Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SylosisWatts/Archive

10 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I have a feeling, based on a noteworthy amount of evidence, that these three accounts are connected. The original account, SylosisWatts, genre warred on Sylosis (history of last 250 edits), and was blocked for 31 hours before being blocked again, this time permanently, for personal attacks and harassment both on and off Wikipedia.

While the IPs have not exactly acted like SylosisWatts, the two anonymous IPs noticeably parallel each other. These three accounts have edited mainly on the Sylosis article, but both SylosisWatts and 86.183 unconstructively edited Enter Shikari within minutes of each other (first edit from 86.183, second, third; the only edit SylosisWatts made to this page, four minutes after the third anonymous IP). The other instance of noticeable similiarities I'd like to point out is at Never Shout Never, which SylosisWatts and 86.146 edited at corresponding times (first edit from SylosisWatts; only edit from 86.146, one minute later; second SylosisWatts edit, 20 minutes later, third). Please note the similarities between the anonymous edit and SylosisWatts's third edit of the page.

Both IPs are from England, as is SylosisWatts. I can tell that SylosisWatts is from there through the public message he sent me via last.fm (here, scroll down to the comments section when this link works); I know that was SylosisWatts due to the frivolous "4/10" rating this person gave me, while he used a "2/10" rating on an edit summary on Wikipedia. That comment on last.fm was the off-wiki harassment that led to the permanent blocking of the SylosisWatts account. As well, in edit summaries in the Sylosis article history that have since been removed from public view, SylosisWatts used the terms "troll" and "faggot" to describe people reverting his edits. In this most recent edit summary on the Sylosis article, 86.146 concluded with, "Suck it trolls." "Troll" was misused in similar fashion by SylosisWatts on the same article. Also, through that edit summary, 86.146 admitted to adding the sourced genres there initially, which was something that 86.183 did. 86.146 also pointed out in the summary, "It's best people automatically KNOW it's wrong rather than just 'metalcore.'" This sentence, although containing unclear wording, can be translated as explaining that metalcore, as well as the other three genres placed there from the allmusic source, is the "wrong" genre application to Sylosis. SylosisWatts crusaded against Sylosis being called "metalcore", but had his edits reverted due to his removal sourced content.

I had thought about submitting this sockpuppet investigation for a while, but didn't think I had enough proof to bring it here. With that recent edit summary, though, I felt like this, along with previously displayed past activity, was enough reasonable proof to submit an investigation. I also want to point out that before SylosisWatts was a factor on the Sylosis band article, there were several #86 IPs from England that were genre warring on the page, including taking away "metalcore", despite it being sourced. The content of their edits had some similarity, but I have not included those IPs here because their activity was too fleeting and contained too few edit summaries, let alone similar edit summaries, that could establish any connections with SylosisWatts, 86.183, or 86.146. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 08:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 08:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Since this investigation was started, the comment posted on last.fm which was linked above has since been deleted by a party other than myself. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I lol'ed irl. Cool wall of text bro. Enjoy spending your time typing it? Very productive. FYI the __fact__ is I've never ever made an account on Wiki as I see no point in it. And if you had the slightest ounce of knowledge in Networking you'd know dyanmic IP's change often. Boom. There's your entire argument gone to blazes in a few sentences, not a very good troll, are we?

Pondered telling you that btw, reckon it would be funnier just to leave you wondering but you seem like someone that has genuine issues. Also, Sylosis' page is now correct by Wikipedia's aamaziing standards which I'm loving. Allmusic authors are fantastic, 'Sylosis draw heavily off the post-hardcore sound'. Some instant comedy classics in their articles HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nice try. Give you 4/10 for effort mate x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.181.124 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, this comment does not disprove my "wall of text" at all, if you think about it. First off, I found the wall of text necessary in order to have a sound case; that is how a sockpuppet investigation works. I don't just come around here to make someone look bad, but to express with fine reasoning and evidence why I think someone might be sockpuppeting. As well, when given evidence of an argument, merely stating the opposite argument and basically leaving it there does not prove the opposite argument, especially if it is stated with such arrogance.


 * About static and dynamic IPs, if someone hops IPs all the time yet makes constructive edits, then no violations occur. However, one, two, or more IPs and one, two, or more accounts being used by the same person is, a majority of the time, considered sockpuppeting, which violates Wikipedia rules.


 * Your conclusion to your own defense is rather interesting, because you gave me another "out of ten" rating in response to my activities. This type of feedback was used by SylosisWatts in an edit summary, as well as on the last.fm comment he sent me. If you are not SylosisWatts, then why are you giving me a "x/10 for _______" rating, which SylosisWatts did twice before?


 * Please note that I am not submitting this report because of the genre disagreement; I could not care less what genres Sylosis belongs to, as long as something consistent and sourced is applied. Therefore, there is not a need at all to argue their genre(s) here, not that there is a need for it in the first place. As well, repeatedly referring to productive members of Wikipedia as "trolls" is quite condescending, as well as a misuse of the term and a personal attack. Personal attacks, if performed enough, is a blockable offense, which you likely know already. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

>Implying I'm going to read that

Tell you what, type out another paragraph and I'll up your rating to 5/10 purely for persistence and (although poor) effort. Back to 4chan to improve for you though.

Have a tissue mate x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.181.124 (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinion about my performance is irrelevant. I don't care at all for your out-of-ten analyses; go ahead and give me a 0/10 and see how much it matters. Also, you did not address a single point in my second post, nor try to refute any of them. I need not post here anymore, as I'll leave this up to the admins to determine. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked IPs for one month. Continued behavior consistent with master. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

17 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The person who previously used the banned SylosisWatts alias, as well as two IP addresses starting with 86 (86.183.85.113 and 86.146.181.124), is likely still at it. This new IP has given four edits to the Sylosis page, which was what the three previous identities mostly edited. In this first edit, the user described the editing, which was not inherently unconstructive, as "keep[ing] the article 10/10 quality". SylosisWatts and the second 86 IP relied on out-of-ten analyses in their messages (for examples, see this edit's summary and the previous SylosisWatts investigation). This IP also made an edit restoring selectively sourced yet POV-pushing content that 86.183 promoted, as a means to use Wikipedia's reliable source and citing sources guidelines against Wikipedia, as well as continue the genre warring; this occurrence can be seen with this edit and this edit. This person doesn't appear to be letting up anytime soon, and is utilizing his dynamic IP capabilities for this activity. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm merely maintaining the page to Wikipedia's standards. You however, are removing sourced material. Please educate yourself by having a read of WP:RS. Removing sourced content repeatedly is a bannable offence as you well may know. Me and many others just want what's Best for the page :):):)

I'll repeat my statement here:

This is SOURCED material. Draws HEAVILY on = takes from and applies to their music, thus having PARTS of the stated genres. This is no different to '*some PARTS veer into..'

Also let me familiarize you with the other statements reinforcing the Screamo genre application:

"Many of the screamo elements are present; swirling guitars (definitely a screamo trademark) are plentiful, and so is the screaming vocals/clean vocals contrast that screamo is known for. "

Wikipedia is not interested in the truth as any particular editor may see it, solely relies on reputable sources like Allmusic.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.221.149 (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, genre warring is an unacceptable practice, and you're pushing your own point of view, while being disruptive; you have been repeatedly blocked for this behavior, as well as harassment. I consider the introduction of your post here grossly insulting, because you're making a mockery of people who actually strive to make Wikipedia academically better and donate their time to posting and elaborating on verifiable information of important and notable subjects. I know about RS, which ones are and which ones are not, and I should if I've been on this website for 5+ years without ever being blocked.


 * Also, this is not a space to debate genres, even though you've exploited it as such. Your pathetic genre warring is wasting my time, and wasting the time of other honest editors of Wikipedia. I posted on the Sylosis talk page as to why I removed that text, and I don't feel like repeating it here. Also, please notice that I did not revert your recent edit, because I'm not interested in prolonging the stupid genre debating. I have far more important work to do on Wikipedia and in real life. I know that I am an honest editor and I truly want what's best for Wikipedia, and I will not let you shake that just because you're not getting what you want.


 * One last note, about the line, "Wikipedia is not interested in the truth as any particular editor may see it", that claim is pretty much true. One editor's opinion does not qualify as a reliable source, and cannot be used by itself in an article; this includes your opinions. That's not to say that one editor's opinion isn't useful, but it just shouldn't be disruptive or overly emphasized. I will not respond to any further retorts here. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's genre warring, it's you. You claim to want the best for Wikipedia, yet removed sourced material. That's the bottom line of this. I'm not debating what genre they are whatsoever, I want it how it should be by the Wikipedia guidelines. I'm afraid I can't say the same for your perspective. Your reasoning for removing sourced material (as seen on the talk page) is 'I am removing this well sourced information because one user was trying to prove a point in my opinion by making a constructive addition by adding correctly sourced information'.

Again, might I suggest you take another skim over WP:RS. Completely ridiculous. To me that just sounds like you either personally disagree with the genres or are personally angry, none of which are a correct reason for removing sourced content.

Oh also, I haven't been 'repeatedly blocked' because I'm not this sylosiswatts guy. Your false speculations make me giggle and do not bother me in the slightest. A quick look from an admin at the IP differences from his/her account and my IP should confirm this. Yes, there are ..er, time similarities regarding edits? May I suggest opening up your mind slightly - Ever heard of a chat room, or infact, the internet? Not hard to post a link.

I recommend you stop wasting your own, other users and admins time with your inept undo's and this sockpuppet junk. Oh and read WP:RS. Just a thought :))) You seem to thrive on arguing and be uncomfortable with admitting when in the wrong, I have no doubt you'll make another reply but I however won't be visiting this page again. Move on pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.240.26 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Page and this SPI protected. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)