Grundle2600

Grundle2600 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date April 30 2010, 01:07 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Newross

Summary
Grundle2600 (banned) = Captain Lance Murdoch = You sunk my battleship! (banned) = 96.235.53.18 = Magnum! This is all your fault!
based on:

Details (chronological by sockpuppet)
Grundle2600 - sanctions

Captain Lance Murdoch

Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
  • 18:53, 4 April 2010 WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607#Request to modify my topic ban – Grundle2600 (→Request to modify my topic ban: new section)

    I am asking that my topic ban be modified specifically and exclusively so that I may be allowed to make suggestions at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am only asking to be allowed to edit that article's talk page - not the article itself. And I am only asking to be allowed to edit that one particular talk page - not any other talk pages.

    I believe that such a modification to my topic ban will give me a chance to prove that I am capable of making constructive suggestions at a talk page for this topic. This would give everyone a chance to see that I have become a better editor in this topic area, without putting any of the articles at risk.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states, …
GM bailout
User:Grundle2600

You sunk my battleship!

GM bailout
Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation
User:Grundle2600

96.235.53.18

Kevin Jennings teenage alcohol and marijuana use

Magnum! This is all your fault!

"buy American"
Communist support
Health insurance
Helen Thomas

Newross (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Tarc

Gerald Walpin was an early and frequent target of Grundle's particular brand of POV-pushing. The Rabbit account was created 20:24, 29 April 2010, and it was already hitting the Walpin article by 02:02, 1 May 2010. The red flag is this edit, a paragraph rejected on the article talk page and addressed at AN/I where Grundle received his initial topic-ban. This same paragraph of information was previously introduced to the article here, here, and here by Grundle. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum; User_talk:Tarc#Hi_Tarc.21. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

This investigation looks like a witch hunt, the violation seems clear but it is in no way egregious. Also, I have the suspicion that the previous poster was an impersonator, I guess we'll find out soon enough. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle is a regular poster at the DVD Talk forum, and often talks about his alleged persecution on Wikipedia, including this investigation. In the course of the discussion, he admitted the charges were accurate. See this thread [1], in particular post 21. Seantrinityohara (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I came here to start a case on Grundle and Rabbit Seasoning, surprised to see that there was already an extensive case begun on other possible socks. I assume it is proper to simply add additional possibilities to an existing case rather than a new one, so an evidence section shall follow shortly. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are undoubtedly the same person based upon, if nothing else, the peculiarities of the first several edits of each of them (per WP:BEANS I will not list them here, but experienced sock hunters will recognize an easy-to-spot signature). Even if they are not Grundle2600, they are the same person. They may very well be Grundle2600 based on their specific interest, but there are also several other editors, now banned, who could fit this mold. --Jayron32 01:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Newross (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Actually seems quite DUCKY, but awfully complex. Maybe a CU will cut through this like a hot knife through butter. Auntie E. (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do, since all the socks are blocked. If you want a sleeper check, please say so explicitly. --Deskana (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that term. If it is to check to see if there's other new accounts created at the same IP of Grundle2600, I'd say "yes please". Tarc (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was more talking to the clerk who endorsed the case. They normally leave a short note making it explicit what the user wants, so don't worry about not knowing the terms we use. --Deskana (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, thought it was a general question to the filers and commenters, but I shoulda taken note of what section this was. :) Tarc (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that the following users match the patterns of the blocked sockpuppets listed above:

--Deskana (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 10 2010, 14:06 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Tarc

Another "new" user hitting the Gerald Walpin article, attempting to insert the same bias. Also shows the same interest in food/fauna/fungi/etc... as Grundle has shown in the past by editing Agaricus bisporus, as Spinoloricus cinzia was an article created and edited by earlier socks. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Pooka" and "Fygar" are characters from a classic video game, Dig Dug, as is the Grundle name itself, i.e. Adventure (Atari 2600). He isn't exactly trying to hide. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Already blocked and tagged by NawlinWiki. –MuZemike 15:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 10 2010, 17:00 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Stonemason89

"Learn Something"'s edits tend to center around similar topics (such as Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation, which was started by User:Magnum! This is all your fault!, who is a confirmed Grundle sockpuppet). Also, "Learn Something"'s user page features many of the same userboxes (such as the "totalitarians love gun control" one, the "Star Wars Rebel alliance and a traitor", the "chocolate milk", the "likes Greek mythology", the "blood donor", and the "supports nuclear power" userbox) that Grundle2600 featured on his user page before he was banned. Finally, [2] this edit looks very Grundle-ish (using a rhetorical question to push a similar POV). Stonemason89 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yohann4's first edits were a few months after the first edits from Grundle2600. Notably, at one point Yohann4 created Grundle Guard and Grundel Guard as redirects to Helmet (both of which constituted vandalism and have since been removed). This looks like it could have be a self-referential joke on Yohann4/Grundle2600's part, if they are indeed the same person, although it's possible this could all be an incredibly freakish coincidence. I think a checkuser would be warranted. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP addresses have only made edits (to this SPI page) in which they all but admit to being Grundle2600. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Tarc

G-MMDC (talk · contribs). Same "hello!" creations of user page and talk page, same "he said that but did this" synthesis style of editing...a well-documented Grundle weakness... at Presidency of Barack Obama. Also note in his ever-charming cuteness;

Facepalm Facepalm Tarc (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

User:Yohann4 is not me. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:It says ANYONE is allowed to edit was blocked but not listed here, so I added it to the list, because it is me. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit."

Banning legitimate editors such as myself who only wish to make good faith edits such as writing articles, only drives our editing into the "underground economy." If you people would focus on writing articles instead of harassing the people who write articles, the encyclopedia would be better off.

I edited wikipedia for two years with exactly zero blocks, bans, or other disciplinary actions. It was only after I started adding true, relevant, well sourced info about Barack Obama that the admins started punishing me.

72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles were created by my socks.

If I'm such a horrible editor, why haven't these articles been deleted?

Why won't you people admit that I made the encyclopedia better by creating these articles?

72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my proposed solution: Unban and unblock me. Give me a topic ban on all political articles, with the rule that if I break the topic ban, I get blocked for one week. There is no legitimate reason to not let me edit articles about animals, science, technology, and pop culture. Community bans for editors who are weird but not malicious is inhumane. I have sometimes displayed an odd sense of humor with some of my edits, but I have never been malicious. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my French, but you are out of your fucking mind. Here's my solution; go away. Come back in a year...hell, time it exactly so it matches up with your partner-in-crime CoM...and then try an unblock request. Go spend some time somewhere else, maybe Simple wiki, and prove that you are able to work collaboratively with other people. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chanin v. Teva may very well be deleted, as it currently has a speedy deletion template; I don't see any reason why it is notable, in any case. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chanin v. Teva has been deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
This is becoming tiresome. Could an experienced checkuser please look into the possibility of shutting this down at the IP level, either by rangeblock or hard IP blocks? Grundle used to be the sort of editor that merely needed some guidance to steer him towards proper Wikipedia conventions, now he's just being annoying just to piss off the admins and play with us. There's got to be something better than whack-a-mole to deal with him. Anything at all would be helpful; he's so obvious that most of his socks are blocked per WP:DUCK, and so most of the time he avoids a full checkuser; but we really need to attempt to take this to the next level. It is eating up WAY to much of the admins time... --Jayron32 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will quote Grundle from offsite, to show you the mindset that you're dealing with here; "If you make your sock puppets at wikipedia so obvious that anyone can tell that it's you, it's not being dishonest. It's breaking the rules, but it's breaking the rules in an honest way." Tarc (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, he's intentionally being obvious just to avoid the checkuser. Can we PLEASE stop this at the IP level, if at all possible. Pretty please! --Jayron32 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit." Here's my IP address - but it'll be different after I reconnect. 96.235.50.123 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Here's my IP address - but it'll be different after I reconnect." That's a taunt if I ever saw one. He's basically saying "go ahead, block me, but I'll be back under a different IP". Now I understand quite well what Tarc said about a "mindset". Stonemason89 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banning legitimate editors such as myself who only wish to make good faith edits such as writing articles, only drives our editing into the "underground economy." If you people would focus on writing articles instead of harassing the people who write articles, the encyclopedia would be better off. 96.235.50.123 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, maybe you should leave your comments in the "Comments from accused parties" section, rather than the "Comments for other users" section (which is for other users). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I commented in that section last week, it was erased. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited wikipedia for two years with exactly zero blocks, bans, or other disciplinary actions. It was only after I started adding true, relevant, well sourced info about Barack Obama that the admins started punishing me. 96.235.50.123 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So attempting to create a separate article about Michelle Obama's arms constitutes "true, relevant, well sourced info"? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not just "attempt" to create it. I did create it. And yes, it was very "true" and very "well sourced." Whether it was "relevant" is perhaps a matter of opinion, but it was "notable." You can see my original version here, which is indeed very "true" and very "well sourced." 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Coincidence: A few minutes ago I noticed that Grundel Guard and Grundle Guard both redirected to Helmet, and that both "junk redirects" had been added by the same account, Yohann4. Both redirects have since been deleted as vandalism due to the fact that I reported them to the administrators. This might be a complete coincidence, but Yohann4's first edit was in July 2007, a few months after the first edits from Grundle2600. For these reasons, and due to the fact that Yohann4's edit history consists almost entirely of disruptive editing, I suspect that Yohann4 might be a possible bad hand account used in the past by Grundle2600. This is only a hunch on my part, and since it doesn't quite pass the duck test I think a checkuser is in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yohann4 is not me. 72.95.229.163 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse us for not believing a thing you say. You are banned, period. There is no wikilawyering, no compromise, no negotiation. You have no privileges here. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Stonemason89 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed on Yohann4. The IPs and the other now-blocked accounts are bloody obvious. –MuZemike 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yohann4 will be stale, hasn't edited since January of 2009. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk declined then per my lack of hindsight. There no other reason to really check here. –MuZemike 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it would be to check for possible IP blocks or rangeblocks to stop the sockfarming at its source.... --Jayron32 02:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the wide range of IPs, I doubt that a rangeblock would be useful. Closing. Tim Song (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
08 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Tarc

The same sorts of edits done to the same set of articles as Grundle2600 and his mighty, bottomless drawer of socks. Gerald Walpin has long, long been an obsession of his.

Similar edits are littered throughout Presidency of Barack Obama, specific diffs there can be done if need be, but the above Walpin fixation is IMO enough behavioral evidence. Even the usernames follow Grundle's video game, media, and pop culture fixations, i.e. The Herculoids, a Magnum PI episode, and a line from Weird Al's Yoda. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Comparing against Learn something - read a book today!, the following accounts (in no particular order) are sockpuppets of Grundle2600:

--Deskana (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 20:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 August 2010

 Confirmed Physalia physalis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Amalthea 10:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Jeff G.

This edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed:

67 socks total, 19 unblocked. I strongly urge that somebody create edit filters here after looking at some of the similarities. –MuZemike 03:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grsz11

Per WP:DUCK:

[3] [4]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Well. As you'll see in this archive's history alone, IPs 72.95.229.163 and 71.182.218.216 previously claimed to be him, so the ranges would match. Along with the strong topical overlap, it's certainly a case of WP:DUCK.
However: Those IP ranges are highly dynamic and highly trafficked. Specific IP blocks are useless, and rangeblocks would lock out too many decent editors. Leaves two options: 1) WP:RBI and WP:SEMI where appropriate. 2) WP:Abuse response.
Amalthea 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Grsz11

Account created and created user page and user talk page, similar to Great Pumpkin (talk · contribs), Captain Lance Murdoch (talk · contribs), and You sunk my battleship! (talk · contribs). Then suggested obscure information for inclusion at Presidency of Barack Obama.

Oh, and Grundle's IP was active yesterday. Grsz11 21:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, helps when he answers to Grundle [8]. Grsz11 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked as obvious. Prolog (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed plus

–MuZemike 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Tarc

Grundle has had an almost manic fixation on the Gerald Walpin case over the years, and this account has created Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service, et al. tonight, which has also been edited by 71.182.182.14, an IP in the range Grundle has edited from in the past. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Obvious sock, already blocked, nothing left to do. Amalthea 09:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Grsz11

Looks like we missed this one before. Account created userpage and user talk first (typical of Grundle socks), then created Firing of Gerald Walpin, a Grundle pet project. Check this archive if you need more evidence, but this is a WP:DUCK. Grsz11 19:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
28 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Grsz11

This. Also, per the contributions, an interest in outer space. Edited this article, created by an already-blocked Grundlesock. Requesting checkuser for sleepers. Grsz11 15:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
02 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Grsz11

Created User:Skiing in Switzerland/sandbox, a cut and paste of Grundle's previous work. Re-added all of his pet projects at Presidency of Barack Obama. Request checkuser to determine any sleepers, as he never just has one. Grsz11 22:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed and IP rangeblocks extended and some hardened. I'm afraid if he keeps going, we're going to have no choice but to either full-protect Presidency of Barack Obama or unblock him. –MuZemike 22:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety talk 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Tarc

Same Gerald Walpin obsession. Created an article on the firing and made the name into a redir to that shortly after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination) closed as delete. Bag & tag. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

WP:DUCK, but a check user would be helpful. These accounts usually come in batches. Grsz 11 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
03 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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

This is blatantly Grundle. Request CU to find any sleepers. Grsz 11 17:34, 3 December 2010 (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

 Confirmed the following are Grundle2600:

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 18:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Obvious sockpuppet is obvious. Sceptre (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2010 (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

 Confirmed the following:

Thanks for a quick check. All blocked & tagged. Prolog (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since full-protecting these articles are out of the question, perhaps we need to seriously reconsider the ban we have on him. It's obvious that he's going to keep going with this indefinitely. –MuZemike 21:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to do an IP block here? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe not; otherwise we would have had said IPs blocked by now. –MuZemike 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, okay. But with 173 confirmed socks, I don't think we can really consider unblocking such a prolific socker. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought up the issue at WP:ANI#Long-term disruption for any interested users. Grsz 11 22:00, 13 December 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 "~~~~"

65 fdt 6a has already been blocked as a Grundle sock, presumably on behaviour pattern. One of its article creations (Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. Sebelius) has been edited by a number of new accounts (editing very quickly after account creation, showing good knowledge of WP e.g. nominating the article at WP:ITN/C) and an IP. Request checkuser to confirm and to flush out anything else lurking. BencherliteTalk 23:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. Sebelius is being speedied under CSD G5 and ITN nom has been collapsed as it was not ITN material anywayThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All accounts blocked, several IP ranges blocked. –MuZemike 00:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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

A brand-new user turns up at my talk page to complain about my G5 deletion of a Grundle sock's article a few hours ago (see the last SPI). Quack blocked, but any sleepers or other IP ranges? BencherliteTalk 03:31, 20 December 2010 (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 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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

See recent edits - common Grundle targets. Checkuser is for any socks. Ravensfire (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (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

 Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. I have hardblocked one open proxy, and I have now raised the current rangeblocks we currently have to hardblocks. Please let me know if other users get caught in these blocks, as I have already granted one IP block exemption as a result. Barring that, the only other things we can do are either full-protect all the affected articles (which still won't prevent him from using other IP ranges and open proxies for creating pages under different usernames), or consider unbanning and unblocking him. –MuZemike 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

04 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Odd behavior for a New User, First edit show knowledge of Wiki at a page involving Affirative action a topic known for right wing criticism. Second and third edit removes redlinks from user space to hide the newness of the account. Pretty quickly come to for a new user. ITN ITN is a known Grundle Target See the Dec 19th case. based on these unusual patterns by a brand new user. I request a check The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
 Confirmed TNXMan 14:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Tagging old Grundle socks, editing articles related to American politics and Barack Obama conspiracies. Seems rather ducky, seeking checkuser confirmation before blocking. Jayron32 05:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Grundle2600 is simply stale. No need to go so deep into the privacy policy. Ruslik_Zero 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though The modernization of Emily (talk · contribs) - a confirmed sock - is right on the verge of being stale, but may still be usable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Al Gore has been a usual Grundle target. See the most recent attempt to add a criticism section today on alleged enviro hypocrisy and slamming his son's transgressions. This is a word-for-word copy of this edit last year by Tricks Are Not Treats, a confirmed Grundle sock. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long period of inactivity, Dec 2010 to July 2011, but note that one of Grundle's other targets Presidency of Barack Obama, Hgxzm23 and Fzwyj72 were blocked as socks already so it does indeed seem that our buddy here is once again active. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Grundle2600 is on a new range. As such, Al Gore has been full-protected for 24 hours. –MuZemike 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
09 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The same POV-pushing edits on Presidency of Barack Obama, such as [9] and [10]. Asking for Check User because there may be more. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 9 February 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

 Confirmed the following are the same:


information Administrator note All socks blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing standard Grundle honeypot, Presidency of Barack Obama, in the same manner as Grundle always does. This one has been blocked and tagged by others, but I am submitting here to check for sleeper socks; Grundle creates them prolificly (see archives) and last week's run didn't catch this one, apparently. Jayron32 22:12, 14 February 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
15 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Same POV edits on Presidency of Barack Obama, please check for more socks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 15 February 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
Is that so? In those 12 hours, the sockmaster created this sock, and might have created others. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very prolific socker. The next time they identify themselves, we'll run another CU. The CUs may have even declined this one if I had endorsed it for the same reason - they do that sometimes. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Passes the duck test. While past socks have made the edits directly to Presidency of Barack Obama, this editor took the slightly different tactic of posting on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Requesting checkuser because this is a prolific sockmaster who may have sleepers. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 18 February 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

 Confirmed plus:

--MuZemike 00:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Inserted similar material to Public image of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the previous socks after Presidency of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was semi-protected.  Looks like a duck to me. Klilidiplomus+Talk 07:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Here's another suspected duck:

I suspect that his interests are vandalizing the Presidency of Barack Obama's talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Additional account 4yn6fd (talk · contribs). See diff as the one and only edit of this account which was a revert to this diff to restore content added by User:6ty4e (diff) who has been blocked as a sock of Grundle2600. Also note similarity in the name. QU TalkQu 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Added 3sq57j (talk · contribs) as pretty obvious. Prolog (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I was already way ahead of the blocks there, and yes those are all  Confirmed as Grundle2600. --MuZemike 01:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

05 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Claims to be Grundle2600.[11] Another sock was just blocked. TFD (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:Barbara at the desk, see [12], [13] JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:50, 5 May 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

7 more  Confirmed:

 IP blocked. --MuZemike 02:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacardis could be another sock too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 02:53, May 6, 2012

This edit [14] is reminiscent of Grundle, on an article he used to edit. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


06 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Per earlier alert by JoeSperrazza, similar style of forumy questions posted twice on another South American related article page - Talk:Falkland Islands (1 & 2). --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

whatever. If you want to say that I'm a sockpuppet for someone I've never heard of... have fun saying it. For the record--I suggested that the Falklands article would be better if it were to explain why the dispute persists. I also suggested that the Hugo Chávez article would be better if it had a criticism section. After reviewing the wiki policy, I acknowledged that I was wrong, but expressed my concern that one editor has taken it upon herself to delete my suggestion from the Talk Page. I stand behind my original suggestion for the Falklands article. I'm not sure why Dave1185 doesn't think an encyclopedia article should mention why a border dispute remains unresolved. Is that "forumy"? I have read and re-read his replies. His justification for closing the discussion was that "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia." I agree, and suggested a way to make it a better encyclopedia. Another user replied that Wiki Talk pages are not a forum. I didn't treat it as a forum, nor did I suggest that the article should take a pro-British or pro-Argentinian stance. I even acknowledged that my suggestion might be better-placed in the "Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute" article instead of the "Falkland Islands" article.

FYI, I don't think I've espoused a pro or anti-anything view. My edits and suggestions have been neutral--I think. If I'm wrong, please tell me. I'm not sure why Grundle was banned (nor do I care), but I'm sure he had a non-neutral view that reflected in his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No editor deleted your suggestions. TFD (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm using the wrong word. User:SandyGeorgia "archived" my suggestion by "making it disappear" in the "history." When I went back to see whether or not other editors agreed with my suggestion, it wasn't there. Call it what you want. Either way, can someone who understands the in's and out's of Wikipedia please compare the banned user's IP with my own? --Lacarids (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't "make something disappear in history"; only oversighters can do that. I archived a discussion which was almost entirely posts by Grundle that had been struck by other editors and was filling up a talk page, going off-topic, so that you could start over with a fresh discussion of your concerns, sans Grundle feedback. If you need help understanding how to read archives, read edit summaries, or follow diffs, please ask on my talk and I'll be glad to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I no longer believe the editor in question is a sock of User:Grundle2600. The revert of the removed comments from Grundle triggered my concrn (and at least one other editor). However, his responses here lead me to believe he was just ill-considered in that action, and not WP:SOCKing. Apologies to all concerned. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added 0uXHQpcEJbjuXeOP because it was self-declared.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Endorsed by a checkuser: Although the claim that Lacarids shares a "forum" tone with Grundle is unsubstantiated, I see other behavioural similarities in their contributions. AGK [•] 12:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacarids is  Unlikely to be related. AGK [•] 12:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

New account with a precocious knowledge of arcane Wikipedia syntax shows up with highly critical, POV edits at Grundle's favorite honeypot, Presidency of Barack Obama. Style of editing (lots of tiny criticisms with cites in individual paragraphs) pretty much matches earlier known socks almost exactly, see [15] for one example from this past february. --Jayron32 01:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Jayron32 01:13, 10 May 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

Blocked and tagged plus 97 miles to go (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 01:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK - New account User:Toot toot hey beep beep with extensive non-WP:NPOV edits to Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories pushing familiar User:Grundle2600 positions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new account User:QfB6Kqqd5u, same editing as above, admitting to block evasion here: [16] JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added newly registered account User:Magenta 447 and others. Performing the exact same edits with the same edit summaries. Grundle2600 continues their obsession with Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, which they were heavily involved in before getting banned, and Solyndra loan controversy at which several of their socks have been recently blocked. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:13, 26 May 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

 Additional information needed: Can someone with more knowledge of the sockmaster tell me, does it fit the behavioural pattern for this user to edit articles about (and related to) U.S. presidents other than Barack Obama? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, such edits don't fit his usual MO. Prolog (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. In that case, I found nothing of note. --12:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC) --Deskana (talk • contribs)


27 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

This is yet another Grundle 2600 sock (ten or so have been blocked in the last few weeks, see checkuser below). Account was created yesterday and immediately started performing same edits with same edit summary. Even restored some two year old comments from Grundle2600 [17] and again referred to self as a sock. [18]. Seems more intent on just wasting editors' time than actually fooling anyone at this point. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:43, 27 May 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

Epowerfan is Red X Unrelated, while all other accounts have been appropriately blocked as socks of Grundle2600. No comment with regard to the IP address. --MuZemike 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

01 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


As another editor added a sock tag, and there have been a number of Grundle socks picked up this week, this one seems to be worth investigating as well. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 1 June 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
05 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Brand new account, edit warring to keep critical material in Presidency of Barack Obama article, standard behavior for Grundle. Also has a name which matches pattern of prior Grundle socks. Fairly ducky, asking for checkuser to confirm and to flush out sleepers. --Jayron32 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Jayron32 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Ralphie72 (talk · contribs) is not a behavioral match. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
07 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK, when a brand new account shows up at one of Grundle's targets and [19] starts making the same Grundle edits, it's Grundle. He usually creates a dozen or so sleeper accounts when he makes a new one so requesting checkuser to find those as well. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Loonymonkey (talk) 23:53, 7 June 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


10 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Same content addition as made by recent sock 871lacc (talk · contribs) here. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:18, 10 June 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
 Clerk endorsed to check for sleepers. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 10:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Edits to a Grundle honeypot, Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, with Grundle's POV. This may also be User:Epowerfan, who has the same POV, but who checkuser cleared earlier. Looking for confirmation that this is grundle. Jayron32 00:20, 11 June 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
11 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Blocked Grundle sock, requesting check for sleepers. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2013 (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
15 October 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Xcmn4512 (talk · contribs) was recently blocked as a Grundlesock. Shortly after, This stuff is interesting shows up with this edit with the edit comment about "Sock or no sock". The other editors are posting only at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article with a style similar to Grundle. See 1, 2. CU is for a sleeper check. Given the current climate, I cannot image Grundle staying away. Ravensfire (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

*I added Odg2vcLR. Evidence: similar subject matter and POV, SPA, precocious behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Retracted - see apology below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, Odg2vcLR, you are clearly not Grundle (even without the CU) as you have a very different POV. I somehow got your user ID mixed up with another one, I'm not sure which. Please accept my apologies and I hope my mistake caused no lasting harm. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, apology accepted; I can see how my random-ish username might look spammy or be confused with that other user with a similar username style. I'm a bit paranoid about privacy these days, thus being a bit annoyed at having my IP information looked into without real cause. I guess I trust the checkusers not to do anything untoward with that information, so it's not a huge deal. Odg2vcLR (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
22 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Self-admitted sock but with today's block of User:Xqpoiu98, requesting check for sleepers. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:01, 22 November 2013 (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
01 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

User admits it: [20] Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resolute banned user now. Closing.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:19, 1 December 2013 (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
01 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


New user who openly admits connection to Grundle2600 and has a similar POV and editing style. See diff. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:16, 1 December 2013 (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

See immediately below. -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


01 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


same as Special:Contributions/Plokws76 who was just added to Grundle's ever growing list of accounts earlier today. George Orwell III (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Checkuser for sleeper check and IP block. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 18:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Inconclusive Accounts already blocked are on an enormous range but owned by same entity with the same, butrather generic. technical information. Other accounts on range seem to have somewhat different technical information, so there are no immediately apparent sleepers. Ranges are not amenable to a rangeblock; vigilance will be necessary. -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


All the accounts listed above have been blocked, but it's been quite a while since the last check. Prolog (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2014 (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
09 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar behavior to Grundle's previous incarnations:

This may be worth a check for sleepers. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Of course it's me. I am Grundle2600. I never try to hide the identity of my socks. It's interesting that everyone was OK with the edits from this particular sock until they started to suspect that it was a sock. The only reason I was banned in the first place was to prevent me from adding reliably sourced info that was critical of Obama. Many articles created by my various socks are still in existence, and the content that I added is still in them. I never should have been banned in the first place. Lkiode43 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "It's interesting that everyone was OK with the edits from this particular sock until they started to suspect that it was a sock." — Not sure what you mean by OK. An edit of yours[31] that I encountered before I knew you were a sock had erroneous info that I thought was an honest mistake and I corrected it.[32] Later, RJaguar3 removed my corrected version[33] saying that it was added by a sock puppet and I undid that removal, indicating that I had worked on it and corrected it.[34]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk endorsed After reviewing the presented evidence and prior cases, I think a check for sleepers would be appropriate. Mike V • Talk 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Edits to Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act similar to those of previous Grundle socks. Diffs include [35], [36], [37]. The first edit contains a similar fascination with Wikipedia policy shared by Grundle and their socks. The other two edits are similar to these edits by Grundle socks: [38], [39], [40]. I'm bringing this here because of this revert of the removal of the suspected socks' contributions. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:30, 5 December 2014 (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

IP socks tagged as obvious. Prolog (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Compare by a confirmed GrundleSock and by Bvfg7756. Same edit and summary. Also compare [41] and [42].

CU would be for any sleepers. Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (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
  • Blocked per behavioral evidence. Prolog (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Gavelchive created an account on 8/13 and immediately waded into editing on controversial topics, generally espousing a combative, far-right position. Pleatreal shows up on 8/29, immediately creates an edit in his sandbox and tries to add that edit to Jeffrey Toobin. Edit is rejected, and Gavelchive, who has never edited Jeffrey Toobin before, adds the comment in its entirety to the article (ostensibly taking the text from the talkpage, where Pleatreal had posted it).[43][44] Both userpages are identical, having followed the same pattern--both users created their userpage with their first edit by placing their username on the page, and both users then created their talkpage by placing their username on it as the second edit; usernames also follow similar construction (i.e., two unrelated words smushed together to create a name). Likely sockpuppeting, but could also just be coordinated creation of accounts to do some POV-pushing. Checkuser requested on the possibility that other accounts may have been created in the same timeframe. Grandpallama (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2018 (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

16 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


I have blocked these accounts per behavioral evidence, but a sleeper check could turn out to be very fruitful. Prolog (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2019 (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

09 October 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


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

29 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Wanted to file this to mention ticket:2024012310000954. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:20, 29 January 2024 (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

More