Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah/Archive

Report date July 3 2009, 23:58 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

If this isn't another JeanLatore/Wiki_brah sock I'll be very surprised; there's a very loud sound of quacking. First 20 edits included nominating James Hoffmann for deletion (a month after it was last nominated by a JL/WB sock), posting bizarre comments on Jimbo's talkpage, tried to pick a fight with Giano and asked another user for mentorship, all JL/WB hallmarks. Filing an RFCU as well as he rarely creates just one, and there will likely be a batch more on the sockfarm that need flushing out. – iride  scent  23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Iridescent
 * For what it's worth, he's now completed the "Wiki brah sock characteristics checklist", with an edit to a page about drugs within his first 20 edits. – iride  scent  18:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I am shocked and offended that merely voicing my opinion can lead to all these privacy-invasive "investigations." It is clear from the comments below that this is nothing more than a witch hunt, that a few users insist continue even though the suspicion that I am a "sockpuppet" was not proven!  Please leave me be. Baileyquarter (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He'd asked me for mentorship as well via another account, but he'd admitted who he was. I was considering mentoring him, but this is kind of creepy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I have no idea who this gentleman is. Baileyquarter (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by –  iride  scent  23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * I am not too familiar with this user, which ArbCom case/sanction are you referring to? Tiptoety  talk 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My fault, I thought he'd been arbcom sanctioned but was actually just a vanilla community ban – see Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wiki brah and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JeanLatore for the background. – iride  scent  00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * - Currently reviewing the evidence/history. Tiptoety  talk 00:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * - Tiptoety  talk 00:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It's certainly a based on geography. If I had a more recent sockpuppet I might be able to give a more exact determination. Are there any that are less than a few months old? Dominic·t 07:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The most recent I'm aware of are User:Gerhardt Lammers, User:Yardleyman and User:Silk Knot from mid-May. The trouble with WB socks is that a lot just get blocked as trolls without anyone ever making the connection. – iride  scent  09:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The account which contacted me wasn't this one, but rather User:PilotMaker66 who was blocked as User:Erich Mendacio. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say now, based on those last accounts. They are on the same IP range. Barberofdeville-Master_Barber is also . Dominic·t 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts Dom found are blocked and tagged.  MBisanz  talk 07:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
This SPA comes out of nowhere, upon registering today, to support Whok in his opinion that a picture should be removed, as their first contribution. Pretty obvious sock, I don't think CU is required here. Further, they've harassed me on my talk page. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm not quite sure what is going on here but let me state for the record - I have only ever had one user name. I use it infrequently because I rarely feel the need to contribute to, or edit, wikipedia. I have at no point harassed anybody on their talk page. Thank you.whok (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CU is required to see if Wide is indeed a sock of wiki-brah, which I suspect he is, given that one of Sails' edits is to give a compliment to a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Wiki-brah. Now, don't let editing times fool you,, a sock of Wiki_brah, had a slightly different editing time than the master, and yet they were still a sock.

To my evidence, Sails' first edit is supporting Wide on a talk page discussion that he is losing, on a rfc that he requested. Subsequent edits are to compliment a sock of a banned user(Jean), and harass me on my talk page with an insult. Since everything that has happened is extremely unlikely, I think a CU is required here.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Wideheadofknowledge SpitfireTally-ho! 18:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

– There is too much coincidence going on to AGF in this situation. That and I am not too familiar with Wiki brah's MO to reliably gauge the behavioral evidence. –MuZemike 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

❌. --Deskana (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific? Is Sails related to Whoc? Were you comparing against Wiki-brah?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was comparing Sails414 to Wideheadofknowledge. I can't compare directly to Wiki brah, as the IP data is stale. --Deskana (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Mathewignash
This user started editing Wikipedia 3 days after Carolyn Baker III was blocked for disrupting the Transformers wikiproject, sock puppeting and making deletion nominations with bad reasoning. This used has been disruptive, made more nominations, and seems to be following the same pattern. Mathewignash (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ – All nominated AFDs automatically closed as "speedy keep" with no prejudice to re-nomination by good-faith users. –MuZemike 03:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * blocked by, blocked by .  Nakon  03:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

26 November 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

was blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. He makes it a point in his unblock request that he is not the creator of Tebson. This is suspicious, because he was not blocked for removing the CSD tag from the page. created Tebson, which was a hoax article. Judging by the time of editing for both of these users and the IP, it is possible for them to be the same user.

It is strongly suggested that Tomas Gilbfarb has edited before due to the depth of knowledge he knew about Wikipedia by his fifth edit. Also see evidence at User talk:Wayne Olajuwon and User talk:Eagles247.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' So it's "suspicious" that I said I wasn't the author of the Tebson article, although I wasn't the author of the Tebson article? Ok, well, I'm not the author of the Tebson article. It appears that this Eagles guy just has it out for me and is using this issue to further stalk/harrass me around Wikipedia. I'm an American citizen and I know my rights. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Tomas Gilbfarb and Tebsongay are ❌.

However, Tomas Gilbfarb and (sock of banned user Wiki brah) are. –MuZemike 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Response. I don't know who that is. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both users blocked. Nakon  05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Above was merged from Sockpuppet investigations/Tomas Gilbfarb/Archive -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

27 November 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

More than a passing resemblance between the 2 users edits, as well as both of them editing the same Afd's Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Don't know anything about it man sorry. Happy Thanksgiving. Sepulveda Junction (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This should be merged into Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah/Archive. -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomas Gilbfarb -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * blocked by .  blocked by .  Nakon  17:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted in IRC that the link is not ✅ -- Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

06 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This user joined about a week ago (shortly after the last sock by Wiki brah was found) and started voting in nominations for deletion right away, including in wiki projects that Wiki brah was known to frequent. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2010 (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 a CU to match it up against previous socks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - technical evidence in comparison to User:Tedescoboy22 is uncompelling; DUCK evidence is another matter. Frank  &#124;  talk  13:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling it: blocked per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just added two accounts that were also blocked as socks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

11 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Opening per discussion on my talk page; duck case with the usual modus operandi. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (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. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

12 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Seems to have only been an editor for a few months, and is preoccupied with redirecting and nominating for deletion similar article Wiki Brah has done. Mathewignash (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2010 (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
Moved from Sockpuppet investigations/ Macr86 (incorrect space before suspected sockmaster's name) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs another move to Wiki brah's heading - master and puppet are in the wrong order. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ to User:Tedescoboy22, known sock of Wiki brah. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved again per Hersfold -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

18 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Started a new account that immediately started talking about Wiki brah's socks. Mathewignash (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2010 (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
✅ plus



–MuZemike 23:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

20 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

It's a parody of user User:NotARealWord, nominating articles for deletion to make it look like User:NotARealWord is doing them! SHould be blocked and all his edits removed from history as well. Mathewignash (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2010 (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. AFD deleted as a result. –MuZemike 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

23 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

At here this user accuses me of being a sockpuppet while claiming to be "the John Dean of the Tf wiki" when approaching Mathewignash. Seems suspicious considering this, and how Wiki brah previously had a sock imitating me (see a previous report at this case page's archive). Plus, i don't think there's such a thing as "the John Dean of the Tf wiki" either. NotARealWord (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2010 (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
. TN X Man  15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling it - blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

23 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Just checking, since everyone who nominates tons of Transformers Wiki Project articles for deletion is suspect after the ton of socks attacking the project lately. Mathewignash (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't think this is necessary. Non of the Wiki brah socks displayed much knowledge of Transformers stuff. Plus, I started AfDing TF stuff before Wiki brah and the Claritas socks. NotARealWord (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I just want to cover all bases. This guy talks to HIMSELF in 2 and 3 way conversations. Mathewignash (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
NotARealWord is correct. Completely ❌. –MuZemike 23:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

23 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

He posts in the same project, and mentioned his name among the first posts. Mathewignash (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2010 (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
and are ✅ as. –MuZemike 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

25 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

User joined and started making deletion nominations in less than a month, including a ton of nominations in the sections that wiki_brah is known to frequent. Mathewignash (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * I don't think this user actually showed any signs of suspicious activity. They've been around since April of last year. If they were a Wiki brah sockpuppet, I think there would have been some sign already. Then again, no way to make sure without a CheckUser. Of course, I don't think there's any reason not to check, even if it's only to prove innocence. NotARealWord (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what protocol is here because it's never been an issue in the past. Just as a matter of principle... I don't want to see checkuser employed as a fishing expedition, where we start checking anyone's IP that we disagree with. Can I ask what I did to prompt this investigation? If we're going to start using checkuser to confirm a negative, I don't think it's too much to ask for a few diffs establishing some kind of disruptive pattern of behavior. Not trying to be evasive. I'm just loathe to surrender my privacy without some kind of probable cause. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed before, when people started to notice the sockpuppeting around the Transformers AfDs. Here, Jclemens asks if the widespread socking would justify CheckUsering everybody who voted in Claritas' AfDs. Anybody interested can read on. NotARealWord (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrmm. I got the sense I was wading into a war with the transformers articles... I wasn't aware of some of the meta discussions behind it. So that I don't feel like I'm being singled out... would you mind if I asked who else you have checked as a result of participating in transformers AFDs, as well as the outcome of the SPI? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you checked the archive of this SPI, ME. Another account was CheckUsered here. But it turned out that account (Tedescoboy22) was a Wiki brah sock instead of a Claritas one. maybe there's a few more. I have a list of Transformers AfDs from that period at User:NotARealWord/Articles for Deletion. maybe that might help. NotARealWord (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the evidence. I don't think you should have been checked. It wasn't fair... there wasn't a rational basis except "anyone who's been involved in TF is now a suspect". You weren't doing anything disruptive. The other check made sense, even if it came back unrelated.
 * However... as a sign of good faith, I offer to submit to a checkuser to confirm I'm not Wiki brah. I'll also submit to a checkuser to confirm I'm not Claritas. Or any other editor who has been blocked, banned, or even warned of a possible block or ban.
 * If you can accept my good faith offer, then I'd like to ask you and Mathewignash a good faith question about when this fishing expedition will stop. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, going through this feels like an act of feeding a troll. Which is a bad thing. NotARealWord (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From an outside perspective, it looks like all the socking and deception and the possible co-ordinated attack on the transformers wikiproject has really crippled the project by creating a climate of massive distrust and fear. Perhaps it would be better to have all users who wish to work on transformers articles and deletion discussion register their real-life identities with Wikipedia, along with a few references.  Basically impose a "state of emergency" on the wikiproject until we weed out whatever influence is behind all the socks.  Then we need to select a strong leader to co-ordinate who is admitted to the wikiproject and who is allowed suffrage in the deletion discussions.  1977 Style (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC) - That would be a sock puppet AGAIN. Perhaps you can see why anyone who joins, and within a month or so starts nominating/voting for deletion in the same projects as this guy raises suspecions? I am sorry if this comes out negative, I'm not just randomly picking guys to SPI. I've nominated a many accounts for SPI as Wiki_brah and so far only 2 have been negative or inconclusive. Mathewignash (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Appears ❌ to Wiki brah. Frank &#124;  talk  00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not blocked. Nakon  08:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

25 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Just joined and IMMEDIATELY started voting for deletions. Mathewignash (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2010 (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

 * Appears ❌ to Wiki brah. Frank  &#124;  talk  00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked by  Nakon  08:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a procedural note, the account was blocked for vandalism, not as a sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 08:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

26 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

a new user who is harassing me about sock puppets out of the blue. Please rename his user account of "Matthewignash" to avoid confusion with me. Mathewignash (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a note at WP:BN asking a bureaucrat to take a look at that. TN X Man  17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like MBisanz has taken care of it. TN X Man  17:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Due to somewhat similar editing behavior, please check. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 10 total edits, most recently four days ago, already blocked once for 24 hours...what's to check and what result would you look for? Frank  &#124;  talk  22:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To see if it's the same guy or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ the following:
 * TN X Man 16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And just came along a moment ago.  TN X Man  16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Matthewignash was renamed and the new account was blocked, so we're all good here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And just came along a moment ago.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Matthewignash was renamed and the new account was blocked, so we're all good here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

27 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This message seems to be a reference to be a reference to this post by a confirmed sockpuppet. (The "conspiracy" mentioned in both seems clearly made up, no need to worry about that) Also, see edit summary here. It says, "excessive sockpuppetry my ass". Also, this article draft of mine has been nominated by said account for deletion. If you look at the edit history, that has been attempted by a couple other sockpuppets. NotARealWord (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2010 (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. Nakon  19:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

28 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Account just appeared and started calling Macr86 and User:Shooterwalker possible sockpuppets. A now (apparently) confirmed Wiki brah sock had earlier accused Macr86 of being a sockpuppet and Shooterwalker was already confirmed to not be a sockpuppet of Wiki brah. Seems connected to the whole issue of sockpuppets and Transformers-related AfDs. Also, the account's first edit, discussing "Harvard graduates working at a major big city newspaper" seems reminiscent of a previous sockpuppet going "No coverage on CNN, Fox News, etc."NotARealWord (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC) NotARealWord (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This account's tagging of people has been pointed out elsewhere and the pages tagged by Mozart fanatic 77 as sockpuppets have been deleted (since those pages were originally empty).

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
All blocked and tagged. User is abusing open proxies like a battered child. –MuZemike 00:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

30 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Yet ANOTHER user who opened his account and first days of edits were nominating Transformers related articles for deletion and voting for their deletion. This user should be blocked and his nominations speedy closed and deleted! Mathewignash (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (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
✅ plus:



I won't bother blocking IPs because he'll just hop them again. –MuZemike 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

01 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Hey look, yet another user who just joined and started posting into Transformers wiki project deletion nominations right away! It's either Wiki_brah or an amazing coincidence. Mathewignash (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It's not like "amazing coincidences" don't happen. Eret2 turned out to be a sockpuppet of somebody else. NotARealWord (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Adding a CU for the customary confirm and sleeper check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's ✅ that the following accounts are all the one editor;




 * And from the last account and geolocation, are highly to be  -  A l is o n  ❤ 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All those accounts have been blocked, so I'm closing this. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

02 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

the usual story, new editor making disruptive AFd edits  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  03:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This editor is ❌ to, or anyone else, from what I can see - A l is o n  ❤ 03:38, 2 January 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

 * Actually, this new user came up at Sockpuppet investigations/Welshdave86. They've been blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

22 January 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 " ~ "''

Anoton's user page says "8/14/05" which is around the date of the earliest edits by the Wiki brah account. Also, user created the page List of Hot Jewish Chicks (now deleted). Seems like something Wiki brah would make, from what I can tell. Also, Anoton's earliest edit is at a place Wiki brah sockpuppets frequented. NotARealWord (talk) 06:30, 22 January 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

 * Account was blocked by Bsadowski1. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

13 March 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 " ~ "''

I think these two disruptive jokey editors are the same person, joined by their anger about Norwegian diaspora. I had some brief interaction with Chacha gurl B after she made accusations of racism against two editors. Hielmann, who is a brand-new editor, also seems to be aware of my words to Chacha gurl B and eager to make disruptive edits to Scandinavian diaspora articles and elsewhere. Neither of these editors is adding a dime of value to Wikipedia, both are disruptive and WP:POINTy. Probably they both belong to somebody else in the discussion, but I have no idea who would do this. Sharktopus talk  04:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)  Sharktopus  talk  04:53, 13 March 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

 * The following is a ✅ socks of :


 * The following are ✅ socks of one another, but is / related to the above account:

Tiptoety talk 05:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're sure this is Wiki brah? There's no overlap in pages, and the diaspora articles these guys edited don't really seem to be his area of focus. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just saying they are technically confirmed. Same exact IP and same exact useragent as about seven other accounts blocked as . Tiptoety  talk 16:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who or what is Wikibrah? The link above leads to an unregistered account with no undeleted edits. Sharktopus  talk  15:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've merged the case into Wiki brah to match the technical evidence, and I've blocked and tagged the accounts. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you like, we can ask for a second CUs opinion (might not hurt actually), someone who is familiar with Wikibrah preferably. Tiptoety  talk 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

All three accounts that Tiptoety listed above are ✅ as Wiki brah plus



–MuZemike 16:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

10 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User:OGBranniff has 75 edits and User:Hefha72 has 13 edits. Inside those overlapping 13 edits, they share the following pages in common: List of Internet chess servers, Articles for deletion/List of Internet chess servers, and User talk:166.82.205.115. It seems possible that WP:MEATPUPPETRY may be in play here as there seems to be a familiarity to Chess.com for the two of them. Ultimately in 13 edits, I particularly find the overlap suspiciously close to the knowledge, interests, and page edits of OGBranniff. While some evidence is circumstantial there is a point where the similarities are undeniable. Mkdw talk 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both filed a chess related AfD on their first day of editing. This shows a familiarity to Wikipedia policy and so far have endorsed each other's actions on every common article.
 * Both involved in a drawn out debate at User talk:166.82.205.115.
 * User:OGBranniff was blocked for 24 hours for incivility at User talk:166.82.205.115 at 16:09 February 7. User:Hefha72 becomes largely active in that 24 hour period, continues the discussion at User talk:166.82.205.115 until OGBranniff's block ends and then ceases activity.
 * Both remove mention of Chess.com on the article List of Internet chess servers in an on-going edit war:     - may be an IP involved as well:

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

Hello, this is User:OGBranniff, one of the parties here. I am a little late to this discussion but I can say that I am not "working with" User:Hefha72 nor do I know who that person is. What might be going on is that right now there have been massive, heated discussions going on on the "chess.com" forums about Wikipedia's recent deletion of their article. Most of these discussions on "chess.com" have been rather vitriolic and anti-Wikipedia. I have seen that this has attracted not a few "new" accounts and IP's to post on Wikipedia concerning the subject. See here, this IP's contribs : , and even the owner/founder of chess.com has edited Wikipedia about it here.

There are a few more chess.com'er type edits weighing in but I figure those three would suffice to show a pattern. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also posted a summary version of what I just said on the SPI initiator's talk page here:. Thank you and have a nice day. OGBranniff (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Hefha's first edit is creating Articles for deletion/List of Internet chess servers, where as OG's first edit is creating Articles for deletion/Chess.com. Both accounts started by immediately and correctly opening an AFD and citing policy, leading to the immediate and obvious conclusion that neither is a new account. Requesting checkuser, though, to see if any abuse is occuring here, given the overlapping interests and AFD participation of these two. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of the technical evidence is that they are more likely to be meatpuppets than sockpuppets. T. Canens (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I also ran this check with Tim and found it but agree that these are more likely two different people working together. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing then. Rschen7754 10:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

01 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

OGBranniff was indefblocked for Nazi flags on the userpage blocked on March 29 2013, but there had been previous issues of disruptive and immature conduct, in part directed towards the chess WikiProject and related AFDs. OGBranniff's last edit on talkpage was March 30 2013. The Lampenstein account was created March 31.


 * 1) The Lampenstein account has also contributed immaturely to a chess related AFD, Articles for deletion/Kingston Defence with immature statements like, for example equating User:Quale with Dan Quayle.
 * 2) As with OGBranniff, there were issues with userpage images, Lampenstein's userpage was deleted for being a collection of unfree images.
 * 3) Other example of OGBranniff-like immaturity ("sluts" comments), Lampenstein uses a "Do some meth" in his signature. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

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


 * It may also be worth noting that OGBranniff and I disagreed repeatedly in AfDs (and also at WT:CHESS), and the new account attacked me with coarse language (documented at ). Toccata quarta (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For my own clarity, since I've been following this case and the previous which I nominated a previous another sock of OG's, does this constitute sock puppetry considering they were not used in tandem, i.e. one account and then the other? Mkdw talk 20:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this constitutes "block evasion", but I'm not sure. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Toccata is correct. You can also see on WP:SOCK the list of things you cannot do with an alternate account. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. Mkdw talk 20:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Per reasoning above. Lampenstein's first edits show he is quite familiar with Wikipedia, and such an editor appearing in OGBranniff's pet area on the heels of his indefinite block seems enough to endorse. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ that Lampenstein is a match to OGBranniff. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked by DoRD, tagged by me. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

10 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User:Muskie72 is a new user—he first edited Wikipedia on 5 April 2013. His contributions are reminiscent of those of User:OGBranniff (blocked on 29 March 2013) and User:Lampenstein (blocked on 1 April 2013), since:


 * 1) they feature prominent participation in AfDs;
 * 2) the user exhibits interest in totalitarian regimes; OGBranniff was blocked for a Nazi flag on his user page (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive790; see also ), while Muskie72 has suggested creating an article covering "the 'Great Terror' in the Stalinist USSR and its effect on the chess program in the Soviet Union" ;
 * 3) he argues with User:Quale and User:Toccata quarta, using foul language against the latter (see Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff/Archive for a summary of past events, and and  for recent ones).

Additionally:


 * OGBranniff is supposed to have been a sockpuppet of User:Hefha72 (see User:OGBranniff), and User:Muskie72 is a username with a similar structure: a name followed by the number 72. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (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

 * ✅ - Muskie72 = OGBranniff. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the "confirmed" mark here is the last piece of evidence needed to establish block evasion, and since the behavior here is the same as the last two accounts that led to the original block, I have indefblocked Muskie72. Sjakkalle (Check!)  21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing then. Rschen7754 09:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

14 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User: Mendoza2909 is a long dormant user—he edited Wikipedia only twice with very minor edits on 1 May 2010. However he returned 1 April making edits (a Chess AfD) reminiscent of User:OGBranniff (blocked on 29 March 2013) and User:Lampenstein (blocked on 1 April 2013), since:


 * 1) they feature prominent participation in Chess AfDs; the sole purpose of Mendoza2909 is activity on Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić
 * 2) argumentative style similar to User Lampenstein on Articles for deletion/Kingston Defence and OGBraniff on Articles for deletion/Lawrence Trent, Articles for deletion/Stewart Reuben and other chess AfDs.

Additionally:


 * OGBranniff is supposed to have been a sockpuppet of User:Hefha72 (see User:OGBranniff), and User:Muskie72 is a username with a similar structure: a name followed by the number 2909. User:OGBranniff denies being Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wiki_brah - which include User:AdamBraniff75 User:Brasil Miami ConnexionUser:Brazilian brah User:BrazilianInMiami etc. but the same name format and references to Germany and Latin America are found there too. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

(I'm not sure what happened to this section and the next one; I'm creating them myself.)

In ictu oculi, please take more care with copy-pastes. It seems that you structured this SPI report according to my last one, and you ended up reproducing a statement about User:Hefha72 and User:Muskie72 that is of no consequence to this discussion.

Beyond that, I agree with what you wrote. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never initiated an SPI before, I initially added it to the Archive by mistake, using your model. But copying the Hefha and Muskie comment was deliberate, I think it applies to this too. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Can I be allowed to prove otherwise before my account is summarily deleted? Thanks. Mendoza2909 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noted at least two of the other socks making this kind of "Hello. Statement. Thanks." comment, but don't have diffs. The above sounds very similar to OGB's answers on ANI. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that this is an OGB/Heha72 sock. It's significant that the AFD was of a British chess player as OGB seemed to target them specifically for some reason.  In that regard, note this particularly distasteful comment: . Quale (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Listing 82.12.246.211 (talk) - this edit and this edit make it clear this is the same as User:Mendoza2909, who does look like a sock of OGBranniff's. (Just compare his current profile with this edit...) Sideways713 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that edit was mine. I had forgotten to log in and then was having trouble figuring out how to sign my profile name. I'm haven't had much practice at editing! Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Very clever. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

On behavior, jumping to make a chess-related AFD shortly after the Muskie72 sock was blocked does evoke some suspicion. There are a couple of things which make this one different. First, most of OGBranniff's AFDs were on clearly notable subjects, but this AFD seems to be more meritorious than the average OGBranniff AFD and long-time WikiProject Chess members Bubba73 and Brittle heaven have voted to delete. Second, the account is not entirely new. It was created in 2010 when it made two rather inconsequential edits though no more until the Peter Lalic AFD. Note however that in the ANI posting that culminated in OGBranniff being blocked, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive790, it was pointed out that the behavior was similar to that of User:Wiki brah, if that is true, and if Mendoza2909 is a another sock, we are dealing with a very long term sockpuppetry issue. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! According to my preferences my account was created in March 2007. How about that?! Must be deep cover sock-puppetry. Mendoza2909 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As mentioned before, I am almost completely new to the editing process, so this is amazing. I am not a sockpuppet (of course, that's exactly what a sockpuppet would say, isn't it?). Obviously I would like to provide some proof of my identity (but not to the internet at large) and I believe I can probably provide some reasonable proof, if someone would like to get in contact with me. This offer has been ignored so far. Thanks. --Hello - message - thanks-- is apparently irrefutable proof of sockpuppetry now. Again, amazing. Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. And Whoa whoa whoa everybody, or should I say "PEOPLE!!" as the star of the 1982 TV comedy Square Pegs said, let's not be so quick to pile on this hapless newbie.  I have made an extensive study of this User:Wiki_brah character and can tell many thing about this "Mendoza" that do not match.  First of all, when did this Wiki_brah exhibit such technical knowledge of chess?  The only thing Wiki_brah was interested in over the last 8 years was girls, Nazis, and cocaine, from what I can tell.  Furthermore, a lot of you are making a big deal of Mendoza's "2909" number suffix.  Granted, Wiki_brah had numbers on his user names, but all of them matched to years in the 1960's, 70',s and 80's, like 1977, 72, 85, 1965, etc...not "2909."  Also, Wiki_brah was more entertaining, and was  lot less abrasive and "smoother" with his targets, and even had friends and allies in the administration, like User:Lucky_6.9 (another "number name").  This Mendoza guy is nowhere near the Brah... as far as this hack "Branniff" goes, I have no idea.  It is almost as if Branniff made a study of Wiki_brah, and performed the character poorly, and Mendoza made a study of Branniff, and furthermore performed it even worse.  On the other hand,  Mendoza's "defence" that he created his account in 2007 does nothing, since we all know Wiki_brah has been active on this site since 2005.  Thank you.  Runsledale (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Added new editor Runsledale to Checkuser request based on style of above compared with the ANI "defence" of OGBraniff and pointed use of Hello - message - Thanks format. And detailed knowledge of User:Wiki_brah User:AdamBraniff75. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note also that Runsledale first edited Wikipedia on 14 April 2013, and so far looks like a WP:SPA (besides a WP:SOC). Toccata quarta (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dia duit. You are all a bunch of clowns. I would just like to point out that after 8 years of girls, Nazis, and cocaine (We both use the Oxford Comma! Another nail in my coffin.), often at the same time, I've quietened down a lot and now fancy nothing more than a quiet game of chess with my skinhead mates. Go raibh míle maith agat. Mendoza2909 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hallo. Na Klar!  Mendoza, I think these chess types have it out for us gentlemen about town.  These pretentious stiffy stiffersons is just jealous.  Danke. Runsledale (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely jealous. Hey I've only been here two weeks, you haven't given me a chance to be entertaining yet! I think Wikigimps no.1 and 2 here have been reading Enid Blyton detective novels, such is the quality of their evidence gathering. Do you think maybe that you and me are both schizophrenic and are in fact the same person? Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. Perhaps, but who is "Wikigimp no.1" and who is "Wikigimp no.2"?  Thank you.  Runsledale (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind! Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. This "Sockpuppet investigation" reminds me of that Eminem song from about 2000, "Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?"  ...Will the real Wiki_brah please stand up?  Thank you.  Runsledale (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll have to look somewhere else mate, sorry. Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Lampenstein and Runsledale made similar comments about the cities of chess ediors, see this and this. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Runsledale's signature "Runsledale Bang some sluts!" talks about banging sluts - just as OGBRannif's user page did (edit) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Runsledale has been blocked indefinitely (though not for sock puppetry). Toccata quarta (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Hello. The evidence against me so far:

1. I came along soon after OGBranniff was last banned. Although I do have two edits from 2010 and my account was created in 2007.

2. I nominated a chess AfD, although my AfD proposal clearly has merit, which from what I've heard was not a common feature of OGBranniff. 3. I am argumentative.

4. I have numbers after my name. (I'll give you one guess what my birthday is. Go on, guess.)

5. I used Hello followed by Thanks in one of my posts, immediately followed by the admission that there was no record to hand of any other user doing this. (Scraping the bottom of the barrel here I think.)

But if Quale is soooo sure that this is enough evidence then all credit to him. Clown.

Thanks. Mendoza2909 (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply. Hello.  You really shouldn't have anything to worry about from this "investigation" per se.  This "Sockpuppet investigation" is meant to compare your IP address and useragent data (and maybe some other technical/computer stuff) against known exemplars of another account (back in my day the process was more transparently called "Request for Checkuser.")  Once they compare your IP to the other accounts, they will see that you in fact are not those people, so that part is cake.  It's pretty simple.  I would also take heart in the fact that this request has been outstanding for several days now and that it hasn't been picked up by the checkusers or clerks.  That might show that they know that this request has no merit.


 * What I would worry about, however, is after the checkuser is declined or comes back negative, this Quale person going to the administration and saying, well, yes maybe its not HIM from a technical standpoint, but the circumstantial evidence is similar WP:DUCK, or they may say that you are just "up to no good" in some way that is never specified and try to get you banned. Of course, the bright side of that situation (I like to think there is good and bad inherent in everything) is that the administration here does not take these chess-editor types like Quale and Toccata Quarta seriously at all.  Thank you.  Industrializedboy77 (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is great timing actually cos it distracts me from exams and I just want to rub the result of this investigation in Quale's face. You've got to have an aim in life! Mendoza2909 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Another obvious sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You should be aware that even if you aren't socks you can easily be blocked for personal attacks if this line of conversation continues. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. My apologies. It has been already implied that I am a racist and a sexist by Quale and others from various links to posts that OGBranniff has made. Nothing of the sort has come from me. Mendoza2909 (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Have emailed functionaries list with information. It's the principle of the thing. Mendoza2909 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you aren't posting in the wrong section? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments moved ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DoRD, how is that statement by Mendoza2909 relevant to this SPI investigation? He can make any statement, whatever its veracity is. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of the filing party to provide convincing evidence, i.e. specific diffs, before CheckUser will be used, but the only evidence I see against Mendoza2909 is circumstantial. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - It's pretty clear cut here based on the editing patterns and behaviour, but this is the third case in two weeks. Request check for sleeper accounts, or whether there can be something to block underlying IPs or ranges. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 10:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given Mendoza2909's statement that the IP edits were theirs, and given that the IP is located on the wrong continent, I am not inclined to check either of them. However, I am waiting for the email message mentioned above to post to the list. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That being said, Runsledale and Industrializedboy77 are ✅ to be the same as OGBranniff and other socks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * with respect to Mendoza2909. After reviewing the information provided by Mendoza2909, I have no reason to doubt their story, and unless compelling evidence is forthcoming, no checks will be run. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're done here.  Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

22 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

He brags on Mendoza2909's talk page about being Wikibrah here:, and the post to my user page is also typical:. If Mendoza2909 and OGB are not the same person then my guess is that they are acquaintances from chess.com. This itself would not be a crime, although it may bear watching. The new sock should be blocked. Quale (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't quit do you? I would love to hear your evidence for thinking that we are friends. Perhaps we bonded over our common love of deleting British chess players? Of course another explanation is that we started corresponding on this site after you decided that we were in fact the same person, while we both decided it was hilarious and that you were embarrassing yourself. Something something Occam's Razor.

The AfD I submitted, after all this messing is over, will likely be 'successful'. I.e. not trolling or whatever other word you want to use. Any problems you have with this are not mine, but please keep my name out of any further discussions on the matter of OGBranniff. The admin has made it perfectly clear that you have not provided any good evidence. Thanks. Mendoza2909 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah!! Brocktoon Belvedere (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I indefblocked this account. If an account says he is a sock of a banned user, I see no reason not to take him on his word. Maybe there are any other purposes to run a checkuser, but I cannot see that one is required to block this account. But maybe the underlying IP should be blocked for a lengthy period of time. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking the underlying IP will do no good. You have been here long enough where you should know that.  Check!  Brocktoon Belvedere (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sooo ... no idea what's going on here, but since every odd account appears to be blocked I guess we can close this. Amalthea  21:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

29 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I'm aware this has been shut down once before, due to a lack of evidence, but I feel that it's quite likely this user is indeed a sock of OGBraniff. Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić (plus the related Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić (3rd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Murugan Thiruchelvam are pretty much all they've edited, both are Chess AfDs. Potentially coincidental, but both users edited Foo Fighters-related articles: . Multiple users have expressed the belief that this user is a sock, such as User:In ictu oculi, User:Quale and, possibly (if I'm not misinterpreting it), User:Toccata quarta. Now, there's a little bit of evidence that wasn't commented on before. Compare, this user's userpage, to a blocked sock's sig, and OGB's userpage  - OK, the the tone has changed somewhat, but it's conspicuous that all three are directly linking their interests as women and chess. More evidence is the clear interest in Nazis of this user, and OGBraniff's userpage. If you want me to turn up more evidence, then I shall, but I feel this should be enough. CU requested for further proof, and to check for any sleepers. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 18:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

No, you have indeed not misinterpreted my statements on this topic, Lukeno94. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Having looked this over, it does appear to warrant a check for socking and sleepers, IMHO. I say this having had little or no prior contact with Mendoza.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've literally seen the AfDs and little else, although I do remember an ANI thread on OGBranniff. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously him again, as evident from the taunting, yes last SPI stumbled at User check on the "Oh I forgot to sign as IP, now look a different logged in ISP signs" diff, which admittedly was clever - but shouldn't have prevented a sock confirmation been since meatpuppetry is still covered by SPI. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Having had no contact whatsoever with either user, and stumbling upon this from an AfD, I wish to note that Mendoza's account, while having few edits, was made 5 years before OGBranniff. Then again, since Mendoza started editing again right after OGB was banned, that just means that this is likely either a sleeper or a compromised account. Ansh666 01:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with everything written above, and it is obvious that Mendoza2909 and OGBranniff write in an identical voice. They share the same disrespectful, mocking tone in AFD nominations of UK chess players, which nominations are themselves practically the only interest either has shown editing wikipedia.  Note that OGBranniff is suspected itself to be a Wikibrah sock, and although I'm not familiar with the history of Wikibrah that could explain the age of the Mendoze2909 account.  Both Mendoza2909 and OGBranniff like to sprinkle German sentences and phrases into their writing unprompted and without external motivation, see this example from Mendoza  and here is one of several examples from OGB .   In my experience this is rather rare behavior on Wikipedia. When Mendoza is active on Wikipedia the socks are crawling out of the woodwork, and when Mendoza goes silent the socks do too.  The socks and Mendoza edit within minutes of each other, practically finishing each other's sentences as evident at User Talk:Mendoza2909 and at the earlier SPI comment page.  Whatever Mendoza wrote to the admins must have been pretty convincing to explain why an account dormant for five years suddenly resumes activity solely to continue the exact same extremely narrow pattern of edits that were the focus of an account that was indef-blocked for sock puppetry only days earlier.  It is possible that Mendoza2909 and OGBranniff are not the same person, but then meat puppetry is likely with the two either acquainted in real life or as members of chess.com.  Quale (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Having now reviewed the entirety of both cases against Mendoza, I feel like this is WP:DUCK. Is that going too far? Ansh666 05:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the (admittedly very tangled) history, it's possible that OGBraniff is linked back to a 2006 sockpuppeter (Wiki_Brah), so the fact it's an older account doesn't mean so much. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, blatant WP:DUCK. Also I thought it was confirmed last time, User:OGBranniff like User:AdamBraniff75 is one of Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wiki_brah. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. The whole thing, particularly who users are tagged as socks of, is a complete mess, and needs fixing. I'd happily do it, as long as I got reassurances that this link is pretty certain, and I don't get a well-meaning admin undoing my work. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So what happens now, DoRD? Is Mendoza2909 still blockable under WP:DUCK, even though the CU turned up nothing? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppet, at least? Ansh666 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have taken the time to familiarize myself with the Wiki brah SPI archive and his list of confirmed sockpuppets. I have also looked at the CU logs from some of the most recent confirmed sockpuppets. Although all known sockpuppets are stale, the location of the confirmed accounts in this case are consistent with the last known location of Wiki brah. Taking location into account along with the behavioral evidence, I think that it is that OGBranniff is Wiki brah.
 * As I expected, though, Mendoza2909 is ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * After reviewing this case, I agree with DoRD's assessment that OGBranniff is indeed User:Wiki brah. However, I'm leaving Mendoza unblocked as he is ❌. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should this be moved? --Rschen7754 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

04 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

One of Wiki brah's recent sock incarnations was User:OGBranniff, who concentrated on chess articles and displayed a fixation with the chess.com website. After causing considerable disruption in the chess project he was blocked for some Nazi nonsense on his user page and then socked for a while. Super brah's first post displays OGBranniff's obsession with chess.com and although this is his initial edit, he boats of having been here for over eight years which is a good match with Wiki brah's history:. A subsequent edit on Caffeinepills user talk is typical of OGBranniff in its focus on chessgames.com and in tone and style:. Quale (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Just a small comment to avoid confusion: the second hyperlink posted here by Quale, rather than the first, supports the "eight years" claim. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm absolutely sure this sockpuppet was used by Toccata quarta. He apparently lost an edit war to a new user here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fabiano_Caruana&action=history and didn't feel good after that. I used Caffeinepills account. I just deleted some of the early career history without references because Caruana is only 20 years old and too old information is pointless, especially without references. Maybe it was wrong. After he reverted my edit, I made a perfectly acceptable and useful edit - as you can see. He accused me of violating PSTS because I made a Twitter citation on Caruana's current home. It was probably a mistake but as a more experienced user he shouldn't act like this because in general my edit was very useful. Toccata quarta often make sarcastic remarks and enjoying reverting edits rather than doing something constructive it seems. After he spammed my profile with so much notification, I decided to make a new account. I know, it's not a good situation to accuse someone of using sockpuppet when you have multiple accounts, but I changed my password to some random number, so I don't have access to it anymore. It amazes me that he posted a message here, I guess he had other sockpuppets before.

[] - in WikiProject Chess he started a new section named Chess.com again and a few hours after this brah started his activity [] and he left a comment on my caffeinepills page which Quale quoted. I think it's quite obvious... Graviera (talk)


 * If you are convinced that I'm guilty of sock puppetry, then you should initiate a separate investigation page, instead of posting your accusations here. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'd call it technically . Courcelles 04:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything's blocked, and no sleepers, so closing. Rschen7754 06:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that and  are the same, but are editing a long way from where WB/OGB have edited. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

19 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I strongly suspect that the banned user User:Technoquat is a User:Wiki_brah sock.

One of Technoquat's suspected socks is User:Technoquat77. Wiki_brah created many socks with the number 77 or 1977 in their usernames (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wiki_brah). (The number 77 is also found at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Torkmann, along with the word "fanatic" [another favourite word of Wiki_brah], the word "brah" and the number 72 [another Wiki_brah "favourite" (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wiki_brah and )], who is suspected by User:Viriditas to be a Wiki_brah sock .)

Here, one of Technoquat's socks spontaneously continues a discussion started by a sock of User:OGBranniff, a Wiki_brah sock. (I suggest reading the thread in full.)

User:SaoPaulo Aviator, a self-confessed sock of Wiki_brah, left a most bizarre of messages at Technoquat's talk page. The hidden agenda of this post may be "I'll convince them that I and Technoquat are different individuals." (I may be wrong, of course.)

Another parallel that I see in all this is that User:Graviera, a Wiki_brah sock, left, for no apparent reason, a friendly message at my talk page. About two months later, a suspected Technoquat sock left another unexpected positive comment on my talk page. Given that I have never (as far as I remember) ever interacted with Technoquat or one of "his" socks, I find this pretty suspicious.

There may be other pieces of the puzzle to put together, which is why I look forward to comments on this by others. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I've certainly heard worse theories. This one seems very plausible, and it would be interesting to see if they are the same person or not. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All I have to say is: Does it really matter? When you have troll sockpuppets talking with each other, teaming up to engage in disruption, and possibly impersonating each other, determining whether they are related becomes much harder. Besides, given the vast number of checkusers run on these two users, I would have expected some sort of connection to have turned up before now. Closing, since they are all permabanned anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

29 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New user Fishface gurl has demonstrated a strong knowledge of wikipedia procedures and guidelines, with much activity devoted to Afd discussion for Tiger Lilov. User has shown an unusual passion and stridency for preventing the creation of a page "chess.com" in such language as clearly indicates a personal grudge against this website. Strongest advocate of deletion of chess.com article during previous Afd discussion was a known abusive sockpuppet of Wiki brah, OGBranniff. New accounts Fishface gurl and Pompidou Centre both show a tendency to selectively apply wikipedia policy regarding WP:GNG against this one particular website, while showing no particular interest in deleting other poorly sourced articles about chess websites. Also a tendency to reply to their own comments. Both have left insulting and abusive comments and accused me of lying about my non-membership of chess.com here and here, as has IP user 166.248.150.128here, clearly a breech of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Note that both Fishface gurl and Pompidou Centre have made frivolous edits to the page of an obscure chess player named David Taylor.

Finally Georges Bizet67 has made abusive edits to my sandbox, which obviously is not a wikipedia article, here and here (note the text "chess.com sockpuppet troll). Note the similarity of this username to other known socks of Wiki brah including Brahms fanatic 77 and Mozart fanatic 77.

--> MaxBrowne (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2013 (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
The following accounts are to be :
 * This should have been opened under Wiki brah so it will need to be moved. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved with histmerge to Wiki brah -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - various similarities warrant a CU request Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked User:Georges Bizet67 as a VOA. Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that, while CU will not comment with regards to the IP, there are behavioral similarities between the IP and the named sockpuppets in this investigation. Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, this looks like a big one.... . Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

✅ to each other, and related to : Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * blocked/tagged all; closing Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

06 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New user Monkeysnap's edit history strongly suggests a connection to Wiki brah, for the following reasons.
 * In this edit to Chess title, user has made an improperly sourced allegation about the Bahamas Chess Federation and unspecified "West African" chess federations. Compare with this edit by known Wiki brah sock puppet OGBranniff on the former page National Master (which now redirects to Chess title), in which a similar allegation is made about unspecified "third world" and "caribbean" chess federations.
 * In this edit to an Afd discussion, user makes a personal attack on other participants in the discussion and accuses them of sockpuppetry, and alludes to an earlier Afd discussion, clearly showing a knowledge of recent activities in WP:CHESS. Note the behaviour of known Wiki brah sock Fishface_gurl in this discussion.
 * Like Fishface gurl, user has made personal attacks on a user's Talk page. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2013 (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

 * Pretty much ✅. Blocked and closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

06 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Account is used exclusively for the purpose of attacking other users, makes no attempt to hide identity. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC) MaxBrowne (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2013 (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

 * Suspected sock blocked per DUCK test, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

12 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This is an entirely new user that submitted this DRV. The aspersions (or probably trollish humor) is very similar to that of Venezuelan GM that has also been blocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki brah. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:34, 12 November 2013 (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. Rschen7754 09:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

12 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

obvious trolling/harassment by user who has a grudge. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC) MaxBrowne (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2013 (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. I don't care whether this is a sockpuppet or not, even though it probably is. The edits made are clearly made only to harrass, and I'm blocking it. Not for being Wiki brah, but for his edits as Technoquatic. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * CU has confirmed he's a sock, already blocked indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

18 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This rather new account seems to be another in the "77" series of accounts that Wiki brah has made previously. Like other Wiki brah sockpuppets such as User:OGBranniff, Ohlendorf77 soon targeted a chess article with an AFD nomination Articles for deletion/Gordon Crown, with strawman argumentation "Is everyone that has died young now worthy of an encyclopedia article?". Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:53, 18 November 2013 (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

 * ✅ to Wiki brah, along with
 * NativeForeigner Talk 17:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Socks tagged and blocked indef. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

21 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Username and contribution consistency. Reporting for the record only; already blocked him. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

22 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

There are several reasons why I believe that Szpilmann dude is a Wiki brah sock.
 * 1) Many of Wiki brah's socks have usernames with German words, such as, or  (recently blocked). Szpilmann is also a German word.
 * 2) Two recently blocked Wiki brah socks have usernames with the word "dude"— and . From the past, there are also, , and.
 * 3) Szpilmann dude's edit summaries exhibit a confrontational, uncivil attitude (example 1, example 2), which is characteristic of the behaviour of, a Wiki brah sock fairly active at WP:CHESS (example). Szpilmann dude has so far been focused on chess articles.
 * 4) OGBranniff had previously mocked women's chess, while Szpilmann dude has removed a mention of the Women's World Chess Championship from the lead of the article World Chess Championship, describing it as "unnecessary fluff".

I think this constitutes fairly conclusive evidence. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2013 (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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

24 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

SPA, created solely for the purpose of harassment. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC) MaxBrowne (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2013 (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

 * Dealt with him again. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

26 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New user immediately opens an Afd discussion, and is supported by a second new user. Banned user Wiki brah has recently taken to harassing me by vandalizing my user page and Afd'ing any new articles I created, e.g. Gordon Crown and Jesús Díez del Corral. Please put a stop to the nonsense. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC) MaxBrowne (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Query. Are you able to divulge any other info as to why the evidence concerning Fantasia west was inconclusive? Behavioural similarities, e.g. language, tone, the fact that he targeted *my* article in particular for an Afd certainly suggest that this user is Wiki brah. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2013 (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

 * Valeri Lilov is ✅. Fantasia west is . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Both Fantasia west and Valeri Lilov blocked indef. One per technical evidence, and the other per strong behavioral evidence though the technical evidence was inconclusive. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

30 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Perrier Tyson has shown several characteristics associated with Wiki brah.
 * Short nonsensical text on User page
 * Adopted a contrary position and offered spurious arguments in a chess-related Afd discussion soon after creating a new account
 * Showed an interest in pornography and anal sex in particular here, here and here, and in the creation of the article Dillan Lauren.
 * Showed an interest in South Park here and here.
 * Asked a silly trollish question at Reference Desk.
 * Tried to prompt other editors into nominating the article about his pet hate website Chess.com for deletion here, here and here.

Fewer edits to go by in the case of Gameof_ThronesGuy but has also commented on wikipedia notability/deletion policy on the WikiProject chess page with his first edit, edited a South Park article, created a nonsensical user page and asked an admin to "adopt"/mentor him. All of these are Wiki brah characteristics. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This all is very troubling really. If Wikipedians are being targeted just because they like anal sex, pornography, South Park, and Beautiful chess then you might as well block just about 95% of all Wikipedia editors under the age of sixty. Especially those from Prague. Perrier Tyson (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both ✅.Also IPBlocked. Blocked. Tagged. NativeForeigner Talk 01:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

08 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

WP:SPAs, created with the sole purpose of having the article Chess.com deleted, which was a key behavioural characteristic of, a Wiki brah sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Comment: is another possible sock. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the list. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All three ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey : is part of the gang too. Already blocked and tagged. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All three tagged and blocked indef. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

10 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Looks like another Wiki brah sock, lobbying behind the scenes for the deletion of his pet hate chess.com article. Linguistic and behavioural similarities. Here is the edit in question. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) MaxBrowne (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2013 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Account is a ✅ match to . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeffing remaining sock, tagging and closing.

10 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Wiki brah continues to create accounts to spuriously edit the Chess.com article (the most recently banned as far as I know are MikeLowryFanatic2 and Gigi Powers). Both of these users added information about a lawsuit to the Chess.com article which was soon after taken out (Lowry, Gigi). They were banned and Deceptobot67 was created with this first edit (the lawsuit and more accusations) followed by a campaign to protect the edits (including leaving warnings on my page when I removed part of the text). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I added to the list of suspected socks. I strongly suspect this SPA is Wiki brah being silly, creating a straw man with wildly exaggerated "support" for chess.com. He did similar things with his  and  personas, defending an article about a non-notable Venezuelan player. All this demonstrates that Wiki brah's sole purpose, regardless of method, is to disrupt wikipedia and waste our time by getting us into pointless discussions. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC) MaxBrowne (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Summary- MaxBrowne puts it so well- disruption, time wastage and pointlessness. Deceptobot 67 makes signature Wiki Brah edits and displays unexpected knowledge of vandal warnings and AfD, as well as making signature inflammatory (disruptive) talk edits.


 * I became aware of this when I saw vandal warnings on Rhododendrites talk page (dif here and dif here . I know Rhododendrites to be an experienced user who I believe teaches Wikipedia to others. Such a warning on his talk is in and of itself concerning. Let us linger for a moment on this moment. Note that he progressed warning templates. Deceptobot67 has < 20 edits. When I had < 20 edits, I knew nothing of vandal warnings, let alone 3RR. Moving on.


 * These warnings, as they so often are, were the result of an edit war content/dispute between Rhododendrites and Deceptobot67. Deceptobot 67 insisted upon this edit. Note the provocative edit summary, so full of portent for an editor with only 20 edits or less. Note the stilted, provocative, inflammatory and defamatory language of the content. In fact, Deceptobot 67's first edit was a signature edit of Wiki brah. Needless to say, Rhododendrites objected to this edit in no uncertain terms.


 * You can see for yourselves comments on Talk:Chess.com and the respective user talks. I warned them both to retire to their corners and discuss changes without further edit warring. Deceptobot 67 acquiesced at once as though he knew from experience that the gig was up. He made no protest, but did try to inflame me by misrepresenting on my talk an edit by Rhododendrites who was still hot about Deceptobot 67's edits and a bit indignant from me suddenly sticking my oar in. In short, Deceptobot 67 shows far greater skill in the Wiki arena than someone with < 20 edits. And we've not even come to the edit to Sheldon Wong-- nominating the article for AfD. Again, unexpected knowledge in a new editor to Wikipedia in a signature (disruptive) edit of Wiki brah's of a chess player article. Dloh cierekim  23:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, wikipedians with even a passing familiarity with Wiki brah and his methods should not give any of his socks the time of day. Hence my disappointment at recent acquiescence to his Afd requests on chess.com and Sheldon Wong (though I'm finding it hard to justify the latter article). MaxBrowne (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * looks like another. SPA brought in to support a deletion nomination. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Suspected sock blocked indef per duck test. Not sure if a sleeper check is merited. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Toad is ✅ blocked and tagged. Peggingflow should be judged on behavior. NativeForeigner Talk 08:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All three suspected socks blocked indef, Toad per checkuser and the other two per behavior. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

11 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Shortly after latest ban, a "new" user immediately targets an article I have written, on their first edit, and makes an unfounded accusation of copyright violation claiming it is "obvious". MaxBrowne (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit:Add to list of likely socks. User refers to extensive previous experience with wikipedia, gives email address showing connection with Brazil. Removed speedy deletion template. Compare with this edit by.

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

 * Both ducks blocked indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

12 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Why would a "new" user make an edit such as this one in an Afd discussion, then try to ingratiate himself with one of the participants? Quack. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2013 (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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, all of the accounts from this and the two previous days' cases fit the pattern, i.e. ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

12 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

quack MaxBrowne (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2013 (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

 * ✅ and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

13 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User left this message on my talk page, seemingly following up on this other now-blocked sock's post from a few days ago. Also left a message for, who was also involved. Seems typical. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think it's him. Anyone know if Wiki brah speaks German? Though a lot of people understand vielen dank. Dloh cierekim  17:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes; if I'm not mistaken, he lived in Germany and Austria (as well as other countries). Toccata quarta (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Murry Gutmanstein blocked indef per duck test. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, unsurprisingly. There are no unblocked sock accounts on this range at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

14 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility


 * Do I really need to explain?, MaxBrowne (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MaxBrowne (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Can this be escalated further? Some disturbing behaviour from this user. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * See all of the previous evidence (for sock reported earlier today). This one is standard fare. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  06:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  06:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked and closed. Rschen7754 09:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

14 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

yeah you know the drill. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * comment I've been to SSI more in the last week or so than in the previous 8 years, and I owe it all to this person. Yes, it's them. again. Dloh cierekim  03:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checked, blocked,, pages protected, closed, etc. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

15 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Obvious sock is obvious. Both edits are dead-ringers; and  (obviously that's my edit, but the sock created the talk page). CU requested for sleepers. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (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

 * He's ✅, so . Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

22 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Brazil based IP. Immediately attacks me (MaxBrowne) on first edit, raising a spurious ANI. Quack. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2013 (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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

29 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This new user popped up and immediately started off by poking into a conflict on the chess pages with attacks on User:MaxBrowne. This is obviously a user that has experience with MaxBrowne and Ihardlythinkso previously, and the editor who liked stirring the pot and stoking conflicts on WikiProject Chess was Wiki brah whom I believe this is a reincarnation of. The edit in the last diff also makes references to "chicks" in a manner that was typical of previous Wiki brah socks. Sjakkalle (Check!)  21:30, 29 January 2014 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeffing and closing.

31 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

With the personal attacks against MaxBrowne and Rhododendrites  and the chess focus, this account reminded me of somebody and think it is Wiki brah. I'm not that familiar with this particular sock, but the pattern fits. Requesting confirmation and the usual checks done against this sock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2014 (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
For confirmation, sleeper check and IP block if possible. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CU results are, but named account is a match to . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TreeGrowsinBrooklyn blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

11 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Suspicious pattern of behaviour by a new editor, once again nominating the article chess.com for deletion and demonstrating a knowledge of wikipedia notability guidelines whilst selectively attempting to "enforce" them against this one particularly article, which is better sourced than many similar articles. An editor who has not previously had accounts with wikipedia and with no substantial editing history would be unlikely to take such an action. User page is a single line, reminiscent of other Wiki brah socks such as. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (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

 * along with . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

25 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This sock has a history of vandalizing my talk page. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2014 (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

 * ✅ Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

29 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

SPA, canvassing to get the chess.com article deleted. All very much standard operating procedure for this sock. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2014 (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

 * Already blocked and tagged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

08 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Any new editor who nominates Chess.com for deletion (or lobbies other editors to nominate it for deletion) automatically comes under suspicion. Also Casino Royale67 who made disruptive edits to Chess.com and trolled on SummerPhD's talk page. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC) MaxBrowne (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello. I am slightly bemused by this turn of events, but I sincerely have no idea who this "Jack5500" guy is. All I know is that he is not me. This RFCU will prove that much, if nothing else. Obrigado. Casino Royale67 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ as Wiki brah. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Both accounts already blocked and tagged, closing. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

15 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User clearly identifies himself as a sock of Wiki brah here, and makes a bad faith Afd nomination of an article created by me here purely for harassment purposes. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC) MaxBrowne (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Claims an edit by another Wiki brah sock;. Quack. Sum mer PhD (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A dead ringer per User:SummerPhD. Ben  Mac  Dui  07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ... as tho something is (really) being accomplished!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2014 (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 tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

23 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

quack MaxBrowne (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2014 (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

 * Bagged and tagged -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User Macer75 tried to add Macer75 to the list of writers at the website Chess.com. At the site itself, the user named Macer75 has been banned, probably for trolling. Macer75 repeatedly tried to introduce this edit before being blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account. Shortly afterwards a new account !hellao! was created and made several edits to the Chess.com article, a few of which were constructive, but which also included the addition of Macer75. After I raised concerns at WP:AN about some problematic editing behaviour, this account was investigated by who picked up on the "Macer75" connection and blocked them indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. Another new user, Wikihelper751 has since attempted to introduce Macer75 into the Chess.com article and looks like a clear sock. Note also this response to a user warning by, clearly showing that this is a troll account.

I suspect all three of these accounts are related to User:Wiki brah, a sockmaster with a long history of disrupting the Chess.com article. This user has used many IP's, most of them located in Florida or Brazil. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think that there's definitely some socking going on here. I've blocked and tagged the accounts with Macer75 as the main sockpuppeteer. I think that at the very least they are likely tied to this account:, as the usernames are very similar. That SPI ended without any conclusive ties to Wiki brah since it was found to be unrelated to one of the known accounts. Basically, I think that if this isn't Wiki brah then it's likely that this is probably Macr86 under a different account and this person has likely been doing this for a while. Checking for sleepers is a very good idea in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Given that Macer75 has remained dormant for nearly a year since creation I think it makes sense to check for sleepers. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and are ✅.  is technically ❌ to the two other accounts listed. . -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Close. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)