Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal/Archive

Report date July 10 2009, 11:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Frei Hans

The user Verbal has been taking part in disruptive action similar to Daedalus. The user began edit warring on an article that he wanted deleted (Telepathy and war). That article, and its diffs showing edit warring, has since been deleted. The user Verbal continued to provoke edit warring on the user's user page afterwards. Verbal posts aggressive messages and then complains when others ask him to back off or when revisions are suggested by his target. User Daedalus makes similar edits on the same user page, in connection with Jack Merridew.

User Jack Merridew has been found before to be operating sock puppets disruptively. It appears he has continued to do so, to cause disruption on a user page. Jack Merridew has also stated that he is a sock puppet.

The account Free Hans (with two "e's") was found to be a sock created to mimic the account Frei Hans (with an "i") at about the same time that some of the above users (Verbal and Papa November) tried to stop a check user of their accounts. Shortly before the account Free Hans was created a threatening message was posted on my user page by the user SarekOfVulcan. The message simply read "Hey I warned you. On your head be it", and was posted after I lodged my first sock investigation.

The user Elen of the Roads has stated, on the same user page the other users were frequenting that she expects "her own sock puppet report within the hour".

The user User:Pablomismo has shown similar action to users Verbal and Daedalus969.

The user A Man In Black was recently found to be taking part in disrupting Wikipedia, including operating sock puppets, and was involved as an admin in deleting an article that the user Verbal wanted to delete. .

Many of these users show a similar style of Wiki mark-up and template styling in their signatures and use of style to comment in "discussion", manually inserting edit conflict tags and posting warning notices and banners (traits particularly shared by Verbal and Daedalus). See discussion style on the user page linked at the end of this sentence.

Note proliferation of barnstars etc on user accounts of Verbal, Abce2, SheffieldSteel and Gwen Gale.

As in the case of A Man In Black, user Sheffield Steel seems to have commandeered administrative status in order to push through biased decisions that favour certain sectors of an apparent Wikipedian "community". 

These users, and others connected to them, seem to be focussed on disrupting the work of genuine Wikipedians. Frei Hans (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Frei Hans, just close this. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So I'm a sockpuppet for having a short attention span? Barnstars? I have a little, hard to notice link for those. On a seperate page. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  12:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I will stipulate that I *am* a sockpuppet, however I'm not related to any of the above. And my money's on an indef-block for Frei Hans before I next sleep. Cheers Jack Merridew 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to give me more barnstars I have no problem with that, I've only got two. The question is, what do we do if in one month he returns to this way of editing? This should probably be addressed at his RFC/U. I'm not sure Hans is cut out for wikipedia if he can't accept even our basic norms. Verbal chat  12:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gwen, Elen - welcome to the party. pablo hablo. 12:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay! I got my very own sockpuppet investigation.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just love the way he thinks we're all the same person because we all follow Wikipedia talk page guidelines like uh...signing our posts, and using edit conflict tags. Luverley. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If your a sock of Verbal and you know it clap your hands! Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen posting a block notice cited as evidence of sock puppetry before... although I have to say, I've never been accused of sock puppetry before either. In a bizarre world, only the sensible should be unexpected. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Joking aside guys, if this isn't a massive piss-take (lets see how many Wikipedians I can get running round after me), then this is more than incivility and assuming bad faith. Frei Hans is beginning to show all the signs of paranoid delusions.  If he has ever experienced mental health issues before, he needs to see his physician right about now.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See your talk just now. We really should refrain from diagnosis and just focus on actions. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Blocked 1 month for abusive requests. Because of the results last time he did this, I see no conflict in doing so while I'm listed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so I can't read section headings. So CU me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not on the list, and if I'd seen it first I would have given him an indefinite block (which could of course hypothetically be much shorter than a month) as I see no future for this editor after this. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, he's just appealed the block on the grounds that Sarek is a sock, so now's your chance.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Frei Hans (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Please note that while I have selected codes B and C, that the accounts involved also seem to be operating socks for reasons D and E.


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * um... What an interesting report! For the record:  for no actual basis for checks and for lack of any reason to spend further time on this. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * . Again, there is no evidence these users are sockpuppets.  lifebaka++ 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 24 2009, 19:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Mitsube

Verbal has been edit-warring at reincarnation-related articles for months now, most recently at Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. The new user NottsStudent09 has, except for a small number of edits that look like a cover, been edit-warring for Verbal and reverting for him when Verbal reaches 3 such as most recently at Sense about Science. In this edit-summary Verbal admits that he has to self-revert to avoid 3rr but that he will "await others to restore consensus", and 24 minutes later NottsStudent09 reverts this self-revert:. Also between this version: and this diff:  at Ian Stevenson, the two have 5 reverts in 24 hours. Same thing at Jim Tucker; among Verbal's admitted 3 reverts is a revert of NottsStudent09. The language used by NottsStudent09 is also conspicuously different from that of Verbal.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Just to note that when I self reverted I hadn't actually broken 3RR - I just hadn't realised that was my third revert within 24 hours, so reverted myself to avoid allegations of edit warring. The consensus against the tag was, and is, clear. There seems to be an unusual relationship between some of the "opposing" editors (for want of a better word) amongst these articles. We're both conspicuously different and conspicuously the same? I also revert myself, apparently? This is just another SPI report to add to the recent long list. I don't see why I'd need to resort to sockpuppetry when my edits at SaS were supported by all editors except Blippy (who was blocked for far exceeding 3 reverts on that page). Verbal chat  20:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also don't think the charge of edit warring would stand up at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI (where I was commended for my editing in this area when other frivolous complaint of canvassing was made.) Well, against me anyway. Blippy was blocked for edit warring, and now Misube turns up again. He happened to stop editing just before Blippy joined, if memory serves. Interesting. I'm probably spending too much time on this, the evidence is as flimsy as the last case against me. Verbal chat  21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NottsStudent09 notified of this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Mitsube (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

— Jake   Wartenberg  20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Technical evidence appears to show that these two users are ❌. J.delanoy gabs adds 21:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by A Nobody
User:Windhover75 is a newly registered account acting in the same unconstructive manner as User:Verbal, specifically the anti-Article Rescue Squadron commentary and use of WP:JNN style of non-arguments:


 * Compare Windhover75's "whatever the ARS block vote thinks" with User:Verbal's "the ARS block vote". It is clearly the same person or is an impersonation.
 * Verbal has a history of denigrating Dream Focus as seen in this edit ("It's very disappointing that your sole aim seems to be trivialising and damaging the project"); similar anti-Dream Focus edits from Verbal include, and .  Now, the Windhover75 account's very first edit was to similarly antagonize ARS member User:Dream Focus at ANI in a manner that suggest familiarity with Dream Focus: "Well let's face it that's your speciality" and all subsequent edits have been to AfDs.  What is most telling is that these AfDs (3/4) tend to be ones AFTER Dream Focus has commented in them: , , and.

If it is the same person, as seems obvious per WP:DUCK, then this second account is being used to antagonize other editors (in the case of Dream Focus) or groups of editors (in the case of the ARS) in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HOUND. Thus, if it is indeed the same editor, please block and strike the sock's comments from the above cited afds. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I'm quite offended that the checkuser was endorsed based on the awful "evidence" presented above. I have not engaged in the behaviour ascribed to me, and checkuser should not be used in this way. Verbal chat  07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by A NobodyMy talk 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Account is very much likely a sockpuppet. The phrase "ARS block" is obscure enough for me not to have heard it before, so that piece of behavioral evidence is fairly strong. Endorsing a checkuser to check both Verbal and . NW ( Talk ) 00:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal is ❌. is  . Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 01:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Behavioral evidence looks convincing. Blocked and tagged. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: above refers to Windhover75 and Dalejenkins, not me (I am not a sockpuppet/master). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)