Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/S.S. Miami/Archive

18 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This user popped up shortly after S.S. Miami was blocked for sockpuppet abuse. The account is editing in the same kind of places Miami did. An IP editor pointed out the similarity, and Mamma Rose felt the need to revert them. I strongly suspect S.S. Miami still hasn't gotten the point. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that Bialytock&Bloom and StryoFome were added to this case by another user. They have already been blocked as Miami socks. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

The revert was a slip of the mouse on Twinkle; you can see that I add it back. See my comments on the talk page.-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 15:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Mamma_Rose is definitely another sock of User:S.S. Miami/User:Bialytock&Bloom/User:StryoFome.
 * Why else would he/she a) come to User:S.S. Miami's user page? and b) delete (and then reinstate) the edit about him/her being a sock of User:S.S. Miami?  If it's not true, why hasn't he/she kicked up a fuss about it?  I would if I was wrongly accused. User:Mamma Rose has decided keeping a low profile is the best policy, don't draw attention to him/herself and he/she might get away with it. [diff = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S.S._Miami&diff=prev&oldid=434939145]
 * He/she uploaded a photo without proper copyright, which was then removed from Commons [diff = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mamma_Rose&diff=prev&oldid=434664854]. On 18 June he/she re-uploaded the photo [File : Addamsfamilymusical.jpg], plus another non-copyright photo - the old behaviour of Miami, User:Bialytock&Bloom and User:StryoFome
 * Added a welcome template to his/her own talk page, signed by himself/herself, in which he/she says "I am Mamma Rose and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, [my bolding] so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page." This was on 15 June, when User:Mamma_Rose had been editing for just 2 days. [diff = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mamma_Rose&diff=prev&oldid=434478753]
 * The same day joined the Wikiproject Musical Theatre, [diff = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre&diff=prev&oldid=434441185]. Of the last seven editors to join, four are User:S.S. Miami, User:Bialytock&Bloom, User:StryoFome and User:Mamma_Rose.
 * Is editing almost exactly the same articles as User:S.S. Miami, User:Bialytock&Bloom, User:StryoFome, especially those created by his/her earlier socks. 86.133.51.89 (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just use checkuser. It is very likely that out of the nearly seven billion people on Earth, two have the same interests.-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of those images you've brought up are fine, so I can't imagine what you're talking about.-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's look at User:Mamma_Rose's first ten edits, shall we?
 * User:Mamma_Rose's first edit was to Joshua Henry; page started by User:Bialytock&Bloom, also edited by User:StryoFome
 * Second and fourth edits weres to Good People (play); page started by User:Bialytock&Bloom, also edited by User:StryoFome
 * Third edit was to The Book of Mormon (musical), a page also heavily edited by User:Bialytock&Bloom and User:StryoFome
 * Fifth edit was to War Horse (play), a page also heavily edited by User:Bialytock&Bloom and User:StryoFome
 * Sixth edit was to Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo; page started by User:Bialytock&Bloom, also edited by User:StryoFome
 * Seventh edit was to Sandra Church; page started by User:StryoFome
 * Eighth and ninth edits were to Rose Hemingway; page started by User:Bialytock&Bloom
 * Tenth edit was to Nikki M. James; page also edited by User:StryoFome (it was created after User:Bialytock&Bloom was blocked)


 * What are the chances, eh?


 * Also, User:S.S. Miami, User:Bialytock&Bloom, User:StryoFome and User:Mamma_Rose all edit in the same way, not leaving edit summaries etc. 86.133.51.89 (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Did you not read anything? Have you even looked at my edit summaries? You seem to want to block out everything I say. Let me say it again: "It is very likely that out of the nearly seven billion people on Earth, two have the same interests." If you want to have good evidence, you should use checkuser.-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 16:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's look at your last 20 edits. Only for five of them have you typed in an edit summary. And not for a single one so far on this page, funnily enough. You generally don't fill them in, and you didn't in any of your earlier incarnations either. It's easy to use the old 'oh, it's a coincidence, people have the same interests' excuse: but your editing is very specific and interestingly never overlaps with that of Miami, B&B and Stryo. I'd like to get a mathematician to work out the probability of your first ten edits happening to four completely unrelated editors. About 1:7,000,000,000,000,000,000 I'd figure. 86.133.51.89 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't be stupid. Use checkuser before you make a fool out of yourself.-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 16:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets aren't found by checkuser alone - there are behavioural patterns too. I suspect you are pressing for checkuser so vehemently (every edit, nearly) because you are editing from another computer.86.133.51.89 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm editing from a different computer! Why? Because I'm not any of them! Who in their right mind would buy another computer just to edit Wikipedia?-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 16:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And can you name one thing Mamma Rose has done wrong? And not one of those "bad images on Wikimedia Commons" you are making up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that a bunch of people on Earth can and DO have the same interests. It's very suspicious that a random IP address is suddenly accusing people of sockpuppetry.-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 16:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The bad thing is evading blocks, and you know it. And now we come back to the behavioural evidence. Here's what User:StryoFome said on one of his/her block appeals: "I would never intend to harm Wikipedia! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that from my text contributions!" It's these little bits of evidence, all seemingly insignificant in themselves but gradually adding to build a picture. 86.133.51.89 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You should know how "rocket scientist" is such a widely used term in America. And your reply doesn't even answer my question, because the only thing I've done is improve Wikipedia. If that's bad, then maybe we should block everyone.-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 16:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really. Name on thing I've done wrong that isn't a lie.-- Mamma Rose ( Sing out, Louise! ) 16:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ that and  are the same person. As they say, a rose by any other name... TN X Man 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mamma Rose blocked and tagged. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reclose as clarifed. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

11 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

My "beef" is actually with the IP, who has been using the argument of them "both" serving as consensus, while refusing to give valid reasons (e.g. repeatedly naming policies without properly citing them). It started on West Side Story, then I noticed that he used a similar technique on Joshua Henry, stating similar "reasoning" on his talk page (section titled "Rory O'Malley", subsequently blanking the entire page). Other articles the IP "happened" to have edited after JeanColumbia: War Horse (film) (where he is repeatedly adding a "synopsis" that is just promotional text for a movie that has already been released), The Book of Mormon (musical), Larry Hochman, Rory O'Malley, Thoroughly Modern Millie (musical), City of Angels (musical), Jekyll and Hyde (musical), In The Heights and maybe more. Edits are usually made in a tendentious manner, taunting editors (with phrases like "live and let die", used twice in the same discussion), using tags to make the fake appearance of admin intervention to make his point (subsequently removing the evidence as well). Without turning this to WP:TLDR, please let me know if there is anything further I could add. Thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

The editor is actually making some things up. The War Horse synopsis is not from an advertisement and it is not a copyright violation. That was already explained to this editor more than once. I was unaware that the tag was for admins only. The other stuff is from the last owner of the IP. I'm not taunting editors, you seem to have a short temper.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't get the other articles you listed. You aren't even trying to assume good faith. The policies were cited by JeanColumbia (I told you how to find them), but you were just to lazy to actually go and find where he cited the policies. The basis of Wikipedia is to AGF, which I've seen nothing of from this editor. May I also add he ignored several comments that told him about the War Horse synopsis not being a copyvio, which he ignored, then blamed me for ignoring his own comments, which I actually took the time to read.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And if it's just that you're mad about WSS, you'll see that I've agreed to have it in the article already.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting... so you are claiming that all previous owners of this IP, along with you, have been "tailing" JeanColumbia, sometimes duplicating his edits for consensus purposes, on completely different articles, and then bringing up his name unprovoked ("pants on fire"), all by accident? Geez, I can't wait to tell Father O'Malley about this thrilling miracle! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And the War Horse synopsis is not a copyright violation from an advertisement. Anybody can see that. But I'm not JeanColumbia, though I've followed him for several years since I began working on Wikipedia in 2008.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting you accuse people of ignoring your comments, yet you ingore mine and then make something up about a copyvio synopsis (which is obviously not)? I oughta take the bullet train to Father O'Malley.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, people are not talking about the SPI anymore. Anyway: Hearfourmewesique, you are not as articulate as you think you are: I don't understand why you think a movie should not have a Synopsis, and I simply don't understand some of your statements at all. So again, elaborate. Calm down and re-read your changes in War Horse (film).
 * I can't comment on anythink else. --91.10.26.218 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

[left] I am commenting here simply to note that User:JeanColumbia is the best editor in the entire WP:MUSICALS project. If she reverted your changes, then I would be very confident that your changes violated either WP policies, or the musicals project guidelines. For instance, I just looked at West Side Story, where the accuser here is edit warring to add into the article information that is not unique to this musical and is true of nearly every successful Broadway musical. It looks like JeanColumbia's judgment here was rock solid, and that the accuser is not paying attention to the big picture of how to write a balanced article without accretions of useless/redundant and out-of-context information. Please stop edit warring, and listen to excellent experienced editors like Jean. JeanColumbia has been editing this encyclopedia for years, and I cannot imagine that this accusation of sockpuppetry has anything to it. I suggest that this must be a reckless accusation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The IP has been blocked several times in the past for abuse of multiple accounts. I've blocked it for another few weeks. In the meantime, I'm endorsing - not for a check between the IP and the account, but for the IP and, a confirmed sock of User:S.S. Miami. I have a feeling they're all the same. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

108.67.204.170 is ✅ as, and also as openly disclosed here. I have hardblocked the IP for 6 months as this user has frequently abused multiple accounts in the past, despite vowing to follow WP:OFFER. –MuZemike 02:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and JeanColumbia is completely ❌. –MuZemike 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)