Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rowssusan/Archive

14 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I am sticking an explanatory note to this whole thing up here, for anyone who tries to dig into this. Feel free to remove this, if it is not helpful.
 * explanatory note

This SPI was originally asking if User: CharlatanGourou was a sock of User:Tracescoops.

DeltaQuad check-user blocked CharlatanGourou at 14:30, 14 March 2016 and placed a CU-SOCK block notice on their page here, noting that CharlatanGorou was a sock of User:OverAverageJoe (not Tracescoops). (Later, in this dif at 09:26, 15 March 2016 she marked the field above as "CU declined". Not sure what is up with that - perhaps that CharlatanGourou was not a sock of Tracescoops.)

About OverAverageJoe - that account was CU-blocked by Drmies as a sock of User:Renameduser024 per this). I am tracing that chain because QuackGuru has brought up another potential sock in the Renameduser024 chain, in one of the CU requests below.

There is a separate chain tangled up in here stemming from User:Rowssusan - Tracescoops was eventually CU-blocked as a sock of Rowssusan by DoRD. And today I have introduced CaptainYuge as a new potential sock of Rowssusan that appeared today. There has not been a CU on that yet, as far as I know.

Additionally there is Dsaun101, who might belong to either sock-chain. Sorry this got so messy. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * original request

Sorry, this is a really petty thing, but aggravating in its pettiness and it appears to me that the Master has had the audacity to launch an ANI with such unclean hands. The Master is a new user (Feb 25, 2016) and appears to be a big fan of the football Mannings from their contribs. The user got into a silly argument with Quackguru: I will just copypaste the exchange here and it will be as obvious to you as it was to me. It is from the talk section - Talk:Peyton_Manning. Here it is:


 * QuackGuru, you should be very careful about going around arguing with numerous editors over petty issues, especially when you don't even understand what you're talking about. Your history indicates that you enjoy picking fights, but your block log is not your friend. Tracescoops (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEASEL. You failed to provide verification for the claim "sometimes". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, are you editing under any other usernames or IP addresses? You sound very familiar. Tracescoops (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That was not verification. I assume you agree it was OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess we can take that as a yes that you are editing with other accounts. Tracescoops (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That comment did not provide verification for "sometimes", right? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So how many other accounts are you using to edit? Tracescoops (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You still have not provided V. Are you trying to create a distraction? The most obvious answer is yes? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your inability to understand OR and V as they relate to the use of the word "sometimes" is humorous, as has been pointed out to you by multiple editors. If you're going to continue picking fights with other editors and injecting various guidelines and policies to support your allegations, then please at least understand what they mean. Now, let's get on to the real distraction. If you're not using any other accounts to edit, then why would you be so afraid to simply say so? Tracescoops (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source never said "sometimes" or many or most of the time. You were putting words in the author's mouth. You violated Wikipedia's WP:WEASEL and you have no excuses. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop WikiLawyering, you are pushing a POV over a word. Consensus is against you. Also please stop using edit summaries as a forum, it isn't appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlatanGourou (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am maintaining a neutral position for excluding a word not found in the source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation from my watchlist over the past couple days, and if I may chime in, I actually would have to agree with QuackGuru, for the most part. In the source provided for the Mannings being referred to as "football's royal family," it only refers to one instance of them being called that. The word "sometimes" implies more than just one instance, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure if it would really qualify as "original research" to word it as "The Mannings are sometimes referred to as football's royal family," but I think it would at least go against the verifiability policy. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

--

That contrib in blue, is the one contrib for CharlatanGourou, and appears to me is obviously using an alternative account for invalid reasons. For a new user they are pretty facile with policies and guidelines; won't be surprised if CU turns up other socks. Jytdog (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (redact to own the claims instead of making them factual. sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC))


 * Hm. Well that result is surprising. OverAverageJoe is a relatively new account as well that was opened a couple of weeks before the Tracescoops account.  The CU report doesn't mention Tracescoops.  What is the outcome there?


 * Some behavioral things...
 * OverAverageJoe is interested in and knowledgeable about sports medicine per this and this.
 * Tracescoops edits have a concentration on sports, like
 * these edits to Bishop Guilfoyle High School (focused on their sports teams); (17 difs)
 * these edits to Peyton Manning (34 difs)
 * these edits to Super Bowl 50 (4 difs)
 * Tracescoops has made 124 edits to article space, and these are about half of them. He's made 93 edits on article Talk pages and 88 of those are at Peyton Manning.


 * In general Tracescoops editing shows some signs of paid editing, with somewhat promotional edits to articles I see no logical connection among.... (e.g. edits to Alisan Porter updating her career, which they did in the first week of being here, and these updates to a politician's website, in the first week or so of editing - all of which is pretty sophisticated editing for a new user).  They are aware of how people use WP for promotion, as their first posting was at the Help Desk, about the promotional nature of the Studio 58 article here.  I will not be surprised if CU turns up connections to past accounts.  Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Further evidence that Tracescoops is not a new user:
 * this banninating me from their talk page. How do they know how to do that already?
 * comparing block logs here. How do they know how to do that already?
 * this fairly sophisticated proposal at ANI, which takes well into account the knowledge that threads are reviewed and closed.
 * this remarkably clueful discussion of how to handle the Peyton Manning sexual allegations

This is all stuff that is way over the pay grade of someone who has only edited here for a short time would know. On the other hand, they are doing newbie stuff like editing their own comments after they have been responded to (which they have done a lot) and claiming this SPI is over when there has been no CU report nor admin close, as they did below. So maybe they are new but just somewhat precocious. Angrily and inappropriately precocious... Hm. [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * note - page was re-organized and new CU requests added in this series of diffs. I added my signature above as the rest of the original comment is below now. I think the page more or less makes sense now, but this is quite sprawling... [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog] (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The suspected sock has been CU-blocked as a sock of . GABHello! 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know Jytdog or Tracescoops, but I have been peripherally involved in the talk page discussion mention above, so I'll say this; I don't know why Jytdog feels the need to insult another editor before the jury is in. If CU is negative, I wonder if he'll apologize? Lastly, if Tracescoops is indeed socking behind that account, then he should be blocked - somewhere between lengthy and indef. That's 'if'. That said, I think we should just wait for CU report. - the WOLF  child  18:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wolf, just to clarify a misunderstanding. The comment above grom AGSBJ was simply part of Jytdog's copy/paste exchange from the Manning talk page. So AGSBJ didn't actually post anything here. In any case, we'll let this nonsense proceed and see how it turns out. Jytdog said above that it was "obvious" that I was CharlatanGourou ("it will be as obvious to you as it was to me"), but we see where that ended up. So far, none of the editors who accused me of being CharlatanGourou have apologized, even though they know the truth now. It's a shame that editors can go around to various forums accusing people of creating fake accounts with no proof, and without reporting it. Jytdog accused me of it on a noticeboard 15 minutes before reporting it here. Tracescoops (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, regarding your crazy assertion that "Tracescoops editing shows some signs of paid editing, with somewhat promotional edits to articles", you referred to Alisan Porter. Did you even look at the edits I made?? Someone who works for that woman would probably not be happy at all with some of the edits I made to that article, such as this one and this one! Not that I need to explain myself to you, but the reason I went to that article is because I had just watched Porter appear as a contestant on The Voice (U.S. season 10). As I was reading it, I saw that some of the content was poorly written or made it sound like a fan page. So I made some simple improvements. You also used P.G. Sittenfeld as an example of my supposed paid editing. If they were paying me to edit that article, would I have done this or this or this?! Again, it's really none of your business why I went to that article, but it's because I read an article that said he was one of the candidates running for the U.S. Senate from one of the important states for the presidential election. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I read or hear about topics that interest me enough to want to go look them up on Wikipedia. And I didn't know that the subjects I view here must have a "logical connection". Pardon me for being interested in a wide range of topics. So let's be serious. I don't know where you're coming up with this baseless conspiracy theory, but if you're going to make wild accusations like this, then provide examples of specific edits. And report it to whatever noticeboard handles that type of issue. Tracescoops (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tracescoops I will respond as though you are indeed new here. We get many, many cases of people sockpuppeting who pretend to be new, but are actual paid editors who create accounts, do some editing with them, and then abandon that account and move on to another one to do more of the same.  Even when we catch them doing this via COIN or SPI, they come back and do it again.   Paid editors take jobs where ever they get them, so like your editing, and unlike the editing of many (not all) people, there is no discernable pattern to their editing, since it is driven not by interest but rather by the needs of their various clients.  You can be all angry that I have raised questions about whether you are a SOCK, but I have done nothing wrong here, and everything I have said has validity.   You should also know (if you are indeed new to WP) that people who are actually SOCKing come here and blatantly lie, all the time.  You find mind-blowingly blatant lying here.  So coming here and just protesting and being angry is not helpful.  The crats and admins who work here pay attention to two things - the CU results and the behavioral evidence.  That's it. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I will respond as though you didn't understand my points. You said, "I have done nothing wrong here". I beg to differ. You accused me of being CharlatanGourou on another noticeboard before even filing this report. Interestingly, your response didn't even acknowledge that fact or that you were wrong, despite your insistence that it was "obvious". You also implied that people are paying me to edit articles with absolutely no logical evidence to support it, other than pure rhetoric. And let's get something straight, I never said you lied, so perhaps you should tone down the drama with terms like "mind-blowingly blatant lying". I know you believe what you are alleging, but what I'm saying is that your claims are false. A lie is intentionally saying things that you know are false. But the more important point is about the inappropriate way in which you've handled this matter - accusing me in another forum of having a fake account (before filing this report) and then making additional allegations here with nothing to back it up except pure conjecture. Tracescoops (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are too new to understand what you are saying so I will not be responding here. But you should slow down because right now you are only making yourself look bad. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep your condescension to yourself. Actually, the one who came here with their "obvious" case and has presented nothing but rhetoric is the one who's making themself look bad. Did you, or did you not, (falsely) accuse me of being CharlatanGourou before reporting it here? Why do you keep avoiding the question? Do you not have the ability to apologize when you make a mistake, or even acknowledge that it happened? Be careful about accusing people of things with nothing to prove it. I wouldn't want to see you getting another indefinite block. Tracescoops (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should not have said "obviously SOCKING" at the ANI and should have said "apparently SOCKING" and I just made that correction, here. I had already made similar corrections above, here.  None of that takes away from the validity of the case.  The CU has not reported yet, so this case is not finished.   In any case, your behavior is out of line and getting increasingly so.  You should cool it, for your own sake. Now that's really all I have to say here with regard to all that. I may return with further behavioral analysis/evidence. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you keep saying you're not going to say anything else, yet keep doing it. I must say, it takes a lot of nerve to come here and lecture me about inappropriate behavior, when you refuse to acknowledge your own. You still don't get it. You should have said nothing at the ANI. As several other editors stated there, if you think someone's using a fake account then you come here to report it; you do not accuse them on talk pages. And how about the fact that I asked you not to return to my talk page a short time ago, yet only minutes later you ignored my request and posted there again? So do not lecture me about bad behavior. Was your indefinite block for good behavior? I would welcome your "further behavioral analysis/evidence". We'll see how that works out for you. Tracescoops (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So Tracescoops was just blocked by a CU for being a sock of User:Rowssusan Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So, if Tracescoops has just been blocked for socking... is a CU going to determine if CharlatanGourou was also a sock? - the WOLF  child  23:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * if it is not already clear to you, please see the explanatory note above. When Tracescoops was blocked, CharlatanGourou had already been CU-blocked as a sock of Overagejoe, who had been CU-blocked as sock of Renameduser024.  The difs showing all that are in the note above.  Two distinct sock-chains got tangled up here. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well of course it wasn't clear to me when I asked, none of the info above was here when I posted that question. And like you said... "it's a mess". Anyway, at the time I was a curious but I've pretty much lost interest now. Thanks anyway. - the WOLF  child  06:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh, wolfchild you wrote that some hours ago. i meant that if it is not clear to you by now. Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Requesting case be moved to oldest account (which appear to be Rowssusan).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging blocking admins: .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:EvergreenFir, see Sockpuppet investigations/CaptainYuge. It has been confirmed that CaptainYuge has another account. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I reckon they will get to that. There are too few CUs and admins for all the work here.   And Dsaun appears to be yet another SOCK in this chain.  It will take a while to sort it all out. Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * for obvious reasons. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to do?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probally nothing for this case, though there is action below that can be taken. I had posted this before the below came out. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then, I'm closing this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

15 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * PedroScience is another new account. Read comment by new account and read comment by confirmed sock. User:Renameduser024 and User:OverAverageJoe and User:CharlatanGourou are the same person. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Thanks for better ordering all this, QuackGuru. I didn't know how to do that. Just so this is cross-referenced here, I filed a new, related SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Rowssusan concerning: - Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * any comment on ?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Guys, please don't play with the format. If you wish to file new accounts in a new case, please do it from the main SPI page. That said, you pinged me at some point? I don't see it now... --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅, but to Rowssusan/Tracescoops*:
 * Renamed
 * Renamed
 * Renamed
 * Renamed
 * Renamed
 * Renamed
 * Renamed
 * Renamed


 * * The only reason I say unlikely instead of unrelated is that Renameduser024/Mrfrobinson edit out of their normal editing country within a days drive from Rowssusan/Tracescoops. The UA does not match.
 * If a clerk could sort out a new case for the Renameduser024 group, that would be great. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/CaptainYuge. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. The case is copied to Sockpuppet investigations/Renameduser024. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

15 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets

I have done further looking into editing around Peyton Manning, and this user: is very potentially a candidate to be the sockmaster for Tracescoop. They were blocked on Feb 10 for edit warring on Super Bowl 50 over viewership numbers. Shortly after that, got into an edit war at the Jim Brown article over content about sexual abuse allegation and in that, mentioned the Peyton Manning article. Then went and added allegations of sexual abuse to another athlete's article here. And then came to the Talk page of the Peyton Manning article here to ask why these allegations were in this article but those other two, and their next edit was removing discussion of sexual allegations from the Manning article. That was on Feb 18th. That was reverted, and on Feb 21 Dsaun edit warred that content back in. And again the next day. They just kind of vanished at the end of February.

Tracescoop's account was created on Feb 25th, as I mentioned above, and the very next day they were at the Manning article, and made the same argument as DSaun but from a new angle. Via sockmaster. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌ to anything on this SPI. Also, please use either the main SPI page WP:SPI or Twinkle to file additional cases. You are missing several pieces of formatting when you do it manually. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)