Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rotsmasher/Archive

14 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Substantially similar edits on Optical Express (see contribution history of all three accounts) &mdash; all the way down to the quirky edit summary style that invariably appends four tildes to the end of each edit summary. Rotsmasher and Rots2 were blocked some time ago. I have declined an unblock request from Handlebarman per WP:DUCK.

I am opening this SPI report partly to establish a case history. Too much time may have passed since Rotsmasher/Rots2 edits, but Handlebarman has requested a checkuser in his unblock request. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 14 August 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

 * - Checkuser isn't used to prove innocence. DUCK applies here - I don't think any further action is necessary. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 23:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Marked for close. Jafeluv (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

13 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Points of notice •	No edits to any other page •	Rotsmasher was blocked from editing the page and a template placed on the Optical Express page to stop editing. Rotsmasher appealed vigorously on his talk page and those of admins to allow him to edit the page. Once the template was removed, GBE appeared on the scene. Several banned sock-puppets between article allowing edits and the appearance of GBE – all with an anti-opticalexpress agenda. •	Knowledge of history of edits on Optical Express almost from the start and a deep knowledge of Hardlygone and Optical Express page history •	single-purpose account with a battleground mentality

Prior knowledge of Wikipedia and Optical Express page From his very first edit, GBE seems to have an experience of using Wikipedia as well as having a knowledge of the Optical Express page previously. He also reverted an edit by an editor which Rotsmasher had campaigned vigorously to be kept on the article. Examples of prior knowledge in edits:

Prior knowledge of Wikipedia and Optical Express page From his very first edit, GBE seems to have an experience of using Wikipedia as well as having a knowledge of the Optical Express page previously. He also reverted an edit by an editor which Rotsmasher had campaigned vigorously to be kept on the article. Examples of prior knowledge in edits:

21:01, 16 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (23,164 bytes) (+455)‎. . (Undid revision 512976750 by Fayedizard (talk)That editor used much better references second time round. Can see no reason to revert it. Seems relevant and referenced) (undo)

20:32, 17 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (17,811 bytes) (+895)‎. . (Undid revision 513232808 by Theroadislong (talk)Important historical issue) (undo)

09:43, 21 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,637 bytes) (+132)‎. . (Undid revision 513835370 by Hardlygone (talk) factual information)(undo)

05:05, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,231 bytes) (+340)‎. . (Undid revision 513934984 by Hardlygone (talk)reverted blatant attempt to remove factual data regarding dental clinics going from 35 to 7 on website) (undo)

13:40, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,327 bytes) (-7)‎. . (Undid revision 513991260 by Hardlygone (talk)subtle censoring) (undo)

13:43, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,879 bytes) (+698)‎. . (Undid revision 513988233 by Hardlygone (talk)feeble? Disgusting)(undo)

13:48, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,883 bytes) (-8)‎. . (Undid revision 513982964 by Hardlygone (talk)much more than pricing criticised) (undo)

13:54, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,615 bytes) (+132)‎. . (Undid revision 513982246 by Hardlygone (talk)factual and relevant)(undo)

20:37, 23 October 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (17,564 bytes) (+255)‎. . (Undid revision 519391898 by Fayedizard (talk)don't fall for their censorship agenda) (undo)

Other examples of previous knowledge/involvement:

There have been consistent attempts by this company to sanitise the article of any negativity. The issue of CCJs is important when taken as a part of the many controversial elements of this company and should be included in the article. The analyst was from PWC. Interestingly their ex CEO is now on the Optical Express Executive Board.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You were asked to provide citations supporting the fact that the case was dropped on appeal many moons ago and you didnt provide any evidence of this.--Golfbravoecho(talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC) if that is the case why have you removed the Opticalexpressruinedmylife section again. The truth is you have been previously warned for this kind of thing and you know you may get blocked. Have you not got better things to do during your working day? I am also a bit confused why your previous contact (the senior editor) is not currently active for you?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Reference to editor which was commented on by Rotsmasher on previous occasions before account was blocked.

Example of communication towards editor

Dear H Mitchell. That stinks. The article is more detailed and balanced due to my edits. You were far to close to Optical Express before after working with them and that has obviously not changed. Other senior editors did not have a problem. Just you.Rotsmasher (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Constant Edit warring – similar to Rotsmasher (Consistently editing/reverting Hardlygone posts from the beginning)

16:03, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,974 bytes) (-6)‎. . (Undid revision 514489694 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 16:02, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,980 bytes) (+102)‎. . (Undid revision 514490317 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 16:01, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,864 bytes) (-254)‎. . (Undid revision 514492653 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:58, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,160 bytes) (+14)‎. . (Undid revision 514493050 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:57, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,128 bytes) (+26)‎. . (Undid revision 514493143 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:56, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,118 bytes) (-2)‎. . (Undid revision 514493392 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:56, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,120 bytes) (-22)‎. . (Undid revision 514493709 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:55, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,142 bytes) (+4)‎. . (Undid revision 514493914 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:55, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,138 bytes) (-9)‎. . (Undid revision 514493992 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:54, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,147 bytes) (+16)‎. . (Undid revision 514494162 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:54, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,131 bytes) (+130)‎. . (Undid revision 514495848 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:53, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,001 bytes) (+2)‎. . (Undid revision 514496186 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:53, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,999 bytes) (-167)‎. . (Undid revision 514496487 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 15:51, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,166 bytes) (+166)‎. . (Undid revision 514497129 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 12:14, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,596 bytes) (-5)‎. . (Undid revision 514463228 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 12:13, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,601 bytes) (-1)‎. . (Undid revision 514465736 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 12:12, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,602 bytes) (+6)‎. . (Undid revision 514466226 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 12:12, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,596 bytes) (-10)‎. . (Undid revision 514462634 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 12:11, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,606 bytes) (+384)‎. . (Undid revision 514462355 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 09:24, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,613 bytes) (+384)‎. . (Undid revision 514452314 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 09:23, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,229 bytes) (+17)‎. . (Undid revision 514452369 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 05:43, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,613 bytes) (+384)‎. . (Undid revision 514442264 by Hardlygone (talk)replaced section)(undo) 05:41, 25 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,229 bytes) (+17)‎. . (Undid revision 514442507 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:54, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,615 bytes) (+132)‎. . (Undid revision 513982246 by Hardlygone (talk)factual and relevant)(undo) 13:53, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,483 bytes) (+340)‎. . (Undid revision 513982377 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:51, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,137 bytes) (+2)‎. . (Undid revision 513982466 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:50, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,141 bytes) (+252)‎. . (Undid revision 513982570 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:49, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,889 bytes) (+6)‎. . (Undid revision 513982773 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:48, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,883 bytes) (-8)‎. . (Undid revision 513982964 by Hardlygone (talk)much more than pricing criticised) (undo) 13:47, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,891 bytes) (-10)‎. . (Undid revision 513983853 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:46, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,901 bytes) (+1)‎. . (Undid revision 513983924 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:45, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,900 bytes) (+15)‎. . (Undid revision 513985155 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:44, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,885 bytes) (+8)‎. . (Undid revision 513987340 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:44, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,877 bytes) (-2)‎. . (Undid revision 513987624 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:43, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,879 bytes) (+698)‎. . (Undid revision 513988233 by Hardlygone (talk)feeble? Disgusting)(undo) 13:42, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,181 bytes) (-173)‎. . (Undid revision 513988965 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 13:41, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,354 bytes) (+27)‎. . (Undid revision 513990728 by Hardlygone (talk)yes there is) (undo) 13:40, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,327 bytes) (-7)‎. . (Undid revision 513991260 by Hardlygone (talk)subtle censoring) (undo) 13:37, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,334 bytes) (+64)‎. . (Undid revision 513991709 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 05:08, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,615 bytes) (+132)‎. . (Undid revision 513932774 by 2.220.71.253 (talk)) (undo) 05:05, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,231 bytes) (+340)‎. . (Undid revision 513934984 by Hardlygone (talk)reverted blatant attempt to remove factual data regarding dental clinics going from 35 to 7 on website) (undo) 05:03, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,891 bytes) (+2)‎. . (Undid revision 513935118 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 04:57, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,889 bytes) (+6)‎. . (Undid revision 513935722 by Hardlygone (talk)meddling) (undo) 04:56, 22 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,883 bytes) (-17)‎. . (Undid revision 513936089 by Hardlygone (talk)) (undo) 09:43, 21 September 2012‎ Golfbravoecho (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,637 bytes) (+132)‎. . (Undid revision 513835370 by Hardlygone (talk) factual information)(undo)

Anti Optical Express agenda - similarities

This users posts have consistently been driven towards an anti-Optical Express agenda from the beginning. The only account that has displayed this mentality over the last 12/18 months has been Rotsmasher or his sock-puppet accounts. The language used across the posts such as “censoring” and “censorship agenda” across both accounts is fairly consistent as is the messages and times that content is being posted. The way in which this account had a battle-ground mentality with Hardlygone from the moment it started editing would suggest that there is previous history there. The only account which Hardlygone has had a similar type of interaction with is Rotsmasher (and his aliases). HJ Mitchell has banned several Rotsmasher accounts because of obvious similarity traits, which I believe are also reflected through GBE posts.

Examples of Anti-OE agenda:

There have been consistent attempts by this company to sanitise the article of any negativity. The issue of CCJs is important when taken as a part of the many controversial elements of this company and should be included in the article. The analyst was from PWC. Interestingly their ex CEO is now on the Optical Express Executive Board.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you were sanitising it. The company has through two main players over time. There is a lot of negatives because the company has a lot of negative press.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You were asked to provide citations supporting the fact that the case was dropped on appeal many moons ago and you didnt provide any evidence of this.--Golfbravoecho(talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I want other editors to review these. There is a blatant attempt to remove information regarding previous and current dental clinic numbers within an edit stated as being to remove an out of date ref.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

watchdog didn't just criticise pricing though. Not by a long chalk. They criticised pressure selling, frank lies told by "laser councillors" who are in fact glorified salespeople.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

let's face it. Your instructions are to censor the article and give it as positive a spin as possible. It is a shame that Optical Express have been so controversial but I didn't influence that. An encyclopaedic article has to include the negatives too.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

you know that a valid reference for 35 dental clinics was available on your own website until you removed it. You know you will not allow - opticalexpressruinedmylife - to be on wiki and ideally, no mention of a gripe site at all. you closed 28 dental clinics since 2005, why can you not allow this factual information on wiki? The problem with Optical Express is that you do controversial things such as lie in adverts, fly tip, get county court judgements, shut dentists and have multi-million pound VAT disputes but the only thing you want on wiki is a glorified PR piece sanctioned by David Moulsdale--Golfbravoecho (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Optical Express were happy to fight this and thus tacitly accept that a negative outcome would lead to a series of facts worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and also that the opticalexpressruinedmylife website would continue to exist. So why are they so keen to remove all reference to it from here?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

if that is the case why have you removed the Opticalexpressruinedmylife section again. The truth is you have been previously warned for this kind of thing and you know you may get blocked. Have you not got better things to do during your working day? I am also a bit confused why your previous contact (the senior editor) is not currently active for you?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mirroring Rotsmasher Traits

Rotsmasher was previously banned for displaying the traits below. Looking at GBE posts, it would be fair to comment that he is displaying the exact same mentality and traits: 1.	You appear to be a single-purpose account with little interest outside Optical Express, and thus do not appear to be here to improve the encyclopaedia. 2.	Your edits at Optical Express have been disruptive, including edit-warring and combative reverting, and persistent hindrance of attempts to add content that reflects well on the company or the removal of material that reflects negatively on it, even when done by uninvolved editors in accordance with policy. 3.	You have displayed a battleground mentality in all your edits surrounding Optical Express, hindering the consensus-building process and contributing to the extreme level of toxicity in discussions on the topic. 4.	I strongly suspect that you have some sort of undisclosed conflict of interest that biases you against Optical Express (though this was a small factor in my decision to block you).

Rotsmasher – Similar posts

12:24, 19 January 2012 (diff | hist). . (+421)‎ . . User talk:Rotsmasher ‎ (Vented steam and added contextual infoHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 23:03, 14 January 2012 (diff | hist). . (+1,145)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 471201393 by Badbhoy (talk)Blatant censorship attemptHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 07:06, 3 September 2011 (diff | hist). . (+849)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 448114161 by PKdundee (talk) sneaky! get rid of the Watchdog criticism at the same time as the restHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 07:03, 3 September 2011 (diff | hist). . (+766)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 448132783 by PKdundee (talk) COI at its worst Hardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 08:47, 29 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+494)‎ . . Talk:Optical Express ‎ (→‎Assume good faith: Challenged editor regarding vandalism of my user pageHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 06:16, 28 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+6,625)‎ . . Talk:Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 447050979 by PKdundee (talk)Of course it is important!) 19:23, 27 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+896)‎ . . User talk:HJ Mitchell ‎ (→‎Recent Optical Express revisions: further comments addedHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 17:29, 27 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+496)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (added widely reported information that has previously been included in this article for many months and through many Wikipedia Admin inputsHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 17:00, 27 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+793)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (added 2006 patient file dumping issue that was removed during recent biased article revisions by Optical Express employeesHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 16:55, 27 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+226)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (removed company bias on Harrington affair, removed unproven company hype with unproven company reference, added detail on ASA dismissal of Optical Express appeal Hardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 16:42, 27 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+398)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (→‎Overview and History: Removed unreferenced spurious information and added facts to give balance and reduce company favored biasHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 17:33, 8 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+611)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 443694838 by Beatthecyberhate (talk) widely reported and factually accurate information removed yet again!Hardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 17:31, 8 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+364)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 443694917 by Beatthecyberhate (talk) widely reported information removed again!Hardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 17:29, 8 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+567)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 443694975 by Beatthecyberhate (talk) factual information removedHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 17:27, 8 August 2011 (diff | hist). . (+434)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 443695348 by Beatthecyberhate (talk) censorship of negative but true informationHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 18:37, 24 July 2011 (diff | hist). . (+67)‎ . . N User:Rotsmasher ‎ (←Created page with 'I don't like companies who try and hide facts that they don't like.') 17:39, 17 July 2011 (diff | hist). . (+435)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (→‎Controversy: recent Optical Express Pro Tour Golf debacle addedHardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 18:59, 3 July 2011 (diff | hist). . (+153)‎ . . User talk:Theroadislong ‎ (→‎KV-5 Stonehenge edits:   Please see comments above my edit - vandalism?Hardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (diff | hist). . (+1,324)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 434372346 by 195.200.154.216 (talk) Here we go again. Facts removed with no explanation Hardlygone (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)) 09:37, 10 June 2011 (diff | hist). . (+1,325)‎ . . Optical Express ‎ (Undid revision 433513302 by 195.200.154.216 (talk) Review of his users talk page gives history of poor edits. This edit removed factual information from the page - censorship?)

Talk Page history

Dear H Mitchell. That stinks. The article is more detailed and balanced due to my edits. You were far to close to Optical Express before after working with them and that has obviously not changed. Other senior editors did not have a problem. Just you.Rotsmasher (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

NB HJ Mitchell DELETED (note archived) a number of Rotsmasher posts which would have displayed similar characteristics as the Talk page got slightly ‘messy’ at one point and an agreement was reached to move forward.

Need to see what some other editors think. Seemed to be plenty who felt that Optical Express were using every trick in the book including sock puppetry, vandalism of my page (by proven representatives) widespread blanking etc etc etc. didn't see their chosen editor get blocked even after he vandalised my page ( and admitted it) It is a crock of shitRotsmasher (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I want my editing rights restored ASAPRotsmasher (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I am not a sockpuppet. In addition I am vaguely intimidated by the way user Hardlygone stated that Optical Express had known my identity for some time. They are mistaken but it is worth asking how? --Golfbravoecho (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing without prejudice. This case is too long and convoluted by the GIANT wall of text. If refiled, please make a concise summary case. Thank you,

20 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Points of notice
 * No edits to any other page
 * Rotsmasher was blocked from editing the page and a template placed on the Optical Express page to stop editing. Rotsmasher appealed vigorously on his talk page and those of admins to allow him to edit the page. Once the template was removed, GBE appeared on the scene. Several banned sock-puppets between article allowing edits and the appearance of GBE – all with an anti-opticalexpress agenda.
 * Knowledge of history of edits on Optical Express almost from the start and a deep knowledge of Hardlygone and Optical Express page history
 * single-purpose account with a battleground mentality

From his very first edit, GBE seems to have an experience of using Wikipedia as well as having a knowledge of the Optical Express page previously. He also reverted an edit by an editor which Rotsmasher had campaigned vigorously to be kept on the article. Please see edits page for examples of this.
 * Prior knowledge of Wikipedia and Optical Express page

Other examples of previous knowledge/involvement:

There have been consistent attempts by this company to sanitise the article of any negativity. The issue of CCJs is important when taken as a part of the many controversial elements of this company and should be included in the article. The analyst was from PWC. Interestingly their ex CEO is now on the Optical Express Executive Board.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You were asked to provide citations supporting the fact that the case was dropped on appeal many moons ago and you didnt provide any evidence of this.--Golfbravoecho(talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

if that is the case why have you removed the Opticalexpressruinedmylife section again. The truth is you have been previously warned for this kind of thing and you know you may get blocked. Have you not got better things to do during your working day? I am also a bit confused why your previous contact (the senior editor) is not currently active for you?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Reference to editor which was commented on by Rotsmasher on previous occasions before account was blocked.

Dear H Mitchell. That stinks. The article is more detailed and balanced due to my edits. You were far to close to Optical Express before after working with them and that has obviously not changed. Other senior editors did not have a problem. Just you.Rotsmasher (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Example of communication towards editor

This editor has directly edited over 50 posts of mine without any concensus from the community and often which push a negative agenda. This was a trait of Rotsmasher and has been continued through this account.
 * Constant Edit warring – similar to Rotsmasher (Consistently editing/reverting Hardlygone posts from the beginning)

This users posts have consistently been driven towards an anti-Optical Express agenda from the beginning. The only account that has displayed this mentality over the last 12/18 months has been Rotsmasher or his sock-puppet accounts. The language used across the posts such as “censoring” and “censorship agenda” across both accounts is fairly consistent as is the messages and times that content is being posted. The way in which this account had a battle-ground mentality with Hardlygone from the moment it started editing would suggest that there is previous history there. The only account which Hardlygone has had a similar type of interaction with is Rotsmasher (and his aliases). HJ Mitchell has banned several Rotsmasher accounts because of obvious similarity traits, which I believe are also reflected through GBE posts.
 * Anti Optical Express agenda - similarities

Examples of Anti-OE agenda:

There have been consistent attempts by this company to sanitise the article of any negativity. The issue of CCJs is important when taken as a part of the many controversial elements of this company and should be included in the article. The analyst was from PWC. Interestingly their ex CEO is now on the Optical Express Executive Board.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you were sanitising it. The company has through two main players over time. There is a lot of negatives because the company has a lot of negative press.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You were asked to provide citations supporting the fact that the case was dropped on appeal many moons ago and you didnt provide any evidence of this.--Golfbravoecho(talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rotsmasher was previously banned for displaying the traits below. Looking at GBE posts, it would be fair to comment that he is displaying the exact same mentality and traits:
 * Mirroring Rotsmasher Traits
 * 1) You appear to be a single-purpose account with little interest outside Optical Express, and thus do not appear to be here to improve the encyclopaedia.
 * 2) Your edits at Optical Express have been disruptive, including edit-warring and combative reverting, and persistent hindrance of attempts to add content that reflects well on the company or the removal of material that reflects negatively on it, even when done by uninvolved editors in accordance with policy.
 * 3) You have displayed a battleground mentality in all your edits surrounding Optical Express, hindering the consensus-building process and contributing to the extreme level of toxicity in discussions on the topic.
 * 4) I strongly suspect that you have some sort of undisclosed conflict of interest that biases you against Optical Express (though this was a small factor in my decision to block you).

Dear H Mitchell. That stinks. The article is more detailed and balanced due to my edits. You were far to close to Optical Express before after working with them and that has obviously not changed. Other senior editors did not have a problem. Just you.Rotsmasher (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk Page history

NB HJ Mitchell DELETED (note archived) a number of Rotsmasher posts which would have displayed similar characteristics as the Talk page got slightly ‘messy’ at one point and an agreement was reached to move forward.

Need to see what some other editors think. Seemed to be plenty who felt that Optical Express were using every trick in the book including sock puppetry, vandalism of my page (by proven representatives) widespread blanking etc etc etc. didn't see their chosen editor get blocked even after he vandalised my page ( and admitted it) It is a crock of shitRotsmasher (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I want my editing rights restored ASAPRotsmasher (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Hardlygone (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

See comments on the previous closed case file. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who ever is involved in evaluation here, it would be useful to carefully read user Hardlygone's talk page.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As noted by Berean Hunter in the previous filing, this case still suffers from being a giant, confusing mass of comments from months ago. If you wish for action to be taken, you will need to provide simple, concise evidence - please see the "Important notes" section of WP:SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I have tried to make this more concise than it was previously in order that it is easier to understand. I think all the information within this is relevant and I don't understand how I can make it more concise without losing the evidence that I am trying to present. I believe if I made it more concise then you would then rule that there was not enough evidence to support the point that I am trying to make. I would appreciate help or advice in this matter. Hardlygone (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Awww Diddums..--Golfbravoecho (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Closed. The style of Golfbravoecho's talk page contributions is very different from Rotsmasher's. I don't think sockpuppetry has occurred this time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)