Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rollosmokes/Archive

Evidence submitted by User:Neutralhomer
User:Station Agent 836, under the guise of vandalism removal, displays the same removal of the "the" from The CW Television Network that now indefblocked sockmaster User:Rollosmokes had. User has been repeatedly warning, but refuses to stop. Requesting checkuser and SPI. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 17:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for Station Agent 836:
 * #1
 * #2
 * #3

Evidence for Rollosmokes:
 * #1
 * #2
 * #3

Also another sockpuppet investigation on Rollosmokes: Requests for checkuser/Case/Runteldat -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I am a new user who is all of a sudden being both unfairly accused of vandalism and of being a sockpuppet. The editor alleges that I am all these things and he/she has no real proof. Please take into account that the editor who has brought forth these malicious charges was very recently reinstated from an indefinite block for distruptive editing. Station Agent 836 (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I never altered articles in the way another user has accused me of doing. Any other similarities that allegedly exist between myself and anyone else is purely coincidental. Station Agent 836 (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Looks highly likely to me. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went through quite a few of the articles edited by Station Agent 836 yesterday - nearly every one of them that had mentions of The CW or The WB had been altered at some point by him to remove the capitalization, exactly the same way Rollosmokes did before he was blocked. That, coupled with the attitude this editor has exhibited, leads me to believe that this is Rollo again. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * StationAgent836 claims that he never made any of the changes I allege - here's two links that show otherwise: this edit to Sunbeam Television, and this one to WTXX - which, by the way, uses nearly identical wording in the opening paragraph to this edit by Rollosmokes. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like nitpicking, if you ask me. Station Agent 836 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that would be the hehavioral form of sockpuppetry, no nit-picking involved. Oddly, SA836 has not addressed The CW vandalism once.  Anyone else notice this? -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't addressed this because it is a non-issue in my opinion. If someone wants to change it back then fine.  If I were doing as you say I was, then I would have been called out on it a long time ago.  Now, please stop bulling me!!  I am only here to be a productive and constructive editor, nothing else.  I do not wish to step on toes, cause any ruckus, or create senseless editing wars.  Pick on someone else!!!  Station Agent 836 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me make it very clear, I am not bullying or picking on you. But when these kinds of like edits come across then it needs to be investigated.  If it is found you are not a sock, apologizes will be given, but until then, you need to calm down, take a chill pill and work on something that isn't TV station related for a couple.  No picking, no bullying. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you an administrator? Who are you to suggest to me what articles to edit?  And, I do not forgive nor do I forget.  Saying sorry will not fix what's already been done.  So again, as the admin who unblocked you said, stop Wikihounding me.  Station Agent 836 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI is not the place for back and forth arguments. If you want to argue, take it to your own talkpages. Nathan  T 20:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 17:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 17:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

., all the accounts confirmed in the previous RfCU, and all accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rollosmokes are entirely. This will have to be decided on the behaviorial evidence alone. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

,, the similarity in edit summaries, and the same behavior and patterns are way too convincing, not to mention that Rollosmokes has used the "new user" argument before. Indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 02:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

31 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

DreamMcQueen claimed in this edit that he was indef-blocked user Rollosmokes. I am requested an SPI for DreamMcQueen (who is now indef-blocked) to check for sleeper accounts. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 06:45, 31 July 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

 * Based on self admitted evidence, which he had no reason to admit otherwise (sour grapes), I tend to believe him. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 09:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because a sleeper check was requested, I'll add that all of the accounts in the archive are very, so no comparison is possible. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

21 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Based on the editing behavior and editing contribs of User:Other Side One, I have reason to believe that the user is a sock of User:Rollosmokes, a serial sockpuppeteer. Rollo's last two socks were DreamMcQueen and Oogie Pringle (both now blocked). I have added those two to give the CU something more to work with. Also, there are other SPIs involving socks of Rollo here and here. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:22, 21 March 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

 * It's all stale, unfortunately. Could you provide any specific diffs which you believe are telling? We'll have to go off of behavior alone for this case. NativeForeigner Talk 18:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, let me dig some diffs up and I will post them in a couple minutes. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * During Rollo's time as "DreamMcQueen", he worked quite alot on articles involving The Temptations. There are some crossover edits here: 1, 2, 3.  New York City radio and TV stations, along with bus routes in the NYC area were favorite haunts of both Rollo (as Rollosmokes and all his socks) and by Other Side One.  This is a telling edit as this was a MAJOR problem when it came to Rollo.  He edit warred all over Wikipedia about it and it was one of the things that eventually got him blocked.  The edit-warring-until-blocked, as evidenced here was classic Rollo under all his socks.


 * I know it isn't much, but it is enough for me, I hope it is enough for a sock block. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 18:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's close, leaning towards a block. Any thoughts from another Clerk/Admin/user? NativeForeigner Talk 21:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all but certain it is him. Courcelles 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, user blocked. This guy has an interesting MO, I'll try to keep it in mind. Recommending for close, unless a CU wants to look at Other Side One. NativeForeigner Talk 21:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave it a look, which is part of why I was so confident. No sleepers apparent, though. Courcelles 21:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, closing. NativeForeigner Talk 22:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)