Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RabidMelon/Archive

16 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

All SPAs, who have edited almost exclusively the articles Harry M. Rubin, C. M. Rubin, and The Real Alice in Wonderland (book). The RubinAttorney account, created December 16, made a legal threat at the Harry M. Rubin article, which was removed. The threat was then restored by RabidMelon, an account created in Sept 2009. The IPs have made edits in-between the SPAs that are clearly the SPAs simply forgetting to log in. Strong suspicion that these accounts are all the same person who either has a direct COI, or has an unhealthy obsession with this family and their various business endeavors. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:06, 16 December 2010 (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 following are the same: The other account,, is a match. TN X Man 14:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. (Sidenote: the username TheGiantGerken isn't actually registered; it redirects to GiantGerken.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

06 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

New account, with precocious knowledge of Wikipedia, shows up and starts to edit, exclusively, the article Harry M. Rubin. Seems rather WP:DUCKy, it would be nice to get some checkuser confirmation and a sweep for sleeper socks, given past history of extensive socking. -- Jayron  32  14:25, 6 January 2011 (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'm with Jayron. Endorsing for CU. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, along with . TN X Man  17:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both found socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Pdyusmep may be the same person as User:PrincetonNeuroscientist, who was blocked in March 2017 as a checkuser-identified sockpuppet of User:RabidMelon. From their first edit, PrincetonNeuroscientist focused entirely on articles about universities, namely Harvard and Columbia. From Pdyusmep's first edit they have also focused entirely on articles about universities; six of their first ten edits were to the Columbia University article.

At the Columbia article, PrincetonNeuroscientist repeatedly argued that King's College was an earlier name of Columbia, rather than a predecessor of Columbia, for the purpose of counting five Founding Fathers as alumni of Columbia. On that point they argued repeatedly with User:Malik Shabazz,  [ ], including at Malik's talk page. One of Pdyusmep's first edits was to argue with Malik Shabazz at the Columbia article.

PrincetonNeuroscientst displayed a great deal of interest in Columbia's School of General Studies. So did Pdyusmep. MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Today, they are back to promoting Columbia:  --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2017 (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

 * ✅ + . Blocked and tagged. Please do something with Sockpuppet investigations/74.108.156.14. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Case closed. Other case will be merged here.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.108.156.14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PrincetonNeuroscientist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pebblefire#Suspicious_Account_.26_Possible_New_IP_Addresses_of_the_Notorious_.22RabidMelon.22_.28Blocked_Account.29 IcarusLivesX (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Hi all, there is at least one other on-going parallel investigation related to User:RabidMelon, which is Sockpuppet_investigations/RabidMelon. Will it be better to combine them? In addition, besides the suspect IP on this page, several other IP addresses starting with "74.108." have shown similar behavior. I believe the IP addresses may be public or related to a particular organization. What is the best way of handling this? Minimumbias (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Minimumbias, ideally when there is a known sockmaster, the report should be filed under the name of the sockmaster. But don't worry about it. My hero User:Bbb23 has already handled the RabidMelon report, done the research, made the appropriate blocks, and requested an SPI clerk to combine this report into that one. So you don't have to do anything; let the pros handle it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, Your kind words and help are greatly appreciated! Much thanks to Bbb23 as well! Minimumbias (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This account may be the possible re-appearance of the notorious RabidMelon which had controlled (confirmed & blocked) around 10 sock puppet accounts. RabidMelon had been blocked indefinitely earlier this year by administrator Bbb23, and what's more it was first blocked in 2010 (but was somehow unblocked in 2011). However, earlier this year (2017) a new account User:Pebblefire was created and several IP addresses based on New York (probably Bronx) are possibly linked with this account:

74.108.157.211, 74.108.156.96, 74.108.153.85

Upon preliminary review, much of the editing behavior & language of User:Pebblefire and the possibly related IP addresses highly resemble that of the blocked account User:RabidMelon and its sock puppets. Like the old account User:RabidMelon, the new account User:Pebblefire along with the possibly related IP addresses seem to belong to some individual related to Columbia University. For a direct instance, in the talk page (User talk:74.108.157.211), the following claim was made:

"...because I work at Columbia, the fancy, big name school reputation must also give me equal knowledge in Wikipedia policies and I should just "know" how to figure my way around the website is absolutely absurd! Perhaps the big name is a great smoke screen as to showing you that not every staff member, student, or faculty is a genius at an Ivy League institution that there are a wide variety of expertise in different fields. When it comes to HTML related internet activities, I consider myself a beginner. "


 * I would add that IcarusLivesX recently edited the page Harry M. Rubin, which was the subject of the 2010 block you referred to. In my view, no doubt this is a sock of RabidMelon, RubinAttorney, GiantGherken and the others.  My personal theory, based on the elementary prose used by the editor, is that it's one of his children. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been handled at Sockpuppet investigations/RabidMelon. Please do something with this; I don't really care what. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merged.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble following the evidence linking Pebblefire to the master or one of his known socks. Obviously, just the fact that they edit the Columbia University article/talk page isn't enough. I need comparison diffs. Pebblefire didn't show up in my last check, but if there's sufficient evidence I'm willing to run an independent check. As it stands now, I don't feel comfortable doing so. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would have to come from User:IcarusLivesX, I believe they were the one that brought up Pebblefire. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing with no action against Pebblefire for lack of evidence. Also, Pebblefire hasn't edited since September 2017. If they resume editing, a new report may be filed with evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)