ECW500

[edit]
ECW500 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

ECW500

ECW500 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date April 14 2009, 18:05 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by McJeff (talk)


User:ECW500 is a long since blocked but persistant vandal who has escaped community notice because he edits almost soley on the articles Wrestlecrap and RD Reynolds. His sockpuppet usernames are also frequently related to Wrestlecrap and the people who run it. Within the last few months, he has stepped up his vandalism efforts.

His vandalism is unmistakable for anything else - he goes through the articles and fills them with The Flinstones terminology. On the advice of another user I'm filing this report to get confirmation they're the same user, and to sniff out sleeper-socks.

I listed ECW500 as the master account although it's been blocked since 2007 since none of the others have been around long enough to gather substantial edit history and most have been blocked within a few days.McJeff (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Delisted All the accounts are already blocked. Given that the accounts are vandalism only, it is always going to be quicker to report to WP:AIV than to worry about the socking aspect. Mayalld (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date July 24 2009, 23:41 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here)
Users actions are same as sockpuppets.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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 It has been archived automatically.

Blocked already; tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date August 7 2009, 18:43 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:Momusufan

Another possible ECW500 sock who made edits to his other blocked sockpuppet accounts, please refer to his Contributions page for evidence Momo san Gespräch 18:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This is like something out of Monty Python. A user called "PissedOffDemento" had been tagged. Following this, a user(who turned out to be an ADMIN" removed this tag for no clear apparent reason. I tried reinstating it, only for this same admin to remove it. I reinstated it again(I believe I may have broken the 3RR rule here), and queried this. At this point User:Momusafan removed my query, and accused ME of vandalism! He/she also tagged me as a possible sock of the same vandal I tried to keep tagged in the first place. I honestly do not understand this. I have very clearly been the one who has been attempting to expose this vandal, and yet I am now the one under investigation, and with an unfounded tag, whiule my original query remains unanswered. You can check my edit history for the full story. It's obvious that I'm not this vandal, and I would still like to know why the original tag was removed in the first place? Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to address the accuser on his talk page, but have been brushed off. I still await explanation as to what made him suspect that I may be User:ECW500. My "Crime" appears to have been to try and keep a tag on an obvious sock's page, while another editor kept trying to remove it. I reported this editor, which User:Momusufan promptly removed, then accused ME. My original query/report remains unanswered. When I attempted to ask User:Momusufan why he accused me, with no real reason, I got no reply. Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What started all this was my posting this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=306644523

which User:Momusufan removed, then immediately accused ME of being a sock/vandal. Of course, my original query remains unanswered. Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Could someone just block this sock already. The contribution history says you've only been editing since 10 days ago. Funny how a someone that new would be able to perfectly edit pages and post on all the right pages. You're not fooling anyone, ECW500. TCK| chat 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this accusation on User talk:Momusufan. I won't turn this around and ask how quickly YOU discovered this. Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing this wiki for almost 2 years, check my contributions. I patroll WP:AIV, for cases i think i can help on. TCK| chat 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by an uninvolved admin: the user commented here after Momusufan directed him to do so, so his knowledge of this page means nothing. Yes, it seems obvious that the user isn't a newbie, but that also doesn't necessarily make him a sock of ECW500. Until there is clear proof that Maxx Mountain Rock is a sock, then no action should be taken here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Momo san Gespräch 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Need to see if this user is connected to the banned user ECW500. Momo san Gespräch 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 00:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  1. Rellekedaw (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Tohriohewoiyhorihury (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Anthony Harvison (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Newsonicscrewdriver2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. K'Anpo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Unconscious Power (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Too much collateral damage for a rangeblock, but I'll continue to monitor. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who any of those people are. I am on a hub/shared IP, and it is likely other people, possibly neigbors and or/work colleagues. It could be someone from another city for all I know! I would still like to know why User:Momusufan thought that I was a sock, and why my original query remains unanswered? Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You being a new user edited user talk pages of a blocked user. It seemed strange that a new user account would know that PissedOffDemento, and HappyColemanFan were sockpuppets to ECW500, but now that is beside the point and now that you (Maxx Mountian Rock) have 6 sockpuppets that were blocked for disruptive behavior and abusive sockpuppetry. Checkuser doesn't lie you know. I think you need to explain those 6 accounts. Momo san Gespräch 12:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I explained that already. Firstly, I have been a Wrstlecrap fan since 2000. I read the artciel, as well as the RD Reynolds article. After checking the pages' histories I noticed the "Fruity Pebbles" vandalism. Well, it would be hard to miss it! Recently I wanted to ask a question on the Wrestlecrap discussion page, so created this account to do so. I also kept on eye(as I was now fascinated with this stupidity as I'm no doubt other people are as well), and noticed that two recent vandals who had been tagged were now untagged. So I reinstated the tags. Then someone removed one again. I queried this, which is the point you removed my query and accused me of BEING ECW500!! As far as the "6 socks" are concerned, I don't have a clue who those people are. Maybe it's only one guy, but I do know it isn't me. I am on a hub/shared IP address. When not logged in, I often get warnings for vandalism I know I did not do. Anyone on this same shared range will get warnings(and even blocked!!) when one asshole causes problems. I noticed that someone blocked all 6 of them! That doesn't really relate to me at all. Neither does it relate to the fact that you still haven't answered my original query, namely, why someone removed those original tags when those vandals(pissedoffdemento and happycolemanfan) were clearly socks of ECW500? neither does it explain why you wouldn't simply inform me of my error(whatever it was), rather than launch this witchhunt. And why another user immediately appeared here, who seems to know more about ECW500 than the two of us combined! Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked you questions both on your own talk page and my own. You immediately archived your talk page, and have not replied at all. Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, if those six accounts are indeed socks of ECW500, and have been blocked for such, why are they not then tagged as such? Why am I tagged, when it's obvious I am not ECW500, yet vandalous accounts which are blocked as ECW500 remain untagged? I would tag them myself, but then that's what started all of this in the first place! Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously blocked sockpuppet accounts (e.g. SleepyColemanFan, DocColemanFan, BashfulColemanFan) were found on every single IP that you had used. They had all edited the exact same group of wrestling-related articles just a few minutes/hours before or after you. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged, per Nishkid64's findings above. TNXMan 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, notice how you didn't mention that before. I think that would have been quite valuable information. You only brought it up AFTER I refuted your earlier claims. And now magically you have proof that those socks are me?! I checked the logs of those 6 blocked "socks", and discovered that one guy was already harassed, dragged through the same bs that I am now being subjected to, and was found to be innocent! Now not only is he a sock of ECW500, but of me as well?! It is obvious what is going on here. I notice you have closed this without my having replied, which only further shows what is really going on. You have only proved one thing here, and it isn't that I(or anyone else) is a sock of ECW500. I STILL await a reply as to why the original editor removed tags from obvious sock pages. I STILL await a reply why Momusufan pounced on me, and accused me without answering the original query. I STILL await a reply as to why MuZemike just happened to be at the right place at the right time, and knows more about ECW500 than all the rest of us combined. And you haven't run this "checkuser" on ECW500? No wonder, as it is obviously flawed. And, assuming it worked, and you DID run a checkuser on ECW500, it would prove that I am not ECW500, which is precisely what you don't want. My only "Crime" was asking about the questionable actions of an admin. This obviously infuriated Mamusufan, who immediately dragged me into this witch trial. Well, whatever. I don't know who those other people are, but can only guess that they also did something foolishly naive, which piseed off you or one of your friends and were subject to the same abuse. I seriously wonder how many of those 150 or so "Socks" are genuine socks, and how many are simply ignorant users who said or did something which someone with the power of block didn't like, and suffered for it. If I am ECW500 and those 6 accounts are me, then surely they are also ECW500? And why did you only bring up the idea that these 3 socks of ECW500 were me too now? Surely your original checkuser would have shown that? I really couldn't care at this point, as you have shown exactly what is going on, and what this is all about. In future, anyone who ever does something you dislike will probably be called a "Sock" of me too! Maxx Mountain Rock (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Nishkid64 pointed out, there is no CU data on ECW500 so the checkuser data on you pointed to those 6 accounts as I said before. As far as any checkuser is concerned, it isn't really flawed, i'll let a user with checkuser privilages answer that one. I suggest you read Nishkid64's last statement again as this is not really looking good for you now i'm afraid. Momo san Gespräch 13:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date December 14 2009, 07:29 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Terrillja
[edit]

Users are playing with blocked socks, leaving comments about how they reviewed the contribs and disagree that they are socks, only edits are to sock user/talk pages. CU for additional socks and to see if underlying IPs can be blocked.--Terrillja talk 07:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Terrillja talk 07:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 02:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

The following accounts are  Confirmed sockpuppets:

I have also blocked the IP range. Dominic·t 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked and tagged (thanks Julian for your help with that). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by McJeff
[edit]

This appears to be another ECW500 "good hand" sockpuppet along the same lines as User:K'Anpo (contribs). A focus on professional wrestling, and an apparent animus against the webmaster of the Wrestlecrap website R.D. Reynolds, and a minor focus on nominating articles for deletion that User:GaryColemanFan, ECW500's "arch nemesis", has worked on. ECW500 has been rather active over the last few months at any rate, it's probably a good time to run a checkuser and sniff out sleeper-socks. McJEFF (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

If anyone else is confused by Spoke shook's first few edits, I'm assuming he was editing (now deleted) List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling. wiooiw (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed:

TNXMan 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

I became aware of this account through an odd process. During his last run, ECW500 edited an obscure article, List of members of the House of Plantagenet, under multiple socks. Since then I have watched that article and seen the IP address 41.133.47.252 edit it. 41.133.47.252 geolocates to South Africa, where ECW500 is known to be located. A check of 41.133.47.252's contribs, and I saw that it made an edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingerpoke of Doom (3rd nomination) [1], then logged in as Seeker of the Torch and signed it with his username.[2] A quick scan of Seeker's edits makes it clear that he is ECW500 per all the usual DUCK evidence. Focus on pro wrestling, voting delete in all the pro wrestling related AfDs, edit warring, and general argumentativeness (especially with GaryColemanFan).

So it's time to block this account and run another checkuser to sniff out his sleeper socks. McJEFF (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Smiles The Clown to the report based on this edit to List of apex predators. McJEFF (talk) 01:52, 5 January 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]

The following are  Confirmed as being the same:

07 January 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

After the checkuser run a couple days ago, Turnstitle made his first edit since October 2010 (which incidentally means he was inactive long enough that the recent checkuser wouldn't have picked him up). He headed straight to the the AfD that ECW500's sock Seeker of the Torch started and voted delete. And while checking his contributions I noticed that he had vandalized one of ECW500's favorite targets [3]. I don't know if another checkuser would be fruitful so soon, but this is a fairly obvious sock. McJEFF (talk) 20:22, 7 January 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 the following are the same:

15 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Four of this user's edits were vandalism related to professional wrestling (inserting the phrase "useless moron" in front of the name of a prominent pro wrestling journalist). The other was an article creation of someone closely associated with one of ECW500's favorite targets, Bryan Alvarez. This one should be blocked and I think it is time for another sock sweep on ECW500 - he's had several months to build up sleepers since the last check. McJEFF (talk) 01:54, 15 May 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 Socks of Comdukakis:

Keegan (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Caught another ECW500 sock messing around with Fingerpoke of Doom. A little over a year ago I caught him using the "good hand" account User:Seeker of the Torch (contribs) to try and get the article deleted. Roodestorm's very first edit was to tag bomb the article, similar to the way SotT's first edit was to add a tag. All the other duck evidence matches, as usual. Same focus on professional wrestling articles, abrasive editing pattern, etc. A checkuser to sniff out other active socks is recommended. McJEFF (talk) 16:59, 18 February 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]

Well, well. Look what I found:

02 August 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

According to his long-term abuse page, ECW "will frequently accuse other users of being ECW500 socks..." Many IPs from across the world are found in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ECW500, most of them were placed on the IP's talk pages by South African IPs. In 2011, South African IP 41.133.47.188, who edited professional wrestling articles as well as Legitimists, tagged two of them.

In 2009, ECW sock Paulkearvell joined a discussion started by South African IPs (41.245.182.99, 41.245.172.13, 41.245.174.119, 137.158.152.209) regarding a disputed reign on Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions. He was the only registered account to favor their side in the argument.[4]

Today, 197.88.60.117 and 137.158.190.178 are in a dispute over the exact same content that Paulkearvell was in in 2009. He also uses a similar writing style, with certain words spelled in caps for emphasis.[5][6][7][8] 137.158 was also quick to call others sockpuppets and meatpuppets.[9]

As the long-term abuse page states, ECW often vandalizes some articles while lending a good hand to others. 197.88 was warned twice for blanking Legitimists, which 41.133.47.188 also edited in 2011.[10]

Given his history and that he was quick to edit war and often gives prompt responses a checkuser should check to see which registered accounts he is currently using for his watchlist. It's been four and a half years since the last SPI investigation, which turned up over a dozen accounts. He clearly hasn't given up since then. LM2000 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 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]

12 June 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Per long-term abuse page (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ECW500), obsessed with wrestling writer R.D. Reynolds and Fruity Pebbles. Last month, edited R.D. Reynolds page with Fruity Pebbles-related vandalism ([11]). Historically, has also spent a lot of time on wrestler Damien Demento's page, including refactoring my comments on the talk page. This was done again today ([12]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:04, 12 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]
More