Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kung Fu Man

User:Kung Fu Man

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Nori198 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

Per AfD discussion: Articles_for_deletion/Final_Fantasy_VII_(Famicom)
 * Evidence

AN/I discussion here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (which was oddly created by the puppeteer himself)


 * User:Kung Fu Man has proceeded to vandalize both my IP page and my user page in succession and created an edit war, while ignoring the three reversion policy, [|here], [|here] and [|here] with a spurious abuse of tags. A quick look at the revision history shows further instance of this particular reversion. User has been reported to both AN/I and AIV on seperate instances of vandalism, and will likely be temporarily blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nori198 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Seems to be a strong case of article ownership. Suspected user elected several meatpuppets by his own admission, before deploying a number of keep votes from suspicious IPs. (most of which have no edit history outside of the AfD discussion) One of these accounts, 72.234.254.153 has a connection to many other articles upkept by the sockpuppeteer, and may possibly be a proxy or alternate account.


 * User Krator appears to be a single-purpose account for AfD discussions. Contribution history is chock-full of evidence, as well as warnings against AfD etiquette on the user's talk page. Nori198 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm the person who is more commonly known as 72.234.254.153 (didn't log in out of forgetfulness). Regardless, to say that I am a sock puppet of Kung Fu Man is ridiculous. It is true that I know the individual and am involved in one of the communities he is in, but upon closer inspection of the M.U.G.E.N article, you would notice that under that IP (as well as this account), I argue with him on several points. I'd also state that I know the individuals RobertTheSmall and ZSabreuser, and neither of these are sockpuppets for Kung Fu Man. If you wish for proof that we are all different people, I will gladly provide it. EvilThouther (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Convenient that you should stumble upon this page, as well as some of the other suspected accounts making an appearance in the AN/I discussion. Nori198 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you posted about it in a section he already commented in. Also, people can see back contributions for people. Including your own, Nori198, so they should start questioning why your account seems to have been generated only for this purpose.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just found this page when I was looking up sock puppets because I kept hearing it and didn't know what it meant until I heard it being repeated. Also, what I find interesting is that I'm offering to supply proof that most (if not all) users here aren't sockpuppets, and you're blatantly ignoring it. EvilThouther (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're doing an awfully poor job of substantiating this claim you're implying against me. A single-purpose account is not a violation in and of itself, assuming it serves a legitimate purpose. (i.e., clean-up, moderation, database management and other general tasks) Your use of single-purpose accounts was a violation of Wikipedia's policy against sockpuppetry -- they were applied to disrupt an AfD discussion and distort the consensus of an article's fate. My choice to not adopt a permenant acocunt is within the legal guidelines of editing, and allows me to avoid senseless conflicts spilling over into my edit history and talk page, such as the one you're attempting to start with me now. Unfortunately, I see you've already began to vandalize my talk page. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. An article you worked hard on was nominated for deletion, and I am sorry that you risk losing that hard work. However, as already pointed out, part of contributing toward Wikipedia also means taking away. The subject of Chinese ROM hacks is not encyclopedic in nature, and is a difficult subject to verify. Thus, it fails to register proper notability and verifiability. I encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, and ask that you leave this issue alone and move on. This is the only response you will hear from me regarding any such matter you wish to make personal. Thank you. Nori198 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow you talk too much in one shot. Anyway to cut it short, the response to your talk page does not constitute as vandalism. Additionally it is my belief that your account and that of your fellow IP are sockpuppets for the individual named. Your behavior has been rude, disruptive, and shown a complete lack of faith and more interest in outright deletion of an article based solely on your personaly WP:POV. To deal with this I point out the following:
 * One, that the game is not a hack but coded from scratch as the article cites.
 * Two, any subject can have equal notability on wikipedia if notability can be proven.
 * Three, two major gaming sites, one american and one japanese, both did coverage on the game.
 * Four, after discussion with an administrator, Kotaku, Boing Boing Gadgets, InsertCredit, and Joystiq were all presented in a discussion with an admin to see if they could warrant as official information. His response was thus: as they have editors and structure behind them in the form of an online magazine, they count as e-zines and thus escape persecution of blogs and can be counted as citable resources on wikipedia.
 * And that's just getting started.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This complaint is ridiculous and should be speedily closed. JuJube (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Kung Fu Man apparently took it upon himself to put in a spurious check-user request on my IP under the baseless accusation that I was a sockpuppet of User:Eyrian. The claim was of course closed as stale, as Kung Fu Man yet again has trouble substantiating any of the spurious counter-claims he pulls out of thin-air. His only supporting "evidence" of this claim is that I reverted his abuse of tagging on talk pages, indentified as vandalism. Sounds like someone isn't too happy that I endorsed the deletion of his article. Going over his contribution history, he seems to be getting the word out that I'm "out to get him." 68.209.235.149 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone close this please? User:Krator (t c) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing, no action. Jehochman Talk 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions