Joehazelton

Joehazelton (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 November 21 2009, 19:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Blueboy96

Joehazelton has created dozens of socks to keep up a long campaign of harassment since his block in 2006. Today, he announced that he has dozens of other socks to "communicate" with us. Requesting sweep to find them. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse#User:Joehazelton, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoeHazelton second life and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joehazelton. Blueboy96 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Blueboy96 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Picked up

There may be more, but there are a lot of accounts on his ranges, so I am hesitant to deal out blocks without having more evidence to suggest they are sleepers. J.delanoygabsadds 21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Clerk note: Already blocked and tagged. MuZemike 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 13 2010, 03:04 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Goethean


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 24 2010, 22:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Goethean

Continuing harassment campaign since 2006. Please see user contributions, prior cases, and Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#User:Joehazelton — goethean ॐ 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims. Goethean is crazy. Just because I don't agree with his POV, I am pushed around with this cry of "sock" like an Aurthur Miller play. I have seen Goethean's history, and it would seem Goethean use this all the time to quiet editors who don't agree with him.

Goethean, your logic is flawed, Just because some one don't like you and you say stalks you don't mean I'm the one. Your assumptions are wrong and your acting like a bully.

Comments by other users
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.
 Confirmed - the following accounts;

Without commenting on the above IP addresses, I notice that most of them fall on IP ranges already blocked due to this editor - Alison ❤ 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts appear to have been blocked by various sysops, and have now all been tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 30 2010, 05:37 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Tedder

Incredibly similar to Greenbreww (talk · contribs); nominated Two Brothers Brewing for AFD for a third time (Greenbreww did it the second time, and the first was a little suspicious/SPA-ish), same missing step of AFD (which is common, admittedly), same personal attacks against !voters (beer and wine example, greenbreww example). I'd say those two are related and WP:DUCK the thing, but the fact that Greenbreww was marked as being the banned User:Joehazelton made me take this to CHU. tedder (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by tedder (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This is obviously Greenbreww, but I'm not as sure about the latter's connection to Joehazelton.  Clerk endorsed for a check on that and for sleepers. Tim Song (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note account blocked indef, AfD speedy closed. Tim Song (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Likely; though not much point in pursuing. — Coren (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Tagged. Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
20 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Goethean

— goethean ॐ 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

Goethean uses this as a convenient way to intimate see example here When will Goethean be told to stop this nonsense.

The 9th edit comment by Goethean is pointless and not relevant. My knowledge of Wikipedia is with this book... Wikis For Dummies at amazon.com h**p://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=wikipedia+for+dummies&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=4307729117&ref=pd_sl_2019mcnmk9_e Since Wikipedia is so ubiquitous, knowledge of its working is now common in the internet community. Ghost of grant (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

The "beer" comment has to be a reference to Two Brothers Brewing and User talk:Greenbreww, among others.--Milowent (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Are you a sock of Goethean, since you seem to pop up so conveniently?Ghost of grant (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlist stuff where i think bullshit and drama is going to arise for my entertainment. You have provided me some, Mr. Sock.--Milowent (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you level of respect is lacking as per WP:AGFGhost of grant (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to assume good faith as to you, as I factually know that assumption should be disregarded as to you. You do not deny that you previously have edited as User talk:Greenbreww and User:Beer and wine, as indeed you cannot.--Milowent (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your facts are just assumptions based on the tingly hairs. You have nothing, except personal attack.Ghost of grant (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please publicly deny, then, that you have not edited as any other editor name or IP address that took issue with an edit of Goethean.--Milowent (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your getting ridiculous, Your logic flawed - consider this statement " why would I say I am, if I am"? Now go way, your argument is pointless. Ghost of grant (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten to know you enough to know you have some honor and generally do not outright lie, though you will sidestep. So, that's why I ask you to make that public denial.--Milowent (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know nothing - you only have assumptions, which you can not prove. The smug arrogance and condescension, don't makes valid augments. Ghost of grant (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Already blocked, so nothing to do here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Evidence submitted by Goethean

please compare IP contributions to the hundreds of previous Joehazelton socks --- user has vendetta against me, reverts my edits across various topics, edit summaries are incoherent, accusations of WP:OWN, etc. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
01 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Tiptoety

Please see the page history of Stuart Davis (musician), where Tao2911 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring with Goethean (talk · contribs) (a user who commonly has run-ins with Joehazelton). Specifically, see this edit by Tao2911, and the exact same edit by blocked IP 76.217.115.172 (an IP that is already blocked as being a sock of Joehazelton). Note this edit with its similar edit summary to many of Tao2911's.

Also, note Joehazelton's socks have a tendency to shout in their edit summaries, something that Tao2911 has done on a number of occasions

As for Goingtough (talk · contribs), their two edits speak for themselves. Tiptoety talk 22:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please note that Tao2911 has been blocked for socking before. (SPI case archive) Tiptoety talk 00:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

What a joke. You people or are truly messed up.76.202.224.218 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about. I assume this will get sorted, but I am, and have, no sock puppet - never have been or done. I'm not even aware of who this user is, never having even come across the name. As for my being once banned, I was backed up as innocent by admin Eyeserene, but didn't fight the ban as I simply welcomed the break from contentious editing on Adi Da. As seen below, even Goethean who I am being accused of edit warring with says I am not this user. I guess I'll look into this and point out more proof - but can an admin just run an IP check and definitively rule this out?Tao2911 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Tiptoey's "evidence" took about 30 seconds. It consists of two edits on one page (Stuart Davis), and the fact I have occasionally used caps in edit tag lines? Ridiculous. I can't even make heads or tails of what Tiptoey is alluding to on the Davis page - I completely reconstructed that page using just sourced information. Goethean reverted to what I considered biased promotional version, largely unsourced. A couple other editors also got involved, accusing Goethean of page ownership and what not. I don't know who they are, and don't much care. I see one of the edits from banned IP being used against me was simply a revert by that user to MY version after a goethean edit. It was not an "identical version." it was MY version, reinstated by another user, for good or ill. Tao2911 (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe follows me around and whenever I get in a conflict with another editor, he takes the opposing side. This is in order to make trouble for me and to confuse administrators. Clearly, Joe is succeeding in the latter if not in the former. Perhaps the new policy of permanently deleting all record of edits which consist only of attacks will help in deterring Joe's determination to spend his life wasting my time. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Tiptoety talk 18:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Tao is not Joehazelton, I would bet my last dollar on it. Evidence: Joe is semi-retarded; Tao is highly literate. — goethean ॐ 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, G!Tao2911 (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Goethean made this initial accusation and bought this down on you, in the first place is a hallmark of Goethean tactics of scorch earth. I would not be thanking him for your troubles with the idiot admins, see this example as poof..See an example of Goeathen pulling the Joe card in with another editor he did not agree with. Goethean is a true wikithuggee.76.202.250.176 (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no proof of your allegation that Goethean first accused me of being a sock puppet. Why wold he then refute this allegation here? That makes no sense. I haven't always agreed with Goethean's approach, nor he with mine, but I am not going to join in your crusade against him. G and I have sometimes agreed on issues, and we seem to cross currents occasionally, so it is in our interests to work toward cooperation. I for one plan to continue to do so.Tao2911 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It appears that Tao2911 (talk · contribs) and Goingtough (talk · contribs) are Red X Unrelated to either each other or to the various IPs mentioned above. Whether the IPs relate to Joehazelton or not, I don't know, but they don't figure in the case relating to these two accounts - Alison ❤ 05:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As such, I will be closing this as no No action taken against any of the named accounts. Tiptoety talk 06:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

04 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Goethean

Please see contributions and compare to [1][2][3][4][5] and hundreds of others.[6][7] — goethean ॐ 12:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. Will some one reign in this abusive editor,Goethean,who lacks the temperament and thinks wikipeidia is his own private online sword for all his crazy causes.76.202.208.4 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

76.203.0.0/18 blocked 12 hours for evasion; I dare not go any further with length due to possible collateral damage. Note that this is not a CheckUser block, nor have I run one at this point. –MuZemike 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ben Lowe semi-protected 1 month. –MuZemike 15:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With that done, I'll mark this for close. There's not much we can do if they continue to IP hop except apply longer rangeblocks. TNXMan 12:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
06 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Goethean

See contributions. Mostly edits articles to revert User:Goethean's (my) edits. Esp. Ben Lowe. — goethean ॐ 13:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. See example how Goethean uses the "JOE HAZELTON" gambit to bully and intimidate. [8] Here, you see how Goethean has again invoked JOE when confronted with an editor with differing point of view. Goethean has refused to explain his edits or try to resolve conflict though consensus but only engage in edit warring. Goethean edit history, on wikipeida as been a long line of conflict.GuyFawlks (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how were you alerted to this page? I didn't leave you a note. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
24 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by UserVOBO

Based on this vandalism, to a user page of a blocked Joehazelton sock, this seems like a fairly obvious IP sock of Joehazelton. Goethean, who has much experience with Joehazelton, added a sock tag to the IP's user page here. UserVOBO (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Contributions show that this is definitely a sock of Joehazelton. It is unfortunate that productive Wikipedia editors have to spend time combatting this troll. — goethean ॐ 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note IP blocked 1 week. Elockid (Talk) 02:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Goethean

please see contributions and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton/Archive — goethean ॐ 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
16 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Goethean

pls see contributions (compare to

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

What is wrong with this crazy guy, I'm not Joehazelton. This is some kind of harassment by an aggressive and bully editor, Goethean, who don't agree with my edits.Spaceysrockets (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). –MuZemike 02:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 14:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Goethean

Please see contributions, and compare with the 12 previous SPIs. Thanks! — goethean ॐ 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Hardblocked 1 month. –MuZemike 14:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

01 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Goethean

Please see contributions and compare to the last 12 SPIs. Thanks! — goethean ॐ 14:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
01 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Goethean

Please see contributions. Thanks! — goethean ॐ 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. You have no facts what so ever to the back your claim.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
05 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Goethean

Please see contributions and compare to Joehazelton's 15 other SPIs, as well as his hundreds of confirmed and probable socks. Thanks! — goethean ॐ 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 Confirmed, but no sleepers. TNXMan 15:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and tagged. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
09 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Goethean

After perma-banned user Joehazelton made threats to have the Ben Lowe article deleted, these two brand new accounts appeared and immediately made the edits that Joehazelton has been advocating for for months, at Wikipedia and at WikipediaReview. I can provide diffs if needed. Please also see 16 previous SPIs. — goethean ॐ 15:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
12 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Tarc

Jo has a rather obsessive fixation on certain Illinois politicians, most recently Ben Lowe, and a similarly obsessive zeal with attacking the edits and works of Goethean (talk · contribs). Lakestreet here is a brand-new account whose first edit was to the Lowe page, to remove the same info that other Jo socks have tried to remove. I plan to bring the article to AfD shortly, but having this topic area abused by someone with a LONG, long history of abuse and harassment doesn't help matters any. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed as being the same:

04 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Name, edit history NtheP (talk) 21:04, 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
 Clerk note: Unclosing for a sec. The sockmaster here seems to be Joehazelton. Anybody else agree? Elockid (Talk) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was drawing a blank on who it could be, and I think you got it. I'm fine with merging the cases. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merged then. Elockid (Talk) 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

contributions. please see SPI history. — goethean ॐ 12:30, 22 May 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
03 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Contributions follow classic Joehazelton pattern of stalking and abuse. — goethean ॐ 20:36, 3 August 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

A  Likely match. TNXMan 20:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Contributions — goethean ॐ 19:24, 31 August 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 that Beerandnuts is the same as Aleandbrew (talk · contribs), who was blocked as a sock. TNXMan 19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


user contributions, pls compare with User:Joehazelton's hundreds of sock accounts — goethean ॐ 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I made one edit and this nasty jerk Goethean assumes I'm a Sock-puppet, get real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarbabyone (talk • contribs)

Where is the evidence presented here, I don't see any at all? - Tarbabyone had made two edits to articles when this report was created. diff 1 and diff 2 - checkuser has not been requested , only that these two edits be compared against what the reporter says are another accounts "hundreds of sockpuppets - Youreallycan 17:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been following me and harassing me for about six years. His editing style is easily identified. Please compare the edits of User:Tarbabyone to the contributions of any of User:Joehazelton's 369 identified sockpuppets.[9][10] — goethean ॐ 18:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the actual question is to ask yourself why an editor has been objecting to your contributions for six years - I have only known of your contributions for about a year, but I also have objections to many of the ones related to living people that I have investigated. - Youreallycan 18:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this indefinitely banned editor's contributions before making common cause with him. — goethean ॐ 18:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Goethean, you are crazy, I edited the article twice because I objected to your edit and now you say you have enough evidence to call me a sock, what kind of a good faith is this WP:NPA , WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, WP:NOASSUMESOCK Is objecting to your edits Harassment, I don't think so. It seems you have some very self-righteous thin skin. Goethean, you are a very contentious editor, who should not be on Wikipedia.Tarbabyone (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tarbabyone's comment above, which accuses Goethean of violating WP:NPA while itself violating WP:NPA, only suggests that Goethean is right that this is an editor intent on harassing him. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree - you make two article edits and a user reports you, you are going to be a bit fed up about that , whoever you are. - also your suggestion that this account is intent on harassing User:Goethean is unsupportable in diffs. Youreallycan 21:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When someone makes multiple violations of WP:NPA while accusing someone else of violating WP:NPA, as shown by Tarbabyone's comments on this very page (eg, "nasty jerk" and "you are crazy"), it can very well look like harassment. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not imo when the comments are from a new user in direct reply to being accused without a shred of evidence after two good faith article edits. - Youreallycan 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you reconsider. I am not an expert on Joehazelton, but I know enough about him and his past history and behavior (both here and on Wikipedia Review) to realize that Goethean has a case here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should present diffs and I will assess and am always open to changing my mind - at present there are no diffs, no evidence at all - this report should be closed - Youreallycan 22:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but using the fact that another editor accused you of being a sockpuppet to make a series of personal attacks against him is definitely evidence that you are trying to harass him. I don't need to provide "diffs" - the evidence is here on this page for all to see. In any case, Tarbabyone seems surprisingly familiar with both editing and Wikipedia's policies (he knows how to link to policies within edit summaries, for example, as seen here). That's surprising for an allegedly brand new user, and it also a suggestion this could be a sock. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey look here WP:NOASSUMESOCK for your answer. Perhaps your highly tuned detective skills are tingling. Pray tell why, after two legitimate edits that I'm some kind of sock. Goethean, is a highly contentious editor, making unfounded accusation for just pure harassment. This is very clear. Also, again in WP:NOASSUMESOCK Editing on Wikipedia is not a state secret considering it's been around for more the 10years (see http://www.amazon.com/Wikis-For-Dummies-Dan-WoodsTarbabyone (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Well - I see nothing at all worthy of action - perhaps a functionary will disagree with me and agree with you - "surprising" and "allegedly" don't support restrictive action to me. Youreallycan 23:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on behavior, I think the suspicion that this account is a sockpuppet is a Joehazelton sock is very reasonable. Oh, by the way, regarding the name of the account, you might want to look up Tar baby: "The Tar-Baby is a character in the second of the Uncle Remus stories; it is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes." Seems relevant to this situation, no? The name is likely a joke or provocation aimed at Goethean. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your full of BS. You have no poof, just fanciful speculation based on your own unsubstantiated accusations.Tarbabyone (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, I'm full of BS, am I? Well tell me then, since you're so familiar with Wikipedia's policies, why are you violating them by making a personal attack against me? Keep on that way, and you could wind up blocked even if you aren't a sockpuppet. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are in violation - See WP:NOASSUMESOCK When some one says something which is "full of BS", isn't to be constituted that said person is full of BS? That's not a personal attack, its just a factual observation of your statement. Besides, your threats of "you could wind up blocked..." is telling.Tarbabyone (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments such as, "your [sic] full of BS" are personal attacks, or, at least, violations of WP:CIVIL. It doesn't matter how you try to justify them, and you certainly aren't helping your case by behaving this way. I am not "threatening" you by telling you that your behavior could lead to a block, I'm informing you of the facts (which, given your obvious familiarity with Wikipedia, you should already know). I'm not sure that you necessarily are a sockpuppet of Joehazelton, but your behavior and comments (including your poor command of the English language) seem consistent with this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have poor command of the English Language as well. Your threats and intimidation is obvious and telling. This seems to me as some kind of surrealistic drama, based not on facts, rule of law, or any fair and logical construct, but by some kind of practitioner of a Kafka court of Inquisition. You need to get out more and stop harassing me.Tarbabyone (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My command of English is perfectly good. Yours is poor, and your comments above ("Your threats and intimidation is obvious and telling") are but another indication of this. I wouldn't dream of mentioning this, except that poor English is one of the things Joehazelton was known for. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing in passive voice, as well as using a double negative, is not "good English" by "The Chicago Manual of style" MR cobs. Tarbabyone (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Tarbabyone (in addition to having an unacceptable username) is  Likely a Joehazelton sock. TNXMan 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Shortly after the recent sock Tarbabyone is blocked this IP returns to the article to make the same edit. Tarbabyone: [11] IP 173.110.55.29[12] -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I'm not him. I just think that her age should be in the article since early coverage made it appear like she was some very young college kid. 173.110.55.29 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'll mark this for close, the IP appears to have stopped editing. TNXMan 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


[13][14] Person has been stalking me and harassing me for about six years. His edits fall into the easily recognizable pattern of his hundreds of sockpuppets. — goethean ॐ 14:38, 17 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
26 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Banned[15] and long-term abusive[16] user Joehazelton, going on his 26th sockpuppet investigation,[17] has 38 confirmed[18] and 334 suspected[19] sockpuppets. Most of them fall into an easily-recognizable pattern. He first removes the red link to his user page[20] and talk page[21] by posting a random image associated with his sockpuppet's username. His sockpuppets get more mileage on talk page discussions without a redlink to his userpage.

User:Joehazeton has carried on a long and losing battle on the pages of Tammy Duckworth and Peter Roskam in an attempt to add Republican-friendly content to these and related articles.[22] Like the rest of User:Joehazelton's puppets, User:Themightywind also makes vaguely-coherent edits to articles on Chicago political figures,[23] Illinois topics[24] and quotes Wikipedia policy pages like a very experienced user,[25] (sockpuppet's seventh mainspace edit, 11th overall). He enjoys reverting my edits[26] --- he has been stalking me for six years now. — goethean ॐ 04:23, 26 August 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
02 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Indeff'd user Joehazelton has 27 prior socketpuppet investigations, 41 confirmed socks, and 337 suspected sockpuppets. For years now, he has been returning to the Tammy Duckworth BLP to try to force the subject's DOB into the article against longstanding consensus to honor a WP:DOB month/day redaction request by the subject (see here). Until the other day when HATEFILLEDPLACE showed up, the most recent sock account that was checkusered and tagged was Themightywind. After Themightywind was blocked, 68.57.192.113 restarted the usual activity for approximately one month, then ceased activity when the sockmaster briefly turned to a dormant sock account, Pleasant Pete, which was quickly blocked. 68.57.192.113 edited the user page of Pleasant Pete once on 12 January, and then attempted to remove the sockpuppet template off of HATEFILLEDPLACE's user page today on 1 April. I thought 68.57.192.113 was just a transient location the sockmaster was using, but it's becoming apparent he has a long-term connection to that IP. As a result, I'm asking that a checkuser be performed on 68.57.192.113 - HATEFILLEDPLACE - Pleasant Pete, in connection with requesting that 68.57.192.113 be consequently long-term blocked to prevent him from continuing his block evasion and disruption from that IP location (either as the IP, or with sleepers, which he once claimed he has dozens standing by). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:09, 2 April 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
23 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


This newly created account vandalized User Goethean with these two edits [27] I do not follow this issue closely but my understanding is that Joe Hazleton has been attempting to torment Goethean for many years and periodically creates a new sock to vandalize his page. This seems an entirely blatant case of that. I have little else to say other than that this seems very straightforward, and this "Joe Hazelton reborn" account seems like it should be blocked without hesitation. Maybe I should have filed this elsewhere -- if so, perhaps someone who is knowledgable could do so? I will be away from WP for many hours now.... -- Presearch (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Presearch (talk) 07:57, 23 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

information Administrator note Account blocked and tagged as an obvious duck. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More