Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SayHiWorld/Archive

07 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

About two weeks ago, SayHiWorld came to the Robert Hurt and attempted to add content that violated WP:BLP and when reverted and explained to the user, he decided to edit war. The user was blocked on March 26 for 72 hours. Recently a new account was created and is adding the same exact content. Truthsort (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Where's the proof of anything? This is dumb. If you must know, mr. wiki-know-it-all, I'm nowhere near Rep. Hurt's district. I just happened to look in the history and talk page and see you deleting FULLY SOURCED material because you disagreed with like, one word. That's kinda dumb. I don't know who this other guy was that you scared away with your tactics. So stop reverting edits wholesale without explanation. Edit it out one by one if you don't like it so they're an explanation. Also, I didn't just re-add the sourced information you removed, I also added some so your request for investigation, whatever that is, is flawed. BahahahaaO.o (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not have to do with living near his district, but that you are operating two accounts. Given that the two accounts are adding the same content and the edit summaries and discussions mirror each other, it is reasonable to believe you are using two accounts to add info that has already been proven to violate WP:BLP. Truthsort (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No actually I don't see any proof of violation of policy. There are a few concerns about two portions of a large edit. Stop your libel accusing me of using two accounts if you don't have proof. What happened to assume good faith? BahahahaaO.o (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: You're also edit warring against two users now. I sent you a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BahahahaaO.o (talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom Periello was our congressman up until last November, when he was defeated by Robert Hurt. Wikimanone made several edits to Tom Periello's article to make him look favorable, but they were all sourced primarily to liberal blogs, much like bahaha's contentious edits to the Robert Hurt page, only the edits to the Hurt article are in the opposite direction. Baha also shows signs of being an experienced editor, with excellent use of edit summaries, and knowledge of 3rr and how to use a warning template, roughly the same experience level as WikiManOne. WikiManOne disappeared shortly after receiving a one month topic ban on abortion articles (for edit warring to make pro-life individuals look bad and pro-choice people look bad), which is about the size of the gap between WikiManOne and the two SPAs on Robert Hurt. The connections aren't the strongest, but there are a lot of them. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Evidence cross posted by -- DQ  (t)   (e)  from User Talk page --  DQ  (t)   (e)  01:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To summarize the above, WikiManOne and Bahaha have in common contentious edits on the VA-05 congressional delegation and abortion articles. My suspicion is that WMO is the sockmaster for one or both of the accounts originally named in this SPI.  Sailsbystars (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I would describe the evidence as flimsy, as the VA-05 articles are not terribly well-watched nor edited. I would also note that last night, yet another SPA appeared at Tom Periello restoring some edits of WikiManOne's that were removed last month. .  Something not Kosher is up with these articles... whether of the meat or sock variety I cannot say... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand look who just showed up on the Robert Hurt (politician) page redoing bahaha's edits....  Cyberduck icon.png Quack!! Sailsbystars (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Without looking too deeply, an edit war is in progress. That being said...the two users do not overlap in time, but if what I see is true, the users are decieving the community with new accounts to violate 3RR. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a full duck by my books...but this looks very suspicious to be two diff editors. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The two accounts appear ❌. TN X Man  13:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (I'll need another clerk to look over this,) but with the different edit times, the strong negitave CU, this is possibly a meat. I'm inclined to go forward with WP:AGF and close this with . -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a fresh look at this tomorrow and also putting this on hold per possible further developments...please don't archive, but feel free to take action on any editors. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  03:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I have full-protected Robert Hurt (politician) 3 days due to the edit war going on there. –MuZemike 04:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * - For new account on list. Per Sailsbystars comments. Reason for check requested is community evasion. The same subject area is supported. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Behavioral evidence presented above regarding WikiManOne is rather flimsy (that alone would IMO not have been enough to run a check). Technically that SayHiWorld == WikiManOne, but due to selection bias that doesn't mean too much. Not conclusive.  Amalthea  09:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * matches data from . Not conclusive by itself, but very possibly the same user (I invite MuZemike and Tnxman307 to comment if they are still watching). I also note that the two diffs from and  used a surprisingly similar edit summary.  Amalthea  17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Inviting them now. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Amalthea. I see a possible connection between Tomprox and BahahahaaO.o. However, there aren't really any concrete connections for any these. TN X Man  18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on a combination of behavioral and technical evidence, I have indefinitely blocked as a sock of, whom I have blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring and socking. –MuZemike 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now has picked up where Tomprox left off, reverting the exact same amount of content as Tomprox and were back to an edit war:
 * (cur | prev) 03:29, 14 April 2011 SayHiWorld  (t | c) (+3100) (Undid revision 423986409 by Truthsort (talk) I'm happy with constructive criticism like Salisbystars has given and explained but you have done nothing of the sort.) (rollback | ×)
 * (cur | prev) 02:31, 14 April 2011 Truthsort  (t | c) (-3100) (Undid revision 423983439 by SayHiWorld (talk) I have explained like a thousand times what is wrong with your edits) (×)
 * (cur | prev) 01:55, 14 April 2011 SayHiWorld  (t | c) (+3100) (Undid revision 423981534 by Truthsort (talk) Refusal to discuss what exactly is bad about new edits on talk page) (×)
 * (cur | prev) 01:33, 14 April 2011 Truthsort  (t | c) (-3100) (Undid revision 423941413 by SayHiWorld (talk) seriously cut it out) (×)
 * (cur | prev) 19:18, 13 April 2011 SayHiWorld  (t | c) (+3100) (Again, there is nothing to justify wholesale removal of content.) (×)
 * (cur | prev) 14:28, 13 April 2011 Truthsort  (t | c) (-3100) (rv POV edits yet again) (×)
 * (cur | prev) 22:43, 12 April 2011 Jsharpminor  (t | c) (0)  (×) [2]
 * (cur | prev) 22:43, 12 April 2011 Tomprox  (t | c) (+3100)  (×) [2]


 * Requesting block of SayHiWorld as a DUCK sock and request that eyes stay on that article to see if our last suspected sock shows up or there is another evasion. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All done now. T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)