Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torkmann/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * See more info at Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some/Archive

Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare
From my talk page: User:Rasputin72 has appeared since the blocking of sock account for User:Torkmann with a similar editing pattern and is now exhibiting the same behavior. Do you run checks of banned users when suspicious edits from new accounts begin to appear again? See his contribution at Articles for deletion/The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy which is as disruptive as his three nominations of the same article at AFD under three different usernames. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
I think it is time to discuss an IP ban. The person is banned from Wikipedia for disruptive edits under six accounts. Banning the user accounts as they are created just leads to new accounts created every few months or so. The user has a habit of stacking votes by voting under multiple accounts. He leaves messages from one account to the other to attempt to make it appear that the accounts are not related. They used three accounts to AFD one article three times to disrupt Wikipedia. See: Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note the user also lied about other sock accounts when asked directly: "I am not sure where to add this, but here we go. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I have no idea who this Gerbelzo guy is, but I will admit to familiarity with Drawn Some, as I know he had nominated the Cronman article for deletion in September. Feel free to check the IP, I have nothing to hide. Torkmann (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)" When the IP was checked it found 6 sock accounts. Several involved in vote stacking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Under various names this user has nominated about 15 of my articles, which were kept or speedy kept. Pure disruption. The user doesn't appear to be stopping as the new account is also involved in disruptive votes at AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nuclear Warfare! I just saw my name brought up in connection to some accusations of me being another user. Just because I edited a article for deletion page on an article he was interested in, he falsely accused me of being this old nemesis of his. True, I voted "delete" on that article but I do a lot of stuff on articles for deletion. I am not that guy. Can you please help me? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This information was left by Rasputin72 on the page of NuclearWarfare:
 * I would advise you to lay out your evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Torkmann. You may be interested in reading this before you do so. Best regards, NW ( Talk ) 04:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well all the evidence I have is my contributions, which you can see too. What more do I need to do? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean, you were the one that approved this investigation -- So you thought it was some likelihood of me being guilty? Or was that one edit on the AFD in question all you saw? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you could either try to refute the points he brings up or just wait for a checkuser. I would advise doing the first one if you can. NW ( Talk ) 04:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I endorsed a checkuser was because I thought there was a chance – certainly not a certainty, just some likelihood – of you being a sockpuppet. Please don't take it personally, it was more of a feeling that I got scanning your contributions rather than any one edit. NW ( Talk ) 04:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, I don't know who this other user was, so I dont know how his contributions match mine. I'll take a look. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Torkmann's edits reveal quite a bit of editing about television shows and movies, as well as articles for deletion, mostly on Mr. Norton's articles. My contributions, aside from my AFD participation (which admittedly is heavy), are in reverting bad edits and reverting vandalism (watching the recent changes). I request that this investigation be withdrawn. I have nothing but the best intentions for my time at Wikipedia. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon talking to the user who endorsed this "checkuser," User:NuclearWarfare, this user said to me "The reason I endorsed a checkuser was because I thought there was a chance – certainly not a certainty, just some likelihood – of you being a sockpuppet." see here. Please, I feel that investigating my IP address is a certain violation of privacy I don't want from Wikipedia, especially not just because some user thought "there was a chance," a mere hunch as it were, that I might be someone else that another user (Norton) had some bad blood with. I am not a sockpuppet. Why would a bad user be reverting vandalism? Have I done anything wrong? Please withdraw this invasion of my privacy. Rasputin72 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please also consider this: the other accounts that Mr. Norton had problems with were going around nominating a lot of his articles for deletion, often on pretextual grounds. I, however, just crossed paths with Mr. Norton on one AFD (on an article that Mr. Norton didn't even write). I argued for deletion, as I usually do (see my contributions), along with two other people, and that's all Mr. Norton used to accuse me of being those other people that were nominating several of his articles for deletion. In no way was my discussion on the AFD in question "disruptive," as two other users also wanted deletion. So please don't invade my privacy over this misunderstanding. I apologize if I offended Mr. Norton, as it was not my intent to do so, but my participation in that AFD was not without a sincerely-felt opinion. Rasputin72 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I note that Rasputin's second edit was to start an AFD. Since he is clearly not a new user, perhaps he would clarify what other usernames he has used in the past? Rhomb (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Response. I was registered under my first account about four years ago. The name was "Horatio86," I believe. I have since forgotten the password though. If I still had it I would just use that account. I participated in some AFD's as Horatio86 if I recall correctly. I had been away from Wikipedia for a long time because of changes in my life, starting a new career, family commitments, etc. Rasputin72 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by NW ( Talk ) 12:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NW ( Talk ) 12:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have hopefully blocked all of his IPs, as well. Dominic·t 06:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. I don't buy the "I forgot my password" spiel, especially because of the recent socking that Torkmann has engaged in. –MuZemike 17:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by User:Dusti
 D u s t i SPEAK!! 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) .Attacking a user via AFD's twice  because he didn't like | the articles.
 * 2) . Previous AFD's.
 * 3) . [| Look similar?]

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  D u s t i SPEAK!! 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's either Torkmann or Dalejenkins (both have different SPI cases I believe). –MuZemike 02:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ to Dalejenkins, but Torkmann is based on geography. Dominic·t 08:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please could an administrator look over, they were originally blocked as a sockpuppet, however, the check by Dominic turns up a negative result (it may be that he is left blocked for behavioural issues, I haven't really looked at his contributions (Dickensfest, that is, not Dominic :p)). Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the contribs, I'd say that the ducks are quacking. Tim Song (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Richard Arthur Norton
This account was started a few days after the last account by the banned user was closed, the new user's first edits are to properly format an AFD and vote in several other AFDs. The same MO as the previous half dozen accounts. And of course the user brought another of my articles to an AFD. While this particular one should be deleted, the odds that four random new editors would pick a random article started by me to delete, within their first 50 edits would be 3 million to the 4th power. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some/Archive the original investigation was split between two names. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * sure you haven't made some kind of mistake here? Delicious carbuncle has 13665 edits and has been registered since 2008-01-14. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle is not a new account, and they did not pick up editing where Torkmann/socks left off. I see no evidence of sockpuppetry. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

22 May 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 " ~ "''

Torkmann went inactive for a while, now s/he is back in action. WP:DUCK is invoked. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:06, 22 May 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 closed all AFDs. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)