A Nobody

A Nobody (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 10 2009, 17:55 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Irbisgreif (talk)

I first started suspecting that this might be sockpuppeting with these diffs: [1] [2]

Looking at Kww's second RfA, I noticed that A Nobody was the first to bring up civility issues back then. In Kww's third RfA, Ikip brings up the same issues, and A Nobody soon chimes in with complete agreement. Ikip, in fact, brings up diffs from before Ikip's account was created.

At this point, I was reminded that on a recent RfC, A Nobody refused to comment, but Ikip was quite present and arguing hard in A Nobody's defense. I also noticed that Ikip commented here as being willing to support A Nobody in an RfA.

Now, beyond this, I couldn't find anything to raise my concerns beyond a mild suspicion, a 'gut feeling', if you will. But I do believe that a sockpuppet investigation is warranted, as Ikip and A Nobody sometimes vote the same on AfD's (which is, I readily admit, explained by their membership in the ARS). Therefore, I hope that other editors will understand that I am not assuming bad faith, and have brought this here only out of concern.

I believe a checkuser is warranted due to possible ¬vote fraud in a currently running RfA. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

[4] This will open up a whole new world of checkusers for me if this is the case, there have been so many times were I have suspected editors were checkusers, and I never pursued it because of being afraid of harrassment. Despite the complete lack of evidence, I encourage the checkuser to have this go forward. Ikip (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Irbisgreif (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, while some meatpuppetry is possible, fish CheckUser is not for fishing, and I don't see enough evidence warranting a checkuser. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 18:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
Closing, to minimise drama. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


16 May 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww
[edit]

This AOL IP range has been used by A Nobody before, when he attempting to defend his use of the Elizabeth Rogan sock. The IP's are now being used to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas in a tone and style that could be no one else. A Nobody was a major contributor to this article (history of Salvation, Texas). Additionally, A Nobody performed a retaliatory block on Deor the same day this AFD was opened.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more, shamelessly ripped off from SirFozzie's talk page: imported to wikia:annex—Kww(talk) 18:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Jack Merridew
[edit]

I just posted this to SirFozzie's talk page and see that it overlaps w/Kevin's post, but am tossing it in the pot. I've no doubt it's A Nobody.

Also, he's blocked others on list.wikia.com, including me:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to SirFozzie
[edit]

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if 24.154.173.243 was also A Nobody. The general fascination with list articles is suggestive, but not conclusive, as is the interest in video games. The interest in Nathan Hale as a video game character is a bit more intriguing: this by the IP, this by A Nobody.

The burst of contributions around the same time that A Nobody was socking as Elisabeth Rogan is interesting as well: Special:Contributions/Elisabeth Rogan shows activity from 12-14 September, 2008, while the IP went into high gear from 18-30 September. Those timeframes dovetail nicely with the last time A Nobody pretended to leave until he denied his intention to use the account if unblocked.

Those with checkuser powers can undoubtedly see more than I can. I'd be risking a desysop if I blocked an IP relative to A Nobody, but if it weren't for that, I'd block the IP on the basis of contribution pattern.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

Also, compare and contrast with [5], please. SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tone and substance of the comments are right on. If this is not him, it's a good imposter.--Chaser (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving away one of my best clues to AN's editing, but this is a dead giveaway. He has some bee in his bonnet that however cannot be used to begin a sentence, as one can see by many edits under the LGRdC and AN accounts. I'm therefore adding this IP to the list above. Deor (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

We've pretty much established that 24.154.173.243 is A Nobody. It's been under his control since 2007, so it can be presumed that any editor using it is a sock of A Nobody. Formally requesting a sweep.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.--Requested by Kww
I have to note that he has posted a farewell notice on Meta-Wiki. One is located here. --Bsadowski1 06:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom banned him, so keeping this open any longer is unnecessary. Tagging.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
26 May 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww
[edit]

Quite possible that someone is just jerking us around, but probably still worth a check. User name is pretty obvious, and interest in the Wikipedia export feature ties in 100% with A Nobody's activities on list.wikia.com. His import log on list.wikia.com shows nearly constant use of the import feature.—Kww(talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Jack Merridew
[edit]

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm not sure what the fuss is here, but figured I would respond. I am in school and attempting to download articles into a local instance of MediaWiki. It's all new to me, but I have run into a couple of articles that have clipped histories. Strangely, the exports cut the most recent elements. Unfortunately, I do not know what a ruby script is or how to use cURL (both mentioned as methods of getting different history), and was curious if there was a mechanism for getting more recent edit history, particularly for Featured Articles - those that have gone through the full gauntlet of Wikipedia Review. If that kind of thing is frowned upon, please let me know, but it seems entirely in keeping with Wikipedia's spirit. If there is a more appropriate place to ask that question, I would be pleased to move it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobboddoddy (talk • contribs) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the name, I just thought it was fun, but can change it if people don't like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobboddoddy (talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fuss is that you appear to be a rather obvious resurrection of a recently double-banned user. It does seem to have taken more than three days, though. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

So much for "goodbye forever". Treylander 20:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to doubt that the single edit from the account in question represents a ban-evading sockpuppet, but I have no evidence to claim that it's not so. Nevertheless, this does not seem like AN's style, and without additional evidence I'd tend to assume that it's an impersonator. That doesn't mean that it's not worthy of a block, though. Deor (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this single edit account and poked Kww to see what he thought, and he took it here; appropriately, I think, because this quacks loudly. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Kww's comment under "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" below: It's quite possible that the user's name is based on William Blake's Nobodaddy and that the user has never heard of AN. A couple of requests for help isn't really much to go on, even if they do deal with exporting articles. I'd be inclined to let this go for now and monitor the future behavior (if any) of the account. Deor (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A UK IP would bump the notion that we've a garden variety under-bridge-dweller playing silly sausages. Anyone notice the seemingly innocuous reference to the FA vetting process as "Wikipedia Review"? And that they even found this page? (via the link Kevin used in his edit summary... or...) I've no idea about the revExport limit; might be licensing or policy based, but expect it's more a technical limit imposed as a means of limiting a high server-load function's ability to drag teh site performance down.

"I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences."—Elim Garak

I'm content to close this and see what happens. Happy editing! Jack Merridew 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to leap in here and block without consensus, but I still don't buy it. I'm willing to believe it's someone playing us, but the coincidence of username and interest is just more than I can accept.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to mark this as closed for the time being, though I agree with Kww on the coincidence factor. Let's AGF for now and see what develops. –MuZemike 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
05 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww
[edit]

Not the strongest case I've ever brought to SPI, but my suspicions are just too strong not to ask. The community discussion for banning A Nobody ran on May 21, 2010. Inniverse was created on May 21. Since creation, Inniverse has specialized in fighting deletion by removing PRODs, participating extremely heavily in AFDs], and shows A Nobody's fascination with list articles: ([6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]). I think there's good reason to believe this is A Nobody again, and, if not, it's worth finding out if we have someone avoiding scrutiny. There's certainly no reason to believe this is a genuinely new user.—Kww(talk) 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
I'll add that I nevertheless think that it's probably a good idea to run a checkuser on this, just to make sure. Deor (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inniverse in which I commented. I have suspicion that this is a sock of Azviz (talk · contribs) (see relevant SPI). The patterns include mass-deprodding of articles normally in quick succession and similar edit summaries to the other socks. If that's the case, then it should be noted that all these socks were blocked about a year ago, so CU may not be very helpful. –MuZemike 02:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Marking as closed per CU findings. –MuZemike 03:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Red X Unrelated to User:A Nobody, but I believe this account geolocates to the same metropolitan area as User:Azviz. Cool Hand Luke 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Flatscan
[edit]

One user used the first four IPs to comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Characters of Dante's Inferno. Some of them also edited the article List of characters in Dante's Inferno (video game) to add questionable or semi-relevant sources. I think that these IPs are obviously User:A Nobody. These edits are very similar to many examples at WP:Requests for comment/A Nobody, and I especially doubt that an impostor would make the article edits. As an aside, I found it curious that that AfD attracted comment from several WP:Article Rescue Squadron members despite not being tagged with ((rescue)).

63.3.1.1 has been suspected of being A Nobody in the past: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#How ridiculous do AfD !votes have to be before they're removed? (a few days ago) and WP:Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1 (2nd) (September–October 2008). It overlapped with 192.150.115.150, the first IP, at WP:Articles for deletion/Wheelie (Transformers) (2nd nomination). I doubt that 63 is A Nobody due to substantial differences in style.

The note

Note: The article under discussion here has been nominated for deletion, with no evidence of the nominator or anyone else voting for deletion having tried to improve the article or look for sources prior to nomination (per AFD instructions). --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

sounds familiar, but I can't place it. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the phrases pointed out by Chaser are familiar, but I think that they're very common and not very distinctive. "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" appears to be wording from WP:Notability or its sub-guidelines.
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

One of those IPs is at Baldwin Wallace College in Ohio. He used to claim he was at Ohio State or U (forget which). So that puts you in the right state, but that's about it (and what would it mean if it was another state? Not much either way I suppose).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite clearly A Nobody; it's the same pose he held on the AC page, AN-whichever, wikia and meta. QUACK. It should be noted somewhere in his AC-case that he violated their motion, again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

Agreed regarding first four. I dropped a note at Talk:List of characters.... As to 63..., I think that's him, too. All these sound familiar:

I'd like another admin to weigh in.--Chaser (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I don't think we have enough behavioral evidence. I will close this as inconclusive unless someone wants to request checkuser.--Chaser (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Merridew, this can be added to evidence in the ArbCom case if it is ever opened. In the meantime, I'm not going to edit through their page protection.--Chaser (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pre-emptively decline checkuser, on the grounds that we usually won't connect IPs to accounts. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Behavioral evidence indicates that the first four IPs are A Nobody. I blocked the first. The other three, on the 172 range, are dynamic, so blocking them would be inappropriate. Instead I dropped a note on the article talk page. Evidence on the fifth IP, 63.3.1.1, is inconclusive.--Chaser (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Seems to be from the same AOL IP range A Nobody used when he was socking as Elisabeth Rogan. The editing style is the same too, note the grudge against User:Tarc and the insistence that his point of view is the only "honest" one was always a hallmark of A Nobody's. Reyk YO! 04:36, 16 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]
05 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This editor recently harassed the nomination for deletion for the article Maximal (Transformers) deletion nomination, now similar harassment is happening to the nomination for the article Slugslinger. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck... etc. Mathewignash (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

...? No, this looks absolutely nothing like A Nobody. I think you're thinking of some other sockmaster. --EEMIV (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 24 IP is from the same IP range as a previous A Nobody sock from May 2010. There are also very significant editing similarities to A Nobody, most prominently the extreme hatred of the notability guideline. Both the IP ([26]) and A Nobody ([27], [28], [29]) call it "elitist and subjective", terminology I have not seen from anyone else.

The 63 IP address appears to be from the same range as another, admittedly inconclusive, suspected A Nobody sock. This one has flooded a bunch of AFDs with copy and paste votes ([30], [31], etc.) less than a hour after the 24 IP flooded those same AFDs with copy and paste votes ([32], [33], etc.). There's about another half a dozen of these, but I can't be bothered listing them all; check the contribution histories. This IP also has editing similarities to A Nobody, most significantly the insistence that anyone of a different opinion is "dishonest". For example, this diff ("no fact based or honest reason") from the IP is too similar to these from A Nobody to be a coincidence. ([34], [35], [36], etc.)

In short, I feel that editing similarities confirm that the IPs are the same person and that they are both A Nobody. Reyk YO! 21:27, 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.


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

Both IPs are now blocked, and the bulk of their edits reverted. The behavioural similarity of 24.112.202.78 was compelling, and I had no doubt. The recent edits of 63.3.19.130 were not as compelling, but, when I searched the history, I found http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_books_within_the_Discworld_series&diff=prev&oldid=437659412. Anyone familiar with A Nobody would recognize that edit. This means that we have had A Nobody editing through at least two IPs since July 2011. That's sufficient to run a sweep and block any other accounts that have been using these IP addresses.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/63.3.19.129 has also been brought to my attention, especially the block by MuZeMike and the discussion at User_talk:MuZemike/Archive 10#63.3.19.129.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking to see what accounts have been using these IPs and blocking them doesn't require fresh data, so "stale" can't apply. No one is requesting that a checkuser match the accounts to A Nobody ... the behaviour did that.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After further checking, 63.3.19.130 clearly belongs to another sockmaster, whom I will not mention for privacy reasons. Other than that, all IPs have been appropriately blocked, so there is nothing else to do here. --MuZemike 16:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

On April 7, an IP used by A Nobody—24.154.173.243—proposed the creation of an article (including suggested article text) at Talk:Vivian Liberto; on April 28, the Academic Editor account was created and posted that article to mainspace. The 24.154.173.243 IP was blocked for six months back in 2010 as an AN sock (see AN's SPI archive), began to be used again by AN only three days after the block expired (as this absolutely characteristic AN edit indicates), and has apparently been used continuously by AN from that time until April 8 of this year [39][40]. I realize that the IP hasn't edited in a month; but since I'm unable to identify any 2010–2012 edits from it that are unequvocally not by AN, I recommend that it be blocked for at least a year to prevent its further employment by this banned user. (Obviously, the Academic Editor account should be blocked as well.) Deor (talk) 19:56, 12 May 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]

IP blocked, editor blocked, article deleted per G5.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Characteristic A Nobody edits. (This edit summary is also pretty characteristic.) I know that a checkuser won't explicitly tie an IP to an account; but this IP range (a university library, I believe) would apparently be a new one for the continual ban avoidance of AN—who was not too long ago socking as Academic Editor (talk · contribs)—so perhaps a check for sleeper accounts might be in order. Deor (talk) 19:06, 19 September 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]

No particular doubt that it's him. The question is whether soft-blocking Kent State for the remainder of the school year is a reasonable thing to do. I would have no problems doing so, myself, under the same logic as I would block an elementary school or high school that was known to be a source of vandalism.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolblock in place for Kent State for 3 months (roughly the remainder of the semester).—Kww(talk) 03:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 31 October 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]

On the same Kent State range as Academic Editor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and previously blocked IPs. Sudden appearance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night (which is where I picked him up) despite showing no previous interest in MMA. Confirms he is a returning editor [41], characteristic edit [ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night] Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Loud quacking from a Kent State University IP (a range that AN has used before). Seems to be targeting AfDs where User:TTN is the nominator or a participant; and that's an editor with whom AN has previously tangled. If this is judged to be a sock, his recent AfD !votes need to be stricken as contributions of a banned user. Deor (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2013 (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]

131.123.120.0/21 soft-blocked, 131.123.123.136 hard blocked.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same IP range as previous A Nobody socks. The behavioural evidence fits too: extremely low quality keep votes on AfD, frivolous litigation against prominent deletionist editors, then spitefully adding other editors for disagreeing with him and indicating they're aware of his actual identity. Reyk YO! 12:00, 18 January 2017 (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]

25 June 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This is the same IP range as several previous A Nobody socks, and the behaviour is very similar. This user is making a string of low-quality keep votes on AfDs which were almost all started by User:TTN, whom A Nobody has targeted for harassment before (see [45]). The habit of parroting people is characteristic for this banned editor, and the terminology "afdcruft" has also been heavily used by other A Nobody socks, eg [46], [47] Reyk YO! 00:12, 25 June 2017 (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]

08 September 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Similarly to a previous IP sock puppet case involving the user, the anonymous user's edit history displays an unnatural fixation with me and dubious/contrary keep !votes on fiction related AfDs. TTN (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2019 (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]

25 November 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Entire edit history, same as two months ago. AfD comments are typically nonsensical, often focusing on my nominated AfDs. TTN (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2019 (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]

25 November 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

More of the same from earlier, per their edit history. TTN (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2019 (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]

02 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Already blocked once, but it was temporary. TTN (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2019 (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]

11 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same as the last four previous times, edit history matches up. TTN (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2019 (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]

10 October 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-At-Arms User:TTN suggested this new account (which is clearly a hard-inclusionist WP:SPA disrupting deletion discussions) may belong to A Nobody. As I have also commented, this account is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and per WP:DUCK is not a new editor. In the same discussion, User:GizzyCatBella concured with my assessment that the behavior of this account is bordering on WP:POINTless vandalism. The odds are high this is a disruptive socks, and admin attention would be appreciated. For behavior similarity patterns, compare for example Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1 (2nd), and I am sure TTN can provide a few more diffs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For diffs, compare to the recently blocked (last year) [48] or [49] reported by TTN. I trust his call - the subject area (comics/popculture) and style is the same. IQNQ: "This is a laughable nomination. " Socks: "Is this nomination an early April Fool's joke or something? ". I note that the IPs with similar behavior tend to be blocked anyway for disruptive behavior, even if the CU evidence is inconclusive/insufficient to warrant a proper check. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those two diffs are the same URL. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IQNQ (Correction): "This is a laughable nomination; the "Is this nomination an early April Fool's diff provided by User:Piotrus is for a previous IP. --EEMIV (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • I just received an email notification that about 30 minutes ago, someone requested a password reset of my account. The IP -- 72.23.83.54 -- resolves to Ashland, Ohio, where previous AN IPs have hollered back to (including the IP editor in the diff above). Quack quack? --EEMIV (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten 13 reset requests from 72.23.83.54, 1 from 76.10.251.170, and 5 from 24.112.201.120 since August if those end up being relevant. I'd also cast suspicion on User:Moscowdreams, an infrequent account who, despite never having once participated in a single AfD, suddenly !voted on 5 fiction-related AfDs with weak rationales. IQNQ participated in a couple of them. They also have a weird anti-deletion tirade in their recent history, which is similar to AN's random outbursts. TTN (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with all of Reyk's points. Deor (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17 April 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

They claim on their user page that they're "not new". They changed content on User:A Nobody as well as on the user page of one of Nobody's socks. With that and the user page vandalism to Jimbo, Larry, and others this looks like an LTA to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@Chris troutman: This investigation should be on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody instead. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
More