Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodneyloughjr/Archive

Report date September 22 2009, 16:07 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by RaseaC

The registered user only edits an article about himself, with which he appears unhappy. When the registered user is not editing one of the 3 IPs is, all three seem to be editing with the same concerns as the registered while the first two have been vandalising (and are now blocked). Furthermore, on the registered's talk page he uses one of the IPs to reply to a thread.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by RaseaC (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * The IPs listed resolve to Florida, New Jersey and Colorado. The article says he's from Florida, its possible he travels - but I'd like to see some evidence that he's violated WP:SOCK (i.e. more than just that he is editing while logged out) before endorsing CU to reveal his IP address. Nathan  T 18:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IP 32.177.4.111, for instance, has vandalised the page on four occasions and admitted to being RLJ. What more do you need?! RaseaC (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Looking at the edits of the IPs listed, its likely they are the same user or related. Likely enough that checkuser is actually not necessary to confirm. I'm not sure blocking the account is the best route here; perhaps he should be directed to OTRS, if he is not satisfied with the editing process and wants more eyeballs. It's generally better not to block people who are complaining about articles on themselves, if it can be avoided. Nathan  T 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor was complaining a few weeks ago, now he's vandalising, and that's not OK. RaseaC (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) There is no purpose blocking any of the IPs, and I will not take any administrative action on the sockmaster apart from leaving a warning not to do it again; none of the accounts have edited in over two days, mainly because of the article in question being semi-protected for several days. You can re-report or get another admin to take action if this starts back up again. MuZemike 04:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

09 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Stale but potentially related, for reference:


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Diff set 1:

"TheRealJoeyMoore" has appeared recently to insert promotional material into Rodney Lough's biography. He made nearly the same argument at AfD that Lough did under his real name account: if you delete this, you'll have to delete other things too, including the article for apparent "nemesis" Peter Lik. He fails to sign his comments in the exact same way Lough does, and exhibits similar editing patterns, many small edits without edit summaries.

Ellipsisdbg and TheRealJoeyMoore edited in close proximity interleaved in a way that indicates they are possibly not sock puppets of each other, though I suspect meatpuppet coordination. There may be two groups of socks here as well, it's hard to tell. All of the SPAs exhibit similar editing styles.

Since the article was created, there have been simmering edit wars between SPAs and regular editors over promotional verbiage, coming to a head at one point when Lough abused multiple IPs to edit war to include an all caps disclaimer that the article had been "over edited" and that it wasn't "authorized by him or his agents" anymore. Gigs (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to note, my primary concern here is the relationship between TheRealJoeyMoore and Rodneyloughjr, and potentially Ellipsisdbg. Rumirain and the IPs are stale and are only listed for reference. Gigs (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2012 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, although the old ones are, indeed, too stale to compare. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffing socks, tagging as suspects of the master and blocking 50.xxx for 2 weeks. Closing.