Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WPUCU1/Archive

02 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 " ~ "''

This user started as Sktruth, but changed their name today after realizing they had made their agenda too obvious. In the course of my conversation with them over the last few days I mentioned that linking to an alleged "Foundation for the Wrongfully Convicted" that was nothing more than a Facebook page was not appropriate. An official page popped up all the sudden today and this new account is trying to force a link into the article. There is obviously either sockpuppetry or off-wiki coordination going on here. See also the ANI thread "topic ban Sktruth" which details how they have already tried to have a lawyer get the entire artlcle deleted because it fails to say enough nice things about a convicted con artist and multiple murderer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to me this all seems pretty obvious, but I am too closely involved at this point to take any administrative actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sktruths baseless accusation of my abusing my position as an administrator: Once again you have shown that, just like Kimes herself, the truth is not important to you. I have not used my admin tools with regard to you, so how could I have abused them? As I just got done explaining to you on your talk page, I could have done so but since I am involved in this issue I did not. That is exactly what an admin is expected to do. If it the finding of this investigation that the two accounts are not related then I will have to accept that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

This is harassment by administrator Beeblebrox.

They have continued to make false claims against me over and over. This is because of a personal problem this administrator has with me.

This administrator has claimed that I had an attorney contact Wikipedia. And is now claiming that I have some conspiracy with other users. I changed my user name to WPUCU1 because it was obvious that there was an issue with it. It was to settle that issue. Beeblebrox is abusing their power as an administrator.--Sktruth (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above user is an SPA pushing a personal agenda, and I'm surprised he isn't indef'd yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Amazing! I guess they do have PCs in prison. This is a pretty big COI. Why isn't Sktruth indef'd yet? Also why not go ahead and semi protect the article and only allow autoconfirmed editors to edit it? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll indef Sktruth if the name gets used again. There was a username change here, and it was just because he didn't log out/back in with the new name. And FisherQueen protected Sante Kimes for a week. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Sigh. Endorsing to clear all this up, and also see if there are sleepers (if it's confirmed). —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

✅:



–MuZemike 03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged all the confirmed socks. And I blocked the master for a week for sockpuppeting. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

03 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 " ~ "''

Checkuser confirmed, per AN/I discussion JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 3 February 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
Adding these two for the record, also to note that because of them I have upped the block on the master account to indef. JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

10 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 " ~ "''

Same edit pattern yesterday as, Blocked by Checksuer Alison as ✅. Similiar user name and such. Can We get a Check user done to confirm and see if blocking the underlying IP is an option? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Abgonabg trolling on Talk page of Causewords2 after block was laid down The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:07, 10 February 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

 * - Seems likely. The account is blocked as vandalism anyway, so let's see what's going on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * added after clerk cleared for CUThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I played Dr. Lunatic with my boyfriend also added The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't WPUCU1. This is a banned user by the name of JarlaxleArtemis. --Bsadowski1 03:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to make better notes of this stuff. Alison only mention of a CU was this yesterday  The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All above-reported accounts are ✅ plus some additional ones; underlying IP range now hardblocked. I would not bother tagging these socks. –MuZemike 03:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)