Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XXSNUGGUMSXX/Archive

23 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

XXSNUGGUMSXX has been involved in a dispute on Hummingbird Heartbeat. This dispute has involved XXSNUGGUMSXX removing a link to PopCrush, removing a picture of a relevant image and replacing it with an irrelevant image, and changing 'Christopher "Tricky" Stewart' to "Tricky Stewart; as can be seen from the history, other editors (which includes myself, Status and Tomica) have disagreed with XXSNUGGUMSXX's edits and have reverted them. So far, requests for discussion have been mostly dismissed.

Starting from a few days ago, an IP showed up to support the Tricky Stewart changes made by XXSNUGGUMSXX. Another IP edit-warred over Popcrush: Another IP removed Popcrush:  XXSNUGGUMSXX changed the image again:  Another then performed the Tricky Stewart change, using the edit summary "rephrasing", which XXSNUGGUMSXX has used:  Another IP appeared to make edits similar to all the aforementioned IPs and account:  Also note that some of the edits change more of the article than what their edit summaries say they do.

While I am certain that the IPs are socks, there is enough reasonable doubt for me to request an investigation for outside input. In addition, I declare that I have been involved in the dispute with XXSNUGGUMSXX on Hummingbird Heartbeat, hence why it would be inappropriate for me to block without any due process. This request has not been filed as an attempt to "win". Acalamari 21:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I didn't include Thesomeone987's edits as a part of this investigation, there are similarities between that account and XXSNUGGUMSXX. Note how Thesomeone987's edits to Hummingbird Heartbeat are similar to those by XXSNUGGUMSXX, see this. I can provide further evidence to support this if requested. Acalamari 17:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No that user is not me. Even if similar edits were made, we are not the same person. Looking into that user's history, my edits differ quite a lot. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Status points out another connection between an IP listed here, your account and Thesomeone987. I just took another look and noticed that another one of the IPs I listed above edited John Jacob Astor VI, which has been edited by both yourself and Thesomeone987. There is, of course, nothing wrong with editors editing the same article, but it is a problem when establishing sockpuppetry. There are differences between the accounts but there is an overall pattern. Acalamari 13:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Patterns or not, Thesomeone987 is not me. Just to be clear. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's also this, where Thesomeone987 was the most recent editor of that article until XXSNUGGUMSXX edited it yesterday. what do you (or another clerk; I'm not sure who watches these pages) think, in light of evidence provided by myself and Status since your comments? Acalamari 22:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what me being the first user to edit that article after Thesomeone987 has to do with anything, especially since I didn't even make the same types of edits there as that user. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It establishes a pattern, but if you want exact edits that both you and Thesomeone987 have made, I can provide them. Last month, there was a discussion on Talk:Katy Perry over her image. In that discussion, you modified comments that C.Fred and I made: which we had to fix:  Thesomeone987 has made similar edits:  I was reminded of this because you modified my comment here. You also blank warnings from your talk page, which is fine, but so did Thesomeone987. Acalamari 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Difference is: I at least respond more often before removing them, and don't edit other's comments as frequently or as drastically XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Added a request for a CheckUser While the IPs might be obvious, the Thesomeone987 situation has not been addressed by anyone other than XXSNUGGUMSXX, Status and me. Acalamari 08:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I did not "dismiss" requests for conversation, I simply stated that I already had made my points in talk page(s). However, they didn't seem to be fully noticed/acknowledged. Just for the record, I'm not the only person who feels sources like PopCrush are unreliable (calling that one reliable is like saying Fox News supports liberals, or that Steve Jobs never made a penny in his life. The source is known to frequently give out false/fabricated information, but Status dismissed that for some reason. A notable example of its fabrication is how when Demi Lovato's father died, the source made it look like they were close when in fact that the two hardly ever spoke after her parents divorced and she repeatedly made clear that she had no interest in connecting with him.) or that photographs of non-participants are pointless to add. Only photos of cover art, performances, and contributors should be added to articles such as that. Sorry if I didn't fully specify that, though. Not sure why, but for some reason my browser sometimes has difficulty logging in (or staying logged in), so apologies for making it look like socks. I'll fix that soon. There are times when poor internet connection causes it, but the other times I don't know what it is. What I really don't understand is why the link to the radio announcement got removed since 2Day FM isn't known for lying or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to continue the content dispute. Please limit discussion to that which is directly relevant to the case, and avoid any discussion related to why the page should be one way or the other. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was simply giving a full explanation that apparently hadn't been made before. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Something that Acalamari did not mention was: . XXSNUGGUMSXX was created on 30 June 2013, shortly after Thesomeone987 "retired". The Thesomeone987 account made the exact same edits that XXSNUGGUMSXX is doing now, back in April, see, . Which, like now, were also reverted. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 02:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, 2 SPIs were opened about that user, although they were declined by a clerk. It is nice to note, however, one of the suspected socks were in the same IP range (User:174.236.32.151), which XXSNUGGUMSXX admits to being him/her (in reference to the IPs suspected in this page). — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 02:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An IP in this investigation also edited the Kennedy family article. If you look at their contribs, Thesomeone987 edited both Kennedy and Perry articles. An odd combination. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 12:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking into those, Thesomeone987 actually didn't make the exact same edits as me. While we may have agreed on some things, the two of us are not the same person. I've done lots of things quite differently from Thesomeone987, and see no evidence that the 174.236.32.151 address is the same person. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I think it's pretty clear these are all the same user, and I think XXSNUGGUMSXX is implying above that it was an accidental edit as IP, not intending to deceive. Ignoring the validity of this claim for a moment, I don't see anything in particular that would make him "gain" from editing as an IP user here: I don't see any circumvention of 3RR or any attempt to influence a !vote/RFC. I'm not inclined to block unless I had an indication of what would be gained from the alleged deception. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was accidental XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * - Thesomeone987 is . Also, we can't make a public connection between named accounts and IP addresses. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason for blocking here either. The IP edits are old enough by now that any action based on them now would be punitive at best.  Even more so w/r/t the edits by Thesomeone987.  I would urge XXSNUGGUMSXX to use his account and avoid editing while logged out, especially when a content dispute is involved, but other than that, I see nothing to do here.  Closing.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)