Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

Jamiecocopops

Jamiecocopops (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

29 July 2010

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Specialkjamie (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Jamie Fann (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by De728631

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Two accounts now blocked, can we get a sleeper check/ possible rangeblock? TNXMan 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

– This SPI case is open.

Timmy Polo

Timmy Polo (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Report date 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Properties2 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Eagles247

Here he creates a new section in response to a message on his talk page with "Message for (User)" and explains that he doesn't understand (typical for Timmy Polo socks). He also signs with four tildes inside parentheses again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Richmondian

Richmondian (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

29 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Nyackcruiser (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Wordstainer (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 415playa (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Dlabtot

Comments by accused parties   

I do not know and am not any of those users. Richmondian (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

TickleMeister

TickleMeister (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

29 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• AllYrBaseRbelongUs (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Novangelis

Comments by accused parties   

In fact, since the original editor who "collapsed" my Talk page comments (for absolutely no good reason other than his dislike of what I had to say) is in fact the reporting editor here, I would ask the patrolling admin to consider his conflict of interest in this. I see he has re-collapsed my comments, and I have reversed that. His modus operandi is to wait for conversation on the Talk page to move on, then re-visit sections of the Talk page, just prior to archiving, to edit and refactor other editor's words, collapsing and deleting as he sees fit. (He has also tried to delete material from my comments when he thought I was no longer monitoring the Talk page). This flies in the face of policy. I can provide diffs if required. TickleMeister (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Tarpon1

Tarpon1 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

29 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Lebronfan6 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Demlover2008 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Kuyabribri

• • Demlover2008 continuing the same pattern of editing as Lebronfan6: [7]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Bsktblldn619 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

– This SPI case is open.

29 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Bballeric (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Killervogel5

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Armoboy323

Armoboy323 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

28 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Armboy323 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Vardan10 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 98.149.112.129 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 97.94.185.93 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk declined -  It looks like a duck to me Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

– This SPI case is open.

The rev av

The rev av (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

28 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Jasonsynyster (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by SluggoOne

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Marburgh

Marburgh (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

28 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• PozMyNegHole (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• RawTop (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Active Banana

Note that both socks have been blocked for disruption and/or user name issues. Active Banana (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Licorne

Licorne (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

28 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 67.78.143.227 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 173.169.90.98 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by ScienceApologist

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Sleapaside

Sleapaside (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

28 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• RobotSwept (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Zeng8r

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Agesworthuser

Agesworthuser (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

28 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Proofallgames (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 218.186.9.11 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by ElKevbo

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

I agree that this looks quite suspicious, but I do not believe that this is a prosecutable example of sock puppetry for two reasons:

Firstly, the IP address user did not fully support Agesworthuser. In fact, he/she criticized Agesworthuser for not including enough citations. I think it is likely that another user related to Agesworthuser (and probably with sympathetic views) logged on to the same computer and made the IP address post.

Secondly, I do not think that Agesworthuser would have technically violated the sock puppetry rules even if he/she deliberately used the IP post to advance his/her own position. The rules forbid the creation of multiple accounts, but they do not expressly forbid the use of an IP address to support one's position. Clearly, this is a violation of good faith, but it does not appear to be against the rules (most likely because IP addresses can be shared).Rppeabody (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You think that within an hour of Agesworthuser making his or her original comments another unrelated editor jumped into the conversation for the first time, edited his or her comments, and then agreed with Agesworthuser? I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound plausible.

No, but I do think there is a real possibility that it was a related editor, such as a relative. Also, according to the records I traced down, it was more than an hour: It appears that Agesw. finished posting the original comment at 13:52, then logged on using the IP address to edit his or her original post at 14:48. Then, more than an hour later at 16:35, the IP user logged on again (this time maybe someone who lives with Agesw.), fixed some broken links that Agesw. made (something anyone might do), then made a comment moderately agreeing with Agesw. I honestly do not know whether the IP user is Agesw. or one of Agews.'s relatives, but I think the latter possibility is more likely due to the fact that the IP user did criticize Agesw. for lack of citations.Rppeabody (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it's a meatpuppet and not a sockpuppet but the effect - and the treatment - is the same. And the unregistered editor didn't criticize Agesworthuser, he or she "helpfully" pointed out that more citations were needed. ElKevbo (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And our policy clearly states that "Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists." The unregistered editor posted "I agree with your version, Agesworthuser...."

Yes, "alternative accounts must not be used." IP editors do not have an account per se, and I don't think Wikipedia can block them. I do not believe that the policy actually bans using IP logins for that purpose, probably because they are frequently shared. A violation of the spirit of the rule is not necessarily a violation of the actual rule.Rppeabody (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy is clear, we can (and do) block IP addresses, and we absolutely block registered editors who abuse multiple accounts, including unregistered accounts. ElKevbo (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty cut-and-dried case and I think I'm actually being more than fair by coming here so that Agesworthuser can be given a full hearing with as much time and evidence as possible. These sockpuppets quack very loudly so it would be pretty easy to just find an admin to block all three editors. ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Block all three editors? You have given no evidence whatsoever that Proofallgames is the same person as Agesw., El Kevbo, and again, I don't think Wikipedia can block IP addresses.Rppeabody (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So it's a coincidence that these two editors (a) only edit this one article (b) at about the same time on the same days (c) in full support of one another? Not likely. ElKevbo (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

All three SPA accounts conveniently are participating in a discussion on User talk:Ged UK on the same day and supporting each other. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Madcoverboy (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Pickles0001

Pickles0001 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

27 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Urboogyman (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Dawnseeker2000

There has only been one article here that both sock and puppet have edited so this one is simple. It's on Remote backup service. Pickles0001 added 5KB worth of text to the article here and I checked the contents with google and found the very same wording on a few websites like this one. Search that web page and the content added for the this text; it appears on both:

While the initial years of these service providers were about capturing market share distributed among the top few providers, the large industry players took cognizance of the importance and the role that these online backup providers were playing in the web services arena and M&A activity has became quite predominant in the last few years.

I was just leaving work and did not post a notice on that user's page about a possible copyright violation. Nor did I leave an edit summary as to why. So when I get home I see that Urboogyman re-added the content. Once again I removed the material and left an explanation this time. Dawnseeker2000 23:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

MyNameIsDenise

MyNameIsDenise (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

26 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• MyNameIsDenise (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by AzureCitizen

The account "MyNameIsDenise" was created on July 23, 2008. The editor made five edits to Ornithology related articles on July 23-24, 2008. Account then went dormant until December 17, 2008, when editor made three edits in relation to the controversy over President Obama's attendance to a Church sermon given by Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. in Chicago. Account went dormant again for a year and a half until July 25, 2010, when it made it's first appearance at location Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy#Establishing_Consensus.

The first edit in the thread was made here. At that point, it easiest to see the conversation flow by looking at the thread itself here. My summarized version of events (from my personal subjective perspective/opinion) would be as follows: User MyNameIsDenise entered the conversation at a point when earlier on July 25, other editors flipped the status of the page back and forth with reverts over whether or not consensus had been reached. User MyNameIsDenise posted a "drive-by" comment, in a new section entitled "Establishing Consensus", in which User MyNameIsDenise expressed conclusory support for one side of the argument, expressed disagreement with the other side, and announced they were casting a vote, stating "The vote is now 5-2, and I hope this ends the edit war so nobody gets blocked." I questioned the sudden appearance of the new editor by implication. They understood the implication and responded "Release the hounds. Run a Checkuser. I've edited here as an IP editor for a long time: ornithology-related articles occupy about 99 percent of my work..." I asked them what the IP was, assuming this would show a long standing edit history primarily editing Ornithology related on birds. No IP address was provided. Although their response has been redacted by other editors, User MyNameIsDenise responded three times that I should lead by example by publicly posting my full name, date of birth, home address, Social Security number and bank information to establish trust, or else I could just assume they were a good faith editor. You can see those redacted edits here, here, and here.

I believe that the user declines to show their long-standing Ornithology-editing IP simply because revealing the IP (or a Checkuser request doing the same) would show they are not a long standing editor of many years who has been editing Ornithology related articles 99% of the time. I also think it is likely that the puppeteer is logging in from one location while logging in to use the sock from another location, which is giving the puppeteer confidence that the sock will not be traced back to them.

A Checkuser request would quickly ascertain whether the suspected account is a sock being deceptive, or instead a legitimate user who should not be challenged in the debate, based on whether or not it is a long standing editor who has been editing bird related articles 99% of the time for years. The purpose of the Checkuser request would not be to invade anybody's privacy or to satisfy curiosity, but to quickly detect whether this is a legitimate user who has been wrongly accused, or is in fact a deceptive sock who is concealing facts for cover while attempting to subvert good faith debate and consensus. Further, I would think the fact that when challenged the editor MyNameIsDenice specifically responded "Run a Checkuser" can be construed to mean they have voluntarily consented.

In closing, I should note that the following editors are the editors primarily involved in the ongoing debate at this time besides myself:

Xenophrenic, Ceemow, Phoenix and Winslow, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Wikidemon. . AzureCitizen (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk declined - This case is incomplete. You can't give a user account and accuse it of being a sock of no one. Just because an editor is new doesn't mean they're necessarily guilty of anything. (X! · talk)  · @138  ·  02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that just because an editor is new doesn't mean they're guilty of anything. I try hard to assume good faith but in this case, the coincidence of the new editor's arrival on the scene coupled with the words they used in a drive-by attempt to settle a contentious debate triggered strong suspicion and intuition that a sock was being called into use by an editor who has been pushing their will very hard in the discussions. The suspected sock gave a bizarre reason for their appearance (that they have been editing bird-related articles extensively for years as an IP editor, but they created the "MyNameIsDenise" account for the express purpose of editing political articles to "avoid appearing to be a sock", yet in a period of two years they only edited one article and had an extremely low single-digit edit count). Socks often give bizarre explanations when challenged, but they also often make simple mistakes in their assertions that trap them quickly. This one asserted they're a long standing editor of bird articles as an anonymous IP, but when asked then what is that anonymous IP to make it plain to everyone they have jumped into the debate as a new editor with clean hands, they don't even answer the question. Instead, they ask me three times to post my name, address, phone number, social security number, date of birth, and bank account information publicly on the Talk Page to challenge me back. This would be a bizarre response for an innocent new editor but a typical reaction from a sock who cannot come clean because it is literally not an option (i.e., then they just get banned).

I understand and appreciate your point that the case is incomplete because I haven't given the specific user account that I think is the editor in the debate who is secretly controlling the sock. I do suspect one specific user in the debate to be the guilty party (from the list you see at the bottom of the evidence section), but was hoping that first the deception of the apparent sock could be revealed (that the new editor isn't really a longstanding editor of bird articles 99% of the time; I suspect the Checkuser will show that isn't even remotely true) before I name the alleged guilty party and "point the finger". I figured showing there truly was a sock puppet in play would be a good first step, and thus warrant naming the alleged guilty party along with what evidence I can muster. If you can't proceed any further without me making that accusation however, I understand. Please let me know. I would like to do this in whatever manner is policy-compliant and "fair" for all involved. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FiGhT 12

FiGhT 12 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

– This SPI case is open.

26 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mayhem 13 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Atlan

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– This SPI case is open.

Johnbonhamruled123

Johnbonhamruled123 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

26 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Keithmoonruled123 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Buddyhollyruled123 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Nthep

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

KirkleyHigh

KirkleyHigh (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Lear 21 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

– This SPI case is open.

24 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• GlobalContinent (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Lear 21 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Pfainuk

Relevant IPs are:

• User talk:92.226.30.208
• User talk:78.53.145.157
• User talk:92.230.50.163
• User talk:92.225.129.36

Pfainuk talk 13:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• I cant find a clear connection, but Allie might be able to, with or without the private info. If nothing else, warn GlobalContinent that personal attacks arn't appropriate, and apply Wikipedia:DUCK if the edits become more aggressive or tenacious. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

– A CheckUser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

Lantoniou

Lantoniou (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

06 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• VivianSinclair (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Nakedlenz (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Kenilworth Terrace

Please see also a subsequent conversation at User talk:VivianSinclair. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• These accounts are probably all related, as explained by the subjects of this investigation. They are also newbies, needing some guidance, and appear reasonable to talk to. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting administration.

James1168

James1168 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

27 June 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Nimbus880 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Simon Manifold (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• BrearRabbit (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Dallas3737 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Berkinstock (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Cookmyway (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 150.101.114.138 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 121.209.232.117 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Edasent

The users below were blocked as Sockpuppets as a result of this Sockpuppetry investigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/James1168/Archive

• James1168
• Nimbus880
• Simon Manifold
• BrearRabbit
• Dallas3737

Comments by accused parties

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

– A user has requested CheckUser, but more information is needed for an SPI clerk to make a determination as whether or not to endorse.

Lkutaj

Lkutaj (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

14 June 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• TheWorldofNightlife (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• Hunter345 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
• 38.109.88.180 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 98.14.190.165 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 207.237.230.164 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)
• 207.237.33.36 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Marcus Qwertyus

Yes, upon closer examination it is obvious that these two are the same user. The real question is what was the intent. I see no edits to talk pages or AfD's so these may be just an alternate account. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous IP's. I have not listed them all. IP claims that his/her IP changes automatically and one of his accounts was rangeblocked to no avail. The ones I checked are from New York, New York. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• I do not see a Wikipedia:SOCK violation or blocks of these accounts. May be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Rusty Trombone ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ron liebman (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

29 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Baseball test (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Alexcas11 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A CheckUser will shortly review the case.

27 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• KarateBoy11 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Flowerpotman

• Edit to Josh Hutcherson article adding uncited (and dubious) info (diff), in much the same way as Alexcas11 socks Hish222 (talk<dot-separator> contribs) (diff) and WolfBoy11111 (talk<dot-separator> contribs) (diff). (Josh Hutcherson frequently features in hoax film articles created by Alexcas11)
• Uncited (and dubious) addition of sequel section to the The Wolfman (2010 film) article in the usual Alexcas11 prose style (diff), much as confirmed sock ALIENBOY122 (talk<dot-separator> contribs) did in February (diff).
• Created New Year's Eve (film) article which was alleged to be a sequel to Valentine's Day (film). The Valentine's Day article was the subject of a couple of Alexcas11 socks before the film's release: CrazyandWildboy (talk<dot-separator> contribs) (diff) and PartyBoy122 (talk<dot-separator> contribs) (diff) being the first two I remembered.
• Edit to the Jimmy Bennett article with a highly dubious filmography table edit here. This article is an Alexcas11 favourite, with previous similar edits by Roky111 (talk<dot-separator> contribs) (here), Homesolo1111 (talk<dot-separator> contribs) (here), Homesolo (talk<dot-separator> contribs) (here), Joeymalone (talk<dot-separator> contribs) (here) and .....well, you get the picture.
• The hoax article Zoom (2011 film) that I had a chance to look at briefly over the weekend was a classic Alexcas fabrication, using copy and paste from an existing article, except for he plot section, which was in the classic Alexcas prose style. The other articles created were, unsurprisingly, dubious sequels.

Comments by accused parties   

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk declined -  It looks like a duck to me Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider this decline...on this particular sock, a CU is par for the course to check for his usual rack of sleepers and sort out which are him and which are Bambifan101, as they have taken to modeling each other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't realize that there was a bit of an overlap there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed - T. Canens (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This quick case is open.

Since this has sat for a bit with no response I did some of my own research. The core user has a Flickr account here with nothing but website capture about Josh and the Empty Pockets. This is an iteresting image upload at Commons. Same users contributions over at LyricWiki. And an interesting post here where the user says "I want to re-create Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal (a law firm I worked at when in law school) -- I decided to just create a new page on a band I know in Chicago, Josh and the Empty Pockets and then make some modest updates to get the hang of this." That info may, or may not, be of help. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't fret, this could take as long as two weeks. That's brutally honest though but more likely it will be solved in a few more days. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)