Stellas4lunch

Stellas4lunch (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Fairly new account editing in basically the same domain as this master. Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Comments by uninvolved users
We also have similar behaviour on this talk page this time working in tandem with User:Trumpkin who briefly edited in 2006 and 2008 then started up again at the same time as the original sockmaster --Snowded TALK 17:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
--RA (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional behaviour evidence on Trumpkin. More or less identical (and ideosyncratic) warnings here and here and we now have another newly created account editing with both Trumkin and Earlymorningcans namely User:Hellohenry57 --Snowded TALK 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also (courtesy of this edit):
--RA (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I see the chain of continuity from Stellas4lunch to Earlymorningcans. Not only is there a pattern in the usernames, but there's also a timeline sequence— Earlymorningcans started editing right after the block to Stellas4lunch. By contrast, Trumpkin has a much longer edit history (dating back to 2006), so the obvious connection isn't there. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not a sock. Initially, I reported the two for either meat puppetry or sock puppetry. Sock or meat, obvious puppet is obvious. --RA (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)A handful of edits in 2006, then a couple in 2008 then nothing until it starts up again at the same time as Stellas4lunch, Earlymorningcans etc. Same style, same subjects, same warnings, same pipelinks etc etc it may even be the original ID, best way is to check --Snowded TALK 21:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but when have I ever abused pipelinking - every single one of my edits has been constructive and not perceived as vandalism, the same cannot be said for yours, therefore this inquest is ridiculous and its motives suspect! Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trumpkin does not seem to have been blocked yet. Any reason? They are obviously linked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the CheckUser clearly absolved me, as I said it would so please desist from your harassment. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear whether the checkuser did pursue this connection as well. It would be good if that can be done so that the status of this user account can be clarified. It may also be worth checking Trumkin against the following account User:Reyad1, who made two edits on Battle of Gergovia back in 2006 when Trumkin's account was first created and he/she made several edits to that article. Then oddly Trumkin created the user's user page [[1]] and added some self-effacing comments in this edit [2]]. This may be a sock or just low level baiting.--SabreBD (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Reyad1‎
If it's true that Trumpkin was aged 13 in 2006, then it might have been appropriate to cut some slack at that time - but they ought to have grown up a bit by now (though perhaps not to the extent of "having an MA"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like only one checkuser has been done, we really need it on Trumpkin and Hellohenry57. The editing styles are identical, they tag team on the same pages, have the same idiosyncrasies. Even if not socks then we have clear disruptive behaviour. Best to have the SPI result complete, if that shows nothing then back to ANI on the behavioral issues --Snowded TALK 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is outrageous. I am not a sockpuppet of Stellas4lunch and I will be vindicated be Checkuser!Earlymorningcans (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the total absence of any linked evidence suggests that this is little more than a fishing expedition by the complainant, and he should be dealt with accordingly.Earlymorningcans (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent comment by Snowded should be disregarded in light of his conflict of interest, given the outstanding allegations of sock puppetry which are awaiting confirmation by a checkuser here. Earlymorningcans (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but allegations of sock puppetry against myself, a user of 5 years, really does take the biscuit! I have mentioned to Snowded that his following me onto the page Talk:Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland seemingly in an act purely to undo my good work constitutes wikihouding which is harassment under WP:HA. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RA is just slurring editors whom he dislikes. He only began this trivial witchhunt after I reverted an edit he made against consensus (see here). His latest fishing expedition is risible.Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I made a singe disruptive edit. I have not made a single disruptive edit to a Wikipedia page, and indeed every single one of my edits has been a serious constructive edit, though perhaps seen as pedantic at worst. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed and underlying IP range blocked. –MuZemike 21:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. –MuZemike 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Hellohenry57 is also  Confirmed, but, as far as I can determine, Trumpkin is not. –MuZemike 16:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Similar edits to Earlymorningcans (talk · contribs), a previously blocked sock. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. There is a clear breach of the rules of natural justice here, as it has been self-referred (nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa). I deny this accusation resolutely, and submit that the application should be dismissed, the endorsement quashed, and the clerk approvant dismissed. Jokaz1892 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He first accused me of legal threats (to be exact he said it could be interpreted as a legal threat, but I don't see any serious difference between that and an accusation), then took me to SPI when I edited logged out due to an IE crash, and is still talking about my 'sockmastery'. Clearly not a new user, and already has a 3RR warning on the article in question from an uninvolved Admin. I also see a similar pattern of edits and agree that a CU is needed.Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look I don't want to get involved in something which already seems to be escalating far out of control but I must point out that I too have been accused of being a sockpuppet of Stellas4lunch simply for editing the page St John's Jerusalem - and I was of course cleared. Jokaz's edits have all been serious and referenced thus far and I see no reason to suspect that he is a sockpuppet; this report might even appear to have ulterior motives to harass and deter Jokaz1982 and I think the manner in which this has been conducted should lead to its dismissal. Trumpkin (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that I was not the only one falsely accused of being a sock of Stellas4lunch, as was User:Irvine22 among others and I do think that accusing everyone with whom one suffers a disagreement of sockpuppetry is uncalled for and certainly not in line with WP:AGF. Trumpkin (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jokaz1892 has a suspiciously similar editing approach, use of language and combative style to User:Stellas4lunch, and also to User:Trumpkin. I'm not sure what's going on here - Trumpkin has been cleared of being a sock of Stellas4lunch, but it seems plausible that Jokaz1892 is a sock of either Stellas4lunch, or of Trumpkin. If not, several people are playing immature student pranks at WP's expense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (not a sock of either DougWeller or Snowded :) ).[reply]
Why would this clerk want to harass Jokaz? If you accused Jokaz of harassing me, that might make sense given the SPI he raised almost immediately after I logged out in error and his comments about legal threats on my talk page. Don't you want a CU run in any case to show he isn't a sock (of you or anyone else)? It wouldn't hurt and could clear him (and you again). Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-5Trumpkin (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Pranks at wp's expense' - Could someone please enlighten me as to Jokaz's supposed crime? I've heard of presumption of innocence but there is no 'expense' (of which I am aware) of which Wikipedia has been the victim. Trumpkin (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I must apologise but I would insist that you remember I was only standing up for what I believed was right - Sadly one cherishes knave's personages until powerful, perfect empires tremble Book of Irvine 2:2. Sadly Jokaz has fallen short of my estimations. Trumpkin (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Jokaz1892 is  Confirmed as being the same as Stellas4lunch. TNXMan 17:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

These accounts have been disrupting over at ANI and were blocked for it. I'm endorsing for confirmation, sleepers, and a possible IP block - this has to stop. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Range blocked, no other sleepers found. Please refile if more disruption occurs. TNXMan 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More