Breein1007

Breein1007 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date November 12 2009, 09:42 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:Supreme Deliciousness

Yesterday user User:Chesdovi put together the Jubata Ez-Zeit article with Neve Ativ without asking and it got reverted, today a new account created today did the exactly same thing together with several different edits that a new user impossible could have made, at the talkpage he also said: [1] "as usual you are using " --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims. Thank you for this. I'd like to thank my parents, my sister, Adi, Matan, and Yoav. You guys have always supported me... I finally made it!!! I'd also like to use this opportunity to point out further evidence that Supreme Deliciousness and Ani Medjool are the same user. Supreme Deliciousness was careless and used poor grammar in his above post. He must have gotten mixed up and thought he was signed on as Ani Medjool, the account on which he purposely uses poor grammar in an attempt to hide the fact that he is using a sock puppet. Furthermore, the two users are almost always online and making edits to similar articles at the same time, often within minutes of one another.

In terms of defending myself, I'm not going to bother. Supreme Deliciousness is bitter that his sock puppet has been discovered and he's trying to get revenge in any way he can. If anyone comes to the conclusion that I am a sock puppet, it will only further prove the ridiculousness of the wannabe bureaucracy on Wikipedia and the power trips that this system provides to people like Supreme Deliciousness. Anyway, enough with this... it's time to go find and remove more POV from this site. Have fun!Breein1007 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Please don't bring other users into the discussion on my page. If you have an issue with the aforementioned user, create a SPI page for him. This one is all about me. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah, of course. Let us just note that "both of you" have registered within the last 48 hours, and both of you have edited the same rather special-interest articles, like Neve Ativ and Margaliot. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, are you a detective or something?!? The modern day Encyclopedia Brown. It takes special brain power to come up with conclusions like those. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, whatever; To outsiders: look for the puppet-master in the above mentioned articles (Neve Ativ and Margaliot) ....and Falafel. Have a wonderful time, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary, my dear Watson. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser request
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention. I'm not seeing a definitive connection on the editing styles themselves, even though the same ranges of pages have been edited by all three. A check should be useful here. MuZemike 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.A check would be useful in ALL cases, but it isn't always used. This is ridiculous; there is no evidence suggesting that I am a sock puppet. As much as I enjoy the attention that these lonely people give me, it is ludicrous to grant them exactly what they want without any valid reason. You haven't provided a valid explanation as to why you want a CheckUser - you have in fact selected F (Other) as your reason. That is a pretty weak argument. You yourself suggest that my editing style is not the same as the other users in question. I would much rather that we deny this request for CheckUser and leave my identity up in the air, so that these sadly bitter people can remain blissful in their ignorance. If we run a CheckUser and in fact prove that I am not a sock puppet, they will get the satisfaction of closure, something that they do not deserve.Breein1007 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the result comes back unrelated, as you opine, then there is nothing for you to worry about. Otherwise, what do you have to hide? MuZemike 00:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh believe me, I'm not worried. I have nothing to hide at all. I just support the status quo because I enjoy seeing these people obsess over me! On top of that, I like going by the books and based on the guidelines for SPI, CheckUser is clearly unwarranted in this case. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that either of the two other users noted above are in fact me. Breein1007 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Actually, all of these accounts are Red X Unrelated to each other - Alison ❤ 00:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or are they...? Breein1007 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Closing, per Alison. J.delanoygabsadds 02:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
01 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Dailycare

See evidence presented at the AE concerning this IP account: Wikipedia:Ae#Comments_by_Supreme_Deliciousness. Admins handling that AE suggested opening a parallel SPI case as there appears reasonable suspicion that the IP is Breein1007. User Supreme Deliciousness says to be in posession of further information linking these two accounts. Dailycare (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance, please don't mis-state was was stated in the AE. The admins at AE never said there was "reasonable suspicion" of anything. Those are your words. They simply said that AE was not the right venue for your the claim. Second, Breein stopped editing from his account on June 13, 2010. So even if the IP was Breein, which in any case hasn’t been proven, there is no evidence that he’s using the IP to evade either a topic ban or 1R or 3R restriction. In sum, no rules have been violated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not to find a "sockpuppet". His behavior as an IP would most likely have sanctioned him if he had done those edits from his main account considering his long history of contentious behavior. If we can identify him as Breein here, then we can continue with the Enforcement case. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"His behavior would most likely have sanctioned him?" Are you a fortune teller?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jiujitsuguy, your comments are unhelpful. Given the user has been sanctioned previously, if the IP was found to be connected, then it's possible that could have a bearing on whether a warning is sufficient, or whether further sanctions are required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dailycare, why are you misrepresenting the facts here? One admin suggested opening an SPI because you brought it up at the wrong place, not because there was any reasonable suspicion. And if it is not to find a sockpuppet, then why are you filing an SPI? Why don't you simply notify the IP of the ARBPIA sanctions and move on? You seem to think checkuser is a toy you can use at will. --Shuki (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki, given that WGFinley and I are admins, I don't think Dailycare's use of plural was incorrect. Also, the IP has already been notified of the WP:ARBPIA case. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, I don't think the complaint is with regard to SDDailycare's use of the plural vs. singular, but rather with regards to his false claim that admins suggested SPI because "there appear reasonable suspicion that the IP is Breein1007". Thats simply not true. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SD? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I meamt Dailycare. I've corrected it - and apologies. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way I meant for my text to be read is that two admins suggested opening a SPI, which happened responsive to SD's raising the sockpuppetry issue. To the extent my wording was unclear/wrong, I apologise. Now, shall we move on to the substantive side of this SPI and then return to the AE. Shuki, I haven't requested checkuser. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

As dailycare says above, behaviour evidence has been posted at the bottom here, and I also have personal information linking Breein to this user that I can send through mail if requested. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per a request from Supreme Deliciousness
I checked User:174.112.83.21's edit history against 500 of Breein1007's past edits.
I didnt' find many matches. Both accounts worked on
Jerusalem - IP, Breein (This comment is added by SD: Removes "occupied" in both)
Ships linked to the Gaza flotilla raid - IP edits MV Mariam, Breein edits MV Mavi Marmara
Rawabi - IP, Breein
User talk:Ynhockey - IP, Breein
Muhammad al-Durrah incident - IP, Breein (This comment is added by SD: Both these two edits are involving "Blood libel")
Gilo - IP Breein (removes East Jerusalem in both) (Added by Supreme Deliciousness)
There are behaviorial similarities in edit summaries. Breein liked using the word "stop" in his edit summaries
Breein1007
"stop censoring things plz"
"therefore stop harassing me"
"please stop now"
"please stop deleting sourced info"
"RV - sorry, it was. stop your edit warring"
"strongly suggest you stop now."
174.112.83.21 appears to do the same
174.112.83.21
"and what part of stop reverting egypt did you not understand"
"kindly stop violating wikipedia policies immediately"
"it is unfactual. stop putting lies"
"and stop reverting egypt"
I think there is moderate circumstantial evidence suggesting these users could be the same, but I'm not overly convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if both users were just agressively impolite, pro-Israel editors. Additionally, IP traces to Canada. I'm 80% sure breein lives in Israel. NickCT (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ill copy some evidence here from the arb page: They both have the same uncivil behavior: IP "wtf are you talking about" Breein: "What the hell are you talking about in your edit summary?" See for example this where the IP makes a comment and Breein continues the discussion: [2] Breein has made posts in hebrew:[3] IP also makes posts in hebrew: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see what the issue is here. Has the IP done anything wrong? Me thinks that since Nableezy's rep was tarnished with the recent SPI on him, it's time to exact similar treatment with an opposing editor who has not done anything wrong except being an opposing editor to this group. --Shuki (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he has done many things wrong: [5], also look at his comments to the Jordanian guy:[6][7] Concerning Breeins long history, this kind of behavior would have sanctioned him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the case overall, but I do want to point out that the use of the extremely common English word "stop" in edit summaries as behavioral evidence supposedly linking the account with the IP is far from convincing. Behavioral quirks used to identify socking editors need to be quite a bit more idiosyncratic than that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has the IP done anything wrong? The answer is yes, and the AE will deal with that. This SPI is exclusively about the sockpuppetry allegations, which may turn on the information SD has. Concerning the IP, an individual residing in Israel isn't inconsistent with an IP address that traces to Canada. --Dailycare (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken - Agreed. Edit summaries can be telling, but I don't find many convincing matches between the IP and Breein1007. I'm less than 50/50 that they are the same. NickCT (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with closing this with no definite finding in light of EdJohnston's comments below. --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I disagree with what you just said. Specially given that evidence not shown here establishes a technical connection and if this is not going to be comprehended of-wiki, then the only other solution is that its is revealed on-wiki. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that this SPI should have never been opened in a first place. No matter whom this IP belongs to, neither IP nor Breein1007 have done anything wrong, and they never influenced an outcome of any discussion or whatever. This SPI should be closed as soon as possible.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: [8], an admin explaining why Breeins actions could be sanctionable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just read that AE request, and I see nothing that could have had the editor sanctioned even, if they were Breein1007.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering all the things he did with the Breein account, if he had continued his edit warring and uncivil behavior from it, he most likely would be banned from Arab-Israeli articles, so it looks like he is trying to continue the same disruptive behaviour but without the history of the Breein account, so he can fly under the radar and avoid being sanctioned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation and anti-AGF from Supreme Deliciousness. This SPI should be closed and Supreme Deliciousness blocked for 24 hours for making this harrassing and frivolous SPI. --Shuki (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I have sent out some email about this case. Will report back if I get a clear idea of what to recommend. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received by email the information that SD referred to in a comment above. A negotiated solution does not seem to be available, at least not one that I would accept. If a checkuser is available, I have some info to share privately. I took a look at m:Checkuser policy#Privacy policy. This seems to rule out having a checkuser help us identify this IP with Breein1007 using information from the server logs, but does not say anything about usage of IP information that editors have been able to learn through on-wiki activities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP listed in this complaint has not edited since August 30. I also observe that Breein1007 has resumed editing under his regular account. This suggests the possibility that (if Breein1007 is actually this IP) he may have got the message. It is beneficial if we can close this case without a definite finding about the IP. In a day or two, this might be done if there is no further comment, and if the IP edits do not continue. Please add your comments in the appropriate section if you disagree with this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the suggestion that this SPI filing was frivolous, please note that both PhilKnight and WGFinley (in the AE report) suggested that an SPI be opened. There is more to the story (as submitted by SD) which can't be told here, except by email to admins or checkusers. PhilKnight is also aware of what SD's evidence contains, and if Phil prefers that this case be closed in a different way, I hope he will comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider this to be a frivolous report, and the suggestion that SD should be blocked is absurd. Otherwise, I agree with Ed's proposed course of action. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm marking this case as closed with no action. If there is any resumption of anonymous edits from a Rogers customer in the Toronto area with a keen interest in I/P controversies, someone might consider reopening this report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


19 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Previously Breein1007s account had received many blocks:[9], and he knew that he couldn't continue with his long time problematic and disruptive behavior with that account because he was probably going to get topic banned from the A-I conflict. So he basically used an IP sock instead of his main account to continue with his edit warring, problematic behavior so he could avoid scrutiny and avoid sanction. The reason why nothing happened in the last SPI was because I did not say openly here that Breein edited from Ontario Canada, and that his ISP was Rogers, the exact same location and ISP as the IP sock he later used. But I am now. Breein removed his IP that he used before he registered here:[10]. His IP has the same location and ISP as the IP sock in the last SPI: [11] There was also an Enforcement request at that time because of things he had done with that IP sock:[12]. A couple of days after the last SPI was opened Breein returned to his registered main accountant and added the "retire tag" [13] Nothing happened in both the SPI and Enforcement because I did not openly bring forward this evidence and he stopped using his IP sock.


Now a new IP address has shown up:[14] this obvious sock goes back to Onatario Canada and uses Rogers as ISP, (same as Breeins main account and his previous sock) and his first four edits are reverts of my edits at different articles: (Breein also has a history of stalking other editors edits:[15])

So Breein1007 is now continuing with his disruptive behavior with this IP sock, while pretending to be "retired" with his main account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

SD, if you have a problem with IP editing, please submit it to AE. Otherwise this SPI is just a fishing expedition. I suggest declining this SPI request.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Also this SPI violates wp:outing and some parts of this should be over-sighted and SD should be warned.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with IP edits, I have a problem with Breeins socks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not have problem with this IP editing pattern, I see no reason for SPI. Breein is neither blocked, nor topic banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I have a problems with Breeins socks. This IP is Breeins sock. Breein is not blocked or topic banned because he used his previous sock to continue his disruptive behavior as can be seen in the enforcement request I linked to above. Had he made those kinds of edits with him main account he would have been sanctioned. And now he is continuing his disruptive behavior with his new sock instead of his main account to continue to avoid sanctions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I think there is some previous background to this case which is known to the checkusers. Even so, this case probably needs to be closed on behavior. There may not be enough data here to be confident this is actually Breein1007. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence that gives us 100% evidence that the last IP was his sock, breeins IP can be seen here: [21], its: 174.112.83.21

While the last sock in the archive that he and his sock was never blocked for was: 174.112.83.21. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is not for this sock, but for his old sock, it shows that Breein and the old sock that he was never blocked for has the exact same IP, combine that with the behavioral evidence in the archive, so how is it fishing? Why haven't you blocked Breeins main account yet? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? IPs change and are reallocated. You have not brought any evidence other than someone was caught in Breen's block. You should know what it is like to be hounded by CU requests, why are you doing this to others without sufficient evidence? -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at all the behavior evidence here: [22] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ive added some more evidence above for this new IP: [23] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it IS Breen, which we don't know, there is no violation in that edit. There is no 1RR, let alone 3RR, and the "Breen" account has never edited that article. SD, please explain to me why what you are doing now should not be considered harassment? I am not seeing violations even if this 74 is Breen. At this point, does anyone else believe that there is reason to keep this request open? -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen his disruptive behavior with his last sock? [24] and now this new one? [25]. He is continuing with the same disruptive behavior as he did with his main account so he can avoid sanctions and nothing happened with his last sock and now you are pushing for that he is going to get away with it again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the last sock is already 100% sure with the exact same IP, and same behavior, why isn't he blocked yet? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved with content or behavioral disputes with either you or he, my role here is that of CU and SPI respondent, and I do not see indications of sockpuppetry in what you have brought. People are allowed to edit from IPs if they so choose, and without evidence of votestacking, 3RR violations, or ARBCOM restriction evasion, even if you are correct, the IP edits are irrelevant. If you believe he has behavioral issues that prevent the proper function of the wikipedia project, the proper venue for that is either is RfC or RfAR. The SPI board is specific to sockpuppetry issues. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if the behavioral relationship is clear enough, preventative measures can be applied without checkusering the accounts. As I said, I'll leave that to other admins. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

All these IPs are pretty obviously the same user jumping from computer for the purposes of edit warring. For behavioral reasons, and some historical debate I believe the user might at one point have been Breein1007. I'm not sure whether we can do anything about this activity (i.e. range block). I'm submitting to see if someone more experienced with sock puppetry than myself might have some suggestions. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC) NickCT (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok HelloAnnyong. That's fair enough. It's a little frustrating though, because as I see it, there doesn't appear to be any good way of defending against this kind of activity. NickCT (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This is telling. I'm pretty sure this is Breein1007. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added User:190.144.55.146 based on striking behavioral evidence. I realize these trace to different geographic locations. Curious... This could of course be coincidental, but I wonder whether an anonymizer is at work. NickCT (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I strongly favor page protection. I made the case here. -asad (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a conversation I just had with User:190.144.55.146, I no longer believe he is related to the other IPs. NickCT (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

There has already been evidence presented before that shows 100% that the socks are Breein1007. The real question is why admins hasn't blockade Breeins man account and his socks yet.

See this SPI [26] about Breein using an IP to continue his disruption while pretending to be retired from his main account, there was an enforcement request against Breeins IP at the same time. Nothing happened at both.

Later it was pointed out that the exact same IP was the same as Breins as can be seen here: [27], but instead of blocking Breein and his sock, the admin deleted the revision, basically he is continuing his disruption from IPs and admins are protecting him instead of blocking him and his socks. The admins closed the SPI doing nothing and a couple days later Breins sock was blocked for violating the 1rr [28].

So we already know that Breein used that exact same IP, and these other (74...) IPs that are continuing the same disruptive behavior and edit warring has the exact same behavior as him and relocate to the exact same place as can bee seen in the previous SPIs.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Supreme Deliciousness's assessment. We gotta find an admin who can get real aggressive about blocking IPs from Toronto editing I/P articles. Otherwise there is no mechanism to guard against these shenanigans. Let me message a few and see what I get. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask that we move forward with the proposed block before this SPI goes stale? NickCT (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • This may be a trivial observation, but since the blocks being proposed are anon-only, anyone (not just a CU) may check the anon edits made from those ranges using the rangecontribs tool to see what proportion are useful. Since the edits of concern are POV-pushing and not simple vandalism, it is not trivial to recognize which ones need reverting. If we do plan to leave the ranges open, perhaps a formal ban of Breein1007 from Wikipedia should be considered, to avoid 3RR problems with reverting those ranges. Breein1007 and his socks have caused a lot of annoyance in the I-P area. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
09 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


I went back and merged the contribution history of these two users. Looking at the timing of their edits over a five day period (see table below), it seems fairly evident that the edits are being made by the same person. I asked Bob drobbs about previous accounts, and he denied having ever used them. I have a comparison over a longer time period in an Excel sheet. If anyone is interested, e-mail me. I thought 5 days would sufficiently prove the point. NickCT (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit User
22:47, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy User:Breein1007
22:43, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
22:00, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
20:50, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
19:26, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents User:Breein1007
18:38, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
18:12, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
18:12, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
18:03, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
17:54, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
16:14, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:07, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
15:59, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
15:55, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lah User:Bob_drobbs
15:39, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:2010 User:Bob_drobbs
15:37, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) 2010 User:Bob_drobbs
15:32, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) 2010 User:Bob_drobbs
03:37, 10 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
21:58, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
21:51, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:2010 User:Bob_drobbs
19:00, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:2010 User:Bob_drobbs
18:36, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents User:Breein1007
18:24, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
18:22, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
17:04, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:2010 User:Bob_drobbs
17:04, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:2010 User:Bob_drobbs
17:02, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lahore ‎ User:Bob_drobbs
16:52, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lahore ‎ User:Bob_drobbs
16:48, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) m May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lahore User:Bob_drobbs
16:45, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:23, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:2010 User:Bob_drobbs
16:14, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Nomoskedasticity ‎ User:Breein1007
16:13, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ User:Breein1007
16:12, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents User:Breein1007
15:55, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Template talk:Asia topic User:Breein1007
15:48, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Eastern Mediterranean ‎ User:Breein1007
15:45, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Levant ‎  User:Breein1007
15:41, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Vipera palaestinae User:Breein1007
14:36, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Shuki User:Breein1007
14:34, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:B User:Breein1007
14:22, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:B User:Breein1007
14:02, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:B User:Breein1007
14:01, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:B User:Breein1007
13:06, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Breein1007 ‎ User:Breein1007
13:06, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User:Breein1007 ‎ User:Breein1007
13:06, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User:Breein1007 User:Breein1007
13:05, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Breein1007 ‎ User:Breein1007
12:55, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Stifle User:Breein1007
12:54, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Stifle User:Breein1007
12:54, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Stifle User:Breein1007
12:25, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:CIreland User:Breein1007
12:00, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Stifle User:Breein1007
02:25, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Latma ‎ User:Breein1007
02:24, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Latma ‎ User:Breein1007
02:21, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) We Con the World User:Breein1007
02:21, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) We Con the World User:Breein1007
01:06, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:2010 User:Bob_drobbs
01:02, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:2010 User:Bob_drobbs
00:57, 9 June 2010 (diff \hist) 2010 User:Bob_drobbs
21:58, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
20:00, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People User:Breein1007
19:54, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
11:08, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:CIreland User:Breein1007
11:05, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:CIreland User:Breein1007
10:59, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:B User:Breein1007
03:26, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:25, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:20, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid ‎ (Reversed order of a sente User:Bob_drobbs
00:58, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
00:55, 8 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
17:24, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:B User:Breein1007
17:16, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:B User:Breein1007
17:11, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
17:05, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
17:00, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:28, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
07:44, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
07:37, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
05:30, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
05:17, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
05:08, 7 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
18:21, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
18:20, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) m Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
18:18, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
18:13, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
18:11, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
18:04, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
17:59, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Blockade of the Gaza Strip (2007-present) User:Breein1007
17:52, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Ghazal User:Breein1007
17:52, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Full metal adonis User:Breein1007
17:50, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Battle of Jenin ‎ User:Breein1007
17:42, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
17:40, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
17:34, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:42, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:39, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:37, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:34, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:18, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
11:56, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Battle of Jenin User:Breein1007
11:52, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Tariqabjotu User:Breein1007
05:08, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
05:04, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:52, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:49, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:35, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:34, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:31, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:26, 6 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
20:49, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
20:45, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
20:32, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
17:23, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
16:10, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Template talk:National parks of Israel User:Breein1007
16:09, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Template:National parks of Israel User:Breein1007
16:03, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Breein1007 User:Breein1007
15:57, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:Ynhockey User:Breein1007
15:55, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Jerusalem ‎  User:Breein1007
15:49, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
15:45, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:IANVS User:Breein1007
15:44, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) User talk:IANVS User:Breein1007
15:35, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Breein1007
14:46, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid  User:Breein1007
14:27, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
14:14, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) MV Rachel Corrie ‎ (Edited to bring in line wit User:Bob_drobbs
13:48, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Palestinian territories ‎  User:Breein1007
12:20, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Sami Taha ‎ User:Breein1007
12:18, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) CNN controversies User:Breein1007
12:17, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Yasser Arafat ‎ User:Breein1007
12:12, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Battle of Jenin ‎ User:Breein1007
06:48, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
06:46, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
04:54, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
01:14, 5 June 2010 (diff \hist) Talk:Gaza flotilla raid User:Bob_drobbs
Comments by other users

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

I'll pipe in here since NickCt gave me the link. As to NickCt. The flotilla incident of 2010 was a highly contentious political incident which had a large number of editors. It should be of zero surprise to anyone that multiple editors would be changing the page at the same time. As for the rest, do you always assume tht two editors both writing about things vaguely and distantly related to Israel, _must_ be the same person. *sigh*
I've told you NickCt before, and I'll tell you again. I've never edited under another account. And at this point, I think you're in gross violation of WP:AGF since you're in effect calling me a liar.
As to FightingMac, with your violation of 3RR, you are guilty of more POV edits than anyone else on that page. Please stop reverting. Everyone's default mode of behavior, including your own, should be to improve on other editor's work, instead of deleting it.
To any administrators, you're welcome to continue this on my talk page. I'm just me, no one else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Tnxman307 - Both of these editors are involved in somewhat contentious edits on Israel-Palestine articles. Creating new accounts seems like a pretty obvious attempt to avoid scrutiny.
On another note - Even if you don't want to take action here, could I get your impression as to whether the chronological evidence here points to a sock? NickCT (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your second question first- the timing of the edits possibly point to a sock. It certainly would have warranted investigation at the time it was occurring.
As for avoiding scrutiny, I thought that was impossible on I-P articles. :) More seriously, I just have a hard time taking action on edits a year old. Has there been socking/scrutiny avoidance since then? TNXMan 14:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re "As for avoiding scrutiny, I thought that was impossible on I-P articles." - Probably true, but what I'm concerned about is that if Bob drobbs were to go up for arbitration, Breein1007's blocks and history of tendentious editing won't get considered. That's what I meant by avoiding scrutiny.
re "More seriously, I just have a hard time taking action on edits a year old" - That's reasonable. Frankly, if Bob drobbs had just admitted to socking a year ago, I probably would have just dropped it.
re "Has there been socking/scrutiny avoidance since then?" - I suspect there is. Note that Breein1007 has come up for socking multiple times and each time the cases have sorta fizzled, b/c the socking stopped or lacked evidence. I'm guessing we have a committed and well-versed socker here; hence, I wouldn't be surprised if drobbs is currently operating another account. I've been thinking about doing a fine-toothed, chronology based, I-P sock comb to try and confirm this suspicion. Frankly though, doing this kind of thing can take an hour or two and I'm not sure I care enough invest that kind of time. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, I've already told you that I'm just me, and I've never edited under another account. Long ago, you crossed the line violating WP:AGF by in affect repeatedly calling me a liar. How would _you_ feel if I started posting that you were a sock puppet and a liar, of how I suspected you of all sorts of nefarious behavior, and of my plans to stalk you, watching your every move?
And now, it's sounding like a witch-hunt -- You probably would have dropped this, if only I'd confessed. WTF?
I'm simply going to ask you to treat me with the same respect with which you would like to be treated. Do you want people accusing _you_ of being a liar? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the righteous indignation. Witch hunts! Assume good faith. Sounds like someone I once knew. But seriously, I replied to Bob on his talkpage. NickCT (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update - On reflection, I'm in agreement with Tnxman307's comments that the evidence provided here, while suspicious, is simply not actionable at the time being. Additionally, after further review I think it's possible that the odd chronology seen above might potentially be freakish coincidence. As such, it would probably be wise to close this SPI as inconclusive to avoid further protracted persecution of a potentially innocent Bob drobbs.
I may do a little sock sniffing in future, but I think it's best we let it rest at that. NickCT (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
23 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


This "new" IP has showed up, it has followed me around to several articles, looking at its edits its clearly not a new user.

Hounds me to: Route 999 [29], An idiot abroad:[30], 2011 Israeli border demonstrations [31]

This follows the pattern of Breeins previous socks that followed me around hounding my edits as can be seen here: [32] and also is focused on Arab-Israeli articles.

I also have personal technical information that I can send to admin through mail that connects Breein with this sock ip. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
27 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The last investigation was closed because Breeins sock hadn't edited in some days. The sock has now continued to edit, so besides from the previous evidence that the reviewing admin must read that I added here: [33] and the technical that I can send to admin, Breeins sock has continued to hound me to the Khazars article: [34] and has also participated at this discussion: [35] where he says: "symptomatic of the long-term drift in these pages from the original purpose of the project." which is further evidence that its an old wiki user. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Before any CU bothers to be exploited by SD, SD should explain why they continue to hound IPs when Breein is not topic banned or blocked from editing. --Shuki (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also the edit on Khazars article have nothing to do with Supreme edits so its not hounding.--Shrike (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its an article he never edited , but he showed up there right after I edited the article, so he continues to follow me around, the same pattern as Breein. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins. Breein's account is not under any topic ban nor is it blocked. It is an account in good standing. Thus, Breein had no reason to engage in any form of sock puppetry. Moreover, Breein's last edit was on September 7, 2010 [36] and the IPs first edit was on February 17, 2012 [37] so there is no editing overlap between accounts. There are two reasons for sock puppetry. Either to circumvent a block or ban by editing under a different account or to pad the master account's position. None of these criteria exist here. In fact, even if this IP were Breein's, (and it is doubtful that it is) there would be no sock puppetry violation for the above-noted reasons.

Second and more ominously, Supreme Deliciousness should be sanctioned for engaging in deliberate mendacity. He uses this diff where the IP is alleged to have used the phrase, "symptomatic of the long-term drift in these pages from the original purpose of the project." to prove that the IP is an "an old wiki user." What Supreme Deliciousness deliberately omits is the fact that the IP was quoting directly from the comment just above his and he was referencing that editor's comment[38] It wasn't the IP who came up with this comment. SupremeD knew this because he has been following and contributing to the discussion on that board. See SD's contribs But SupremeD deliberately omitted this information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the CUs administering these boards. That's lying by omission and make no mistake, it was deliberate and intentional and SD should be sanctioned for this type of mendacious behavior.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third, SupremeD has already been very sternly warned by Avi against using the CU tool for fishing expeditions and harassment.

SD has already been sternly warned by Avi about engaging in this sort of behavior. See above.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki and JJG, Breein is not topic banned, but he was disruptive with his main account, and he was blocked several times during a very short period of time:[39] so he is now using IPs to avoid scrutiny and to continue his problematic behavior. See for example his edit warring, breaking the 1rr and 3rr here:[40]. Had he done that from his main account he would easily have been blocked. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
More