User:Anders Svensen was blocked as a sock of General Tojo; like many General Tojo socks, he had a specific real name username, a local area of interest, and made an edit to General Tojo's long term abuse page. I declined Anders Svensen's third unblock request, and as an obvious sockpuppet, I locked him from using the talk page. Soon after, Svensen created an obvious sockpuppet, User:Andy Svensen which he used to berate me for having declined his unblock request. I responded and immediately blocked this sock as well.
Soon after this, User:90.210.115.169 went on a vandalism spree, making personal attacks on me and vandalizing my user page: see Special:Contributions/90.210.115.169, practically all the edits are of this sort. During this vandalism spree, this user also reverted an edit of mine at Maltese (dog), an article I've been involved in closely lately, where things are quite tense and touchy. 90.210.115.169 was blocked 48 hours for vandalism. Later, a similar revert were made by User:90.207.61.71, who also made a personal attack comment against me at User talk:Imbris, an editor I've been collaborating with at the Maltese dog article.
Tonight, this same IP editor reverted the article. Soon afterwards, User:Maltese Dog Expert registered an account, and made a bunch of minor changes to the article. After all his edits were done ([1] was the last), another new account was registered, User:Gerenti Favalia who made some more minor changes to the article. After I reverted the IP editor's revert, Gerenti Favalia reverted the page back. At this point I realized the dovetailing nature of the edits of these two new accounts, and also noted another similarity in their edit histories.
I'm asking that General Tojo or recent socks of his be checked, just to clarify the situation: is this General Tojo or a new troll that accidentally imitated Tojo's patterns? Mangojuicetalk04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I had listed this request under User:Anders Svensen because it's only the behavior after I declined the unblock request that I think is necessary to consider. I am not especially presenting evidence that this user is General Tojo, it was just the allegation. But I will alert User:Chris73, the blocking admin, if he wants to comment on it. Mangojuicetalk04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anders Svensen was blocked indef by me because of heavy suspicion of sockpuppetry, being a puppet of General Tojo, also known as Keith Bridgeman from London. He is known to try to make up fake aliases (Swedish? Even copying text from Swedish language? That's really lame.) The harassment pattern Mangojuice experienced since then fits perfectly to Tojo - reverting edits of the user and name calling on his talk page, the latter preferred in uppercase. For examples please see my page history. Block on sight and revert. I took the liberty of blocking the above sockpuppets indef, too.-- Chris 73 | Talk05:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Clerk note: The tags need to be changed to ((CheckedSockpuppet|General Tojo|General Tojo)) if you think its him. Then archive. Synergy22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Aaron Black 20 (AF test by KoH), Aaron Black ef test, and Aaron Black third test were all created by me in an attempt to test filter 225. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
ConclusionsConfirmed All confirmed, tag at will, but the IP ranges are both very large and full of uninvolved editors, so a rangeblock is contraindicated; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pathetically long-term vandal General Tojo using sleeper socks. In particular, Account name 21123 recently snuck through even though it was created weeks before the latest checkuser blocks. Any more deep in the drawer? Thanks. Wknight94talk13:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: 90.207.88.252 and 90.216.40.113 have not edited before. They're all probably socks of Tojo, but I don't think blocking those IP would do much good here, as it looks like he's IP-hopping. MuZemike19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's about that time to check for more General Tojo socks. The list above are all blocked (I think) and include sleepers that snuck through prior checks. Hopefully they represent all IP ranges. Any sleepers and range blocks are appreciated. Thank you. Wknight94talk21:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and a lot more, but all of the other accounts on the ranges are blocked already, and these should be more than enough to furnish material for the next case.
Time for another check for sleeper and good-hand socks. He is using sleepers to get around semi-protection and sometimes uses good-hand socks to promote his useless web site. I included the most recent socks as well as a list from the last check as recommended by Jdelanoy. Thanks as always. Wknight94talk12:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Sad old Keith Bridgeman (AKA General Tojo) has returned to spam his sad old publishing company, Viartis. As usual, he'll be reverting people's edits and whining for a while until he realizes he is embarrassing himself personally and professionally - again. In case I missed any, please do a sleeper sock check. Thank you. Wknight94talk03:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sleepers that I saw (although all the accounts listed are indeed matches to each other). If this is Tojo, it would need to be archived there. TNXMan13:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: Looking at the General Tojo stuff, I think we should keep them separate for now. There seems to be confusion as to what was going on there, so I don't think we need to add to the mess. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]