Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tombaker321/Archive

Evidence submitted by Proofreader77
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Tombaker321 is an SPA who focuses on Roman Polanski articles (and has often been made aware they are an SPA).
 * Special:Contributions/Tombaker321 is current blocked. I believe the recent activity of Special:Contributions/CaptainPickles has been a matter of block evasion.
 * Note that the two accounts I have listed as possible socks were both created around Christmas, and that Special:Contributions/CaptainPickles has been making negative (reverted) changes to Roman Polanski (in addition to California Proposition 8 article) NOTE: Tombaker321's IP is known to resolve to California (I've included Special:Contributions/98.210.90.109 as one he has posted from when apparently they did not know they were not logged in.)
 * User:Tombaker321 has recently been blocked for 3 days, and there has been activity from Special:Contributions/CaptainPickles recently resulting in indefinite block. (Noting that it had been blocked, has led to my filing this first SPI report &mdash; Why? Because it would be an instance of block evasion. ) (Note: CaptainPickles recent activity resulted in that account being blocked.)
 * WHY have I listed Special:Contributions/Love dance of scorpions - This is a case of my past experience with disruptive editors sometimes creating two-sock pairs (good sock / bad sock). Given Tombaker321's often having been informed of the problematic nature of being an SPA (including a December 19 ANI focusing on that), it would be natural for the SPA to create a sock or two. The fact that Special:Contributions/Love dance of scorpions welcomed Special:Contributions/CaptainPickles may seem odd, but it would fit past patterns I have seen. (Note: There is clearly a lower probability that Special:Contributions/Love dance of scorpions is a sock of Tombaker321, but given the creation time, and interaction with CaptainPickles, I believe this low activity account should also  be checked. (Note: I suspect the "good sock" idea quickly got too boring to continue, but the account remains available for use. etc)
 * BOTTOM LINE: The type of edits that Special:Contributions/CaptainPickles has made to Roman Polanski is the type Tombaker321 would make (although a bit more blatant). The CaptainPickles account was created after a recent ANI highlighting the "SPA" aspect of Tombaker321 &mdash; a situation which inspire the creation of socks (including one to "play good"). Most importantly I believe the recent use of Special:Contributions/CaptainPickles (leading to block) is an instance of block evasion.
 * NOTE: I am NOT informing Tombaker321 of this report. (They are blocked for their reaction to recent events. Better not to inspire further reaction.)


 * Note (after Clerk endorsed): Added newly created account (Polanski and Proposition 8) Special:Contributions/PeshawarPat (-- Proofreader77 (interact) 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

This investigation is Proofreader77 creating a fake case for an "attack" against myself or to prevent their own editing being examined.

There is no evidence presented, and as such this fake case, should be dismissed out of hand, and as an abuse of process.

Admins please refer to the guidelines, which are clearly not present. What is being cited?


 * This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected.

How is this anything except vague beliefs?? --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Tombaker321, please note that Proofreader has gone to great lengths to provide evidence that gives substance to the claims that you may be socking. The evidence is reasonable and it is clear that a check is warrented. Of course, it may just be conincedence, and if that is the case then don't worry as the check will clearly show that you are not acting aginast policy. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Spitfire: Unless you are working off information not given here, by the standards that are in place, this checkuser is not proper. "Great lengths"...are not evidenced. There are no examples of diffs at all, these are required. There are no links to pages where socking is alleged.
 * By the standards applied here, each and every allegation of sockpuppetry is deserving of a full checkuser.
 * I make these comments for the benefit of those administrating the checkuser function. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Proofreader77 (interact) 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC) for all accounts, except for PeshawarPat. Multiple accounts used to give the impression of widespread support and possibly will be used in future to evade current blocks in place. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The following are / matches for each other, and might be related to some other sock farm:
 * Tombaker321 appears ❌ from a technical standpoint; to check Love dance. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Accounts already blocked for various reasons, tagged as socks of Brucejenner. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tombaker321 appears ❌ from a technical standpoint; to check Love dance. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Accounts already blocked for various reasons, tagged as socks of Brucejenner. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tombaker321 appears ❌ from a technical standpoint; to check Love dance. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Accounts already blocked for various reasons, tagged as socks of Brucejenner. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)