Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceGolfFanatic/Archive

Report date June 23 2009, 14:11 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Shortly before he/she was banned, User:ScienceGolfFanatic had developed a strategy of choosing names beginning with P and ending with a number (usually two digits). There was a thread on ANI that resulted in that user being banned, but I predicted that he would be back and I believe I am right. These new P names continue the old habits of ScienceGolfFan by mixing vandalism with factual edits on golf-related articles such as Phil Mickelson, David Toms, and other articles that User:Tewapack seems to also edit. They also vandalize articles on Wikipedia that are unrelated to golf. Since the previous master account User:ScienceGolfFanatic is already banned, I assume that if this is indeed the same person, that they have a dynamic IP address. I suspect they also have many other yet unused sock accounts waiting for their chance to edit, but going through the new user log looking for P names can only find me accounts that may or may not be related. In fact there is another user on SPI right now (Parabellum101) who just by chance happens to have a name matching the pattern but is almost certainly unrelated. Also my impression is that this user is clever and may have moved beyond the P-name strategy by now. As I said, I believe this is a dynamic IP address, so I cannot actually tie these accounts to ScienceGolfFan, and so I am hoping the three names I am adding here can be considered a group of socks among themselves. I have held off issuing warnings to these accounts since I figure they will just switch to a new account every few days before any of them can accumulate enough warnings on its own to be blocked. I have never used SPI before and I apologize if I've done something wrong. Please let me know. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Soap

I did not vandalize the article David Toms. Pabriella36 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Also, even though some of my edits seem to constitute vandalism, most of the edits are in good faith. I might have been adding information that's not necessarily useful for Wikipedia, but that information are still constructive, such as my recent edit to the article Phil Mickelson, which indicates him three-putting for bogey, missing birdie putts, etc. Pabriella36 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I've added - user edited Phil Mickelson, made this edit in the sandbox also mentioning Mickelson, and created a redirect from Wikipediaa to Wikipedia. snigbrook (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

It's quite obvious this set of users are related to one another, and their behaviour matches ScienceGolfFanatic. Blocked and tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 24 2009, 15:02 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

New account with similar names to other sockpuppets; user edited David Toms article and created useless redirects to Sparta. snigbrook (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Snigbrook


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Blocked/tagged/redirects deleted. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 27 2009, 00:53 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Roux

Hitting Phil Mickelson again, plus some other random vandal edits. Let's clear out the sockdrawer again. // roux   00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding Rapidspace52; more golf articles, disruptive edits to project namespace. // roux   19:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding an IP that vandalised Phil Mickelson. Not much to go on, yes, but spidey sense is tingling. Not sure if previous socks geolocate to Denver; if they do then it's a fairly sure bet. In addition, the last one was closed per the duck test.. it really is starting to look like there is a large sockdrawer here and CU is needed. → ROUX   ₪  02:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and another. → ROUX   ₪  10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Added User:Raoscsk53: user vandalised User:Tewapack user page and created nonsense redirect (Template:Parentdog to Template:Parentcat). snigbrook (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I don't think 205.170.14.247 is related; I think it's in the wrong location (previous IP addresses have been in Canada), and there is no similarity other than the fact that the vandalism was on the same article. snigbrook (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like Nevertrust55 is the latest sock (relevant diffs: ). snigbrook (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested by roux    00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Icestorm815 •  Talk  22:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ✅, , , , , , , . All are ✅ matches for ScienceGolfFanatic. -- Luk  talk 05:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * All blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 05:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 30 2009, 19:49 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Snigbrook
 * Obvious sockpuppets: all users created nonsense redirects to speedy deletion templates; has also edited articles related to golf. snigbrook (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not create nonsense redirects to speedy deletion templates. PinkDuster59 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) My edits to the golf articles are in good faith. And what do you mean that good faith is immaterial?!Leadrggee60 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) So you're not allowed to edit in good faith either? Leadrggee60 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Geez, I was speaking in second-person, not first person. And when would I be allowed to edit again? Is this block indefinite? Leadrggee60 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And all I'm trying to do here in Wikipedia now is to edit in good faith, to prove that the ban is no longer necessary. This is my 60th account, and the 30th time I've made an account after the ban. I still think you shouldn't throw the baby out of the bathwater on my edit of Pete Dye Golf Club and Nationwide Tour Players Cup. Leadrggee60 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, but since they wouldn't accept my request, so I tried to prove it in an alternative way. I guess I'll stop.Leadrggee60 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Good faith is immaterial. You are banned from using Wikipedia, no matter what account name you use. What part of that is unclear? → ROUX   ₪  20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean that you are banned from using Wikipedia, no matter what account name you use. What part of that is unclear? → ROUX   ₪  20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I am. Unlike you, I am not banned. Can you please explain what part of "You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under any username" is not clear? → ROUX   ₪  20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the answer is 'never'. You may post an unblock request at your original user account; sockpuppet accounts are never unblocked. Alternatively you may email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to appeal your block. Until then, please stop editing, because you are quite simply not permitted to. → ROUX   ₪  20:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not, in fact, how it works. What you are doing is roughly akin to breaking out of jail to prove you're a model citizen now. Sorry, but you have to go through the parole board. Please post an unblock request at your original account and/or contact arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to appeal your block. Creating new accounts is merely a guarantee that you will continue to be blocked. → ROUX   ₪  20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved admin here, stumbling in after deleting a bunch of nonsense redirects created by userContinuing Leadrggee60 says "And all I'm trying to do here in Wikipedia now is to edit in good faith, to prove that the ban is no longer necessary." I'm an univolved admin, stumbled in here after deleting a bunch of nonsense redirects. That's apparently the same edit pattern as before? That's not proving good faith, that's self-destruction. "This is my 60th account, and the 30th time I've made an account after the ban."..."but since they wouldn't accept my request, so I tried to prove it in an alternative way." Banned is banned, and socking around a block is itself blockable in its own right, never mind apparently continuing the same previous behavior of the earlier block. Digging deeper is not a way out of a hole. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested by ROUX   ₪
 * Request for CheckUser
 * - Tiptoety  talk 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ all. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 5, 2009 (12:28 UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Soap
 * First off I apologize for probably formatting this incorrectly because I didn't know what template I was supposed to subst and Im in a hurry and can't read the instructions now. Above are the two users I've found which I'm sure are SGF socks.  I would like to ask, as someone not very familiar with this part of the wiki, why is it that SGF is able to return again and again despite being banned whereas most vandals are blocked once and seem to be unable to return?  Is SGF using a very dynamic IP that can't be autoblocked the way the others are?   -- Soap Talk/Contributions 12:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit, I'm another sockpuppet. This is my 81st account. And by the way, the reason I'm able to evade my blocks is: Sock puppet accounts are like bombs. You set up the account, and then escape before the administrator detonates the account, causing an autoblock. Peckrate81 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Added rfcu template. Can we get a rangeblock please? → ROUX   ₪  18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a few more accounts: numbers 65-71, which I've found in the user creation log, and 61-64, which have already been blocked and have probably been checked, but are not in the archive (65, 69 and 70 have also been blocked for inappropriate username or vandalism). It looks like most of the edits from these accounts have been useless redirects from project namespace to articles, also some of the accounts have been created in groups of five or six within a few minutes. snigbrook (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a few more accounts (82-87). snigbrook (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

→ ROUX   ₪  18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I think I have blocked all of the IP ranges. Please let me know if any more accounts pop up. Dominic·t 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * - Tiptoety  talk 20:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Spinningspark
These accounts were all created within one minute of each other and then welcomed by Crapper123456 within the same minute. Crapper123456 is a new and vandalistic editor ( and this deleted article). Seems like someone setting up a bunch of sleeper socks to me. I don't believe that Crapper123456 is new, and may therefore not be the real puppetmaster, witness this edit at an RfA which is unusual for a one day old account.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * to check the sockpuppets; the main account listed has been blocked indefinitely. NW ( Talk ) 19:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * ✅ as:
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * All blocked and tagged. NW ( Talk ) 23:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tckma
Sockjewbag was created by Sockpuppet00, which was listed in ScienceGolfFanatic's archived SPI case. Tckma (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Conclusions

 * Blocked and tagged. NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tckma
Account was created by a confirmed sockpuppet of ScienceGolfFanatic (User:The colour of shìt is orange ). Tckma (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Conclusions
Blocked/tagged. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 3 2010, 15:15 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

See edits to M. J. Hur and to several users talk pages.  N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I pretty much gave up using this SPI page long ago, because at least for IP's there's no evidence that an admin could see that I can't, and ScienceGolfFanatic seems to always make it obvious that it's him. SPI would just slow things down. Still, maybe someone who's a checkuser could sweep through to see if there's any more (because he's also been using named accounts lately, such as Tewasebaspackian and Tungsten Ewaphospackate.  —  Soap  —  16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Note: Before this is closed, I just would like to note that ScienceGolfFan, on his user page on ED, claims to be the owner of the user:Hofbrincl Hhlbbcnofm account here. I dont know whether this is true, but hopefully it's irrelevant because of the rangeblock that has just been placed.  <B>3 ¢ soap</B> Talk/Contributions 18:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (sorry, Im in a hurry)
 * Never mind, he proved it by vandalizing. I could have prevented that if I'd posted a few hours earlier.  <B>3 ¢ soap</B> Talk/Contributions 18:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

for sleepers and to look for a rangeblock. Tim Song (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

74.12.96.0/22 blocked 1 week for the usual vandalism/harassment. –MuZemike 02:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've extended the block to a for three months, with much more restrictive blocking options. That should solve your problem for now. --Deskana (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 12 2010, 22:30 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

He email bombed me with 50 blank messages. Note that the user is already blocked. We should do another sweep to make sure there aren't any more sleepers. ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

He's already listed in the archive (look about halfway down or just search the page for "peckrate").  — Soap  —  22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * That account was in existance for over six months? Hmm... ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested by ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

no new on-wiki activity since last sweep. E-mail now blocked by Tan. SpitfireTally-ho! 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Evidence submitted by Wjemather

 * Per WP:DUCK. Same IP range. Addition of false information (diff, diff), attacks on Phil Mickelson (diff), general disruption of golf related articles with "funny" edit summaries (dogs instead of cats diff). <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 22:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
. I was about to report this. ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I received about 57 blank emails from this user.- Jakkinx | Talk | Sign! 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume it was from a sock account and not this IP. I got email bombed earlier today from an account. ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 04:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommend blocking, and for another sweep for any accounts that he's created in the meantime, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 months, mirroring Deskana's block on 74.12.96.0/22. Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)