Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WitsBlomstein/Archive

08 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Quack quack quack quack quack. WitsBlomstein has been hopping IPs to edit war with comments in a closed discussion (removing others' comments and then posting stuff in closed discussion that'd only add fuel to the fire). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Ian.thomson has been Meatpuppeting to edit war with comments in a open discussion, not a forum is still open. they confused closed with not forum. and THEY have been removing other peoples comments and then restored others that had nothing to do with said discussion. which ironicly enough, only add fuel to the fire. Hipocrisy on their part. like stated before, check the history of user little green rosetta aswell on both his talk and on ANI discussing the whole event. meatpuppetry to try and political control articles is illegalWitsBlomstein (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No meatpuppetry here and the IPs (clearly WitsBlomstein) and the account WitsBlomstein edited during different time periods. See WP:ANI for some perhaps amusing but revealing comments by him. My guess from the comments about me is that this is indeed a sock but of a named account and I have no guesses as to who that is, which isn't very helpful I admit. Unless we can discover who that might be we shall probably have see if WitsBlomstein shows any sign of being a constructive editor or exhausts our patience. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be meatpuppetry here, including by you. some hilarious comments by you. so unless you have discovered some shared library IP, then no. Unless we can check what other things Dougweller has engaged with other editors in, like what topics and articles that he has been tagteam editing with others, then we'll see if its a short intervall between edits showing he is indeed engaged with even more than suspected, or if its days/weeks between editing and he just wasted our time being neuroticWitsBlomstein (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WitsBlomstein, unless you have any evidence of others meatpuppeting (and that "You have no evidence that says you arent meatpuppetring" crap you left on my talk page will not work here, you need real evidence), you need to knock it off under WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I've explained how to file a sockpuppet report on my talk page, if you have evidence (instead of a grudge), file a report.  I was never involved in the Jew Watch article before I saw a report on WP:ANI about your edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WitsBlomstein is clearly a sockpuppeteer, as demonstrated in the initial report. This is likely a sock for a named account.  This is not fishing, as it is established that WitsBlomstein is a sockpuppeteer, this is looking for additional accounts.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What would be the purpose of a checkuser here? Who would you like to compare the master to? Checkusers will not comment on IPs and they need evidence to compare named accounts.
 * Without commenting on whether these IPs are linked to this user, it would be useful for a checkuser to identify how many IPs this guy seems to have access to, so they can be rangeblocked, as I doubt blocking the main account (which wants doing - this place is overrun with WP:DUCKSwill stop him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Master indeffed. blocked 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * - Let's leave it this for now. T. Canens (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

14 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New editor immediately editing articles to do with Jews. removed the same material as by another WitsBlomstein sock. There are a couple of other similarities if you look which I won't bring up here for obvious reasons. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (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

 * It's special offer day - three socks for the price of one.
 * already blocked by DoRD
 * who somehow managed to escape detection --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. AGK  [•] 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. AGK  [•] 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

09 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This new editor is edit-warring on behalf of various WitsBlomstein IPs - the account was created after a number of favorite target articles were semi-protected. It seems pretty obvious, but a CU would help remove any doubt. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2012 (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

 * Both and  are a ✅ match.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Same POV, indef blocked both, closing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

17 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Appears to have created the sockpuppet Bomtoring to editwar specifically with me - in this case, including edit-warring WP:BLP violations into an article, List of LGBT Jews. Returned a couple of days ago to revert me using what I assume is the main account, though there could be more. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 17 March 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

 * Sock blocked as a duck. I'll let another clerk pass judgment on the utility of running CU for sleepers. I lean towards yes, but I'm not sure the likelihood of sleepers in this case. NativeForeigner Talk 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - Seeing additional diffs such as this, it's looking like there is a good chance there are more accounts there (plus sleepers), so I'm endorsing a check. ( X! ·  talk )  · @015  · 23:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Karabalra and Bomtoring are ✅ along with:
 * I'm still looking at another range. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that is another sock. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Morkpork is due to the use of Tor. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also ✅:
 * The confirmed accounts are all related to WitsBlomstein. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, case should probably be archived under WitsBlomstein's case page. ( X! ·  talk )  · @181  · 03:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The confirmed accounts are all related to WitsBlomstein. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, case should probably be archived under WitsBlomstein's case page. ( X! ·  talk )  · @181  · 03:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The confirmed accounts are all related to WitsBlomstein. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, case should probably be archived under WitsBlomstein's case page. ( X! ·  talk )  · @181  · 03:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The confirmed accounts are all related to WitsBlomstein. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, case should probably be archived under WitsBlomstein's case page. ( X! ·  talk )  · @181  · 03:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)