Mathemagician57721

Mathemagician57721 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date September 17 2009, 21:20 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by TheFarix

These accounts have made the same types of edits, removing verifiable information, on the same set of articles, namely Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu, but also Pokémon Pocket Monsters, CoroCoro Comic, and Kodomo anime and manga. Mathemagician57721 has previously been banned as a vandalism only account. —Farix (t | c) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note I have done the following:

All other older IPs remain unblocked. MuZemike 22:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date September 26 2009, 23:28 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by TheFarix

Same types of edits to Pokémon manga articles as Mathemagician57721 (talk · contribs), Kalium-39 (talk · contribs), and a series of AT&T IPs originating from Springfield, Missouri that repeatedly removed the demographic of the magazine the two manga series were serialized in. —Farix (t | c) 23:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

So the fact that I agree with another editor automatically makes me his sockpuppet? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, note that Mathemagician57721 (talk · contribs) and Kalium-39 (talk · contribs) made no edits other than to Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu and Pokémon Pocket Monsters, but I have made several contributions which are indisputably constructive, as you can see here. --SuperNerd625 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I don't think that similar edits make an account a sock puppet, do you have any other evidence (Confirmed IP matches)? --Danielpop10 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note Editing behavior is too similar to User:Kalium-39 and the sockmaster. Indefinitely blocked and tagged. MuZemike 19:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date October 4 2009, 20:56 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

All of these IPs and named socks show the same obsession with Pokémon, particularly Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu. Regularly disavows being the sock, while performing the same edits and usually giving themselves away in a later summary or message. All are coming from the same ranges, and they all continue specifically harassing editor User:TheFarix, having vandalized his talk page and repeatedly making bad faith accusations and personal attacks against him. Most are being blocked on site, but an SPI would help confirm and determine if a range block would help, as he is changing IPs 2-5 times a day. Related ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mathemagician57721 has returned using more IP socks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also his edits at Boy or Girl paradox. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per his remarks after being blocked, seems there are sleepers and active socks to be found[1]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Looking at the large number of names on this list gives me the impression that Collectonian likes abusing process whenever someone doesn't agree with her. Making similar edits isn't automatically a sign of socpuppetry. Also, even if I were the same user as Mathemagician57721, I could only be banned as a sockpuppet if I were using my new account to vandalize or make unconstructive edits. As my edits aren't unconstructive, I couldn't be considered a sockpuppet even if I were operated by the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CombinationPermutation (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
CombinationPermutation has admitted to sock puppetry, being deliberately disruptive, and indicated that there are are other "sleeper" accounts.[2] —Farix (t | c) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: D + E (3RR using socks and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed to check for other sleepers, as this user has been rapidly creating multiple sleepers in the very recent past. MuZemike 21:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments  Confirmed as
Conclusions

information Administrator note Rangeblocked for 1 week. Registered accounts already blocked and tagged. MuZemike 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Usernames are blocked and tagged correctly. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 31 2009, 22:23 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Tim Song
[edit]

Per the nomination and response in this DRV. CU requested to check for sleepers. Tim Song (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Tim Song (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Clerk endorsed but I'll make a quick note that the behavioral evidence of the IP's seems similar, however "searching for sleepers" may be declined as fish CheckUser is not for fishing. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Have made note (not as an SPI clerk but as the deleting administrator) at WP:DRV of my view as strongly recommended by guideline. MuZemike 08:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a reblock on 75.60.12.0/22 for a longer period of time. MuZemike 09:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely. No obvious sleepers. J.delanoygabsadds 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
[edit]

information Administrator note I went ahead and reblocked the range for 1 month. Don't know what good it's going to do, though. MuZemike 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 13 2010, 23:56 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Already self-identified[3] and engaging in usual behavior. Both named and IP sock blocked, however requesting check users to check for sleepers and see if a range block is possible, especially if he's starting to try to impersonate other editors with a seeming deliberate attempt to try frame them for vandalism. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, it appears there was an IP range block on this guy already instituted by User:MuZemike that has expired. I've notified him of this report so he can comment on that here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May also want to check Aruseusu (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) which suddenly reappeared after over a year, with the same focus and doing similar edits to the Pokemon articles except the genre change. May be a sleeper he has reactivated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed to see if that IP can possibly be hardblocked. –MuZemike 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Cirt has blocked the sock indef and the IP for 31 hours. Seems pretty cut and dried. TNXMan 11:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed --Deskana (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
More