Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rick22225/Archive

Report date March 29 2009, 00:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

It is highly likely that the user Hat Trick Indian is a sockpuppet of the user Rick22225. The sockpuppet would have been used by the sockpuppeter in order to sway a AfD debate. Special:Contributions/Hat_Trick_Indian and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&user=Hat_Trick_Indian show that as soon as the user was created, they posted on the Articles for Deletion disccussion page Articles for deletion/Todd Deratany, which was discussing the deletion of the article Todd Deratany, which was created by the user Rick22225. It is highly unlikely for a new user to immediately give their opinion on an Articles for Deletion page. There appears to be general consensus that the article in question needs to be deleted, so a new user is unlikely to give their support to the other side without providing any good reason. Furthermore, the possible sockpuppet commented in a highly gangsta-influenced tone, which could be a technique used by the possible sockpuppeter to make it seem as if the sockpuppet is someone else. This is supported by evidence revealed if we take another look at the potential sockpuppet's contributions page again. As you can clearly see, (diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Deratany&diff=prev&oldid=280309366 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Deratany&diff=prev&oldid=280309489) the user originally posted "This article is the shiznit, yo!", but later changed it to "This artycle is the shiznit, yo!" for an unspecified reason. It is unlikely for any normal user to make an edit to make their grammar worse as opposed to better (remember, a user on Wikipedia knows that they are not on MySpace, but are on an encyclopedia), without good reason to do so. It is possible that the sockpuppeter thought that (as mentioned earlier) a highly gangsta-influenced tone would make it seem that the user was someone else, and after realizing that their inital edit wasn't "gangsta enough", changed it to make it seem so. This potential sockpuppet would have been disruptive because it would have been swaying an AfD debate to keep an article when the consensus by everyone, except the article's creator and this user, was delete. The Earwig (User 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by The Earwig (User


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

quacking like a duck, but the bird has flown. The AfD finished as it should, and the episode is over. Move along, nothing to see here!! Mayalld (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 20 2009, 03:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by User:Mythdon

Now, having provided the evidence, there is a possibillity that these two users are the same user. I with true respect would like a checkuser to look into whether or not these two editors are the same. The short delay in time in which the two made their edits is striking. I believe this should fall under code F because this seems to be block evasion. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A few days ago, User:Yardleyman made an edit to my talk page concerning the Ryulong arbitration case asking me to an interview. The user was blocked following checkuser evidence that Yardleyman was a sockpuppet of another user.
 * Following the block on 15:39, 16 May 2009, the account Gerhardt Lammers was created less than two days later on 00:43, 18 May 2009.
 * Gerhardt Lammers made one of his/her first 100 edits to the Proposed Decision talk page. The edit is here. The editor states "I stumbed across the request for arbitration on ryulong as I was browsing around Wikipedia. ". Yardleyman made a similar statement in the above diff of the edit to my talk page stating "I recently came across your involvement in the Ryulong affair. "


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Nowhere close to enough evidence. The wording is only somewhat similar and the users don't have intersecting edits on any pages.  We don't run checks based on the "possibility" of socking.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ - I checked this based on the history of the already blocked user User:Yardleyman. User:Gerhardt Lammers is on the same IP. -- Versa geek  04:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 21 2009, 02:23 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Mythdon


 * Just after less than 24 hours after Gerhardt Lammers's (the recently confirmed sockpuppet of Rick22225) block request was declined on 07:02, 20 May 2009, on 01:50, 21 May 2009, the accused IP makes it's second edit to the same Arbitration page Gerhardt Lammers edited previously before getting blocked. This IP previously attempted to vandalize my signature on the talk page of the same editor being investigated by Arbitration Case in question on 17:13, 19 May 2009. The timing in which the edits were made and the knowledge of these pages early is striking. Both edits are edits to a page about Ryulong, the type of edits Gerhardt Lammers did before getting blocked. While this may not be enough evidence, the timing can serve as effective evidence and justify a need for a check by a Checkuser. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * based on blocked user's history. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the IP listed above and the sock farm. -- Avi (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions