Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pincrete/Archive

29 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets






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

Note, this is mainly a meatpuppet investigation. The instruction for meatpuppet investigation directed me here. But before that, the mobile phone IP: 1 where the mobile phone IP votes and adds a period after the vote. Also note the pushing to the upmost position above an earlier reply. Note the same here 2 with the period and the pushing to the upmost position. The first suspected meatpuppet usually places a period after votes 3 and 4. But on the talk page after I mentioned that the IP places a period after votes, the first suspected meatpuppet avoided putting a period this time: 5.

The two non-IP editors other than the listed "sockmaster" aren't likely sockpuppets but suspected meatpuppets acting in concert. But to get on with it, just now they all ended up on the talk page to vote, only an hour apart: 6, 7 and 8; even though the first suspected meatpuppet had last partaken on the talk 14 days ago 9 and the second suspected meatpuppet 17 days ago 10. The section and the RfC had been created 13 hours ago. I listed the particular user as the "master" only because he happened to be the first here, but the "master" in a meatpuppet case doesn't really matter. They have had similar occurrences of appearing in unison in the past. On October 29, the last edit on the talk page was by me at 5:09 11 and the last edit on the article itself happened at 6:16 12 by me as well. On 12:09 13 suspected user writes a message on talk, and then at 12:18 14 first suspected meatpuppet lets loose his massive edit which isn't a revert. Suspected meatpuppet's edit must have taken more than 10 minutes to make. I noted and wrote about this at the time as I accidentally noticed it, but the history is filled with similar incredibly close appearances. As of recently the other two have stopped participating, leaving the job of arguing about this article mostly to suspected user.

Also note of the meatpuppetry that they had begun editing the article only 4 days apart in May 2015: 15 and 16. They had voted in concert elsewhere before that 17. Since then both have done over 50 edits to the article, all in all over 130 - with a half a thousand to the talk page. When editing they acted plainly in concert, never touching each others' edits. From May to my appearance on September 30 they pretty much controlled the article in a tag-team. Note: first suspected meatpuppet had edited the article before May 2015, but that last time was in September 2007: 18. Also note that the much argued-about description "pejorative" was added to the article on the fated day May 20 2015 19.

An ANI was created about five times I undid the first suspected meatpuppet's removals of sourced sections on different articles related to Political Correctness — as in other words I was accused of hounding. For some bizarre reason both suspected user and second suspected meatpuppet appeared at the ANI to call for a topic ban from Political Correctness, using similar words. I was let off with a warning for the hounding and battleground behavior from a person working for Wikipedia. Later that worker even noted and worked my undo to one of the other articles, as I had a point. But I'd also like to mention of that article that the first suspected meatpuppet disagreed with an unrelated editor about an unrelated edit I hadn't edited: 20 and the one to be there undoing that unrelated editor's edits was not the first suspected meatpuppet but the second suspected meatpuppet: 21.

What I suggest is that they be warned of meatpuppetry. I don't think it's a blockable offense, but it is warn-worthy. The mobile phone IP's location should be compared, possibly with the suspected meatpuppet's. That's more serious.

Edit: I have to add that just now sockpuppet IPs were hounding Zezen who tried to edit the article: 66.87.82.77 and 66.87.80.158. Zezen went to complain on the article's talk. Just then the accused user logs in and writes a reply to Zezen's section, mere minutes after the IP edits: talk edit at 12:05. The IPs then disappeared? Zezen complains he is hounded by even more IPs as evident from his talk page.

Another edit: now the second suspected meatpuppet also appeared to undo Zezen's edit on the page after being otherwise absent: undo at 12:55 and second at 13:09. Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Since I've been tagged here: I confirm - yes, my Talk Page has been protected after this and the Racial segregation page has been semi- and then fully protect by third-party ANI after repeated IP reverts and name-callings. Zezen (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr. Magoo and McBarker, you are required to notify involved editors IMMEDIATELY. None of the three named editors you accuse above (inc myself) have been notified. You can treat this message as my having been informed.
 * I looked at SPI policies and didn't see anything about notifications unlike on ANI where it says that when creating a new section, so I thought the system does that automatically as a message. I also went through others suspected as SP masters here and none of them had received any talk page notifications from users. And even then it should have popped up in your messages as you were mentioned by name. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't notify automatically. I consider myself notified. Apologies, you may be right about there being no requirement to notify. I trust nobody objects to my naming Aquillion, Fyddlestix, in the hope that these absurd accusations can be put to rest once and for all. I know nothing about the IPs.Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Zezen did get notified though? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, would you confirm that NONE of the above three named editors (inc myself) have behaved in any way improperly towards you. I know nothing about the actions of the IP.Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No named-accounts has WP:PERSONAL or hounded me, so neither have you Pincrete (it is the first time I can see your user name anywhere in the areas I've been active in).


 * OTOH, 4 to 6 "black-hat" IPs, openly claiming to be lurking on WP since 2006, have WP:PERSONAL-ed me and 2 other users in quick succession, including on my own Talk page, or reverted RS edits in a couple of unrelated subjects, using similar phraseology.


 * That is all I know for sure. Zezen (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing about the IPs and have never encountered Zezen before today (which he confirms). Mr. Magoo has been 'wall-papering' the Political correctness talk page with various PAs and specifically accusations of 'puppetry', since his arrival there in late Sept, creating whole sections for this sole purpose. His behaviour, has been the subject of an ANI which he again wallpapers with accusations of puppetry, though he ends that ANI with a promise to not make further accusations. Mr Magoo makes these accusations as part of a WP:Bludgeon strategy, inc to 'get out' of a block for edit warring, he has been warned many times of the seriousness of such accusations, inc by an admin here. Mr Magoo seems to find it difficult to understand that when almost ALL experienced editors disagree with him, the most likely explanation is that he is wrong, not that they are acting in consort!
 * Comment by Pincrete

I am confident that checkuser will reveal NO improper relationship between myself and anyone, I believe Mr. Magoo is abusing procedure with this SPI, as a continuation of his bludgeon and battleground behaviour. I ask that at a minimum, he be given a clear warning about making unfounded accusations, and wasting everyone's time, including this SPI's. Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You help each other on articles even other than this. You always log in at the same time to help each other out after being vacant from the article for 14-17 days. The evidence is plain, succint and telling. Like I vowed before, I will only accuse if it's overt and this is overt. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think you have anything to do with the IPs as they seem to be mobile phone IPs from the States and I believe you're from Europe. The rest aren't, though. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To Bbb23: That wasn't what the ANI was ab... Well, anyway, I didn't really expect any other result from SPI as it mostly deals with SPs and not MPs. Because of that I knew from the get-go this wasn't going to be taken seriously. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have NEVER significantly interacted with any of the editors (outside the two named ones on 'PC', where we are all 3 consistently defending basic WP policies against OR, edit-warring and 'blogging'), yet I am the supposed 'master'. I may occasionally have contributed a one-off edit on noticeboards alongside one or other of those two. It is up to the two other named editors to defend themselves, however a common interest in US politics hardly seems to prove anything. Your capacity for seeing the most perversely sinister explanations in preference to simple ones has been pointed out before. The ANI was about your hounding, refusal to AGF, refusal to drop the stick, and bludgeoning, all of which you attempted to justify by claiming you were opposing what you believed were self-evident puppets and vandals. You offer no evidence AT ALL of our editing in consort.Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I wrote, I only named you as the "master" because you happened to be the first to post in the recent case. In an MP case there is no "master". And the ANI was about hounding and AGF. The bludgeoning you mentioned later and was proven false in any case. And I didn't excuse myself with any puppet accusations but proving how the undos of the removals of sourced material that were the "hounding" were more antivandalism at the time than anything else. I have provided numerous examples and bizarre goings at the article. You wrote consistently but that's exactly the point: that it was inconsistent, they were gone for 14 and 17 days respectively even though there were hundreds of edits and then when a vote is needed you all appear an hour within each other (and not even right after the voting was formed but 13 hours after). --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . This is a baseless report brought by an editor who failed to obtain the results they wanted at ANI and then came here. The filer's spin on the evidence they've compiled is remarkably long but devoid of quality. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)