Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarheelz123/Archive

Report date February 28 2009, 15:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Argument in deletion discussion at Talk:Katelyn Clampett. Name and signature patterns are similar. Sock is a WP:SPA account created shortly after article was recreated by puppetmaster. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by -- Mufka (u) (t) (c)
 * Also appears to edit under the IP 74.167.245.190. Nothing controversial, but certainly related.  See here and here and here.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Obvious SPA meat/sock issues here. Blocked master for 24 and puppet indef. Scarian  Call me Pat!  11:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date October 3 2009, 18:10 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Tarheelz123 was indefinitely blocked a few days ago for repeated copyright violations. Today, an IP's edit to St. Paul A.M.E. Church (Raleigh, North Carolina) was similar to Tarheelz123's edit a few weeks ago. Their edit patterns are similar. (ex: 1, 2, 3, etc.) The IP is in Raleigh. Tarheelz123 is from Raleigh. Lastly, the IP's talk page has an April 2009 warning related to this edit. (I also noticed this change to Tarheelz123's user page.) It's not the first time a sock has been used.  APK  say that you love me  18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  APK  say that you love me


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Tarheelz123 ✅ as:
 * 74.167.245.190
 * W indermaur
 * Thebigman12. Brandon (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked and tagged. MuZemike 03:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by AgnosticPreachersKid
Tarheelz123 was blocked for repeatedly uploading copyright violations. This edit by Nctennishco12 matches similar edits by 74.167.245.190 (previously blocked as a sock of Tarheelz123) and Tarheelz123's main account. WikiStalk indicates similar interests. APK whisper in my ear  00:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

This thing is ridiculous. sock puppetry? As for me and the IP address making similar edits, yes they are both me, i simply sometimes forget to log in. I'll be looking up stuff on wikipedia and then make edits and realize I havn't logged in yet, it isn't intentional. Nctennishco12 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Its interesting how nicely their editing time frames match up around the creation of the Nctennishco12 account. On January 4, starting at 21:06 the IP 74.167.245.190 made 30 edits, ending at 21:59. The Nctennishco12 was created at 22:03, makeing its first edit (which was clearly not a newbie edit) at 21:06, going on to make 29 more edits, ending at 22:44. The next day, January 5, the IP started editing 00:41, making 13 edits, ending editing at 01:28. The Nctennishco12 account started editing at 01:30 making 20 edits, ending editing at 02:03. On both days (the only days I looked at) the switch time between when one stopped and one started was less that five minutes. Icewedge (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That helps to show that the IP and Nctennishco12 are the same person, but it is not sockpuppetry to edit sometimes without logging in, unless this is done so as to falsely imply consensus or that there are multiple people involved. But Nctennishco12 states that the IP is himself (or herself) above, and I see no abusive edits. What evidence connects Nctennishco12 with Tarheelz123? DES (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 74.167.245.190 is a proven IP of Tarheelz123, as APK said above (see Sockpuppet investigations/Tarheelz123/Archive). True the IP could be dynamic (although the long and consistent activity of the IP suggests otherwise), but I by no means asserted that my evidence was conclusive, it was just something interesting that I noticed and that supported APK's case. Icewedge (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do have a question about the indef-block on the Tarheelz123 account, he did upload a number of copyright violations but it seems to me that it was more because he did not know the copyright guidelines than malice. I can't find any warnings and there were no lesser length blocks for copyright violations. He did have one sockpuppet incident for which he was blocked 24 hours in march, but the indefinite didn't come around till September. It seems like the the indef was a bit overkill here and I am wondering, as this appears to be a constructive contributor (4000 edits on first, 400 on this, hundreds as IP), if he should be allowed back. Icewedge (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He was made aware of the policy but didn't heed it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * one warning, and then strasight to an indef block? seems a bit of a high slope to me. DES (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There were many requests and notices to stop uploading copyrighted, non-fair use images, the editor didn't even acknowledge these (even the final warning), but kept on uploading. Blocks are meant to stop behaviour harmful to the project, which is what the block did. Moreover, an indefinite block is not forever, it's indefinite, which means it might last only a few minutes if the editor acknowledges the behaviour and agrees to stop. After the block, nothing was heard from the editor. There was never a hint the editor ever had any plans to abide by the copyright policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The behavioral evidence is too compelling for me. Nctennishco12 indefinitely blocked and tagged, IP blocked 6 months. –MuZemike 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)