Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piandme/Archive

25 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I had opened a 3RR report against Piandme regarding edits at Game of Thrones (season 5) and informed that user on their talk page. At a discussion on my talk page (seen here) Piandme illustrated their willingness to use another account to add the disputed information back to the page, and I warned that doing so would violate WP:SOCK. User:MegaGoTFan then registered and removed my 3RR report about Piandme here. Given the user name "MegaGoTFan" (where "GoT" is Game of Thrones) it is clear to me that Piandme registered this account to remove the report. First time sock investigation reporter, please forgive anything I may have missed. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This looks like rather clear duck-type sock- or meatpuppetry to me. Because I'm editorially involved, I can't act as an administrator here, otherwise I'd have blocked both accounts.  Sandstein   17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly refute any claims that this is a sockpuppet for this account. I can't, of course control what my friends do on their own accounts though 18:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Piandme (talk)Piandme 26 September 2014

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is indefinitely blocked as a sock. His only edit was to remove a 3RR report against Piandme from the noticeboard.  is blocked one week for abusing multiple accounts. His above comment suggests WP:MEAT but that gets the same response here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

15 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The following behavioral evidence strongly suggests sockpuppetry: Considering the previous socking, see the archive, and the previous AE warning, linked above, I suggest an indefinite block.  Sandstein  14:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Spamming the website watchersonthewall.com: SuntannedTic's first edit was to reinstate an edit by Piandme; compare Piandme's activities in this regard: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive158, most recently
 * Confrontative attitude when challenged for the above: Personal attack by SuntannedTic on me even though we haven't interacted before; confrontative attitude by Piandme towards me because of my reverts of their spamming: ,
 * Editing about the musical group Band Aid 30: SuntannedTics, Piandme: and previously, see contributions.
 * The identity of Piandme and SuntannedTics is further confirmed by these edits in which SuntannedTics restores the WP:BLPSPS violations of Piandme against which Piandme had been warned:, , . EdJohnston has since blocked SuntannedTics for a week for harassment, which may affect Piandme by way of autoblock.  Sandstein   10:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * User:SuntannedTics might be blocked for the personal attack on User:Sandstein without further ado, but before an indef block of User:Piandme it would be best to have a checkuser. It also seems possible that there will be more socks in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty busy today, so I don't have time to fully explain why the claims against me ar ecompltely false, but as they are pretty serious I thought I ought to wirte something quickly.

I completely refutre the allegations of sockpuppetry, and personal abuse, levelled at me. The evidence from the looks of it is pretty flimsy, and apart from the fact we have edited similar pages (which are of latest news events, so likely to have new users editing them) there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest we could even possibly be the same person. The abuse allegation is one I am furious about though, because I would never do that kind of thing, even if I disagreed with a user, and thought they were being completely unreasonable. I might be able to write a full report later, but these allegations are so laughable I don't know if there is much point really. Sandstein obviously has a vendetta against me, and nothing I can do, or say will persuade him otherwise. You are more than welcome to ban me, but as I'm not the problem, you won't have a solution. When you have more evidence (which you won't find, so good luck), come back and accuse me, but this investigation is wasting everyone's time, apart from the obvious troll, who is, undoubtedly laughing at us all.Piandme (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty annoyed and upset about these allegations made by Sandstein. I'm being accused of things that I haven't done on nothing more than conjecture. The edits I have allegedly made on this account don't even really make sense, because they draw attention to me. Does Sandstein really think I would try doing that sort of thing when I know that he is bound to be keeping an eye? Come on. I said before that my past edits might have lead to attention being put on me, and I genuinely believe we are all being trolled massively here. I don't really have a defence, apart from the fact that I know I was in no way connected to this account. Sandstein seems very keen for me to get blocked, which is certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and is definitely not something I would advocate against anyone unless there was the strongest argument for this proposal. It is a shame reallly, because he is such an experienced editor, and I have read many of the articles he has heavily contributed to over the years, but I know I'm never going to be able to change his view. If you feel there is enough evidence to block me then I will not contest it because if I'm honest I have had enough of being subjected to continual attacks by Sandstein. I hope that you decide against this thoigh, because a)I didn't do it,; and b)I don't think there is enough evidence that you can strongly believe I did do it ( at least at the moment). I have already decided to stay away from articles that Sandstein is heavily involved with as best as I can, and feel that I will continue to provide quality articles, such as my recent article Band Aid 30, which I created. Piandme (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The edits provided give reasonable suspicion that the accounts are related. Also, there are concerns of additional violations of the discretionary sanctions by Piandme. I believe a check would assist in providing more conclusive evidence. Mike V •  Talk  17:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * SuntannedTics and Piandme are ✅ matches. Courcelles 04:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the CU results, I recommend an indef of the sock User:SuntannedTics and a one-month block for the master, User:Piandme. This is the second go-round at SPI for Piandme. Last time was in September when he was blocked for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, I had the same in mind when I endorsed the check. Mike V  •  Talk  17:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

25 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

In this message, the IP user claims to be the blocked user Piandme, announces their intent to vandalize and to run a sock farm for that purpose. Difficult to tell what to make of this, but perhaps a checkuser could check for any non-stale sock accounts (which need not be named here per CU policy), or check connections to any ongoing longterm abuse issues. I've blocked the IP myself because of their patent disruption, but please tell me if that was out of line, because I believe there was at some point a content-ish dispute between Piandme and me. Pinging User:EdJohnston as an admin previously active with respect to that user.  Sandstein  16:52, 25 November 2014 (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

 * I have no concerns about User:Sandstein issuing this block, because there is a long-term pattern of abuse. Can a checkuser do anything to help here that is also allowed by the policy? EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the IP's comments, I've extended Pieandme's block to indefinite. I find the comment on his talk page unconvincing, given that he already tried to play off that SuntannedTics was not his account, despite being confirmed with checkuser and behavioral evidence. Unfortunately, I don't think that a checkuser will be able to do much here. From the looks of Courcelles's check above, there aren't any sleeper accounts at this time and we don't have any new accounts to check. Policy prevents checkuser from linking accounts to IPs, so we can't use the one provided above. In regards to the IPs comments about having an additional account and continuing to sock, it's not the first time that someone has tried to play mind games of "I have more socks than you ever know!" I won't elaborate, but I think it's more likely than not the IP is bluffing. Should I be wrong, the user is so intent on editing the same topics that we'll find the accounts eventually. Mike V  •  Talk  00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record there was also . Should an admin find it necessary to extend the block on the IP due to disruption the collateral would be minimal and could be handled via WP:ACC.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

17 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Several other low-contribution accounts in the recent history of Game of Thrones (season 5) and Talk:Game of Thrones (season 5)
 * Several other low-contribution accounts in the recent history of Game of Thrones (season 5) and Talk:Game of Thrones (season 5)
 * Several other low-contribution accounts in the recent history of Game of Thrones (season 5) and Talk:Game of Thrones (season 5)


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

Piandme is a serial sockpuppeteer, see the archives. I blocked a bunch of throwaway accounts that can be seen in the recent history of Game of Thrones (season 5). In response, I received a talk page message by ICunningLinguist claiming to be Piandme and to control a number of such accounts. If that is so, a checkuser might be able to dispose of them.  Sandstein  22:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi, I am User: MisterMeph. May I ask why I have been blocked? I honestly don't have anything to do with the above accounts, and if you actually look at my edits they are all positive. No one has come to me saying I have done anything wrong, and then I get an indefinite ban. I have no interest in Game of Thrones, and am only really interested in editing Black Mirror articles (which account for 90% of my edits). Please recinde my ban, If you don't I will just create another account, but obviously i would like everything together, and not have to make another one as I feel like MisterMeph si part of me, and I am still waiting for an article I created to be reviewed. User: Sandstein? User: Mike V? Crisps2Star (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * A sleeper check is needed. Mike V  •  Talk  00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Following are ✅ to each other (group 1):


 * Following are ✅ to each other (group 2):


 * Following are ✅ to each other and Piandme (group 3):


 * Following are ✅ to each other (group 4):


 * Groups 1 & 2 are to each other and groups 3 & 4 are  to each other. Connection between 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 will need to be behavioural. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All blocked that haven't been already. Thanks!  Sandstein   11:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Game of Thrones crossover between the two groups seems sufficient to connect them together. I've tagged the socks accordingly. Mike V  •  Talk  19:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Couple more are ✅ to Ehros Spray:
 * They've been blocked, not tagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They've been blocked, not tagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They've been blocked, not tagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

09 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The editor admitted he is a sockpuppet of Piandme on his talk page after deliberating edit warring and making disruptive edits on Game of Thrones (season 5). Diff: Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:47, 9 January 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

 * EditorApparently blocked indefinitely per quacking. Checkuser may or may not be useful to find sleeper accounts.  Sandstein   15:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that December's check uncovered nearly 20 socks, I think it's reasonable to look for sleepers. Mike V • Talk 17:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I only found 1 sleeper account.
 * . PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

26 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

ISupportCompleteley has been blocked before, and see discussion of this user at WP:ANI#User:ISupportCompleteley using multiple accounts?. This user's been pestering User:Sandstein, who thinks that it's Piandme; even if it's not, this is a bad-faith account. Requesting checkuser to find sleepers, too. Also — I can't remember how to add a new section to an existing investigations page, so I've just reverted to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=641804871 and changed information where appropriate. If I messed up somewhere, please help me by fixing it. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 26 January 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

 * Given that T. Canens, a checkuser, already blocked the account for abusing multiple accounts, I think everything's already been taken care of right now. Mike V • Talk 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)