Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TickleMeister/Archive

Evidence submitted by Novangelis
A new account's (beyond user pages) was to uncollapse archived text by TickleMeister who later  about the collapsing. The was essentially a  of TickleMeister's version. Novangelis (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum Since he already has an open accusation against me, the best place for his to prove my alleged conflict of interest would probably be Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Novangelis (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
I registered the account AllYrBaseRBelongUs for editing a range of articles unconnected with TickleMeister. This is a legimate use of multiple accounts. I started the account a few days ago. I intended to use one account with one browser and the other with another browser. I know editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts, "except where doing so would defeat the purpose", and this is the case here. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of using the wrong browser, and therefore account, to make that change. I only noticed that after doing it. I am happy to reverse the change and re-make it with the account associated with this topic. TickleMeister (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, since the original editor who "collapsed" my Talk page comments (for absolutely no good reason other than his dislike of what I had to say) is in fact the reporting editor here, I would ask the patrolling admin to consider his conflict of interest in this. I see he has re-collapsed my comments, and I have reversed that. His modus operandi is to wait for conversation on the Talk page to move on, then re-visit sections of the Talk page, just prior to archiving, to edit and refactor other editor's words, collapsing and deleting as he sees fit. (He has also tried to delete material from my comments when he thought I was no longer monitoring the Talk page). This flies in the face of policy. I can provide diffs if required. TickleMeister (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * No, this is absolutely not a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Firstly, the account was not declared, as required in the sock policy. Secondly, you were edit warring by reverting back to TickleMeister's versions, despite a previous block for edit warring. This was clearly a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny, and as such, TickleMeister has been blocked for 55 hours. The other account has been indefinitely blocked.  Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

16 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

User:OzOke is focused in editing exactly the few same articles related to euthanasia as User:TickleMeister does, and does it in the same way and using the same expresions. For example: User:OzOke are always editing warring and POV pro-euthanasia exactly as User:TickleMeister does; User:OzOke deletes and diqualifies editions against euthanasia pointing their grammar and wording even with the same expresions of revulsion as User:TickleMeister does, even when are well sourced editions; User:OzOke] tries to split/merge euthanasia articles specailly if they have arguments against euthanasia, exactly as [[User:TickleMeister does. User:OzOke congratulates by using the same expresions, some users in their talk-pages whose editions are pro-euthanasia, exactly as User:TickleMeister does. User:OzOke edits articles related to the situation of euthanasia in Australia (not any other country) exactly as User:TickleMeister does.

User:TickleMeister was already suspected to be a sockpuppet of User:Ratel and User:OzOke was also accused of being a puppet of user:Ratel. User:TickleMeister was also blocked because using another puppet.

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Note: there is an open case Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel and I believe that Ratel would be defined as the master. Novangelis (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree (same pattern of editing and behaivour), but while User:Ratel is expulsed and his editions are so old that it is not possible to do a checkuser-test with him, although User:TickleMeister and User:OzOke are currently or were recently editing, so a checkuser-test can be done on them. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
It was already resolved. User:TickleMeister, User:OzOke as well as other 3 ✅ puppets were blocked indefinitely: Sockpuppet_investigations/Ratel -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

06 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * 1. User:Jabbsworth is editing the same articles as User:TickleMeister and his known expulsed sockpuppets User:Ratel andUser:OzOke used to edit. For example: Aktion_T4, Suicide_bag, Jack Kevorkian, related to euthanasia.
 * 2. For example User:Jabbsworth is focused editing exactly the same section in Aktion_T4 that was edited by User:TickleMeister and his known sockpuppet User:Ratel and User:OzOke. And User:Jabbsworth is attacking and trying to delete the same sentences in that section that the expulsed sockpuppet was trying to delete. Compare his editions in Aktion_T4 with these made by the expulsed sockpuppet.
 * 3. Every User:Jabbsworth is POV pro-euthanasia and he tries to delete immnediately any content against euthanasia (exemplary this: claiming a non-existing "euthanasia medicine" as an alleged professional specialism for Jack Kevorkian and he deleted any reference to his charge and sentence because of murder.
 * 3b. User:Jabbsworth claims exactly the same arguments as the expulsed sockpuppets, for example that "euthanasia is a medical topic", in order to delete editions against euthanasia, referenced in non-medical authors although they are reputable, verifiable, and reliable sources. (compare this with this )
 * 4. User:Jabbsworth deletes and disqualifies editions which are basically correct but he just points out their grammar and wording as User:TickleMeister and his sockpuppets did. Compare this with this.
 * 5. In his talk-page User:Jabbsworth deletes immediately the editions warning his warring behaviour, exactly as the expulsed sockpuppets used to do, and User:Jabbsworth tag these deletions using similar sarcastic expressions. Compare this with this
 * 6. User:Jabbsworth uses TW as all the expulsed sockpuppets used. Take into account that User:Jabbsworth is an account created just few days ago.
 * 7. User:Jabbsworth refers so properly to a lot of WP-rules for being an account created just few days ago.
 * ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:34, 6 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
Blocked and tagged. Elockid  ( Talk ) 15:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)