Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SeattliteTungsten/Archive

25 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Added after first CheckUser response:
 * — already blocked as a sock of YoMamaSoDumb
 * — already blocked as a sock of YoMamaSoDumb
 * — already blocked as a sock of YoMamaSoDumb
 * — already blocked as a sock of YoMamaSoDumb


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

At 09:13, 24 September 2014, SeattliteTungsten was blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation at Israeli West Bank barrier (AE case report here).

At 17:52, 23 September 2014 (while the AE case was in progress), the account TeapotDame was created. About 18 hours after SeattliteTungsten was blocked, TeapotDame started to edit the same article (Israeli West Bank barrier) with the same style as SeattliteTungsten. In particular, in three consecutive edits   TeapotDame carried out a large restructuring almost identical to what had been proposed by SeattliteTungsten on the talk page a few days earlier. This struck me as quite unusual for a new editor.

Humuskedasticity was created 04:27, 25 September 2014, 25 minutes after the last (to this point) edit of TeapotDame. As with TeapotDame, one edit in an unrelated article was followed by two edits to the same sections of Israeli West Bank barrier that TeapotDame had just edited. Compare to. Also note how the edit summary phrase "no text change" with the divider "--" in this edit of Humuskedasticity matches the same phrase and divider in the edit summaries of SeattliteTungsten here and here. Then in this edit on the talk page Humuskedasticity marked as complete the task outlined by SeattliteTungsten and performed by TeapotDame(!!). Later, in what I propose was a weak attempt to recover from this mistake, TeapotDame complained that Humuskedasticity had struck through some of TeapotDame's text and struck through some of Humuskedasticity's instead.

Yet another editor, GhostOfPhilLeeds comes along, created 08:17, 25 September 2014 and immediately starts editing the same article. Also replies on the talk page to a question put to SeattliteTungsten, using the same long-winded style with complex enumerated subsections that is characteristic of SeattliteTungsten. Some funny game on the article page: GhostOfPhilLeeds reverts innocuous Humuskedasticity edit without giving a reason and Humuskedasticity claims to not know what happened.

Needless to say, the three editors have consistent editing times. Zerotalk 07:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And another: StrawWoodBrick created 21:04, 25 September 2014, edited only same article.

Added after first CheckUser response:

ZeroMostelZL was created 17:45, 26 September 2014 and immediately went to edit the same article.

YoMamaSoDumb was created 20:17, 26 September 2014 and immediately went to edit the same article.

SevenOrEleven was created 01:55, 27 September 2014 and immediately went to edit the same article's talk page in a perfect imitation of SeattliteTungsten's style in order to justify the edits made by ZeroMostelZL and YoMamaSoDumb. Zerotalk 02:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

YoMamaIsNotAFourLetterWord and HonourYoMama are further obvious socks, created because YoMamaSoDumb was blocked, see admission. Zerotalk 04:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

MollificationDesperation was created 00:43, 26 September 2014, same pattern. I'm the worst sock-detector in Wikipedia but these are just amazingly obvious. Zerotalk 01:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Also notice this message from SevenOrEleven which basically says the socks will keep coming and we can't do anything about it. Zerotalk 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Comment relating to context: While I have no great knowledge of the history of the Israeli barrier article and while SeattliteTungsten is an editor that I have personally disagreed with, my impression is that his editing behaviour up to the sock puppet incident has been sincere. While both edits were made within 24 hours I am yet to see any evidence that either edit was itself unreasonable. I can see why SeattliteTungsten may have felt frustrated at the application of the rules and perhaps regarding the rule itself. The most important underlying issue is that of sensible editing and, beyond the legalism of the 1RR rule, I would be curious to see arguments to say that the edits weren't sensible. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  04:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong place to comment on the closed AE case. You need to go to WP:AE for that. Zerotalk 04:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That discussion is closed. The few additional comments are at User_talk:Gregkaye. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Another pattern between these editors. About their favorite page Israeli West Bank barrier, they repeatedly go to the editor's talkpage to discuss edits to that article. One expects discussions to continue at the article talk. SevenOrEleven, HonourYoMama , SeattliteTungsten . This is an irregular way of discussing matters. (By the way, I banned the sockmaster from my talkpage after a PA ). -DePiep (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed but, unless I have misunderstood the context, it also seems questionable to discuss editor behaviour without pinging the people being criticised - SevenOrEleven, HonourYoMama. I have also contacted SeattliteTungsten so as to directly to ask about a questionable edit: User talk:SeattliteTungsten.  I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between discussion that is appropriate for User talk pages and article talk pages.  Transparency is important but Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier looks to be a busy page.  Can editors be careful with generalistic statements like "discussing matters".  Some matters are relevant for User talk.   Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? They were (or should have been) pinged in their first mentioning here, not by me. This is just an extension of behaviour pattern. -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * re : directly to ask [SeattliteTungsten] about a questionable edit you write? Huh? Why not asked directly on User talk:SeattliteTungsten? What else is there in your conversation? Weird. Did you contact any other users, listed here? -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is good enough. If you critically quote people's edits, let them know that you're doing so.  What behavioural pattern are you talking about?  You ask What else..? I hope direct communication.  No, but if I had it would have been to make a direct enquiry about an editing behaviour.  There are valid reasons to talk to people.  Please don't make vague insinuations or undefined accusations without letting the people concerned know what you are doing. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  21:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I expanded on editors already named here. BTW, any news from your secret conversations? -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Add suspect
 * First edit 01:38, 26 September 2014; edited same page, . -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks, I saw that one but forgot. Added now. Zerotalk 11:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The four named accounts are all ✅. I should note that there was a concerted (yet unsuccessful) effort to try to cover their tracks here with multiple IPs and falsification of UAs, however the technical trail was obvious.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If is involved, then so is  per Phil Knight's comment here.  Mike V  •  Talk  04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I've blocked, , , and , and updated and . I'e tagged them all accordingly. Penwhale has protected the article.   HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that everything has been blocked and tagged.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

16 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

CheckUser'd based on this section on User talk:HJ Mitchell. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All are ✅, blocked and tagged. is bordering on ✅. Filing here for the record. For this master, at the moment, it's probably worth reporting to SPI and asking for checkuser as they seem to be creating a number of socks as as before they have intentionally attempted to hid. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

22 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Obvious sock blocked an tagged. Would appreciate a check for sleepers. An IP block is probably impractical, but I'll ask just in case. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There was also lurking about which I've now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ponyo, much obliged. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

23 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Another sleeper check please! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * In addition to ✅, there is also and , both blocked. They're circling back on previously-used IPs and webhosts/proxies, so locking them down may become more effective.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  15:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

28 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Another sleeper check please. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
, there's also and .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Both blocked. Thanks, . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * All tagged, closing. Mike V  •  Talk  00:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

10 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Sleeper check please. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Mike V •  Talk  22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . Courcelles 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking. Mike V  •  Talk  22:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gents. Until next time, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)