Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SE7/Archive

Report date March 18 2009, 19:25 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * (Possibly)
 * (Possibly)
 * (Possibly)
 * (Possibly)


 * Evidence submitted by GT5162

SE7 has recently started a RfA and it is possible that he is using sockpuppets to increase the number of support votes. The evidence is below:


 * Chinwe Izamoje came back from over a year of inactivity to support SE7.
 * Emperor Leonidas who says that he "created an account ages ago, but lost the password" on his User Page, created an account less than one hour ago and almost immediately went to the RfA page.
 * Punk Rocker has not edited for over a month and only just returned, so he may be suspicious.

Most of the editors, except for Emperor Leonidas who only just created his account, have also been involved with the article, "Ashley West", and two of them have voted "Keep" on its AfD page. GT5162 (我的对话页) 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties
 * I have never created any sock puppets. Please bear in mind I did not nominate myself, David JJJ (see below) did. There are two computers in this house, and thus using this IP - one is mine and one is my mother's and she definately doesn't use Wikipedia, if she's even heard of it. Since none of these accounts are mine, please could somebody discover that it's not my IP address or anythinguser:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read this. You may not ask for yourself to be checkusered. GT5162 (我的对话页) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit I(chinwe izamoje) created both punk rocker and emperor leonidas. i however never have heard of davidjjj. Punk Rocker (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC) I AM GUILTY!


 * SE7 is not guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DavidJJJ (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly this all feels like one big practical joke, like the guy who nominated me is trying to get me blocked. I have not, do not and have never had any sockpuppets and certainly wouldnt be stupid enough to support myself in an RfA - I have seen then before, actually. user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 20:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * might be related, he also just appeared from a 6 month break to nominate the user. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that is the case. Just compare this to this. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Definitely some socking going on here. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should request checkuser? GT5162 (我的对话页) 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That request has been endorsed by the user, but naturally checkuser requests aren't done even at request by the user being discussed. I would suggest CU. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the Checkuser criteria, the vote should be closed before requesting checkuser. It would probably be best to closed the RfA per WP:NOTNOW first. Also, people cannot ask for themselves to be checked. "GT5162 (我的对话页) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the other voters at the AfD should be checked out as well. There could be a whole drawer of socks here ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ALL of the Keep votes except for one, are very suspicious. One of the keeps had one edit ever, some had a hand full.  But only one account (not already mentioned) was around for more than 2 or 3 weeks!  All are of questionable nature.  That being said, they haven't edited in over a year, so the only way we continue to review them is if we want to confirm they do not belong to SE7?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that SE7 has an ipblock-exempt flag on his account. Could this be indicative of something? Yes, yes it could. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The ip block excempt is because occassionally I edit from school, which has a blocked Ip because of vandalism by 1245 or so boys - Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School for Boys - so I requested to be except and because I was seen to be a trusted editor it was given. user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you have IP block exemption, you might be editing through proxies to avoid detection by checkuser. GT5162 (我的对话页) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That should turn up if true. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just blocked the first three, but am leaving SE7 and Davidjjj unblocked pending the results of the CU (has that been requested yet?). Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * General procedure says the RfA needs to finish before we can ask for a CU. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why am I being blocked?? I haven't made a single sockpuppet in my life and I don't know why you're all accusing me of thisuser:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because until it's proven you're not a sockpuppeter you are blocked to prevent damage to the encyclopedia.-- Giants27 T/  C  20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a clerk, can I just make this clear: There is no pending checkuser request on this case. If the filer wants to request a checkuser specifically, they may do, and it might be useful if there are any other accounts in the drawer. However, as it stands, a checkuser isn't appearing because a checkuser hasn't been asked for (though Rlevse is a checkuser, and closed the RfA, so it wouldn't surprise me if he knows about this already). Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick note to Giants, that is entirely wrong. Suspected sockers are not treated as such - SE7 is not blocked. Now, continue back up there, if we may. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting checkuser because although the RfA outcome was not affected, the AfD for "Ashley West" is likely to have been. SE7 has IP block exemption, so please check that proxies have not been used.
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * For possible vote stacking. I wasn't sure about it, but another clerk has told me to try anyway.  Syn  ergy 21:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have time at the moment, but can another clerk move this case to a more proper name (Punk Rocker I assume, since he has been labeled as master) before closing. Thank you.  Syn  ergy 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

These users are from the same region as, but there's no IP/ISP/UA similarities, so I would have to say it's. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * The following are ✅:
 * There was obviously something going on here: socking/meating/canvassing or a combination thereof. I've removed SE7's IBPE for now (see his talk page) and made sure the account Nish found are blocked and tagged.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think there's enough smoke here to warrant a call to the fire department. Three additional difs that are at least of interest. First, SE7's first edit on Wikipedia was to Davidjjj's page. Second, a perusal of his deleted edits yields a few instances of apparently creating pages in someone else's user space (editors with similar levels of activity as the confirmed socks above). Third, this edit from today from SE7 claiming he doesn't really know Davidjjj. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)