Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.163.40.100

User:216.163.40.100

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Additional suspected sockpuppets




 * Report submission by

Chunky Rice 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User Temp cleanup3 is an SPA which was created with the sole purpose of listing the article GameTZ.com for deletion. 216.163.40.100, other than one edit, has existed solely for the purpose of advocating this deletion. At the AFD, 216.164.40.100 made unfounded accusations of incivility towards those who argue for keeping the article, including Seicer and myself, Chunky Rice.
 * Evidence

Subsequently, Kekeke9181 is created and places civility warnings on my user page and Seicer's talk page. 216.164.40.100 adds the same template to Nihonjoe's talk page. In all cases, the template was placed at the very top of the page. Kekeke9181, then uploads an obscene image, which 77.232.80.10 then places on Seicer's user page.

I'm fairly certain that there is a puppetmaster that I'm not aware of, since these are all single purpose accounts. I suspect that the same puppet master is responsible for the previous AfDs of GameTZ.com, as well, since they are littered with SPAs.
 * Comments


 * Note by Nihonjoe: Please also see the edits here, here, here, here, here, and here. These were made by  (listed above), as well as the following:

These may also be connected ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * is listed for IFD.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regrettably, I advertised the discussion to a few contributors I know. I did not encourage them to advocate the article's deletion, but to simply contribute their thoughts toward it. The discussion wasn't recieving much attention outside of a close circle of contributors whom are all apparently associated with one another in some fashion. I didn't feel that reaching an honest consensus among them would be possible without bringing in more opinions. Unfortunately, I believe the contributors I called in aren't very serious about using Wikipedia, and have instead caused further problems mentioned above. I sincerely apologize for any annoyance this has caused, and understand that it only further complicates the discussion. I doubt they will be bothering anyone again, though they do have active Wikipedia accounts. Whether or not they made these contributions from their real addresses is another story. 216.163.40.100 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that my range is dynamic. Other contributors may access it off and on during the day. I am not necessarily responsible for their edits. 216.163.40.100 22:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional note from Nihonjoe: Looks like things aren't changing much as my userpage was just vandalized by . ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not for sure where this is coming from, but I received an edit by, who has also made a similar edit to some of the socks above.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All ranges involved are SPA. AfD nominations 2, 3 and 4 are bogus.

I guess I just wanted some kind of human contact, even if it has to be like this. I won't bother you anymore. 216.163.40.100 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * :If you want human contact, this isn't the way to get it. Go to a library, a party, a restaurant, a bar, or some other place with people. If you want to actually help with the encyclopedia, please do so. I strongly encourage that. But wasting people's time by making bogus nominations and either vandalizing pages yourself or getting others to do it is not productive or conducive to producing a good encyclopedia. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The admission that his AFD was bogus (since this is the 4th attempt) would nuff the AFD? If he had been involved with the prior bad-faith AFD nominations of the article, then the user's latest attempt and all future attempts should be nulled and rendered keep through consensus and through admission of vandalism.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation is taken care of. All ranges involved in recent conflicts are proxies. This is evident by their contribution history prior to these events. You may want to take the liberty of blocking them. In fact, [here] is the entire list. At least 80% are already blocked. 216.163.40.100 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just had some vandalism to my talk page from this guy, from 2 different IP's listed above. Luckily, it was reverted by some kind souls before I even saw it, but this guy still has not quit, apparently. Also, there was bragging about it (already undone) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com 4th nom Dstumme 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional accounts:
 * It's possible there may be more by the time this discussion is closed. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible there may be more by the time this discussion is closed. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible there may be more by the time this discussion is closed. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible there may be more by the time this discussion is closed. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible there may be more by the time this discussion is closed. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible there may be more by the time this discussion is closed. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I suspected:
 * I've added all of the socks to the top of this page to make it easier to see them all. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added all of the socks to the top of this page to make it easier to see them all. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added all of the socks to the top of this page to make it easier to see them all. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Well, the AfD is long closed, and the behavior outlined in this report seems to have ceased. Since this activity was largely coming from IP accounts, semi-protection would have been a good way to limit the disruption in the AfD. It might be worth checking to see if the IPs are open proxies, if that hasn't been done already. But I don't see that any action needs to be taken at the moment. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)