Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SCgamecocksss/Archive

18 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User and associated sock puppets are tendentiously editing in South Carolina Gamecocks and other related articles, making similar edits, and always rotating use of the accounts to avoid 3RR violation while edit warring. Two of the accounts have names that are suspiciously similar (Gamecockpride123 and Sandlap123), were both created within the past week, and both have no edit history other than the edit warring activity taking place in the same articles. Two of the other accounts (Sccocksss and SCgamecocksss) were created on the same day, with similar names, and have no other activity on Wikipedia than disruptive behavior. Here's an example of some obvious puppeteering:

Sandlap123 is busy making his reverts from 14:54 to 16:56 on 18 Nov, at which time he makes the following addition (Diff 1) to a Talk page for one of the articles involved in this pattern of behavior:

Diff 1: Diff 2:

Then lo and behold, at 17:08 on 18 Nov, suddenly Gamecockpride123 magically appears to provide support for Sandlap123's comment on the Talk page (Diff 2) and perform a revert to the article itself:

Diff 3: Diff 4:

This report can essentially be wrapped up as a clear case of WP:DUCK. Thanks for your attention. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Report edited to add a brand-new username that was just created (ClemsonC4), and has immediately joined the activity in the Talk page of one of the articles currently being disrupted. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And guess who just showed up for their first edit in 11 days? It's Sccocksss, joining in with a revert to an article he's never edited before. Pretty obvious. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandlap123 logs back in to revert at Steve Spurrier, while claiming that he doesn't "know how to start a new topic in talk". Alternating reverts with another sock in that article in a clear effort to dodge 3RR violation. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Two more usernames have been added to this report. 8panther2pride8 was created today, and immediately began making the same tendentious edits as other usernames in this report. Also suspicious is the fact that 8panther2pride8 made his first edit on Wikipedia at 16:14 on 24 Nov, 27 minutes after an edit by NCPride321. And what is the primary activity of NCPride321 on Wikipedia since the creation of that account (coincidently on the same day this report was initially filed)? Removing "North" from every instance of "North Carolina" in Carolina-Duke rivalry and arguing on that talk page why "Carolina" is the only way to refer to UNC in athletic articles, the opposite behavior of all of these socks, which is to add "South" to every instance of "Carolina" in articles that pertain to University of South Carolina athletics and argue in those Talk pages that USC can never be referred to as "Carolina". Both of these accounts have also commented in the same day on a topic in Talk:Carolina Panthers which hasn't had discussion for over a year. And finally, 8panther2pride8 made an edit to a comment at Carolina-Duke rivalry that was made by NCPride321. Guess sockmaster forgot which account he was logged in as. I'm now wondering if we don't have so many suspected socks that a CheckUser wouldn't be indicated in this case. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (to Bbb23) Of course the sockmaster and puppets haven't edited in some time, he got his way in the articles in question, proving that this behavior can indeed be successful, especially when it takes the SPI team a solid month to look at a case. I'd encourage a lengthy block, just to show this disruptive editor that this isn't the way Wikipedia works. And of course the meat puppetry admission is a way of avoiding sock puppetry label, just look at the account names used in this case. We're supposed to believe that multiple persons in an office setting all used similar names ending in 123 or sss when registering their accounts? Sorry, but I'm not going to AGF in this case. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Both having '123' (a common number at the end of usernames) doesn't mean there is sockpuppetry, although the contributions suggest there is. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See this statement from Gamecockpride123, in talk, that "We have all the south carolinians in the office in here putting in their input." There are guidelines against recruiting other editors to support one's cause; this case sits pretty close to that boundary, if not across it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. Pretty much an admission of WP:MEAT, isn't it? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, i have made it clear what was going on. My office was all involved with the discussion, had i read the rules better, I clearly would have told them only one person per area is allowed to engage in conversation. If I was trying to hide it, why on earth to I admit to it, and tell them to not talk about SC anymore. Garnet & Black, you can go back to being the ultimate ruler of all things Gamecocks. Its clear that everyone has to go through you. Its upsetting that me breaking a rule, automatically makes Garnet and Black right. Use your Ad Hominems G&B, because its the only way your going to convince people that calling South Carolina, by South Carolina, is vandalism. People like you who patrol pages that only pertain to their own interests they like to push are a big reason why profs say dont use wikipedia. So go ahead and block me. I have freely and openly admitted that I unknowingly broke the MEAT rule. This was my first time trying to edit Wikipedia, and I apologize for breaking a rule. I still think that all my points I made should be considered for the betterment of general knowledge. Garnet and Black I appreciate your dedication to providing public knowledge, but you need to remove your emotions from the argument. You have made it perfectly clear that you are a South Carolina fan and hate Clemson, N. Carolina, and the rest of the ACC. I would recomend that you remove your self from editing or commenting on these pages for at least a month and just observe. See what transpires and what people who aren't already emotionally invested in the topic have to say before you jump all over everyone. I am sorry that i violated a rule. I will gladly hang up the newly aquired editing gloves so that people like G&B can continue their dictator ships. But every know and again, the people will revolt, G&B. For the sake of time, whoever investigates this page, myself (Gamecockpride123) and Sandlap123 are in the same office. I don't know who SCcocks is but hes around here somewhere because the username was left up on the terminal. This is a public terminal for the office as you dont need certs to login. ALOT of people use it. And South Carolina-Clemson Rivalry page has been left up. So ClemsonC4, not involved at all. Those random string of #s, no idea. So now you can block us. I'd actually be appreciative if you did, as this would allow people to get back to the real issues on these pages and Garnet and Black could drop the IM GETTING MY WAY BECAUSE YOUR GANGING UP ON ME AGAINST THE RULES ATTITUDE. I am deeply sorry to all the users I may have affected by allowing Sandlap123 to jump in. I didn't know it was wrong. I do respect all the users who give up their free time in dedication to higher knowledge and understanding. Drive on. HOOAH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecockpride123 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm inclined to close this with no action, principally because none of the named accounts has edited in quite some time. If the meat puppetry admission is simply a means of avoiding the sock puppet label, a CU wouldn't be of much help because the probability is that it will show only that the same IP was used on all, or at least some, of the named accounts (I'm not a CU, so perhaps it will show more than I think). Then, the question is whether you believe them or not. I would block on the meat puppetry admission alone if the disruption were ongoing, but it's not. I have no comment on the different IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per my earlier comments, no change since then. Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)