Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TreyAU21/Archive

02 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Submitted based on IP vandalism of Forward and Forward (generic name of socialist publications) as well as Personal Attack comments at Talk:Forward (generic name of socialist publications) and Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

Shortly after the first Nintendude64 posting on Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications), IP editors started coming in to "support" him. Likewise, shortly after his commentary, IP vandalism to add variations to Forward or Forward began. Based on similarity to his initial incivility towards me, the IP editors directly attacking me in several cases, and one IP edit that flows almost directly from Nintendude64's comment  and mysteriously avoided being marked for signing (which I guess I should do now). SkepticAnonymous (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nintendude64
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * BabyDoc23 (WP:SPA)
 * 1) two edits in sequence, never seen again.


 * Prozacstan (WP:SPA)
 * 1) contrib history

Other IP edits:
 * 1)
 * 2) - WP:SPA IP editor
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

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

I formatted the page to the standard template for the editor, and have now moved my sig to this section. Syrthiss (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the edit warring on Forward, I'm quite willing to believe that BabyDoc and Prozacstan are socks / meats. Syrthiss (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Added TreyAU21 as well. Brand new accounts popping out of nowhere to make edit requests on a recently protected page make me suspicious. Syrthiss (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I personally don't feel that there is evidence that Nintendude64 is attached to this. I do feel there is socking going on in this area that I'd like to get to the bottom of.  My involvement originally was just clerking for the user above since they said they never filed a SPI before. Syrthiss (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I found something looking at the Forward page where someone is making edits on behalf of the sockpuppet user requests, since nobody removed the requests. This link shows BabyDoc23 inserting bad language which has somehow stuck: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forward&diff=next&oldid=490298077

I also don't know why so many people were piling on to user SkepticAnonymous. Were you TRYING to provoke him/her into getting angry and lashing out? Because that's what it looks like to me. No wonder they were crying bullying, the stuff posted at them while letting personal attacks fly and not dealing with these sockpuppets in the meantime looks like bullying behavior to me too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.69 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

SkepticAnonymous clearly doesn't appear to be a model Wikipedian, but there seems to be something here. Compare to User:Nintendude, who was found guilty of mass sockpuppetry and block evasion. Although it was years ago, this previous incident also involved AfD tampering. Perhaps he's made a fresh start, but if so, this isn't the way to do it. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this may simply be a case of unfortunate correlation of canvassing on the Forward issue, drawing out IP editors sympathetic to Nintendude's own views. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'd first like to point out that no mention of this was put on my talk page. I had to find out by some other user bringing up this irrelevantly on an AfD page. This is discourteous behavior and standard procedure is to alert someone if they're suspected of any incident.

Second, this all started because SkepticAnonymous put a Proposed for Deletion template on the Forward (generic name of socialist publications) article. I disagreed with this and removed the template, saying that if he wanted to continue to go through the AfD process. SkepticAnonymous responded by reposting the Proposed for Deletion template against Wikipedia policy and by also calling me a racist several times for no reason whatsoever. He also included political ranting as if I gave a shit. Anyway, I removed the template again and said that if he put it up again that I'd report him to the Admin incident board. He put it up again and I was preparing to submit an incident when I'd noticed that another user removed the template. By this time SkepticAnonymous finally got the hint to follow proper procedure and create an AfD. That should be the end of this, despite SkepticAnonymous' uncivil behavior which at this point was just an annoyance and I don't really care personally.

But now, he's raising this sockpuppet accusation with absolutely no proof whatsoever and is basically just harassing me at this point. That I do take seriously, and if he takes other measure to harass me I will be filing a claim on the incident board.

It sounds like this matter is basically closed, but I feel I have the right to still comment -- especially if this needs to be referenced if this escalates. Hopefully this will be done with. -- NINTENDUDE 64 20:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first paragraph of your comment, there is a bullet point under WP:SPI's "Important notes" section that says "Notification is not mandatory, and in some cases may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement." SkepticAnonymous' not notifying you, while perhaps not the best decision, was perfectly allowed. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone is confident that their claims are true, then posting a message to the accused's talk page only serves to further affirm their convictions. Doing it behind their back -- especially when they're an active editor -- to me only shows that you're trying to game the system. -- NINTENDUDE 64 00:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

-- NINTENDUDE 64 00:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment. BDD was kind to post to my talk page advising me to elaborate. To address the direct charges:
 * 1) I have never engaged in sock puppetry. Nor meat puppetry, nor anything of a related nature.
 * 2) I am not Nintendude, the user referenced by BDD who was apparently banned 6 years ago according to user history.
 * A quick look at a talk page shows YOU starting out with unfounded accusations of partisan politics, YOU starting out cussing at someone saying "I don't give a shit", and YOU behaving in an incivil manner regarding someone having issues with BLP implications of the edits as well as YOU declaring you "don't give a shit" about the rampant sockpuppetry and/or canvassing we have now seen, which SkepticAnonymous appears to have been trying to stop when it was just beginning.
 * I note now that not only have you managed to have him/her blocked for days by getting friends of yours to harass the talk page, he/she is being subjected to nasty attacks while the talk page is locked from what appear to be right wing sockpuppets.
 * I can only call this sort of action cowardly. Your actions, and those of the people you recruited, very much violate WP:BITE and you are a disgrace to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.233.155 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Another Addition FINAL Comment. Do you really expect anyone to believe that someone who's familiar with the Proposed for Deletion, Article for Deletion, Admin Incident Boards, and Sockpuppet Investigations in the span of one day is a "new" user? Gimme a break. And thank you for including the link to the talk page, making it available for everyone to see that he was the person who turned this into partisan bickering. It's also clear that I'm not being uncivil; I'm being blunt, there's a difference. I don't have to have patience with someone who's clearly looking for an excuse to fly off the handle. What is uncivil is him calling me a racist unprovoked. And finally, I have absolutely nothing to do with SkepticAnonymous' blocking -- that is clearly his own fault for engaging in disruptive editing. Maybe during the cool-off period he'll get a clue and calm down. Oh yeah, and how is it "cowardly" for me to... I guess get someone to start a sockpuppet investigation on me? How exactly am I "biting" a new user -- who probably isn't new -- from his own actions?
 * I think it's safe to say this is done with since absolutely no evidence to support these allegations has been provided and a CheckUser cleared, so I'm going to be moving on. -- NINTENDUDE 64 16:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - All but &  fit into this picture on a WP:DUCK level. Can we find out where he fits in? --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no obvious technical evidence linking the named accounts. All decisions must be made on the basis of behavioral evidence. -- Avi (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - Can we get checks on and  while I decide who we are going to block for what? Also is it possible to get a comment to see if one of these users is logging out votestacking? --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Including the relist, these accounts are to have the same operator. A determination of meat-puppetry may have to be based on behaviour.  AGK  [•] 14:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by my previous comment about the socking. That said, i'm not tagging anyone as there looks to be offwiki recruitment of some sort going on here, so i'm not going to make the determination if these are all socks of each other or not except by my previous comment. Accounts indef'd, IPs 1 week. I doubt Nintendude64 is involved in this case, so i'm moving this case over. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)