Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Musiclover565

User:Musiclover565

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

and (the above have been confirmed by the user himself ) and
 * Suspected sockpuppets

For additional suspected sockpuppets of Musiclover565, see this. Tennis expert (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Report submission by

Ban Ray  22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's quite late, so I'll be quick here, especially since the case looks crystal clear to me. Earlier this year the user (Musiclover565) tried to completely rewrite the Maria Sharapova article, against the consensus of five established editors, including User:Tennis expert, the biggest contributor to the page. The user was eventually blocked for a 3RR violation.
 * Evidence

The User returned with an IP account (92.1.182.171), but was blocked again for disruption and trolling. The user's unblock requests were declined with the following reasoning:"As per WP:ANI, this is not an accurate summary of the state of things. There's also serious concern that this IP address is a sockpuppet of Musiclover565 (talk · contribs), previously blocked for edit warring on that article. As such, I am loathe to lift the block. — Yamla (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)" and "The sockpuppet case is just too strong to be dismissed so blithely ... the geographically similar IPs, the interest in Maria Shapraova and the tendentious editing. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)". Five days later the same user (the user himself admitted being the previously blocked 92.1.182.171) registered the Masha4ever account and continued with his attempts, but eventually gave up after yet another WP:AN/I report.

Last month User:92.3.158.227 (although the user's IP has since changed to 92.0.248.49) picked up from where Masha4ever left off. Trying to solve the situation once and for all, I suggested User:Tennis expert to try and reach a consensus with the editor, but that didn't work either, so now I'm forced to ask for assistance from outside. Since both User:Musiclover565 and User:Masha4ever have commented or edited wikipedia without logging in (but still signing their comments as Musiclover565 and Masha4ever respectively) the IP addresses of both accounts are known. Needless to say that Musiclover565, Masha4ever and the currently active 92.0.248.49 all use near-identical IPs (region, internet provider etc).

So to sum it up:Tendentious and very similar editing of the same page, use of similar wording in the edit summaries and comments ("in line with Wikipedia:Be bold..."; "we have now established that..." etc.), similar edit summaries (, ], and, of course, the same IP range.


 * Comments
 * This is the "accused". I'm not 100% sure if I can comment here, so sorry if I am breaking any rules. Can I firstly point out that Tennis expert, who I believe requested BanRay submit this report, has in the past accused me of being User:Dudesleeper (1), so I think that somewhat undermines the credibility of his argument.
 * Can I also point out that the case against me is weak at best; Tennis expert has informed me that my IP apparently shows I live in Manchester, UK. Actually, I live around 30 miles away from Manchester, which leads me to believe anyone in the North West of England registers as Manchester; an area covering something like 6m people. So the incriminating evidence is that it is implausible that 2 people out of 6m could have an interest in arguably the most famous tennis player in the world today, during the British season where popularity of tennis skyrockets here. And the fact that I am apparently under suspicion for saying "we have now established that...", a completely bog-standard expression in English, bewilders me to say the least.
 * Lastly, I'd like to point out this comment on the main sockpuppets page, a requirement for making a complaint: "An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint." Even if I was Musiclover565, I am clearly not abusing any articles, as my edits are perfectly legitimate, therefore it puzzles me why BanRay has filed this report. Musiclover565 would be perfectly within his rights to attempt the perfectly legitimate edits I am attempting. He was blocked for several days or a week or something, a block that expired a long, long time ago. In addition, the edits he wanted were absolutely and completely different to what I want now - see the article now (with my edits in place) compared to ML565 here: 2 Therefore, it puzzles me why BanRay is wasting administrators time by trying to prove I am someone else to discredit me, with such weak evidence and when that person would be able to do what I want perfectly legitimately. I also believe it noteworthy that Tennis expert and BanRay only began these accusations when I attempted to start cutting the article down a bit (as general consensus is that it is too long, and the language too stilted). In addition, I would like to point out that I attempted to seek a consensus with Tennis expert, and everytime, he responded by removing my comments from his page, ignoring me or throwing smears. While I naturally assume good faith in most cases, I cant shake the feeling that he is more inclined to push for reports such as this because he does not agree with my perfectly legitimate edits. 92.0.248.49 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This user exhibits the same editing patterns and behaviors (on discussion pages and elsewhere) as the disruptive Musiclover565 and Masha4ever. There is no question in my mind that all the IP accounts listed above belong to the same person who registered Musiclover565 and Masha4ever. Aside from the multiple sockpuppet problem, this user has repeatedly ignored consensus on the Maria Sharapova article, has unilaterally reverted and ignored the edits of multiple users based on this sockpuppet's sole conception of what is "correct" or "valid" for the article, and has ignored the longstanding standards that editors have established for countless tennis biographies. As for the false claims this sockpuppet has made, here are two clarifications: (1) There is not and never has been a consensus that the Maria Sharapova article is "too long" (except in the mind of this sockpuppet). (2) I spent fruitless hours trying to work with this sockpuppet, as the discussion page of the Maria Sharapova article proves beyond question. Tennis expert (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

I have made my main points, so I will be brief in my response to the claims by Tennis expert. Firstly, he again fails to address the crucial point that, even if there was the slightest shred of proof that i was ML565, it is irrelevant anyway, as I am not abusing articles. As for his so-called "clarifications": (1) Actually, the only other person to really chip into the dispute, Dudesleeper, agreed the article was too long. Otherwise, all other editors appear to broadly agree with my edits, as Tennis expert I believe is the only person who has attempted to revert my edits. (2) This is just patently not true. Not once have you attempted to work with me. All you have done is attempted to get your own way, and if that failed, you would use underhanded tactics, for example starting silly rumours about me being a sockpuppet (firstly Dudesleeper, now ML565). The discussion page as well as our interactions on your talk page (or rather, me leaving respectful comments and you deleting them without response) proves my point I think. 92.2.112.171 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * (1) Your abuse of the Maria Sharapova article already is well documented and remains ongoing. (2) You are incorrect about other editors not attempting to revert your edits.  See, e.g., the reversions by Tennisboi13 and IP 121.152.80.151. (3) I never started a "silly rumour" about your being a sockpuppet of Dudesleeper or vice versa.  I simply asked Dudesleeper if you were his sockpuppet.  This twisting around of facts to suit your purposes is a common disruptive tactic of both yourself and the other users listed at the very top of this section, which is further evidence that the sockpuppet allegations are true.  Tennis expert (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) You cannot seriously still be attempting to claim my Sharapova edits are abuse. You have been roundly defeated on that score by other editors on the page, so you would be well-advised to let that drop. (2) Tennisboi reverted a very, very small portion of what I had done. And as for that annonymous IP, I have as much right to claim that is your sockpuppet as you have to claim I am the sockpuppet of ML565. (3) You say potato, I say pot-ar-to. 92.2.112.171 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, this is the anonymous IP who is being questioned (on that note, would my e-mail address have not been recognised as already in use were I ML565?). I thought I had better post this here, in case BanRay or Tennis expert accused me of being a "sockpuppet" too. Whitenoise123 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * More evidence

Notice some of the edit summaries that Masha4ever and Musiclover565 used in January 2008: "As BanRay as yet to provide a legitimate reason for why these edits are apparently not allowed, I'm going ahead with them. Others are more than entitled to edit statements they feel are uncited or POV." "Please do not mindlessly revert my edits."  "Please do not revert edits without reason."  The similarities between these edit summaries and those of Whitenoise123 (and his sockpuppets) are inescapably obvious. For example: "Please stop mindlessly reverting my edit. Thank you."  "Please stop reverting my perfectly legitimate edit or it will be reported. Thank you."

Also, compare the complaint made here by Whitenoise123 to the almost identical complaint made by Masha4ever here. Are the similarities merely coincidence? I think not. Tennis expert (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What part of "an alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint" do you not understand? Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that you admit being the person behind all the accounts mentioned above? Ban  Ray  23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No it does not mean that, but as I have pointed out, it would not matter if I was. Whitenoise123 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * I can't make a decision here as I don't wanna get it wrong. It looks like you might have enough evidence for a Check-user. Perhaps take it there. Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)