Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Otto4711

Otto4711 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 23 2009, 14:50 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Schrandit
[edit]

Though User:Eddie's Teddy was created in 2007 he had edited very little and stopped editing for a year. He began edit October 6th, the same day that User:Otto4711 stopped editing. At a cursory glance User:Eddie's Teddy edits only articles that User:Otto4711 has edited including some (1 2 3) that before October 6th were edited almost exclusively by User:Otto4711

I would ask for a checkuser but I figure this is straightforward enough that one is not needed.

It should also be noted that on October 6th User:Otto4711 added a userbox saying that he is hiding from a wikistalker, I am not familiar with that situation but figure that all this ought be out in the open. - Schrandit (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that User:Eddie's Teddy was created the day that User:Otto4711 was blocked for the 6th time. - Schrandit (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie's Teddy came in to vote in Otto's favor near the close of two contested AfD's initiated by Otto (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Horror songs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people youngest in their field). - Schrandit (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? I had an opinion and I gave it. How about all of the AFDs he opened that I didn't comment on? Don't you have some other hobby you can pursue? Collect a stamp, net a butterfly? Eddie's Teddy (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims. Otto4711 is my roommate. After he was stalked he asked me to keep an eye on some of the articles he used to monitor as a favor. He is currently hiding from the editor who was stalking him. I hadn't been into Wikipedia before Otto got me involved but had become more interested. I even wrote a brand new article before I was accused of fraud. Maybe I should just quit, if this is how new people are treated. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh joy, another Wik-inquisition! Here I'd thought that actually leaving would be the end of it. Silly me. All right, listen up chilluns, 'cause I'm only going to comment once on this. As Teddy said, he and I are roommates. During a block a couple of years ago he and I talked about WP and he decided to see if he was interested. He made an account, made a few edits, wasn't that into it, left. Flash ahead a couple of years and I've picked myself up my very own stalker. I won't name names but his identity should be pretty obvious. I'm sure now that I've broken my silence he'll be here in short order and he'll probably start stalking Teddy now too. I tried to get something done about it and the "community" didn't care about the disruption he was causing to me personally or the project. After the stalker's last attack got me unreasonably banned for a week (an action I'm sure he undertook for the good of the project, yeah right) i decided that was enough for me and went into hiding. Because, foolish me, I actually still cared about some of the material I'd worked on, I asked Teddy to check up on some of them. I helped him set up a watchlist that encompasses about a third of the articles that are on mine, the ones that have historically been the targets of heavy vandalism, and he's been looking in on them. He's decided the second time around that he's interested in contributing more and with some pointers from me has been doing what I thought was a pretty good job including writing a new article from scratch. Now two weeks after getting enthusiastic about the encyclopedia he gets accused of wrong-doing. Way to welcome the new guy. Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
It's the old roommate claim so checkuser is pointless. After investigating - including the edits from 2007 - it is obvious that these are simply one person. I've blocked the Eddie's Teddy account indefinitely. Now the abusive socking - double voting on ADFs etc. - seems to all be from 2007, so I am going to let Otto4711 off with a firm warning. He needs to stick with one account and not further violate the WP:SOCK policy, including the "Misusing a clean start" and "Avoiding scrutiny" items. Wknight94 talk 14:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Per Wknight. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Bearian
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graboid_(2nd_nomination)&diff=375476397&oldid=375476282 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Otto4711&diff=349575734&oldid=327831190 and http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=Otto4711&user2=Are+You+The+Cow+Of+Pain?&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10 Bearian (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is additional evidence submitted to me by email from an IP. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

I'm not sure I understand. What action would you like to see here? The Cow of Pain is indefinitely blocked, as is Otto4711. TNXMan 22:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Lihaas
[edit]

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? was blocked at the end of September and a week later, A Radish for Boris (both odd sounding nicknames and seemingly mean nothing) started editing. Edits to the page 2010 in LGBT rights are similar, after a previous long discussion with a 3O, where the reply was not responded to before continuing the same edits. Furthermore, both seem to frequently edit articles on TV series. Sousa Blaine is a much newer account, with similar TV/2010 LGBT rights edits. Additionally, it seems Are you the cow of pain? has already been blocked as a sockpuppet.

I just noticed it seems A Radish for Boris is already blocked as a similar sockpuppet, while the newer Sousa Blaine was then created another week after A Radish for Boris stopped editing.
The more i see it, the more it sounds like an open and shut case really. Lihaas (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

These accounts are  Confirmed as the same:

26 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Lihaas
[edit]

The first edit was the day after User: Sousa Blaine was blocked. He has also made similar contributions. And once again he has made the same edits to 2010 in LGBT rights. He has also had several reverts/edits wars with multiple users on that page over the same content. Can we block the IP from creating accounts permanently? Lihaas (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed

30 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Lihaas
[edit]

And we're back again (so often that i've now memorised the names). User:Sapphire Steel was blocked on 26 October, and voila! User:Archibald Noaccount debuts 3 days later on the same, same edit according to script (but getting quick now).

Thats not to mention his edit summaries that bear similar cover.Lihaas (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Lihaas (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed TNXMan 15:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

03 November 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Lihaas
[edit]

User:Archibald Noaccount was blocked on 31 October and the new account began on 2 Nov (even quicker now) with the same edits. A message on the talk page of Talk:2010 in LGBT rights#Sockpuppetry also suggests the same thing.

Can we also lock the article to newly registered users. Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed

06 November 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by HelloAnnyong
[edit]

Request on my talk page. Similar username to a previous sock. Could be sleepers here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
09 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

He's back! This time with 1. a similiar odd sounding name, 2. the same/similar edits, and 3. Last sock was blocked on 6 November, and this was founded on 2 Dec with its first edit. And that after the the page 2010 in LGBT rights was locked down.

MOre suspicious behaviour on his blanking and another user suggesting he is NOT a newbie Lihaas (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • I don't understand why I'm being accused. I've been reading Wikipedia for almost a year and making a few edits from my home and work computers, things like copy editing and fixing punctuation. I'm interested in reality TV and I'm interested in gay rights. I read the various years in gay rights pages every so often and I don't like the way the 2010 page is treated. I looked at the months worth of edits that keep getting removed and regardless of who put them there the information looks good and there's no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. I wanted to put it back so I registered an account. I didn't think the name I chose was a violation of some naming rule. I also didn't think there was a rule against blanking my talk page. Am I not allowed to edit it if I so choose? Since no one was updating the articles for some of my favorite TV shows I decided to and I made some new articles modeled on existing ones. This is very discouraging, being treated with suspicion for trying to make good contributions. I have to do some serious thinking about whether I want to bother helping any more if this is the thanks I can expect. Pranking Member (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, my accuser is presenting false information in his accusation. I registered my account in mid-November, not December 2 as he claims. It makes me wonder what other bad information he's relying on in falsely accusing me. Pranking Member (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed. TNXMan 12:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Standard MO for a DavidYork71 sock. This one went through great lengths to hide it, but the dead giveaway is the attempt to link Arthur C. Clarke to pedophillia and/or homosexuality. See this edit and compare with a bunch of confirmed DavidYork71 stuff from late 2008 Early 2009, consider this one as one example, also repeated category bombing of said article around that time period. Jayron32 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
The following accounts, while  Confirmed with respect to each other, are Red X Unrelated to DavidYork71:
I'm considering indeffing two of them, and giving the oldest account, Jetblack500, a fortnight and a last and final warning. Courcelles 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles's solution sounds like something I'd recommend as well. —DoRD (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, indef block all of them. It is quite easy to fool checkuser. Our Checkusers should stop suggesting that they can tell two users are not equal. They do not have this capability. (For instance, what if the user moved, or started using a proxy or VPN?) Instead of "unrelated" the result should say "no technical evidence". To my eye the behavioral evidence is more than sufficient to say these are the same user as DavidYork71, or somebody who's behavior is identical. Starting three accounts is manifest bad faith. I have blocked all of them. Jehochman Talk 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if there has ever been any behavioral or technical evidence to link DavidYork71 with Otto4711? I ask because I suspected from behavioral evidence that Screaminsista was a sock of Are You The Cow Of Pain?, who was blocked as being a sock of Otto4711 (see this Wikistalk result). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note- those three users are on the opposite side of the planet from DavidYork71, using a well-known ISP (that is to say, not a proxy of any kind). TNXMan 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. That proves nothing. I have a friend in Argentina who'd be happy to give me remote desktop access if I asked for it. I could edit from an Argeninian ISP any time I liked. I could also hop on a plane and be in Argentina in less than a day and edit from there. The fact is you don't know anything except that the technical evidence does not point to a connection. But the behavioral evidence does (support a block), quite strongly. So I'd appreciate if you'd stop overstating your capabilities, and stop giving cover to a user who's quite obviously acting in bad faith. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 08:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jehochman. While David York might enjoy the attention, it must pain him that it doesn't come with respect. --Merbabu (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I tend to find upon closer examination that the behavioral evidence does not match all that well, especially on the issues outside of the Arthur C. Clarke edits. It's obvious these three are not the sum total of the sockpuppets, but it also does not appear to be THAT close, behaviorally, to DavidYork71. --Jayron32 16:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly insisting that a recently deceased person is a child molester, without a good source, is grounds enough to support the block. Whether they are actually David York is immaterial. The fact is the user registered multiple account in order to engage in mischief. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How strange. First, the behavioral evidence does [point to a connection]. But wait, then the connection is immaterial. Perhaps I can interest you in one of these? TNXMan 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two assertions are consistent. (1) The idiosyncratic POV pushing at Arthur C. Clarke is very suggestive of a connection, but (2) even if it is not that particular banned user (but instead another banned user, or even somebody completely new), the behavior on its own is problematic enough to merit the blocks. Thank you for your technical input connecting the three accounts. That was an essential piece of the puzzle. Jehochman Talk 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for closing clerk: It appears to be quite clear that, through behavioral evidence, that all of these are actually part of the User:Otto4711 sockfarm instead of this one (see Wikistalk report provided above by Beyond my Ken). Could this report be moved to Otto4711's sockpuppet file instead of DavidYork71's, just to keep things in order? Thanks! --Jayron32 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron's request seems reasonable to me - this should go to the Otto4711 case. I had a quick look and these guys don't edit like David (and I've been aware of David's case for some 4 years.) Orderinchaos 13:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
06 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same editing profile & attitude as Otto4711. CheckUser is required because there are usually other socks with Otto4711 (see the archive). I have not notified the editor per WP:BEANS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Behavioral evidence is clear on this one. I compared the evidence to past socks in the archive as well, and it seems clearly this account has the same human pushing the keyboard as the other ones. I have blocked it, but we should still run the CU to check for sleepers. --Jayron32 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed the following two are related to one another:

The above account is on both of the same ranges as I Want My GayTV (talk · contribs), as well as has the same UA, and edits similar topics. Seeing as Otto4711 (talk · contribs) is  Stale, I do not have much to confirm or deny the link. That said,  Looks like a duck to me. Tiptoety talk 19:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the current accounts are indef blocked it's hardly necessary, but since Otto4711 is stale, would it have been possible to check them against some of his more recent socks, such as Pranking Member, Screaminsista, Jetblack500 or Greatsouthbay? (I'm probably showing my total ignorance of how CU works.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Screaminsista isn't stale, so it should be possible to check against it. Relisting. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware some other socks were not stale, but seeing as most of them are just confirmed as being socks of one another and not directly confirmed as socks of Otto4711 (talk · contribs) and on top of the fact both accounts are already blocked makes running them against Screaminsista seem pointless and not necessary. Check no Declined. Tiptoety talk 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Pretty much the inexplicable interest in Otto4711's block. My strong suspicion is that Otto4711 is attempting to get his block overturned by using a sock to instigate an investigation into the original block. —Kww(talk) 15:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Hmm. While the interest is odd, the account has been around, and active, for a few years now. Surely they would have been discovered before now? TNXMan 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found surprising misses before (User:Paint Old Street Black was missed on several sweeps for ItHysteria, for example), but yes, that is one of the main reasons I'm not shouting WP:DUCK, and my block finger isn't willing to push the button without a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While Schwalker is Red X Unrelated to I Want My GayTV (talk · contribs), the following accounts are  Confirmed as being I Want My GayTV:
19 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

User started 22 Feb and shows great familiarity with WP:CFD procedure and makes arguments there which I recognise as classic "Otto4711 style". User contributions show tendency to edit same range of topics as otto4711 such 2011 in LGBT rights; he has had socks blocked on 2010 in LGBT rights. Tim! (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

As this Wikistalk Report shows, the overlap between Otto4711, his 8 most active proven socks, and Lafe Smith is completely damning. The behaviorial evidence is extraordinarily convincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm actually not active on Wikipedia, I can't remain silent here. Lafe Smith may well be Otto4711 or not. However the account is not blocked, and no vandalism by Lafe Smith is reported here. Lafe Smith as not been blocked before, and obviously is contributing in a very productive manner to the encyclopaedia. The circumstances of the original block of Otto4711 by an administrator, who has left the project shortly after, even with his username changed, are still not clear at all.

Under this premises, any new checkuser investigation, or block of Lafe Smith just based on the "accusation" of being Otto4711 would raise questions on whether editors on LGBT topics are welcome in Wikipedia, or whether the project, or at least some users are biased against other users who work on these topics,

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the username style in 2011 in LGBT rights. --Bsadowski1 10:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a discussion this time (somewhere) to see if there is any consensus to block or ban anyone. My own recollections chime with Schwalker's view above: someone (Rlevse?) unilaterally imposed a block/ban with giving any rationale and this was never challenged. (Otto and the Cow of Pain were clearly the same editor but were not 'tag teaming' in any way AFAIK; and Otto had largely stopped editing.) Occuli (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed that Lafe Smith (talk · contribs) is the same as I Want My GayTV (talk · contribs) and Orrin Knox (talk · contribs). Lafe Smith is already blocked, so I don't think there's much else to do here. TNXMan 12:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Created two days after the block of the last confirmed sock User:Lafe Smith. Within 2 days makes a TFD nomination here and uses similar language to known sock User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? in TFD discussions here and here. Note the phrase "extensively interlinked". Wikistalk report here shows some of the usual haunts. Tim! (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
26 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Wikistalk. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Already blocked on behavioral grounds. Opening new case for a more experienced CU to root out sleeper socks--and correct me in the highly improbable case I'm wrong. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


He really should keep away from the article 2011 in LGBT rights; his socks are drawn to it like a magnet are stand out like a beacon with the usual mix of article redirects, CFD, PRODs, AFDs. Tim! (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Here is a Wikistalk report for Jed Stryker (#10), Otto4711 (#1) and eight of the Otto4711 socks with the most edits. Jed Stryker edited in 8 multi-sock articles:

as well as 7 articles that Otto4711 also edited, and one previously edited by Harley Hudson. All of this overlap with only 78 contributions. There's no doubt this is another Otto sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 12:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP's patterns look similar to Otto's previous contributions. - Eureka Lott 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
20 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created on July 7, first edit on July 16. Started off with a deletion nomination and by redirecting articles. - 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Eureka Lott 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

If this is Otto4711, he's worked hard at not editing many of the articles he usually is attracted to. In four days of editing, Calvin Grant has 66 edits (49 to articles), but only three overlaps with the most prolific of Otto's userIDs, as shown by this Wikistalk report. Those over laps are one three-fer (I Am a Camera) and 2 two-fers (Sally Bowles and List of films condemned by the Legion of Decency), but the subjects are all linked through Cabaret (film).

A second Wikistalk run, comparing Calvin Grant to the next 9 most prolific Otto4711 socks, only yields one additional overlap, a two-fer on Rape and revenge films. Altogether, the overlapping edits account for only 7 of Calvin Grants 49 article edits, which does not appear to me to be sufficient evidence to link Calvin Grant to Otto4711.

No comment from me on whether other behaviorial quirks are more conclusive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC) @Eureka Lott - Good catch! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
27 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


IP just popped up, editing some of Otto's favorite pages, including making edits on Little Boxes that had previously been made by Otto sock Are You The Cow Of Pain? and reverted by other editors, including myself.

Obvious sock is obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Administrator note 76.204.96.0/21 and 76.204.89.0/21 both rangeblocked 1 week. Elockid (Talk) 23:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd monitor 76.201.144.0/20 also. There's quite a bit of collateral if this range is going to be blocked though. Elockid (Talk) 23:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14 August 2011
[edit]

Blocked User:William_Bradshaw after private suspicions raised to me. Wikistalk showed enough unique overlap with Otto4711 and one of his socks to justify CU, which  Confirmed the relationship. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Seems were back to this user who was blocked multiple times for sockpuppet violations last year at 2010 in LGBT rights (his subsequent sock was also editing the page since my last complaint). Now an IP at 2011 in LGBT rights is doing the same thing and using deceptive edit summaries and restoring everything he wants to see on the page (as he did so last time). The "rules" grammar here is the same thing that he reverted and warred over in the 2010 page. He also had the same problem with discussion of rights on the 2010 page (as opposed to a mere timeline listing) that he is doing here. There are several similar IPs that added the stuff to the 2011 page.[2]

Not notified per WP:BEANS, but see the archives on his SPI investigations. he has a penchant for the LGBT rights page.
Similar IPs already in the archives and blocked. Lihaas (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
19 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Here we go again. Same editor and IP range with same line of argumentation in edit summaries (not to mention NPAs). And again back in a jiffy.[3][4] (note- hes now at both the 2010 and 2011 LGBT rights' pages)

Madison, WI IP from ATT. Can we ask them to correct it or just block the range from there. Lihaas (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Administrator note The other ranges seems to be a little busy at the moment. I don't think we can do a rangeblock now. I've blocked the IP and semi-protected 2010 in LGBT rights and 2011 in LGBT rights. Elockid (Talk) 15:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User was back after the 2010 in LGBT rights page was unblocked to inexplicably rvt BACK changes. (also see same motions on 2011 in LGBT rights) Also for some really odd reason he has a username thats a play on mine, no doubt that hes pissed off i control/monitor his vandalism time and time again. (see his sockpuppet block log) He's also editing similar pages.

also plaease check for other possible accts.
Also note the article for 2011 has similar IPs as the prev block.Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed as being the same as William Bradshaw (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Yes, the account was already blocked (as of September 2 by Tnxman307, a Checkuser) for being a sockpuppet of Otto4711 (it says as much in the block log). The only thing missing is the tag on the userpage, I've added that tag. It looks like there's not other action necessary so I'll request closure. -- Atama頭 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

similiar IP to previous block of said user forsockpuppetry. Adding the same thing on the same basis. Also a followup to the other closed case yesterday. Need a range or page block please. Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
06 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Hes back again on the same article, same kind of edit. Reverted by another user, and then re-reverted by him with same nonsensical edit summary as in the old days. Also similar edits to LGBT and tv articles. How stupid can a sockpuppet get? now watch him come here and say "nothing wrong with editing this and that/my roommate did it/etc" Something rotten in the state of [Madison] Wisconsin..;)

Also see [5] for User:Liihaas another obvious sockpuppet peeved off by me as per his previous User:Lihaaas and [6] and [7]
Also not told per WP:BEANSLihaas (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Whew, hart attack for a sec...i thought that was me ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


DONE this before to try and imitate me and he is now trying a new combo. on the same page

Also see User:70.226.161.198 ([8]) and the editrs to 2011 in LGBT rights. Also User:70.226.164.143 for immediate unexplained reverts (and we know now how Otto argues..
can we URGENTLY lock that page? Lihaas (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Okay, let's see what's going on.

 Likely match for each other
01 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar edits as other socks and rvts without discussion as well.Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as an aside see how silly an editgo r can getLihaas (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Stalker report on Lee Haas and previous Otto4711 socks Liihaas, Lihaaas and Lihaass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
06 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same edits, same page, same IP root. Its been done before. Can we block the root and lock the page? [10]. Hes a WP:DUCKLihaas (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Lihaas (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
12 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Ottos back on the same page with the same unexplained revert and the same comment added back to the talk page by revert. Does he actually think hed get his anything pasted here as a sock? pretty silly ;) Same IP root thats been on the page also. (see Ottos sock history in the link above)Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC). Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user: [11]; this user: [12]
same IP root [13]; this users revert [14] to blocked user [15].
From the Otto archives links above: [16]
All from edit history of page -- hes also done this to other LGBT year articles. ALso note many 76.2...... IPs on his sock history link aboveLihaas (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Additional information needed. A cursory glance of the contributions of the contributions of Otto4711's contributions do not show a revert the same as the one the IP address made. Please provide a diff from the sockmaster (or an account blocked as a sockpuppet of the sockmaster) showing the revert that is the same as the one the alleged sockpuppet has made. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional information, Lihaas.
Confirmed the same are:

The latter is a previously blocked sock of Otto4711.
I'll see what I can do about the block evasion with anonymous edits. As you will have noticed the IPs are dynamic, so it may not be possible for me to stop it completely without causing too much collateral damage. Amalthea 23:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly can't, as noted in the archive they are still too busy with constructive editors. You know which ranges are involved, and the editor is banned: You may have to simply revert and ignore, and maybe request semi-protection of pages where the disruption is too severe. Amalthea 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
03 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Iridescentlavender shows all the signs of being another sock of Otto4711. Note this Wikistalk report comparing his edits (#10) to Otto and 8 other of his most prolific socks. The overlaps are much more extensive than would be expected by the editor's small contribution count (only 654 edits). For instance:

In addition, Iridescentlavender's behavior is classic Otto4711: truculent, unwilling to discuss matter with other editors, boderline uncivil in edit summaries, exhibiting ownership behavior while accusing others of doing so. The overlaps and behavioral evidence make it abundantly clear this is yet another Otto sock, and should be blocked on that basis alone, but a CU should be run to check for others so far undetected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case the socks identified above are stale, Iridescentlavender can be checked again the most recently identified Otto socks: User:Lea Has, User:Dalek Trixie, User:Lee Haas, User:Lihaass, User:Herr Issyvoo, User:Lihaaas and User:William Bradshaw Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to JamesBWatson. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and to AGK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

All the behvarious certainly matches, ive run into him often and to the same tactic. Checkuser often reveals some sleepers, ive tried gtting his IP blocked but apparentl there are som good users there. The usernames of socks clerly show his hate on me ;)His main targets are LGBT an d tv shows. NPA tooLihaas (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still waiting. Has anyone found a scintilla of evidence that I'm a "sockpuppet" of Otto4711? The answer is no, because there is none. I've been falsely accused, libeled, and many of my edits have been reverted, without an investigation being concluded. Where does it all end? Why does Beyond My Ken think it's ok to do this? Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is one thing - acting like it's a given and reverting all of their edits is another. I assume that when I'm exonerated by the CU, the onus will be upon Beyond My Ken to go back and revert all of the damage that he's done to my work. It is vandalism. I can see how easy it is to get rid of another editor that you don't like. Just accuse him or her of being Otto4711!
  • Lihaas, can you please direct me to where I've edited LGBT or TV shows? Furthermore, do you seriously mean to suggest that I chose my username to express "hate" toward you? If so, you're suffering from paranoia. The fact is that I chose my username as an expression of my own gayness. It's also the name of a song. It has nothing to do with you and you have never "run into" me. You should be more circumspect before making serious allegations that you have no evidence for. Think for yourself. Your an editor, not a member of a lynch mob. Iridescentlavender (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Administrator note The amount of similarity in editing to various other Otto4711 sockpuppets is convincing, so I have blocked Iridescentlavender indefinitely. However, a checkuser for sleepers would be welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically  Inconclusive, or geographically  Possible, that Iridescentlavender is Otto4711 (they edit from the same nation, but I can't tell any more than that); but in any case there is sound behavioural evidence for the link. So far as sleepers are concerned, I see no other accounts except Iridescentlavender.

Clerks, this is  Completed. AGK [•] 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This is somewhat of a tough one, but i guess hes getting a little smarter. Editing is similar by topic, without the television ones (though he may have another sleeper for that) and was started in Aug 2011, when we had a spate of IPs judged to be Otto's socks. Guessing he played it conservative for a while nad stayed away from the years list (As reccomended in previous sock investigation that hes drawn to it). Main page comment seems amateurish (learnt i guess), but see "Hi, I'm Scientiom. I've edited Wikipedia from time to time, and have decided to open this account." which is what a previous blocked sock said somewhat similarly. More to the point this and other such edits indicate blind reverts to insert what is deemed as such, where he has skirted talk often in the past till put for investigation. It doesnt even have a discussion/reason which BRD requires. the talk page of the above link shows previous edits of mine where each comment was reasoned.

the appearance of a nonsensical username is also very similar to what Otto has done in the past.
Not sure if i should notify but per BEANS i havent.
Some stalker reports: Lihaaas, Haas&user3=Lihaass&user4=Lee%20Haas Lee Haas Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Wikistalk report comparing Scientiom with Otto4711 and 8 of his most prolific socks shows overlaps on 8 articles: Alan Turing, Defense of Marriage Act, Same-sex marriage legislation around the world, LGBT rights in the United States, Same-sex marriage, Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Conversion therapy and LGBT rights opposition. Unfortunately all of these articles are part of a cluster which might be edited by anyone with an interest in LGBT issues - there is no "outlier" which in the past has served to clinch the identification of an Otto sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the Turing article is something of an outlier. Although Turing was gay, he was a World War II-era mathematician and cryptanalyst, and therefore more of a historical topic, while all of the other overlapped articles are about contemporary issues. I don't think that's enough to block, but it should be enough to do a checkuser against Otto's most recent socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Amalthea: Thanks for the check, glad to learn there was nothing there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Edit timings suggested there might be something there, but seeing that Scientiom edits from a different continent and there is no indication of foul play, the accounts are Red X Unrelated based on technical evidence.
    Amalthea 11:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This started with this report at WP:ANEW. In reviewing Buck's talk page history, I found this brief conversation, subsequently blanked by Buck. I then looked at Otto's contribution history and Buck's history. I also looked at the lengthy number of Otto's socks over the last couple of years. A few things stood out. Clearly, both editors are interested in LGBT-related articles. Also, Buck's initial edits after registering show a very experienced user. Then, buried in the investigation I saw a stalker report (never knew about it before). I kind of cribbed what had been done at that time and came up with this report. (I just added Buck to the end of the other report's list.) If you scroll down the report to #195, you'll see a long list of articles that have been edited by Buck and by Otto or one of his socks. I believe it goes from 195-254, from 332-357, from 572-578, and from 585-593, or 102 articles (if my math is right). Hence, this report. Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Not much to add to Bbb23's report, except that I was expecting an Otto sock to pop up about now, and had been looking out for one. The Wikistalk report linked above is pretty damning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, here's Buck Winston compared to Otto and the 8 socks with the most edits. By my count, Buck (#4) overlaps on 90 articles, including 6 articles which 5 of the accounts edited, and 8 on which 4 of the accounts edited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another unusual aspect of Buck Winston is the proportion of contributions to wikipedia-space: 260 edits in cfd, afd and redirects for discussion. Otto4711 was also active in all 3. I am a cfd regular, and the positions adopted by Buck Winston are the same as Otto's used to be (that is, delete most categories at cfd except LGBT ones). Oculi (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latest Otto sock I know of is Iridescentlavender, last edited in May.

    Since the behavioral evidence was strong enough to endorse for a CheckUser, can we get a block on that basis, since BW is back editing again after the short block Bbb23 gave him for incivility? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Iridescent wasn't blocked based on technical evidence. As far as I can tell, the last confirmed sock (I assume based on CU) was in March 2012 (Lea Has and a couple of others). I don't know when a sock becomes "stale". I am concerned, too, about Buck's continued editing. He's quite prolific. Mostly irrelevant aside: Buck was blocked for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, a sweep for other socks really is called for, given his history. My own list of Otto socks is probably not complete and it has 38 entries -- and there are significant gaps in their creation dates, which implies that there are socks which were created in those gaps which have gone undetected, or, at the very least, are being held in reserve as sleepers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: A sleeper check was already preformed on the account reported above. No other accounts were found by this check. I'm sure DORD will be happy to confirm this if you wish. Many thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 03:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm very glad to hear that. The next step would appear to be to get Buck Winston blocked on behavioral evidence. Anyone who's had run-ins with the Otto socks knows that they need to be blocked not simply because they are socks of a banned (I think Otto is banned) user, but because they are, in and of themselves, on their own merits, disruptive: aggressive, combative and uncivil. (That's how he came to my attention in the first place.) So when someone like Buck Winston misbehaves, and the Stalker evidence is as damning as it is, AGF really should be set aside and the editor blocked for the good of the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto was banned on rather flimsy grounds (IMO), and I was considering a challenge. However the prolific nature of Otto as sock-master has put him beyond defence. (He was very argumentative, rather than uncivil.) Oculi (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that since Buck Winston has continued editing after his block, his overlap with Otto4711 and his 8 most prolific socks has raised from 90 to 108 articles; 2 of those are overlaps between 7 editors, 1 is between 6 editors, 7 are between 5 editors and 17 are between 4 editors. It is totally beyond the possibility of random happenstance that any editor would have that amount of overlapping without being connected. Since he's back to being disruptive (see this on AN/I, can we please have this person indef blocked? Why are we rewarding Otto4711 by allowing him to continue editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am concerned about what appears to me to be ample evidence of socking here. I'm not sure I understand Spitfire's comment, "Given the number of edits involved in this case, it is unlikely that anything will be actionable as a duck". Although I chose to bring this report here (without knowing that a CU would be useless), I don't believe that anything prevents me from blocking Buck based on duck. That said, because the report hasn't been closed with any kind of determination, I'm reluctant to do that. A response from Spitfire as to his reasoning, as well as comments by more uninvolved administrator or clerks, would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed the evidence presented seems significant enough to justify a check in this case. In particular the wikistalk report is fairly convincing, and additionally wikichecker confirms that in general Buck edits at the same kind of times that Otto socks are generally active. Given the number of edits involved in this case, it is unlikely that anything will be actionable as a duck, hence why it would be useful to have a checkuser to look at this. Some diffs demonstrating a corroboration would not go amiss, but I feel enough other evidence has been provided to justify a check. Many thanks. SpitfireTally-ho! 13:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Unless I've overlooked something, it appears that Otto4711 and known socks are all  Stale. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Blocked per WP:DUCK. --Jayron32 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. (X! · talk)  · @972  ·  22:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
07 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


AfD participation characteristic of Otto4711. Extensive article overlap between this user and muliple previously confirmed socks of Otto4711: Otto4711 Are You The Cow Of Pain? Harley Hudson I Want My GayTV One AfD edited collaboratively back in 2011: link First edit shows competence and policy knowledge: link

Admittedly stale, so no point in a checkuser. It's entirely possible this isn't the same guy... but it certainly seems suspicious enough to me. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • The user-compare report above is between Otto and Buck Winston (already blocked as a sock). Buck Winston is not stale so CU would work. This said it doesn't look like Otto to me (no work in category space, no contributions to cfd); but then perhaps that is the cunning plan. Oculi (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I am (decidedly) no friend of Curb Chain, I came here to speak against this SPI - I've been subjected to disagreements from both Otto's socks and from Curb Chain, and the feel of the interactions is completely different, which is why I thought it was unlikely that they were connected. However, I did run a Wikistalk report between Otto, his 8 most prolific socks, and Curb Chain (#10), and the results were surprising to me - 80 overlaps, a substantial number, including 2 four-editor overlaps. To my mind, despite their distinct differences in style, this is sufficient to justify a CU check. (Recall that good hand/bad hand socking requires a single editor to create two different personalities; although this would be more a case of "bad hand/naive hand".)

    I think that while it's possible that Jclemens might have picked the wrong puppetmaster (but let's find out), his impression that Curb Chain is somebody's sock is a valid one - I know that several other editors have felt the same way, User:Una Smith being one possibility that's been mentioned as the sockmaster (78 overlaps). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)o[reply]

  • Regarding the close by Reaper Eternal, I'm not at all surprised, and I do know that our policy is that "Checkuser is not for fishing", but I'm compelled to suggest that, considering the rampant socking on this project (I think a large number of long-time editors and admins would agree with that assessment) perhaps it should be. That is, the criteria for employing CU seems to me to be so unreasonably restrictive that it is, in effect, harming the project by allowing virtually unrestricted socking, and that the puppetmasters rely on that for their protection. That is not to say that it was a slamdunk that Curb Chain is someone's sock -- he could simply be an independent albeit very annoying editor -- but it seems to me that the project is, on the whole, unreasonably reluctant to have trusted users such as CUs take a look to see what's going on and clear things up. I would prefer to know that X user is definitely not a sock, because he or she has been cleared by a CU sweep, than remain in the dark out of a misguided concern for the privacy of anonymous users when the information that might be revealed is hardly invasive. At some point, some time in the future, the WMF and English Wikipedia need to re-evaluate their priorities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that CU can never prove "not a sock", all it can do is say "no connection found", so I understand the close even if I would very much like to know if Curb Chain is a sock or not, but will not ever run a CU in an INVOLVED incident--even though I disagree with the accused's characterization of this as retaliation. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the close as well, as being totally justified under Wikipedia's current protocols. What I'm suggesting is something outside of those boundaries, which is something that I think that we need to seriously consider. We are, essentially, under attack from those who would edit the encyclopedia without regard to our policies. I believe it's necessary to take concerted action against those people by using those few tools we have -- such as behavioral comparisons and checkuser investigations -- to eliminate those who would warp the encyclopedia for their own purposes, and (not incidentally) clear those who have been under suspicion. The current regime is, it seems to me, excessively concerned about personal privacy (as one would expect from the libertarian beginnings of the project) to the detriment of the accuracy and development of the project overall.Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

I'm finding this one hard to believe. Curb Chain has been a fairly regular editor for quite some time. Otto has been socking regularly with many socks that have generally been caught fairly quickly during that time span. No statement on how precocious knowledge came to Curb Chain, but it seems unlikely that Otto would be successfully running a sock for almost 2 years and would, during that time, randomly be creating other sock accounts which get caught. I mean, under the "anything is possible" banner, I suppose. I've seen some strange stuff in my years here. But on face value, I don't find the evidence compelling enough to overcome the unlikelyhood of Otto running a successful sock under the radar for so long, and still creating badly disguised socks along the way. It could be true, but I'd need to see more than the above. Just one admin's opinion. --Jayron32 04:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: I'm closing this SPI case. The overlaps are not all that out of line (see this one comparing me with an entirely unrelated user). Furthermore, with regards to the "Jclemens might have picked the wrong puppetmaster (but let's find out), his impression that Curb Chain is somebody's sock is a valid one..." comment, fish CheckUser is not for fishing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29 April 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The stepping stone for this report is Harley Hudson (talk · contribs), blocked as a sockpuppet of Otto4711 (talk · contribs) in 2011. Until today, I wouldn't have been able to put a name to this account. However, looking over the current ANI report regarding Jerry Pepsi, as well as that account's recent editing, I was reminded of a distinctive style of editing that I'd once seen ...

When editing articles to remove categories that they consider inappropriate, JP uses a simple, declarative edit summary style of "X is not Y": [17], [18]. This matches HH's older summaries: "a TV episode is not a fictional beverage", "a production company is not a fictional beverage". When starting XfD discussions, both have almost invariably used the edit summary "suggest deletion" – the same two-word comment (a rather atypical summary), virtually every time. Previous sockpuppetry reports have made reference to Otto4711 and his sockpuppets' shared focus on WP:CfD, where both HH and JP have substantial contributions: [19], [20].

The similarities between JP and HH seem fairly strong on their own, but since I've discovered the SPI archive page and the "WikiStalker" tool, my suspicions have only continued to rise. JP and Buck Winston (talk · contribs), who appears to be the latest Otto4711 sockpuppet to be blocked, have an overlap of 40+ articles (quite a lot, considering BW's relatively brief editing career?); with Harley Hudson, this increases to 60+. Combining JP, HH and BW, and then adding Otto4711 and Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs) to the mix, the common interest in LGBT topics (like the CfD participation, also noted in previous reports) becomes even more pronounced – the expanded report reveals a few dozen pages edited by at least two of the other accounts in addition to JP. What I find particularly curious is that the overlap extends to a number of more obscure topics, such as United States Navy dog handler hazing scandal (which is not edited frequently, but is nevertheless one of nine pages to which all five users have contributed). Other favourites include List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes, List of American television episodes with LGBT themes, 1990-1997 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies.

Based on behavioural evidence, I strongly suspect that Jerry Pepsi is a new reincarnation of Buck Winston/Harley Hudson/Are You The Cow Of Pain?/Otto4711/others – accounts whose operator has a lengthy history of sockpuppetry.

Three final points that may also indicate sockpuppetry:

  • The username "Jerry Pepsi" mirrors the construction of "Buck Winston" and "Harley Hudson" (first name + surname).
  • The JP account was created on 5th January 2013, just over a week after BW was blocked (although it did not make its first edits until the end of the month).
  • Examining JP's early editing history (creating categories and confidently using HotCat, all within their first five edits), I am not put in mind of a new user taking their first steps – to me, it looks like someone who has clearly edited Wikipedia before.

SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • I concur with SuperMarioMan's findings. Plugging Jerry Pepsi into the list of Otto and his 8 socks with the most edits, and you get 190 overlaps, a very signficant amount. The clearly appears to be the latest Otto sock (which was overdue to be recognized). BMK (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further on the overlaps, these aren't just instances that can be casually dismissed. Within the 190 overlaps are:
  • 32 articles on which Jerry Pepsi has edited with 2 other Otto socks
  • 19 articles on which Jerry Pepsi has edited with 3 other Otto socks
  • 15 articles on which Jerry Pepsi has edited with 4 other Otto socks
  • 5 articles on which Jerry Pepsi has edited with 5 other Otto socks
  • 1 article on which Jerry Pepsi has edited with 6 other Otto socks, and
  • 2 articles on which Jerry Pepsi has edited with 7 other Otto socks.
Although most of the articles are on LGBT-connected subjects, there are articles in the overlap group which have no obvious connection, articles such as The Hustler (film), The Bride of Frankenstein, Edith Bunker, Pieing, The Onion News Network and Xaviera Hollander, among many others. The idea that this amount of overlap would happen casually, without there being some connection between the editors, beggars the imagination. BMK (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I'm somebody else because I use a first and a last name and share an interest in LGBT topics because hello, I'm gay? That's ridiculous. Because I'm smart and read up on tools and can figure out how to use them? Since I started editing I've been attacked repeatedly, belittled, blocked and now accused of pretending to be someone else, despite creating several pretty great articles on subjects that have been ignored for far too long. You know what? I don't even care. Kangaroo courts bore me and if my contributions aren't welcome, I'm over it. And you wonder why people quit this lousy project. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or, maybe they quit because the bad behavior of sockpuppets like you drives them away. BMK (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or maybe they quit because pompous jackasses accused them of bad behavior based on such compelling evidence as "they have a first name and a last name" and "a gay editor edited some of the same articles as another gay editor". Clutch the goddamn pearls, two gay editors used FAKE SCREEN NAMES that had a first and a last name and edited articles of interest to gay people. Well done. Mister Holmes. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks like another thing you have in common with Otto4711 and his various socks is that you've got a pretty nasty battleground attitude - but what am I saying? Since you are Otto4711, that would make sense.

            I know that you're annoyed because Jerry Pepsi is your most successful sock since User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?, with almost 3200 edits to Cow's 4678. That's even better than User: Harley Hudson's 2819. (None of your other socks have managed to do as much as 1000 edits before they were discovered and indef blocked.) Now you'll have to start all over again, and since you clearly can't stay away from the same old suite of articles you always edit, it's invariable that you'll be caught again... Maybe you should try doing something else with your time. Surely you can do something to advance the cause of LGBT rights other than edit Wikipedia? I think perhaps you should consider it. BMK (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Buck Winston" is a character from the play and film The Women. Harley Hudson is a character in the novel and film Advise and Consent. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of pop culture prior to the 1960s would know that. I chose my name as a goof on "Cherry Coke". Jerry rhymes with Cherry and Pepsi is a competitor of Coca Cola. But yes, let's banish someone based on how some aspects of different names coincide with one of millions of brand names registered in the United States. Y'all are really piling up the evidence against an innocent man. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Buck Winston" is a character from the play and film The Women. Harley Hudson is a character in the novel and film Advise and Consent. "
Thanks for that. Your knowledge here is much less common than you think. Funny, that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't suppose it's worth pojting out that evidence based on screen names having two separate names are pretty fucking odd when offered against someone with a single screen name?
  • Regardless, once you realize this is idiotic can you provide me with a list of articles that I can't edit because someone else edited them first? It would be helpful in defending against these sorts of false accusations in the future. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this, which led me here. Jerry Pepsi, why are you focusing on the name aspect instead of the other evidence that SuperMarioMan provided above? The other evidence is very strong. Flyer22 (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 - It's because the real evidence (i.e. the unexplainable except by sockpuppetry overlaps in editing) is so damning that Jerry Pepsi, like a magician trying to distract you, has to keep harping on the name thing. Unfortunately for him, his behavior is not that which would be expected of a truly innocent person (think about the things you would expect an innocent person to do in this circumstance, and ask why Jerry Pepsi hasn't done any of them of real consequence except to loudly proclaim his innocence.) BMK (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "evidence" is bullshit. Ooh, I edit articles that another gay guy edited. Ooh, I have a first and last name. Ooh, I'm a gay guy who visited the PROJECT PAGE FOR GAY ARTICLES. Ooh, I speak the way that some others speak.
There's a feature called WHAT LINKS HERE. I click on it quite often. Sometimes I get directed to articles about islands that got destroyed by hurricanes. Sometimes I get directed to articles about cars that never hit the commercial market. Sometimes I get directed to articles about LGBT representation in popular culture and that leads me to lists of LGBT TV episodes and to court cases about LGBT marriage and to articles about LGBT dog handlers in the Navy.
I look up what I like and I research and edit based on what I like. I like LGBT subjects. That's where most of my edits are. I make my edits and explain them. And i get harassed because of it. Do what you want. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user continues to run amok despite the conclusion here that we are dealing with a sock. Time to expedite the block here. Doc talk 10:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Likely based on this on its own, whatever about the evidence presented here. On that, plus the above, shows that Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs) is a  Likely sock, and also has the following  Confirmed sock;
- Alison ❤ 05:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm so I won't have to block Jerry Pepsi for edit-warring/harassment now. :) The editor is blocked and tagged, the ANI thread is archived, so I think it's safe to mark this for closure. -- Atama頭 15:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
09 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Recently blocked as Jerry Pepsi for edit warring at List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes. In addition to defending part of that issue (without talk page discussion), the IP and "Jerry Pepsi" have both made identical edits on the unrelated Flowers of Asphalt.[21][22] SummerPhD (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Blocked.—Kww(talk) 05:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I think that it's fairly obvious that 24.196.131.249 (talk · contribs) is a static IP address repeatedly used by the banned Otto4711 and their various sockpuppet accounts. The earliest activity under this address includes edits to Flowers of Evil (Police Woman) (created by a blocked sockpuppet account); recently, it has edited List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes (a favourite among the Otto4711 sockpuppets).

Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that Lester Guy (talk · contribs) could restore this edit to the very obscure redirect Splooge-Drenched Blowjob Queen and not be the same person as 24.196.131.249, and thus Otto4711. LG has also edited Hit List (musical) (created by the most recent confirmed sockpuppet, Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs)) and Golden Age of Porn (previously edited by the sockmaster).

MZMcBride's "Wikistalk" tool is currently inactive; however, if one were to compile a common pages report for LG, 24.196.131.249, Jerry Pepsi and others, I'm sure that the article overlap would be both significant and suspicious. As before, this overlap is focused on LGBT-related pages.

Another connection between these accounts: the username "Lester Guy" continues the trend of Otto4711 sockpuppets having authentic-sounding names – Jerry Pepsi, Harley Hudson (talk · contribs), Buck Winston (talk · contribs), etc. This is beside the similarities in editing patterns, however, which I think are rather compelling evidence in themselves. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


@SuperMarioMan: Your evidence is correct. And yes it is quite obvious that the suspects are indeed sock puppets. Keep up the good work! Gameroffun (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gameroffun: Thanks. After 18 days I was getting a bit worried that no one believed me! SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 17:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

13 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Account created two weeks after the block of the last confirmed sockpuppet, Lester Guy (talk · contribs).

Common interests include LGBT topics (especially media and media-related biography), categories and page moves – multiple similarities despite the relatively short edit histories of the two accounts. Frank Booth Luce continues the trend of making category and/or formatting changes to various articles articles in quick succession: search Lester Guy's edit history for "adjusted default sort" and Frank Booth Luce's for "recategorized".

Like previous accounts, Frank Booth Luce has removed content that they consider to be incorrect from the article List of U.S. ballot initiatives to repeal LGBT anti-discrimination laws. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Hi, I saw your message on my talk page and I guess I'm a little confused. Have I not been editing right? A friend gave me a biography on Agnes Moorehead for my birthday and after I read it I looked up her Wikipedia article and it was pretty skimpy. I went to edit it and Wikipedia suggested I create an account to edit so I did. Somebody gave me some kind of an award for doing that. I watched a documentary about Jason Holliday on TCM and read his article and the article about the documentary and went further into the male prostitution in the arts category. I saw what I thought was a hole in the categories so I made the category and I put articles into it. Was I not supposed to do that? There was a referendum in Houston a couple weeks ago that repealed a gay rights ordinance and I put that information in the article and I saw some entries that did not look like they belong. Was I supposed to do something different? I don't understand what I did wrong. Am I supposed to edit other articles besides the ones I am interested in? If there's a rule or something can you point it out to me? Thanks! Frank Booth Luce (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, BMK!! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, the editors compared are all socks of Otto4711. I've excluded mentioning the handful of Otto socks whose only overlap with Frank Booth Luce is to comment on an Otto4711 sockpuppet report, on which each of them denied being a sockpuppet. Each of them were, however, indef blocked for being an Otto sockpuppet. BMK (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very useful tool. The overlap is so large for the relatively short contributions history (just over 100 edits) that I'm unsure how, based on behavioural evidence, the FBL account could be anything other than a new sockpuppet. It should also be noted that few of the articles in the overlap are edited frequently – for example, List of U.S. ballot initiatives to repeal LGBT anti-discrimination laws, to which several of the sockpuppets have contributed, is on a fairly obscure topic. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 23:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get this wrapped up? This report has already been open for over a month yet neither the suspected sockpuppet nor anyone else can offer a plausible explanation for the various commonalities in the editing histories. It is obvious from this comment that FBL is not a clueless new user and knows far more about Wikipedia than they pretend to here. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 July 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Last sockpuppet accounts to be blocked: Frank Booth Luce (talk · contribs), Lester Guy (talk · contribs) and Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs).

Mars Felix has the same broad interest in LGBT- and TV-related articles. Very first edit was to Lesbian kiss episode, something of a favourite among the Otto4711 socks. Like other accounts, has also edited Hit List (musical) and Boise homosexuality scandal. Has pursued a general pattern of editing similar to previous socks: page moves, category removal on fictional character articles, category removal on redirects, alteration of category pages and category deletion/renaming nominations at WP:CfD/WP:CFDS – interspersed with the occasional major article edit.

In just 160-odd edits and a month of regular editing, Mars Felix has achieved:

... which is suspicious given the relative obscurity of many of these topics.

The dates fit too. Frank Booth Luce was blocked on 29th January this year; Mars Felix was created only a few days later, on 4th February. SuperMarioMan–Talk 22:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

19 August 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Most recent sockpuppets to be blocked: Mars Felix (talk · contribs), Frank Booth Luce (talk · contribs), Lester Guy (talk · contribs), Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs).

Crewman Capote (talk · contribs), created not long after the block of Mars Felix, made a small number of edits on 11th September 2016. They then went silent for nearly a year, returning only at the start of this month. In less than three weeks of sustained editing, they have achieved:

Which, given that these pages aren't edited that frequently, and that Crewman Capote has made only 48 edits to date, strikes me as significant.

The user's editing habits are as with earlier sockpuppets: similar focus on TV, film and LGBT topics combined with an interest in categorisation. Despite their short editing history they have already commented at DYK, modified category default sorts and started category deletion discussions – actions which do not suggest a brand-new user. SuperMarioMan–Talk 15:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Crewman Capote below, criticising the perceived "rules" of the project, is similar to what the last sockpuppet to contribute to this page had to say: [34]. SuperMarioMan–Talk 20:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I didn't know it was against the rules to be gay and interested in TV on Wikipedia. I didn't know you weren't supposed to comment in certain places until you'd been around for a while. As for why I "went silent" for a year, it was because I moved back home last winter to take care of my gravely ill mother and editing this place wasn't exactly a priority. She's dead now, thanks for asking. Sorry for trying to help. I won't do it any more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewman Capote (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711: If your mother died, I'm very sorry for you, but your using it as an excuse for socking, in an attempt to gin up some pity, is totally inexcusable. It's even more beyond the pale if you simply made that up out of whole cloth.
Clearly we need WP:DYINGRELATIVE to go along with WP:LITTLEBROTHER. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken is familiar with recognizing Otto4711 and might be willing to comment in this latest case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll add to the evidence:
  • One other thing: there are almost always other socks when Otto4711 is concerned, so a check for sleepers should be run. Although the most recently blocked Otto socks listed above by Mario would normally be stale, I believe that because of the long-term problem posed by this editor, some data is preserved in those super-secret places where only CUs can go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperMarioMan: Good catch, well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

06 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Since they began editing in April, CallyMc has often focused on LGBT-related categorisation in a manner consistent with earlier suspected sockpuppets. This includes the categorisation of Xena-related articles, where Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs) once made essentially the same edits.

A sweep of CallyMc's editing history shows a broad interest in TV and other media similar to that of previous socks. In addition, the Intersect Contribs tool shows:

Lastly, CallyMc was using the Reflinks and HotCat tools within two hours of their first edit – actions which do not appear, at least to me, to be typical of a new user. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Thank you for starting this investigation, SuperMarioMan. In addition to contacting you via email about looking into this, I also contacted Beyond My Ken via email about looking into it. This is because you two are most familiar with Otto4711. Like I stated at Talk:Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess), "Only two editors have cared so much to remove Xena and Gabrielle from the LGBT category, and that was RafikiSykes and Jerry Pepsi; both were indefinitely blocked as socks. And just like with those two socks, it doesn't matter to CallyMc if the fictional characters have content in their articles noting that the characters are perceived as gay or lesbian, or are seen as LGBT representation. Otherwise, CallyMc would not have removed Xena from the category."

Because RafikiSykes used WP:HotCat and WP:Reflinks, I have been thinking that CallyMc is likely RafikiSykes. I'm not sure if Otto4711 used these tools. If he did, then the case for CallyMc being Otto4711 is stronger. In the past, RafikiSykes also wanted to remove Marissa Cooper from the LGBT category, and CallyMc recently did that. As seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RafikiSykes/Archive, Nymf is most familiar RafikiSykes's socking. It's been years, though, and Nymf hasn't been an active Wikipedia editor lately. I'll contact Nymf via email about commenting here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per what KrakatoaKatie stated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive#19 August 2017, it appears that CheckUsers like KrakatoaKatie and Berean Hunter do have access to some CheckUser data they can use to identify Otto4711 even in stale cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer 22 Reborn: My apologies for not getting on the analysis as quickly as I had hoped. I'm glad SuperMarioMan did the honors. I have nothing to add to his (and your) excellent analysis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before starting this investigation I knew nothing of RafikiSykes other than the name. However, after comparing CallyMc to RS, I agree that CM is more likely to be RS's sock. The fact that both users' histories are dominated by HotCat and Reflinks actions, as well as edits to articles on Scottish topics, is quite telling. The Intersect tool also reveals several overlaps with RS and their socks:
... which, given CM's rather low edit count (<1,200 edits), seem too extensive to be purely coincidental. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Maybe we should transfer this case to a RafikiSykes investigation? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a new investigation here. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 09:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 March 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

After only 66 contributions, this user has a 15-page editing overlap with the sockmaster. (As well as 6 with Are You The Cow Of Pain? and 6 with Jerry Pepsi.)

Other commonalities with earlier sockpuppets include a focus on categorisation (to the point of apparently knowing the fine points of categorisation guidelines as early as their first few edits; see also this deleted edit); reverting others on the article List of pre–Stonewall riots American television episodes with LGBT themes, which was created by the sockmaster (here undoing an edit dating back to 2018, indicating they didn't just stumble across the page); aggressive edit summaries (compare these) and a similar broad interest in LGBT topics. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive&oldid=1136433107"