Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spicejohnson/Archive

28 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Spicejohnson has been obsessed with the Open Season pages, constantly adding rumors, false information to puff the film up, unnecessary extra pages and templates, many of which have been redirected or deleted. This morning, he complained about this on my talk page, and after I gave my reasons, Toyzndahood was created, and for their second edit, immediately recreated a deleted template (see Template:Open Season, Template:Open Season film series, and Template:Open Season films) under a different but similar name. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Pretty much a duck. Also note the suspicious "who is this Spicejohnson person?" and the repeated "I am new here" statements.--Atlan (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ –MuZemike 08:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-admin, clerk, CU comment all tagged; waiting on the blocks. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 08:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Account blocked, autoblock kicked in on the ip. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 16:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

16 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New editor TheSitcomLover has a remarkably similar editing pattern concerning the Open Season films as did Spicejohnson, who already tried to run one sock account - all tried to add identical false content or unreferenced rumors. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional: TheSitcomLover asked on his talk page "Why do the pictures I uplaod keep getting deleted?! Why?!" but there are no notifications on the talk page about deletions, nor does the editor appear to have uploaded any images. However, just before this, Spicejohnson was notified that an image he had uploaded was orphaned and could be deleted. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2011 (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

 * - It's pretty likely, but I'll endorse to confirm. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

TheSitcomLover and TheSitcomLiker are based on pure technical evidence, and both seem ❌ to Spicejohnson on the same technical evidence. However, is ✅ as Spicejohnson. –MuZemike 20:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sock blocked and tagged. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 23:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Master extended, did not yet look at the behavoir on unrelated. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With the behavoir checking out on the two originally reported and the connection mentioned in the SPI, I have overrided the CU on this and blocked and tagged. If there is an explanation for this oftered later, I would take that into consideration. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

22 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Back again, exact same pattern as previous socks - can we get a rangeblock for this kid? MikeWazowski (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2011 (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

 * We had a false positive in the last case, so I'll endorse to make sure this is him again. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ to be TheSitcomLover. Blocked indef and IP blocked for three months.  Keegan (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tagged the sock, and indef blocked the master. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)