Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd)

User:Fraberj (2nd)

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AvantVenger became exceedingly abusive in edits to Talk:Self-replicating machine. After a complaint to Wikiquette alerts, AvantVenger was blocked for 24 hours - but continued to be abusive (see User_talk:AvantVenger. Looking at other places where this user may have been spreading problems, I discovered that this user is almost certainly the real-world person Charles M Collins (See:User_talk:AvantVenger) - and he has been engaging in some fairly severe WP:COI violations.  Looking back through the edits of Self replicating machines - we observe that the edits concerning machines known as 'F-Units' (a particular concern of real-world Collins) were made by User:Rattler2 - who was in turn a sock of notorious sock-puppetteer User:Fraberj...who was in turn also frequent editor of Self replicating machines before his indefinite ban. This might just be a coincidence - but if we cast our eye down the list: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fraberj, we discover a great number of Verizon IP addresses in the 71.114.*.* range - and guess what? The IP address of AvantVenger is User:71.114.30.158 (notice how 71.114.30.158 has been happily maintaining AvantVenger's account for him and edits pretty much the exact same set of articles?). Also we see mixed edits where AvantVenger forgets to login that involve other 71.114.*.* addresses.
 * Evidence

I noticed that Articles for deletion/Independent operability contains a long rant that reads much like those of AvantVenger - and to my complete surprise, it's signed as by "Charles Micheal Collins" - and (less surprisingly) the edit history shows it was posted by Fraberj - so Collins is Fraberj and Collins is AvantVenger and AvantVenger is Fraberj.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments

THE FOLLOWING RABID ATTACK ON CHARLES MICHAEL COLLINS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT WIKIPEDIA IS A NEFARIOUS CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.40.113 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We have here a case of WP:NPA, WP:COI and WP:SOCK violations. I would like to see a permenant ban on AvantVenger and the various 71.114.*.* accounts that he uses. SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you work hard at it? GOOD! All your talk about the "evil" Charles Michael Collins. Bo hoo hoo with two shoes! Collins is in self-defense mode. Who would blame that, considering? You certainly cite what's been done to him as motive, like any railroading cop would... forgetting who transgressed first. Don't you? If all of this were true where's the "evil"? The fact that you diabolically did all that research and quite lucidly gleamed all the nuances and left all of them out that speaks for the Collins side of the story bespeaks the criminal and thief that YOU are: The thief of intellectually property rights through media manipulation amongst all the other thieves Freitas, Merkle, Adrian Bowyer, Hod Lipson. And lets remember, look at the dates, you never even heard a word from the modest Charles Michael Collins until that criminal who stole his invention at NIAC FREITAS wrote his rat's nest of lies:


 * Who cares who carries the message, and here's what the whole business is about. These other cowards are JEALOUS of the F-Unit system, and steal it far and wide. That is all the stinking putrid liberal is, a coward and a thief like you Steve and all your affirmative action speak. So are the liberals who find their chosen "protected class" to lie and prove they invented it instead of Charles. As you do the greatest evil deed in history, steal the most important event since the dawn of time. Go back under your rock where you belong and stay there with the rest of you stinking putrid liberals.


 * P.S.: Why was fraberj blocked in the first place? FOR REPORTING A HACKING! It was called a "legal threat". HORSE S! That's not what your silly Wiki rules allow. Typical liberals fanatically bending the rules trying to vilify. And who STARTED the Wikipedia "Self-replicating machine" (stupid name) article in the first place? It was Charles Michael Collins, called the proper scientific name "independent operability" which was instantly deleted and restarted (idea stolen) by little pieces of liberal media trash like you who keep him blocked out of the picture.


 * So there Check and Mate. But you will still continue to censor and block, won't you? Nefarious cowards! Any more trash talk you nut jobs got? AvantVenger (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Collins point of view, which you block in violation of your own silly rules has a right to be here. Despite you who hate him out of cowardice. That is clear. AvantVenger (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I notice that AvantVenger not only uses similar language characteristics and personal attacks (e.g., "little pieces of liberal media trash like you" - you might know, BTW Charles, that I am by no means a fan of the liberal media either but I know how to express it civilly), but he does not deny the connection. Open/shut case. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User also claims to be a "public figure", seemingly in the context of the issues at hand. 1  !=  2  15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added some more IP's that are popping up with comments that clearly come from AvantVenger. You can observe these in action on his talk page history. SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I concur with SteveBaker's assessment, and can add 71.114.45.254 as another Verizon address used by this editor [edit: I see SteveBaker's added this above]. I too strongly suspect him to be the Charles Collins who hosts this site, which many of the edits by the above accounts include links to - a clear COI concern. The editor is clearly very upset and extremely sensitive about the injustices he believes have been done to him, but is apparently incapable of understanding that our purpose is not to right wrongs, or expose villainy... and abusive behaviour and sockpuppetry are just about the most counter-productive things he can do to advance his case. I see no benefit in permitting this individual to continue to waste the time of productive editors, and support the blocks asked for (including a rangeblock on 71.114. if someone with checkuser can see if that's feasible). Disclosure: I issued the recent block on his User:AvantVenger account. EyeSerene talk 16:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note he uses the same IP range as Rattler2, a more obvious sock blocked after Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj. At this point I've blocked AvantVenger; any objections? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * None. Same user, same personal attacks, etc. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the indef block of AvantVenger, believing him to be a sock on the behavioral evidence. I suggest keeping the report open for a little while to see if we can get a checkuser result. Before the report is closed a decision should be made on blocking the 71.114 IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The checkuser has come back positive. What's the next step to getting 71.114 blocked? SteveBaker (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * AvantVenger has already been blocked indef. I blocked the three 71.114 IPs listed above for two weeks each. They are probably throwaway dynamic IPs so longer blocks might not do much good. This editor is nasty but not so destructive that we need to block a large range for him. We can keep on reverting his Talk comments as they appear. Remember WP:RBI. Articles attacked by IP socks can be semi-protected. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Fraberj returned a "confirmed" from Thatcher. Luna Santin blocked AvantVenger indef. Fraberj is already blocked. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions