Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schrandit/Archive

Evidence submitted by 71.139.29.193
User Schrandit has been a POV edit-warrior, in my opinion, for a long time and I met him when he started edit warring on several pages including Equality Mississippi to keep removing sources while asking for citations at the same time! Recently on Heteronormativity, a subject he apparently also disapproves of, two socks have shown up that only agree with him and also try to remove content and mitigate the subject's impact. I tried to open a case but could only see the source code page. The two socks are Badtoaster and Paperbeatsrock, before my posting here they have only been editing on this one article and all to dismiss critical comments on the tendentious editing of Schrandit. 71.139.29.193 (talk)

Schrandit is a sneaky POV-pusher I've recently caught removing sources or deleting content he apparently doesn't like on many articles. He's likely smart enough not to blatantly sock but the three of them together just as Schrandit was being shut down on this one article was too compelling not to look into. It won't restore any credibility to POV-pushers but if there is an obvious sock it would help clear up some of the gameplaying. Schrandit's interpretation of events of me "inserting" myself into conversations is completely false. I caught him deleting LGBT category off this article and he edit-warred on it even after multiple sources supported it's inclusion. Now he's trying to get another category removed, again, even after sourced content has made it clear it belongs. This is a POV-push pattern he has done repeatedly and he edit-wars until warned or caught. This case likely won't stop him but it does help clear away any socks so we know how many people are actually contributing. All three are working to mitigate the content of this article in various ways while myself and others are insisting on using the best sourcing possible and avoiding POV pushing. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added Mondo nuovo as they inserted themselves during Schrandit's last big edit war. Added to the obvious sock Rbid32, this makes four, so far, rather puzzling accounts that all have the single purpose that conveniently sides with Schrandit's POV. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by Mondo nuovo
So where did this anon IP address come from? I've been contributing pretty regularly, trying to improve the NPVO quality of the BLP article, initially through my IP address, 173.53.60.89, and recently through my sign-on after other editors insisted I obtain one. One can easily see that my writing style is different than Schrandit's, not to mention we were both arguing with the anon IP address at the same time. I don't see how one can say I am him/her.

So what we have is an anon IP address trying to add a source that everyone else agrees is not reliable, and when he/she doesn't get his/her way, he/she abuses the system and reports everyone else as sockpuppets? Makes sense. . .Mondo nuovo (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Schrandit
So this anon has been stalking me for a few weeks from a different ips. Not the end of the world, it happens and I've got nothing to hide. He or she has recently inserted him or herself into a few discussions on contentious talk pages (namely Talk:Heteronormativity). He/she has impugned upon the credibility of a few new users who disagree with him/her by accusing them of being socks of myself. I hope that this SPI will restore full community faith to the two new users tainted by these accuisations.


 * Naturally, I give you my word that I did not create these two accounts nor do I have knowledge of their owners.


 * Possibly more important than my word is the straightforward, occam's razor reason for why the three of us are not in collusion - while we have all disagreed with the anon, we also all disgree with eachother. We all have different views of how to improve the article and different lines of reasoning for why.  Why would I create sockpuppets to disagree with me? - Schrandit (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So take this with a grain of salt (as I am one of the parties being accused) but I think it is fairly clear that the anon is increasingly just naming new editors who disagree with him as suspected socks of myself. This is an abuse of the system and should be put to an end.  I'd be fine with a CU just to make it clear to any one with a genuine concern that I and the other accused are unrelated. - Schrandit (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by badtoaster
I am new to editing wikpedia, I joined because an article I read only expressed one side of the argument and I wanted to balance it. The anonymous user above has made very obvious in his posts that his only intention is too keep the article one-sided because of his own personal point-of-view. When I have tried to post logical discussions on why the article should be balanced, he instantly makes personal accusations about me being a sock or poppet or whatever this is. I believe his motives are not in the best interest of wikipedia, but instead his agenda is to make sure certain articles are biased. Feel free to check my ip address, you will not find that I am Schandit. He is probably doing this because he seems to have some personal vendetta against him and now he's lumping me in too because I disagree with him. Badtoaster (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I am very troubled by 173.53.60.89, an SPA who has been making disruptive edits to the Bob McDonnell article since February 2010. In the last few days, he has stopped contributing and 71.139.29.193 has taken over edits of a similar nature. Both evidence far more knowledge of Wikipedia terminology and policy than a new user would have. I suspect that they are IP-fronts for some other user who does not want to use his real sign-on for his pro-Bob McDonnell POV-pushing. Racepacket (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to respond to Racepacket--I (formerly 173.53.60.89, as I've recently obtained a sign-on), have been making edits to provide a NPOV nature to the BLP article; I'd harldy consider them "disruptive." As far as "far more knowledge of Wikipedia terminology and policy than a new user would have," that I apparently possess, I'm a new editor learning the rules and lingo--it just so happens that Racepacket's NPOV violations allow me the opportunity to research exact violations and learn the terminology and policies.  Finally, one can see from the talk page that my edits had nothing to do with 71.139.29.193; in fact, I sided with Schrandit's argument and provided evidence for it. That's all.  Thanks. Mondo nuovo (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by the IP! It's obvious User:71.139.29.193 is another sock of User:Spotfixer. Rbid32 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That thought crossed my mind but the contributions are from different parts of the country. At the same time Spot did say that it didn't matter the last time a batch of his socks were banned bacause he was moving and would have access to new ips.  Besides the Duck aspect is there anything else that would lead you to believe it is Spot? - Schrandit (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The question now is who is Rbid32 a sock of? 71.139.29.193 (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I opened this case for the IP filer as IP addresses cannot open SPI cases themselves due to software limitations. –MuZemike 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence in the contributions that the three of them might be related. 71.139.29.193, is there any? Amalthea 12:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When Schrandit was reverted for POV pushing, that is every effort to mitigate the subject was met with not only reliable sources but also reasonable discussion, these two single-purposed accounts were created, Badtoaster echos Schrandit while Paperbeatsrock simply moved key components out of the article introduction which also mitigated that this is a form of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Schrandit has been caught time and again edit warring and deleting content he doesn't like, anything about LGBT people he seems quite poor at judging what is neutral. When he got blocked these two kept carrying on. Both seem to be anti-LGBT advocates socks for Schrandit's POV. It would be nice to clear this up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.29.193 (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying to balance a biased article, you are trying to keep it unbalanced. You have shown yourself to be a very un-neutral editor. And when you can not get a consensus that is on your side, you lash out with false accusations at the people who disagree with you. Schrandit and I agreed on a few points, that does not make us the same person. I also agree with a lot Ronald Reagan said but I assure you that I am not him either. Please leave me alone and please stop trying to push your biased opinions into articles. Badtoaster (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That block came after both authors you name above began editing, and neither even edited during that time. Agreeing with each other on some points (while disagreeing on others!) is not sufficient behavioral evidence for anything. I don't see a relation that goes beyond interest in the same article. Amalthea  08:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All three are editing on the same article with the same deteriorating effect. All three show the same POV absent critical surveying of what reliable sources state. As Schrandit seems to be the one with the most at stake here and has also shown support for simply seeing if there is a connection I don't see the issue with going ahead. If the three are not connected I'll apologize, if they are we can clear one or more of them away so reliable sources instead of Schrandit's wobbly grasp of consensus can be relied upon. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This SPI appears spurious to me and intended as revenge for Schrandit reverting the IP and I would suggest its deletion so that a blue-linked SPI does not appear as a black mark against. Meanwhile, both Schrandit and the IP have been blocked for edit warring. Clerks should make of my remarks what they will- it's just an opinion and a note. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to mark this as closed, as deletion would get rid of the edits, thus losing for non-admins any documentation that may be needed for future developments. –MuZemike 23:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)