person. Daveosaurus (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If you still need sample edits I can rustle some up given time - please let me know if you do - I've just got back on line this morning. Offender tends to create sleepers in batches going by the sock investigation history. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2015 (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

 * - Please, provide some WP:diffs of edits made by all three accounts to illustrate their similarities.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Going by editing pattern and style, these accounts are clearly Offender9000. I've just blocked both of them. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged by Nick-D. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need more evidence. The case is closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

18 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2015 (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
These accounts are all ✅ to each other, as well as to and, who were blocked in April along with  (stale). The three previously blocked accounts were blocked as suspected puppets, although for inexplicable reasons the non-checkuser admin tagged them as confirmed. Given the recent evidence, I'll leave the tags as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

26 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Bain family murders has been the subject of contentious edits for some time, with Turtletop unrelentingly adding or attempting to add material that bolsters the case against one of the deceased, who may have been the perpetrator and committed suicide. Since April 19 (a week ago) an SPA newcomer, Thefundermentals, has been editing the article and posting on the Talk page, taking a stance similar to that of Turtletop. At 19:08 26 April 2016 (UTC), Turtletop, using the personal pronoun "I", referred to a statement in a post made by Thefundermentals at 07:24 26 April 2016 (UTC) as though it were he who had made the post. The statement made by Thefundermentals appears at paragraph b) here. It states, "...Laniet was 'working as a prostitute..." The post by Turtletop in which he used the personal pronoun "I" is here and in it he says, "Besides I did not claim she was working as a prostitute. The police did." The state of the Talk page at the time I'm making this complaint is here. The use of the personal pronoun "I" in referring to another editor's post has raised my suspicions and I call for a sock investigation against Turtletop and Thefundermentals. Akld guy (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Akld guy (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2016 (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

 * - Please, compare the two (See also and ).  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ that Turtletop is absolutely Thefundermentals, and also User:Whathebell. Keegan (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All 3 blocked, and tagged. SQL Query me!  08:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Bain family murders has been one of the more difficult articles I have edited due to some strong feelings by the main editors towards the guilt or innocence of one of the family members and an infestation of WP:SPAs. I started editing it after I noticed an ANI case, but left soon after as it was taking too much of my time. My attention was brought back to it when the above editor left a note at my talk talk page and having some time I decided to look back in. Histrange is a WP:SPA account that has shown a surprising ammount of knowledge for a new user. That they dug through the history or talk page archives to find me and another editor, that some of there first edits lead to the NPOV noticeboard and they are quoting essays like a pro. They also carry the same POV as Turtletop, who has socked before. Another SPA has also become re-involved. They are usually up against Histrange so I think it is unlikely they are related, unless they are playing good hand, bad hand. Should probably also note that this article seems to rival gamergate for attracting SPA's (Talk:Bain family murders/Archive 3). AIR corn (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2016 (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 accounts are. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked this account as yet another sockpuppet of based on behavioural evidence (please see Histrange's talk page for some of the key elements). If it's possible to look for sleeper accounts that would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From reviewing Turtletop's contributions and those made by their socks, I am highly confident that they are also Offender9000. I'd suggest that this SPI case history be merged into Sockpuppet investigations/Offender9000/Archive. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Administrator clerk assistance needed - please merge this case as requested above. All tagging is done. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Case and archive histmerged to Offender9000. Will update tags as well. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)