Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plant's Strider/Archive

26 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

A nearly identicle pattern of disruption at a broad swath of overlapping articles.

I quote Plant's Strider: "it's not that I once had a look at Gabe's contributions and started to edit the pages accordingly"
 * 19 January 2013, erroneously questioning and confronting my work as his first edit of the day.
 * 19 January 2013, 2nd edit of the day, following me to yet another page that PS had never edited before.
 * 20 January 2013, 2 hours and 20 minutes after I edited the page for the very first time, PS also edit’s the page for the very "first" time.
 * 21 January 2013: At Slade, one minute after my edit there, PS made their very first edit ever to the page
 * 21 January 2013, 3 minutes after my edit to Jethro Tull, PS makes their very first edit to the page

GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  02:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment by Evanh2008: As in this comment that I left at this closely related case, I think this whole situation is in need of a thorough looking-into. The socking is obvious, and I am convinced that it is connected to a number of other accounts, some of whom were never brought to SPI. I've grown weary of this petulant little sadsack nipping at my heels like a needy pup who demands my attention. The main problem with this particular sock is competence, and I'd be happy just to have that enforced, but it's clear that a CU needs to be run -- in my mind, anyway, but I might be biased. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Two words: Rogers Cable. Or maybe not, but we'll never know unless someone runs a CU. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you may be a little off the mark. I'd be looking here and here instead. Piriczki (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - So where does Chowkatsun kelvin come into it? Rschen7754 06:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * CK is an SPA infobox edit-warrior that I believe to be PS. They have much overlap in their editing and a similar time pattern, though I believe they have intentionally behaved as different users. Basically, there is relative stability on these articles unless CK or PS is editing. Also, I predict that while PS is blocked, CK will not edit, as they are most likely editing from the same IP, from Rogers Cable. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  06:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In case anyone misses the reference, Gabe's mention of "Rogers Cable" is in connection with this, a swath of socks operated by someone accessing Wikipedia through Rogers, as well as several proxy services. Beware that page, though; you will need a good amount of free time and probably a few stiff drinks. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 12:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to establish that there is some behavioural connection between accounts before a checkuser investigation is possible. All the diffs that were provided were for one account, so at present it is impossible for us to verify the connection, if there is one. Please provide diffs for both accounts showing some behavioural similarities. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * GabeMc has raised with me the prospect that this (Plant's Strider) is the Rogers Cable troll Sockpuppet investigations/99.251.125.65/Archive - which seems at least possible given the way he's following GabeMc's edits the way that guy did. Would be worth checking that prospect out I think - no need to connect to a specific IP, that particular one was hardblocked back in August anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the only similarity needed to be shown here is that both PS and CK were/are intent on disrupting Beatles pages and hounding/bothering Evan and I. One key similarity I would point out is that both the Beatles IP sock/troll and Plant's Strider/CK seem to be obsessed with small formatting details. Any quick look at their contributions will reveal this. At any rate, CK is a SPA for disruption that has been working hand-in-hand with PS to waste time and energy at the Beatles project and anywhere else that Evan and I edit. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We need some diffs here - as we do not have familiarity with any of these accounts, the CUs need to be able to verify that a check is justified, as they are held solely liable for any improper checks that they make. --Rschen7754 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Similarites between PS and CK. - PS made several variations of this edit (20 January) and here around Wikipedia, then on 22 January, CK made a similar edit to an article that I only started editing a few weeks prior (one hour after my first edit there PS followed me to the article) and which CK, as with PS had never edited before. The last day that CK edited, 22 January, they first made the above edit that appeared similar to PS and then they made two more edits. Both, within an hour of Evan, and edit-warring at Harrison as PS had been doing. I'll dig up more diffs, but please let me know when its enough as I have work I would rather be doing. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Similar hounding by CK: 1 January 2013, 1 hour 35 minutes after Evan's edit CK makes his first edit of the day, edit-warring with Evan. 10 January, 51 minutes after my edit, CK follows me with his 2nd and last edit of the day. 17 January 2013, CK's first edit of the day, 4 hours and 19 minutes after mine. 17 January, CK's 2nd edit of the day, 2 hours 5 minutes after my edit there. 20 January, 7 hours after my last edit there and CK's first edit of the day. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Evidence that PS and the Beatles sock/troll are the same: here, here, here and here where they edit war for "Big T". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am going to check Plant's Strider to see if he is the Rogers Cable troll, with whom I am somewhat familiar. I am not convinced that the other named editor is a sock of Plant's Strider, or that he is the Cable troll. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Or in fact I'm not. JPGordon ran a check on the 23rd, in response to an unblock request.  This would confirm that he didn't pick up Chowkatsun as a sock or the chap would be already blocked. I'll just drop him a note, see if he was aware of the cable troll business. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Elen, thanks for your time and effort. Does this mean that Plant's Strider does not connect with any registered user, or just that he does not connect with CK? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends what JPGordon was looking for - which is why I've pinged him - but I would have thought he would have spotted obvious socking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that JPGordon was unaware of the socking accusations, would you please run another to look for tells? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See JPGordon's comments on his talkpage  This guy isn't socking and he isn't the Rogers Cable troll. You might not believe it that a number of separate editors can have apparently similar editing patterns but it happens more often than you might expect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An interesting link concerning Rogers Cable, also here. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing per above. Rschen7754 02:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

19 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Behavior


 * Two accounts who create a user page and fill it with userboxes within days of registering.


 * Minor edits to pages, mostly small copy edits, removal of material deemed "unnecessary" (see below), or inconsequential and trivial changes to formatting.

Pages in common:


 * Led Zeppelin
 * Led Zeppelin discography
 * Roger Waters (an article Gabe helped get through FAC)
 * Black Sabbath
 * Tony Iommi
 * Steve Lukather
 * Pink Floyd (an article Gabe helped get through FAC)
 * David Gilmour
 * Death of Jimi Hendrix (an article Gabe started two months ago, currently at FAC)
 * Elvis Presley
 * Jimmy Page
 * Kashmir (song)
 * Richard Wagner (an article Gabe was reviewing at FAC)

According to this tool. GB has edited at least 13 pages (within 10 days) that PS had edited.

Edit summaries in common between Plant's Strider and GeezerB:


 * "ref formatting" and "reference formatting" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "not needed" and "not needed" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "fix" and "fix" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "MoS" and "MoS"


 * "consistency" and "consistency" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "removing a duplicate ref" and "removing a duplicate ref"


 * "fixing a typo" and "fixing a typo" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "formatting" and "formatting" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "trimming excess" and "trimming excess"


 * "overlinking" and "WP:OVERLINK" (you know, that policy everyone knows about within four hours of registering) Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "accuracy" and "accuracy"


 * "delinking" and "delinking"


 * "redirect" and "redirect" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "I'm more of a Zeppelin fan than a Sabbath one, but Sabbath were slightly more important in developing the genre. Also, Zeppelin wasn't strictly a metal band." and "Led Zeppelin had a significant influence on heavy metal but they were not a heavy metal band."


 * "adding info" and "adding info" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "ce" and "ce"


 * "copy-editing". - Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "spacing" and "spacing" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "rearranging" and "rearranging" Edit summary search: PS and GB


 * "tweaks" and "tweaks"


 * "consistency in reference formatting" and "consistency in ref formatting"


 * '''"adding a tag" and "adding a template"


 * "harvnb > sfn (consistency)" and "sfn". Again, a two-day-old contributor knows the difference between harvnb and sfn, and how to implement them both?


 * "removing unnecessary links" and "removing unnecessary refs" Edit summary search: PS and GB

Edit summaries in common between Plant's Strider and Falco70:


 * "spacing" and "spacing"


 * "accuracy" and "accuracy"


 * "diction" and "better diction"


 * "not needed" and "not needed" (same article)


 * "simplicity" and "simplicity"


 * "removing a superfluous comma" and "remove superfluous comma"

Edit summaries in common between GeezerB and Falco70:


 * "copy-editing" and "copy-editing" (not copyediting or copy editing -- copy-editing)


 * "not needed" and "not needed"


 * "consistency" and "consistency"

Other edits:


 * Falco edit warring to reinstate material altered by GeezerB.

Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This looks the same person who has changed from one username to another, abandoning the first. The same kind of disruptive behavior is being shown by the new username, including HOUNDing and violations of CITEVAR. I recommend blocking both accounts for two weeks as an escalation of the previous one week block. The editor can choose which one to continue with afterward. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be looking here and here instead. Piriczki (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GeezerB made this edit to David Gilmour at 14:27, 17 February 2013. Then, 34 minutes later an IP editing from an open proxy made this edit to my talk page. Then GeezerB made this edit as the first of many on 19 February. How does this relate to Plant's Strider? Well, he made this edit to my talk at 23:13, 22 December 2012, which is quite similar to this edit made on 06:36, 21 August 2012 by another obvious proxy sock. Of course I cannot prove that the IP proxies are PS/GB, but I think a basic duck test would show that there are too many overlapping behaviours to dismiss this out of hand. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't think of much to say, but this and this might be interesting to the case. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that User:Falco70 is also a puppet. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 01:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm adding Falco70 who suddenly appeared to support changes made by GeezerB. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems more like a case of evading an indefinite block than disruptive editing, although there appears to be a history of both. Piriczki (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Falco70 seems to be undoing a few of my edits. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * "New User" and "Sock" are not the only available options :). And creating a new account and editing solely from that is not socking.  Is there evidence of actual disruptive editing or hounding? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Please see Piriczki's above diffs for more evidence of socking. 2) Is it possible that you could just sit this one out Elen, and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with this? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, fraid not, although see ANI - if I had known Evan was acting off his own bat I wouldn't have mentioned you. "He must be a sock" is not a good reason to run a CU when the edits are not problematic, and picking potential sockmasters apparently at random isnt exactly helping, although it's a common reaction. Do you have evidence of hounding or disruptive editing? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So when its at AN/I it should be at SPI, and after its at SPI you want "evidence of hounding or disruptive editing". Wouldn't "evidence of hounding or disruptive editing" be more appropriate at AN/I? I thought this was about socking. Does one need to hound or disrupt to sock? By your logic, all PS/GB/Radiopathy needs to do is make another account each time the last gets sullied. Seems like you're throwing the productive good-faith editors under the bus while protecting the obvious socks. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A good question to ask. If GeezerB is Plant's Strider, he's not socking. There is no prohibition on sequential accounts. Read WP:SOCK If you could demonstrate problematic editing and hounding, you'd have some chance at claiming the user had changed his username to avoid scrutiny - although Plant's Strider was a short lived account, with only one short block for a bit of edit warring so you might have difficulty there.  As it is, I cannot see that a CU could be justified under the policy - although the clerks and other CUs might of course take a different view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOCK: "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." Please see Piriczki's diffs above. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSENEGATIVE Anyway, I'll leave this to the clerks and other Checkusers.  I don't think there's enough evidence at this time to perform a check, but the views of other relevant parties may vary.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Elen, if its proof of disruptive editing that you want then look here and here, despite this, which is yet another behaviour reminiscent of User:Plant's Strider. See here and here. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * - Plant's Strider and GeezerB are obviously related, but they are not socking. If Plant's Strider starts editing again, feel free to refile I don't see any evidence listed to justify a check on Falco70. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely I'm not the only one to notice the identical edit summaries used by Geezer and Falco? I really don't want to make another list. If I recall correctly, alternative accounts are only allowed if their use is made known to the community. I would also think jumping from account to account as soon as one is identified would be frowned upon. Is that incorrect? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably more helpful if you can find something that is unique to these two editors. You could probably make yourself out to be a sock of me if you're only going on edit summaries like "fix" "formatting" and "reference". Just saying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fair to say that the similarities shown in edit summaries add up to a suspicious total, especially considering the similar typography in all of them. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We have three accounts, two of which have showed up within days of each other, the third several hours after the second was taken to SPI. All of them have crammed their user page with userboxes within days of registering. All of them focus on articles surrounding the bands Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Pink Floyd. All of them are obsessed with minor typographical and formatting changes to these articles. All of them use identical edit summaries in their edits, and you have somehow failed to see the connection that quite literally everyone else on this page has. You are correct to point out that edit summaries are sometimes going to coincidentally match up, and I doubt it would be too hard to establish a connection between your account and mine if edit summaries were sufficient evidence, but there is no comparison -- combined, you and I have almost 30,000 edits. We are looking at less than 2,000 edits for all three of these accounts put together. Coincidences do not happen at a rate like that. Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. One-hundred-thirty-seven times is sockpuppetry if I've ever seen it.


 * Ever since the ANI thread, all of your posts on the topic have done nothing but assume some kind of bad-faith folie à deux on the part of Gabe and I. It's obvious at this point that you're not going to perform a checkuser, so why do you insist on misrepresenting what I have said and obstructing my attempts to get this looked into at every turn?


 * Let's please not pretend as if edit summaries are the only evidence that exists or indeed the only evidence that has been presented. No one here has had any problem seeing a connection between these three accounts but you. I'm not saying it's your job to build a case for me, but if you insist on commenting here, please at least take the time to look into the case before questioning my judgement. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And now Falco is assisting the Geezer in edit-warring over personal preference edits at David Gilmour. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Forget about what the edit summaries state and look at the edits for striking similarities. Also, Evan makes a strong point above in this regard. Yes, we all acknowledge that over time, one learns "standard" edit summaries based on seeing them frequently used. However, in this case we have three "new" accounts that all seem to have been born fully formed with strikingly similar editing habits and edit summaries. I also agree that Elen appears to be the only person to have weighed-in here that doesn't think PS and GB are related (is meatpuppetry all that much better then socking?), and at this point her obstructionism is a bit bewildering. Elen, if you disagree with Evan and I then why not just walk away and ignore us? Why put forth such an effort to thwart the SPI? Your comments here remind me of a defense attorney, not a neutral observer. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I reluctantly agree with Evan's assertion that SPI has become a "how-to-sock-and-get-away-with-it manual". Elen, you want something unique to these editors (PS and GB)? PS never made a single comment at the last SPI involving him and GB has not made a single comment here. I think that's quite unusual. If I were an editor of 10 days and someone accused me of being a sock, I would certainly at least take part in the SPI discussion, if for no other reason then to find out what was going on. Yeah, I know, that's not evidence per se, but it is a unique behavioural similarity that would seem to defy reason and common practice. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: "Plant's Strider and GeezerB are obviously related, but they are not socking." Consider this, had PS returned from their one-week block and proceeded to follow me to Wagner (as I was reviewing it at FAC), Vital Articles (two weeks after I started editing there) and Death of Jimi Hendrix (while at FAC), I predict that he would have been warned or blocked for continuing to follow me around. So really, the GeezerB account is gaming the system to do what PS could not without scrutiny. What if PS had an IB with Evan or I, would GB still be in the clear IYO? Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This claim of 'following you'.... Perhaps if you could explain what he's doing that's so threatening to you and how he is so apparently making your life a misery, you might gain more traction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman Elen. I find it mildly amusing that you need to use phrases such as "threatening to you" and "making your life a misery" in order to justify your defense of stalking. WP:HOUND states: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia ... avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." The guideline does not mention "threatening" or "making[ing] your life a misery" as a prerequisite. Question. - Is there some good reason why you won't just back away and leave this matter to others? You clearly have a personal issue with me, so why not go "help" other users whom you do not obviously dislike. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who blocked and offered to unblock Plant's Strider, there is plenty of evidence to convince me that this is a case of block evasion for both editors. I've blocked GeezerB and Falco70 accordingly. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

27 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The similar form of name referring in some way to classic heavy metal (Plant’s Strider is Robert Plant’s dog, MadeinJapan a Deep Purple album, of other sock GeezerB is a member of Black Sabbath). MadeinJapan shows the same interest in the Led Zeppelin article and the same ambition about FA status here and here. The series of edits are extremely complex, but large numbers of changes to the references are a striking feature of both user’s edits and the end result is looking very similar. These were spread out for Plant’s Strider here and gradual for MadeinJapan, for example here and here and here. Particularly striking is the splitting of the reference list into Books and Articles at here and in this edit. No other editor has made this change to the article apart from these two.  SabreBD  (talk ) 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Another point is that MadeinJapan was created after the previous sockpuppeteer was blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the same person. Note that he followed GabeMc to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded, and stopped using edit summaries after I used them to identify him during the last SPI. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the flaw of the SPI process: it trains the socker who is paying attention, and makes it more difficult to stop them in the future. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was GabeMc who started canvassing for votes and basically encouraged me to get involved. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 12:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FTR, I never asked MiJ to get involved with anything, ever, and I knew from the get-go that this was yet another Radiopuppet, as difficult as that may be to prove now. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I should add that the one person he picked to intervene on the Led Zeppelin talkpage was GabeMc here. Odd for a new user, given that GabeMc is not a recent contributor there. Looks like an attempt at trying to incite issues between perceived opponents.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 22:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I pick up an article, put a considerable amount of effort into improving it, and the only thing I receive is a nomination on SPI? MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 12:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone still interested in this? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He hasn't edited in two days now. Psychic prediction: This SPI will be closed as inconclusive, he'll be back next month with a new account, and the sockmaster will never be properly identified, since he had his account vanished late last year (though he did register the name again a couple months ago). Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still interested and frustrated that no action is being taken to consider the case, even though, yes, we can expect a return in one to two months. Is there any way of speeding up a response? I cannot seem to find one in the process.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 11:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Honestly, I'm on the fence between requesting checkuser and simply blocking as an obvious sockpuppet. Similar editing interests, nearly identical wikichecker profiles, and this peculiar interest in splitting up the references...It's certainly enough to warrant a check against the recent socks, which are still quite ripe. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both blocked and tagged, marking for close. Jafeluv (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

04 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Immediately after having two accounts for banned for socking as and, this new IP's first edit is to ask for a vote between the current version of Led Zeppelin and the one before the user was blocked on the article talk page at this edit. See also the appeal made by the blocked account on aims for the article and "failure" to understand the process at this dif].--  SabreBD  (talk ) 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)  SabreBD  (talk ) 12:46, 4 April 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
, quacking loudly. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

07 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See the archives for general background on this case, but I believe this edit and this edit are particularly relevant. CJA displays the classic interest in articles related to musician biographies, particularly members of Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles (in particular George Harrison, a major focus of the sockmaster's attention in the past), as well as similar fixation with formatting and other trivial changes to infoboxes and instrument credits. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

I originally made an account under the name "CJAllbee", but I foolishly failed to include my e-mail address and forgot my password. I was unable to get a new password, so I created this account (and included my e-mail address this time in case I ever forget my password). I hope you will understand that I didn't and don't mean any harm. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2013 (CDT)
 * I'm curious, CJA. How did you know about Evan's report in time to respond within 9 minutes? Are you watching Evan's contributions for some valid reason? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was notified in my inbox that I had been mentioned in this article. I don't spy on people's contributions. I guess it was just good timing on my part. I want to put this whole dispute to an end as quickly as possible. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (CDT)
 * CJ, you may very well be right, and I apologize if that's the case. I'm trying not to be confrontational, but I think it'd be best to let the SPI go forward and clear your name (as it were), if applicable. I do remember you from the CJAllbee account now, but I hope you'll understand if my suspicions aren't immediately defused, given the number of socks I've dealt with in this area. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2013 (CDT)


 * FWIW, when I saw the account "CJAllbee" a few months ago, I thought he was a sock of Plant's Strider or User:Chowkatsun9 (assuming that they are indeed different sockmasters) and I planned on hearing from them again. I think that ChristianJosephAllbee is a sock; their editing habits are nearly identicle to that of Plant's Strider. Anyway, time will tell regardless of the outcome of this SPI, since if CJA is who we think he is then this will certainly not end here and we will see further minutiae based infobox disputes and the like from them, ad nauseum. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not think Albee is a sockpuppet of Plant's Strider or the Hong Kong editor Chowkatsun. The edits are not similar enough and the response here is different. Call it a gut feeling. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You might be right Bink, but that the response is different could merely be a sign that the sockmaster is learning to better game the system. I find their editing habits nearly identical to Chowkatsun's, if not PS's, i.e. largely formatting and infobox time-wasting type stuff. Anyway, as I said above, if this isn't a sock of CK or PS, then time will tell, since the account would be utterly useless to the sockmaster/s if it can't be used to regularly bother Evan and I. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that this probably won't change your suspicions, but I have heard of neither Plant's Strider nor Chowkatsun. I don't know what their editing habits are like, but my edits are for the purpose of consistency (having all articles say either "bass guitar" or simply "bass" instead of some saying one and others saying the other) and reducing clutter (narrowing a musician's list of instruments down to "keyboards" instead of listing all of the keyboard instruments barring the accordion and the melodica). ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2013 (CDT)
 * CJA, there is no requirement whatsoever that Wikipedia be consistent across the project. In fact, this was the subject of a recent debate and consensus was determined that we should strive for consistency within an article (micro), not the entire project (macro). FWIW, I think you would seem less like a sock if you weren't so adamant about your proposed changes, with which you seem to take the "my way or the highway" approach. If you aren't a PS or CK sock, then I do apologize, but again, your actions draw suspicion when they are so similar to recent sock-trolls. Try improving the content of an article, not just the infoboxes and you will likely garner more trust. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I come across as someone who is forcing my revision propositions on everyone. I always knew that there wasn't a rule on Wikipedia for articles to be consistent, but I always prefer when even the most minute details are consistent. I have a tendency to be picky and I would like to think that what I have been doing is in good faith, but if it's causing this much of a racket, I'll gladly chill out on it. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2013 (CDT)


 * FTR, I've only been seriously editing three or four pages in the last 6 months and you've created a similar problem at three or more of them. At Hendrix, here and here. At McCartney, at Harrison. FTR, according to Template:Infobox musical artist: "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. I was completely unaware that that was an actual rule. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2013 (CDT)


 * Also, per WP:OVERLINK, we shouldn't link commonly known words: What generally should not be linked: "everyday words understood by most readers in context"; so there is no need to (nor should you) link common words like piano, guitar and drums. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I've been doing the wrong things for quite sometime now. Once again, I say "oops". ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (CDT)
 * Well, that's about exactly what Plant's Strider said, that the numerous errors they introduced were mere accidents. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't anything about Plant's Strider other than what's been said on this page, but I can assure you that when/if this whole thing is resolved, I will do my research and check Wikipedia's guidelines before making edits of any kind in the future. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2013 (CDT)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There are no diffs that conclusively compare Plant strider and these two obviously the same users. Without that, I can not proceed. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * - after no answer. Rschen7754 07:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. ChristianJosephAllbee and CJAllbee are obviously the same but no evidence of abuse (as opposed to just an abandoned account). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 15:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

21 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Here is Plant's Strider's first interaction with me and here is Zeddman123's first interaction with me. PS opened this FLC on their first day editing and Zeddman123 opened this GAN on their 35th edit and this GAR on their 40th edit. Also, the only two articles that these users have both edited are Jimi Hendrix and User talk:GabeMc, where both users harassed me. Zeddman123 inappropriately opened a GAN for Hendrix I assume because they were attempting to set-up a fail that could jeopardize stability. My instinct is that the activity from these accounts are related to this, but conveniently said "user" is now 90 days inactive. I am requesting a CU because if history is any indicator, then this sock/troll has likely made several other "sleeper" accounts. Like PS and Zeddmann123, User:Enterpassworddude started this FPC very soon after registering. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Can someone please block these sock accounts. Thanks! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -  King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * - Unless there is a recent known sock to compare to, there's not much I can do with this. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * DoRD, are you saying that no socks can ever be traced to PS? I'm confused? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that it looks like all known socks are, so CU isn't particularly helpful. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So as long as PS is stale then we can't check Zeddman123 or any other sock suspected to be PS? I could name another active sock or two, such as User:Enterpassworddude. The connection might be a bit loose, but after dealing with this sockmaster for more than a year, you start to get a good instinct. Like PS and Zeddmann123, this "user" started this FPC very soon after registering. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Is that enough DoRD, or do I need to dig-up some more?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We could use more evidence. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Enterpassworddude & . Zeddman123 is to this group. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed socks blocked, Zeddman123 not blocked due to insufficient evidence, whether behavioral or technical. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Running around removing reviews in infoboxes that user doesn't like. It looks like a duck to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

"Removing reviews in infoboxes that user doesn't like"? Errr NO, I'm removing a source that has been considered unreliable by WP:MUSIC since 2022. I trust this nonsense "sockpuppet investigation" will be closed with immediate effect. I don't care for being harrassed while I work to the betterment of the encyclopedia. Cheers. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources are unreliable for specific facts. (For example, you wouldn't cite the Daily Express for positive views on Nigel Farage) An opinion can only be "unreliably sourced" if it is believed to be untrue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh? WP:MUSIC agreed that Acclaimed Music isn't a reliable source. It's a guy in his house self-publishing his findings with no oversight. If the reviews in question exist, then reliable sources should be available. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

STOP wilfully vandalising Wikipedia in an effort to "win". It has been clearly explained to you that Acclaimed Music is unreliable. You screwed up by starting this bogus "investigation" into someone who is just trying to help. I see your misbehaviour has already seen you blocked from the project multiple times. Let it go, for crying out loud. EDIT: I just looked at this "Plant's Strider" guy's account and he gave up editing 7-and-a-half years ago! It's evident (from looking at both Ritchie333 and Strider's interests) that this whole situation revolves around Pink Floyd albums. Quite clearly, I was just passing through Pink Floyd territory as I have been editing everyone whose articles use the unreliable source in question. By the way, multiple editors have taken the time to thank me for my efforts. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While Acclaimed Music is indeed considered unreliable now, I'm not sure if manually (hopefully) removing it in hundreds of articles over 22 hours non-stop, leaving broken ref tags and spamming watchlists, is the way to go. Discussing it in the relevant wikiprojects and removing it with an actual bot would have been better. Personally, I have another concern. So what you are doing is a positive. But let's assume (it's the most likely scenario, really) nobody fixes it. Then, a year or two later, some other editor will go through these and delete all unsourced information, also a positive. But I believe the end result, losing an entire accolades section because nobody managed to fix it in a limited time frame, is a negative. I fixed a couple articles last month, and I'm slowly going through more articles now, but unfortunately I only have so much free time.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 16:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. All I was looking for is some further evidence eg: somebody suing Acclaimed Music or it being criticised for making things up or saying things that are factually incorrect. Perhaps another widely-advertised RfC with announcement that it would be taken off all articles (possibly via an approved bot) would have been the answer. All I want to know is why is it unreliable for a specific claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It was hardly my intention to "spam" anyone. My goal was simply to remove a source that is "indeed considered unreliable". In return I've been accused of various malevolent behaviours. Nauseating. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've asked why you think it's unreliable for these specific articles, and have got no answer. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You did get an answer. Acclaimed Music is just some dude, self-publishing from his house with no oversight, who has correctly been deemed unreliable by the project. You or I could start a listicle site right now and claim to be a reliable source. Doesnt make it so. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but, for example, if an article said "User Ritchie333 thinks Atom Heart Mother is critically undervalued. ", you wouldn't just remove the reference and tag it with, would you? You'd just remove it wholesale. If my opinion on something isn't noteworthy to appear in an encyclopedia, it shouldn't appear anywhere at all, full stop. I think that is where the root cause of this confusion comes from. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Acclaimed Music guy wasn't formally ruled out as a source until last year. Wiki seemed to think, once upon a time, that he had at least a smidgen of credibility, so the lists might or may not be out there, I dunno. Leaving the entries be and tagging them with requests for new sources allows people to dig out some proper referencing, if it exists. I *did* completely remove all "Acclaimed Music ranks x the 243th-most acclaimed album" type content. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Ritchie333 made a mistake. Can't we do a reverse "DUCK" on this one and say that I am clearly not some guy who was causing problems on Wikipedia over a decade ago and who hasn't even been around for 7.5 years? All of my edits are in good faith. Please close this nonsense "investigation". Gene Stanley1 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I can't find anything clear cut myself. Per User talk:Ritchie333, the reporter thinks this is probably stale, so I'll close the request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A duck to which account in the archives or elsewhere? Izno (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)