Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sasquatch2/Archive

Report date March 14 2009, 00:55 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All of these editors are new accounts with a single purpose: promotion of an alleged Bigfoot sighting described in new article Jacobs Creature (created by Sasquatch2) and in main Bigfoot article. Besides edits to these two articles and talk pages, none of these accounts have anything but test edits on other articles (typically a single word changed in one edit and then changed back in the next). Ben1985 was created the day after Sasquatch2 was created, with Bargo69 coming along later when the edits of the first two were strongly disputed. Editors seem to ignore consensus that their edits are POV and use sources that fail WP:RS and then try to suggest they together have a consensus overruling other editors on the pages in question. The anon IP 75.88.176.130 has edited talk page comments as if he were Ben1985. Without Ben1985 and Sasquatch2 working together it's likely one account would have bypassed 3RR by now from the variety of editors removing their edits. DreamGuy (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by DreamGuy (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Sasquatch2 has changed the signature left by IP 75.88.183.90 to his own username. Whois shows that these IPs 75.88.183.90 (Sasquatch2) and 75.88.176.130 (Ben1985) belong to the same ISP. —Fiziker t c 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ,, and blocked as socks of . –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  04:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be blocked as well? I wasn't sure if the IP addresses were going to be blocked because they were never used directly as sock puppets (except of course that they were used by those puppets) so I didn't add it to the list above. —Fiziker t c 04:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it appears to be dynamic, but I blocked it for 55 hours. Thanks for pointing that out. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please archive/tag socks and master account. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 10 2009, 00:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * I was requested to also add:
 * I was requested to also add:
 * I was requested to also add:
 * I was requested to also add:

User:Sasquatch2 was blocked on March 14 for using sockpuppet accounts Ben1985 and Bargo69 to try to promote an alleged Bigfoot sighting (that Bigfoot believers call the Jacobs Creature on its own article and in the Bigfoot article (see Sockpuppet_investigations/Sasquatch2/Archive). We now have two new users, Simsponcan and Ratpole, whose only significant edits have been to again promote the Jacobs Creature on the Bigfoot article. Both accounts were created on the same day, and within about an hour and a half of each other. Simpsoncan is exclusively making edits to Bigfoot other than a couple of bungled edits to Dominican Republic. Ratpole started out making minor edits to apparently random articles (just spell fixes, and even there most of them are wrong due to English/British spellings, spaces in compound words, etc.) but the only edits not marked as minor have been to Bigfoot in support of the Jacobs Creature and agreeing with Simpsoncan. Seems pretty clear cut, just like last time. DreamGuy (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Interest in a "hot topic" from new editors is by no means an indication of promoting or sock puppets.--Simpsoncan (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by DreamGuy (talk)

And a new account showed up with only three edits ever -- one was a test edit on April 1, second was immediately removing the test edit, third was to jump into the Bigfoot talk page on April 10 to strongly support the other editors mentioned above. DreamGuy (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On Talk:Bigfoot it was requested that I add two other names. First is User:TheDarkGod, who only has two edits, but both from October 2007 adding info about the same alleged Bigfoot sighting. Only reason it even came up is one of the suspected socks above specifically mentioned that he wasn't the first to promote this sighting and that the Dark God had done so previously, suggesting some bizarre consensus for inclusion from years back. Orthonto's only substantive edit has been specifically to mention "three editors for two years" which also implies that The Dark God's 2007 edits are being used to support current editing... and to me shows familiarity with a long-gone user by a brand new user in combination with another new user, showing more that Orthonto and Simpsoncan are using the same thought process about an editor the rest of us don't even remember. Some people questioned User:Untick showing up to support inclusion of information on this sighting, but he/she has a long edit history of unrelated topics and appears, to me, to have become involved from watching AFDs when Jacobs Creature was deleted and redirected to Bigfoot. So I am not suggesting that that person is a sockpuppet, but a couple of other people at least raised it as a possibility (not that they sounded convinced either) and thought that listing it here would somehow officially rule out his/her involvement. His Bigfoot related edits are a exceedingly tiny fraction of total edits. DreamGuy (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's seems KillerChihuahua, DreamGuy and Fiziker are working together to patrol and remove the material based on what they believe on this one topic. They have a long history of controling this article and seem to have another agenda. I suspect they run some Bigfoot organization from many of the comparable comments they have made related to a particular Bigfoot organization. I've noticed their comments are sometimes posted in order close to the same times and the material and argumens are similar. I believe they are working together as organized meat puppets or are the same person. If they were concerned about the Dark God's edits or this topic they should have looked in the history like I did to find out when this topic started. They are using the same thought process. They accuse people of being sock puppets because they don't think as they do. When someone joins in on an argument or do similar actions it doesn't mean they are the same person.--Simpsoncan (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I also noticed they have lied about the start date/time of Ratpole and I. It looks as if Ratpole started sometime in April I may be wrong.--Simpsoncan (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * The reason DreamGuy and I have said you and Ratpole started about an hour apart is available in your logs: Ratpole's logs and Simpsoncan's logs. —Fiziker t c 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even this shows they know each others thought process and adding comments to the accused parties area where they don't belong to reinforce their POV.--Simpsoncan (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore history will show I wasn’t the one to add the topic they say I’m promoting. Some of the accounts I'm accused of sock puppeting have not edited for many months and are ("stale") or blocked, according to Wikipedia rules you are not suppose to check users for these reasons. DreamGuy has violated these rules. Everyone was in agreement over the last eight or more edits so what is the problem? Besides, wasn't the discussion page made for working out the diferences in viewpoints about the article?--Simpsoncan (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the rules, so to say I didn't follow them is incorrect. The rules for stale accounts say we should not do checkusers (where they pry open your edit history to look at the computer files to see which IP addresses the accounts connected from to find matches) -- I did not file a request for a checkuser on any of these accounts because, frankly, the evidence for the accounts that are at all seriously suspected of being sockpuppets is overwhelming without needing to run a checkuser. Discussion pages are for trying to work out issues, yes, but it doesn't work when a banned editor comes back with multiple accounts saying the same thing to try to appear to have more support then he really does. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's absoultley no proof that these editors have mutiple accounts, there's no relation other than being interested in this subject. Using the same information from sources in the history isn't uncommon or a violation.--Simpsoncan (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This area is for comments by accused parties--Simpsoncan (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to run a checkuser to eliminate your new suspects that are innocent. No rules were broken if they ban individuals because they have the same POV they will eliminate half of the wikipedia users including KillerChihuahua, DreamGuy and Fiziker. The problem with your theory is past history. It shows the support you speak of that I have has different ideas from mine about what should go where. The administrators need to decide who if anyone is banned. These arguments will not go away by banning anyone. In the future new editors will come to argue over this and other issues especially when they are a hot topic up for discussion. Argument over this particular photo is very common on the internet.--Simpsoncan (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The story was two years old Simpsoncan, Ratpol and untick make three. I put my two cents in and now I'm on death row because Dreamy Sherlock can't count? This is BULL$%#!--Orthonto (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like my name removed from this.--Ratpole (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Anyone that's into this story knows the Bradford Era is the best source of information. They investigated and interviewed everyone including the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Simpsoncan wrongfully removed my edits because I used them as a source. When I found this story it was the only reason I joined Wiki. I spent the rest of my time looking for mistakes to practice on. I have nothing to hide, check everyone's address. Set up a number for everyone to call at the same time from home and check caller ID's.--Ratpole (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm doubtful over whether User:TheDarkGod is related to any of these people. The only time he was mentioned was in reference to the first person who added content on Jacobs's photos to the article. Those edits were done shortly after publication of those pictures when this story was in the news. The current attempts to promote Jacobs's photos constitute a separate effort of inclusion based on The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization's claims about these pictures. —Fiziker t c 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Quick comment here - I requested Untick and TheDarkGod be added, because of the odd way the suspected socks keep referring to them - I hven't time to grab difs right this second, but they are "Oh I didn't do that, it was TheDarkGod who did it first" and suchlike comments. Just looked very odd to me. I suck at discovering socks, though, so I may well be quite wrong. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment "Oh I didn't do that, It was TheDarkGod who did it first" is a blatant lie. History will prove this and it goes to show there is more to this. It seems to be a set-up to silence some that have a different opinion. The truth is after being accused of promoting it was pointed out who started the topic and who would be more likely a promoter than anyone else.--Simpsoncan (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Adding a CU request based on the responses from several of the accused accounts, which seem to concentrate on "I'm right and you just want to stop the truth getting out", rather than the actual point at hand. Particularly concerning is ''These arguments will not go away by banning anyone. In the future new editors will come to argue over this and other issues especially when they are a hot topic up for discussion'', which could be taken as a statement of intent to create socks. Mayalld (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Simpsoncan. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 07:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ that  ==   ==  ==  ==
 * ✅ that == Ben1985
 * that is connected to the above
 * is but he won't be pleased by what's coming for him... --  lucasbfr  talk 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (woops, forgot Sasquatch2 obviously) -- lucasbfr  talk 22:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All remaining accounts blocked/tagged. Bearing in mind Ratpole came back "possible", the behavioural evidence is strong, and thus I have blocked that account with the rest. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Archiving.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)