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

12 February 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• LDS FLDS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Evidence presented here:

• The following edit warring report was filed this evening by the user being reported [1]
• The reporting editor has a brand new account as of 10 Feb 2015 at 0352 (UTC) [2]
• The reporting editor and I have never crossed paths before (not as LDS_FLDS), yet they have reported me at an article they have never edited, asking that I be banned from the article.
• All of the new account's edits seem pretty savvy for being so new (see contribution list here [3]). For example, edit summaries that read, "Fixed hyperlink", "Added Category", "Removed talk page info...", "Notability not inherited. Reworded intro to reflect notability". Hyperlink, adding categories, talk page, and notability are things an editor pretty familiar with Wikipedia would state in an edit summary, not a brand-new editor.
• The user name of the account being reported is "LDS_FLDS", likely an indication of the user's interest in Latter Day Saint and Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint topics. The first edit to their user page indicated as much here: [4] (see edit summary and associated user page comment left).
• Kbabej also has an interest in LDS and FLDS topics; the first six edits made after creating their account were FLDS-topic related. Beyond this, Kbabej's user space lists six articles they created on Fundamentalist Mormons: Brent W. Jeffs, Nephi Jeffs, Rebecca Musser, Ruby Jessop, Seth Jeffs, Susan Ray Schmidt. All articles they continue to edit. (Kbabej user page here: [5]).
• Recently, an article created by Kbabej was put on full protection, but not before Kbabej and I had some disagreements on content. (talk page here [6])
• The LDS_FLDS account was created 1 hour and 20 minutes after Kbabej's last edit at the Brown article, not long after I left an edit warring warning on Kbabej's talk page [7] and not long after Kbabej then left a retaliatory edit warring warning on my talk page [8]
• Kbabej has a history of sockpuppetry and was blocked for two weeks on March 16, 2014 for abusing multiple accounts (see here [9]). I was unable to find an SPI for this, possibly there was not one filed?

The use of a sock account to open an edit warring report seems to be retaliation for what has gone on at the Bobbi Kristina Brown article over the last couple of days. The above-mentioned content disputes, full protection of an article, as well as what seem to be ownership issues by Kbabej, possibly stemming from their creation and close guarding of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request chechuser to look for sleepers, sockmaster has a history of socking. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

• Comment: I noticed this bizarre turn of events (a brand-new account with no interaction with Winkelvi taking him to AN3) because I had not yet un-watched Winkelvi's talk page following an unrelated matter. Have to agree that this is a clear sockpuppet of Kbabej, and if they have abused alternate accounts in the past, that combined with this and other extremely eyebrow-raising behavior merits sanctions even beyond an SPI. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I blocked:

• PDX_er1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

as a sock of Kbabej because of this edit which shows the similarity of that user's page with Kbabej's and claims to have created the same articles. @Salvio giuliano: performed a checkuser back in March and blocked:

• AndyGibsonSon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AndyR112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GibsonSon27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

A discussion of why there was no SPI is here. (The IP in question is here.) Kbabej blanking one of the sock pages is here. I took an interest in this editor's work because of his work in Oregon-related areas but also because many of his contributions have been deleted, such as this one (admins note also edits by both PDXer and Kbabej), some of which I suspect have a strong COI element. I took a "wait and see" attitude since this editor does make some good contributions but socking is socking so it will be good to do this SPI and move on. Check user seems appropriate to check for sleepers as Kbabej hasn't seem to have learned from the previous blocks. Valfontis (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is kbabej, and yes, I have no issue saying the account in question is mine. Citing Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses, I do believe that WV has been unproductive in edit warring with a number of editors, not just myself, and therefore opened an investigation here. I created this account to report Winkelvi, afraid of retribution. I believe that under WP:SP outlines, I was justified in doing so, and I stand by my report. However, if I should have made it under this username and accepted whatever ill will resulted from it from Winkelvi, that would be a learning experience on my behalf. No voting, reconstructive edits, or edit warring happened with this account. --50.53.74.46 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And, I was correct in my fear of retribution, now that Winklevi is going after separate, unconnected pages I've created and removing content, which at this point he's wikihounding.--Kbabej (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kbabej's claim of "legitimate" socking does not seem to be in line with policy. Regarding his claim that the sock account is not edit warring: incorrect. He has now started to edit war here: [10]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And is now tag team edit warring with his Sockmaster account, alternate his sock account here: [11], thus also gaming the system. The disruption via this sock master and sock continues. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: Accounts indeffed and tagged. Closing (no need for a CU).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to check for sleeper accounts. Can this be reopened? Valfontis (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Endorsing Valfontis's sleeper check request, considering the last check uncovered more than one sock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kbabej, LDS FLDS, and PDX_er1 are  Confirmed to one another, but I didn't see any other accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing, then. At least we know! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16 February 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• 2601:7:1B02:0:7CDB:9455:7830:8865 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Only edits are to an article that has been proposed for deletion - an article created by the indeffed sockmaster. Kbabej has expressed his upset over "his" articles being edited and nom'd for deletion and being unable to do something about those edits and noms (see talk page for unblock requests). Obviously not a new user, has knowledge of policy and how to edit references. Not likely they just happened upon the article. WP:DUCK. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 16 February 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

• IP blocked for block evasion. Mike V • Talk 22:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18 February 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• Kittykane UT (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Evidence:

• Kbabej has a history of socking: four socks used and blocked in 2014, two more used and blocked in the last week.
• The sock used last week was created specifically for Kbabej to escape scrutiny when filing a bogus edit warring report

(see here: [12]). Kbabej admitted as much here in his unblock requests: "I created a new account to report another user for disruptive editing, believing that I would be harassed after the report."

• Suspected sock's username is another way to escape scrutiny by using the article subject's name to give the appearance of the article subject editing the article, not Kbabej.
• Kbabej is currently blocked for sockpuppetry and used an IP just yesterday (on 2/16/15) to evade the block and attempt to save a article from deletion that he created (see here: [13]). *IP was subsequently blocked as a block-evading sock of Kbabej (see here [14]).
• Suspected sock's first edit was to another article Kbabej created and edited heavily (see here [15])
• Suspected sock's 4th and 5th edits were edits an experienced user would make, not a brand new editor or an editor with a passing interest in a particular article. 4th edit was a template (here: [16]), 5th edit was expanding the template (see here: [17]).
• Suspected sock then went to a related article to edit the template (see here: [18]).

Duck, at the very least. Request checkuser to confirm suspicion of socking and to look for sleepers since sockmaster has not stopped socking since being indeffed. Interestingly, after the above edits by the suspected sock were made, Kbabej promises to create no more socks and asked (for the third time) that his block be reviewed and lifted or shortened. (see here: [19]). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

• DoRD, is User:Arjibsamlee too old to check? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit, actually. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined. Almost all of your evidence is worthless. The only thing you have is that the alleged puppet edited one article previously edited by the master in October 2014. Otherwise, it's all guilt by innuendo.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked this account per their unblock request, and it turns out that this is a  Confirmed sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• All set here. Mike V • Talk 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05 March 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• Lgbtq pride (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Evidence:

• Suspected sock account started editing just a few days after the last sock report was filed and confirmed.
• Kbabej edited many LGBT-related articles; suspected sock's user name is obviously interested in LGBT topics and has edited many LGBT-related articles just as Kbabej did.
• List of articles edited each account has in common (via editor interaction utility) shows 6 articles in common, all of them obscure and not likely to be edited so early on by a new user. Link to findings here: [20]
• Kbabej was very big on creating new articles and redirects - in just 8 days since the suspected sock account started editing, they have created two articles, a few more are currently in draft status, and they have filed 10 redirect requests: [21]; [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]
• First visit to redirect request was just three days after first edit. Very unusual for a new user.
• Most of the redirect requests were to articles either created by or heavily edited by Kbabej: Evin Harrah Cosby/Evin Cosby, Erika Ranee Cosby/Erika Cosby, Ensa Camille Cosby, Wendy Yuengling/Wendy Yuengling Baker, Jennifer Yuengling/Jennifer Yuengling-Franquet.
• First edits of suspected sock were not newbie-type edits. First edit summary: "Expanded infobox" ([34]. Fifth edit was adding a category (also not a newbie-type edit): [35].
• Most recent edits by suspected sock were to an article created by Kbabej, Driving With Selvi.

More than a WP:DUCK. Evidence is undeniable. Request checkuser also look for sleepers as this editor seems hell-bent on continuing to block-evade edit no matter what. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:21, 5 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

 Clerk endorsed. In addition to the evidence presented by Winkelvi, I'd add two more pieces of evidence. First, the edit summaries between the puppet and the master are strikingly similar, including many "added" and other past tense words starting the summary, not to mention alphabetizing lists and saying "Alphabetized". Second, both the master and the puppet created many articles/drafts about gay or queer magazines, which is more specific than simply having an interest in LGBT subjects.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeffed, tagged, deleted several puppet-created articles, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• Garden of Edith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Suspected sock and sockmaster only have two articles in common and one noticeboard in common, however, the editing style, the type of articles they edit, and the noticeboard they both have frequented match a likeness and pattern, along with all the other Kbabej socks.

• The first edit of the suspected sock was March 9, 2015, just 5 days after the latest Kbabej sock was tagged and blocked.

• The first edit of the suspected sock was the complete creation of an article (Tough Love (web series)), not something a newbie would typically attempt nor is it usual for a newbie to create an article so completely "Wikified", complete with an infobox, subsections, and a good number of references. See here: [36]

• The Tough Love article is LGBT-related, a topic Kbabej and all of his socks have always edited and created articles about in the past.

• Kbabej and his socks have been big on editing articles with subjects connected to the name Yuengling/Jüngling/Jungling. This edit regarding the same surname (and its variations) was made by Garden of Edith yesterday: [37]; there are more related edits here: [38], [39]

• Another Garden of Edith article edited was Romkerhall, a Germany-related article. A topic area also edited heavily by Kbabej and his socks.

• Another topic area Kbabej and his socks edited frequently, as well as creating articles in the same topic area was of Oregon-based individuals (as well as locations and incidents). Suspected sock Garden of Edith has edited Ann Aiken, a judge in the state of Oregon.

• Kbabej and his socks made frequent use of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. The suspected sock has edited that noticeboard 10 times since his account was created. Most new editors are not aware of or familiar with that noticeboard. One of Kbabej's socks, Lgbtq pride was there 17 times over a period of just a few days before that account was blocked and tagged as a sock.

• Kbabej made 7 edits to an obscure article, Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton, Garden of Edith has made 2. It seems highly unlikely they would both edit this article if they were not the same person, especially considering it is not highly trafficked.

• The Editor Interaction Analyzer has revealed the following when doing a comparison between Lgbtq pride, Kbabej, and Garden of Edith: [40]

At the very least, this is a WP:DUCK, quacking loudly. I think, however, that the evidence once again shows Kbabej has created just one more sock. Request CU check for sleepers, as he has created them previously and pulls them out to use as necessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:30, 10 April 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

•  Clerk endorsed - Vanjagenije (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed:Garden of Edith (talk · contribs) = Lgbtq pride (talk · contribs) = Kbabej (talk · contribs). Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently seeing any unblocked sleepers. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• 2607:FB90:2C22:FBB:E0E9:A9B8:793E:416D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

IP deleted redirect, only a very familiar user would know how to do such a thing. Article redone via the deletion of the redirect was originally created by Kbabej, an indeffed editor with a drawer full of socks (see previous SPIs). Definitely a duck. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:08, 17 May 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

• Two edits on May 17. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I'm happy to comply with a check against me. I'm not associated with the Kbabe account, and my IP/location/edits will show as such. It also looks like Winklevi is on a hunt for any and every new user who edits anything political or LGBT related. You realize with the election coming up and Bruce Jenner going from m-to-f that 99% of people saw these things in the news, right? Looking over your talk page it looks like multiple users have asked you to tone down. I won't join in that, because I don't really know you, but we're not off to an amazing start. Check away. --SBUXaddict (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a CU isn't something you "comply with". In relation to an SPI, it's just something that's done whether you like it, want it, or agree to it. Your claim that I'm specifically looking to come up against users editing LGBT- and political-related articles is a pretty silly claim. Even in light of your "I will comply" statement in conjunction with your denials, my belief that you are another Kbabej sock stands. The evidence is overwhelming, regardless of what the CU does (or doesn't) turn up, "SBUX". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• SBUXaddict (talk · contribs · count) is between  Unlikely and  Possible.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the behavioural evidence difficult to dismiss as coincidence. SBUXaddict has beent  Blocked and tagged, but they haven't edited in weeks, so it's not impossible the user has already moved on to another sock (which I've been unable to locate). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• 50.53.64.49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FB90:1020:BEDD:1EB:2545:A3CA:7562 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:2c18:a964:b04a:bf0:6764:792a (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:7:1B02:0:308F:2373:86:5CD5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:7:1B02:0:ADC2:A801:95A2:5A1D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 67.168.250.113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:1C0:4C02:8500:7DE1:440E:21DB:726E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Evidence is as follows:

• Article recently created by IP/suspected sock (Konrad Juengling) is about the sockmaster IRL.

• Suspected sock IPs geolocate to Portland, OR - as do so many of the sockmaster's confirmed sock accounts.

• Confirmed socks of the sockmaster have heavily edited Portland-area and Oregon related articles, suspected socks listed above have also edited Oregon-related articles.

• Cellphone IP listed above (2607:fb90:1020:bedd:1eb:2545:a3ca:7562) has edited Bloodlines of Salem as has sockmaster Kbabej. See here.

• Cellphone IP that has edited Bloodlines of Salem has also edited the Konrad Juengling article. See here.

• Another of the cellphone IPs (2607:FB90:2C18:A964:B04A:BF0:6764:792A) has edited the Konrad Juengling article. See here.

• Another of the cellphone IPs (2601:7:1B02:0:308F:2373:86:5CD5) has edited the same articles as Kbabej. Three of them related to the name Yeungling/Juengling See here.

• Another cellphone IP's (2601:7:1B02:0:ADC2:A801:95A2:5A1D) edits are all (save one) at articles Kbabej has edited along with his socks. See here. All of those articles on common were heavily edited by Kbabej and/or created by Kbabej.

• Last reported non-cellphone IP (67.168.250.113) above edited articles also edited and/or created by Kbabej. See here.

• Last reported cellphone IP above (2601:1C0:4C02:8500:7DE1:440E:21DB:726E) edited articles also edited by the other IPs listed above. See here.

• Some of IP's edits have also been in relation to LDS topics - a strong interest of the sockmaster as indicated by edits of the sockmaster and confirmed socks.

• IP's edits have also been in relation to the surname, Juengling, another strong interest of the sockmaster according to past edits by sockmaster and confirmed socks. Diff of edit history shows editing by the two non-cellphone IPs listed here as well as Kbabej and confirmed sock of Kbabej, User:Garden of Edith.

Without evidence, this is at the very least a case of WP:DUCK. With the evidence, it's obvious these IPs are socks of Kbabej. Request check for sleepers as sockmaster has been prolific in creating other sleeper sock accounts in the past. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Add IP Adding IPs for the same reasons as above: articles in common, interests in common, types of edits in common. Non-cellular related IP geolocates to Portland, OR area. As well, Kbabej has been known to previously use Verizon wireless IP as socks that geolocate to the San Francisco Bay Area as well as the Portland, OR area. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, you're incorrect about which IPs are most recently active. 50.53.64.49 was last active only 4 days ago. All of them have been active this month. And, since when are suspected socks required to be currently active? If that's truly the case, why care about sleepers? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije: Have added evidence with diffs. Would also provide diffs for Editor Interaction Utility reports, however, that tool seems to be down at the moment. Will get diffs for related report(s) as soon as I am able. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That makes sense, didn't realize that would be the case with a long term block evading sockmaster (look into the history). But, I'm 99% sure it's him. Unless something more permanent is done, he will just keep coming back, creating more articles to be deleted. Thanks for looking into it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, it seems to me that something more needs to be done other than just blocking one IP. This is a serial block-evader/sockmaster. 50.53.64.49 has created an article that might be deleted, then again, it might not. If the IP is identified and blocked as a sock, the article is more likely to be deleted. As it should. Otherwise, the other sock IPs being ignored sends a message to the Kbabej: just keep using IP socks and editing and creating articles, and you can get away with more by socking in this manner. It sends a bad message all around. My hope is that editors familiar with this editor and his socking behavior, such as Bbb23, DoRD, Salvidrim!, Mike V, and/or Euryalus, will take a stronger stand. Unless, of course, block-evasion socking is not such a big deal anymore and editing + article creation by block evading socks is no longer seen as a problem or an issue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, thanks for responding. Glad to learn new stuff, too. Appreciate it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:34, 20 July 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

•  Additional information needed - 67.168.250.113 is the only one of those that is currently active. @Winkelvi: provide some evidence for 67.168.250.113 connection to the master. Provide some WP:diffs that illustrate similar behavior/editing and explain them in brief. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Winkelvi: When speaking about IPs, four days ago is a lot of time ago. We don't block IPs if they are not currently active (last day or two), because IP may be dynamic, so the block may hit the wrong person. Sleepers are registered accounts, while we talk about unregistered IPs in this case. I'll review the evidence as soon as possible. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin action needed - Block 67.168.250.113 for three days (same articles, same geographic area). Others are stale. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked the IP for 72 hours as requested. I've also deleted the article per G5. Winkelvi, block evasion is not good, but blocking IPs is often a waste of time as new ones just crop up. Unless they're actively disruptive, they're generally not blocked. And normally an IP cannot create an article, but in this instance they got it past AFC. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• ID man12 ID (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2601:7:1B02:0:3495:5EA3:5DF6:7B0C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

As I just wasted an hour and a half putting together evidence for this report, only to have it obliterated into the tech-glitch netherworld, I am filing once again, but without evidence and will be adding it as I go along. Please be patient while evidence is collected (yet again) and provided for this report. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This account was brought to my attention by another editor at my talk page here.

• The suspected sock had responded to a comment brought to the talk page of an IP user (User:50.53.64.49), previously brought to SPI as a suspected sock of Kbabej. The response is seen here.

• The response by the suspected sock account is odd, since it wasn't directed at that editor. I believe this to be very strong evidence for socking as it shows the named account likely forgot he was logged in and responded to what was directed at him from when he was using the IP account.

• The suspected sock edited the IP Userspace (see here and here). Also odd, coincidental behavior.

• The subject matter the suspected sock responded to is in regard to a topic a number of Kbabej socks, as well as Kbabej himself, edited heavily: the LDS/Mormon Church.

• Sockmaster Kbabej and his socks have spent quite a bit of time at WP:Articles for creation/Redirects. Suspected sock has also been there. See here, here for more.

• Suspected sock and confirmed IP sock have two obscure articles in common. See here for more.

• Suspected sock has interest in LGBT-related articles and edits as does Kbabej. See here, here, here,and here, here (another commonality is that Kbabej also edited articles on Boy Scouts).

• Suspected sock has interest in Oregon and Pacific Northwest-related articles as does Kbabej. See here, and here.

• Sockmaster also had a strong interest in Utah-related articles. Suspected sock edited Orrin Hatch (politician from Utah) here.

• Suspected sock also edited a subject heavily edited by practically all of Kbabej socks as well as Kbabej (anything related to the name and family Yuengling). See here.

• Suspected sock account was created just five days after another Kbabej sock account, User:Garden of Edith, was blocked as a sock of Kbabej (see here and here).

Because Kbabej has numerous sock accounts, suggest and ask for a sleeper check.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Have just added IP User:2601:7:1B02:0:3495:5EA3:5DF6:7B0C to report. Created template related to Kbabej's obsession with articles containing the surname, Yuengling (Juengling, etc. and other various spellings) and has one article in common with Kbabej. See here and here. IP geolocates to same area where other Kbabej socks geolocate and user resides. See here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"you should review the articles created by the puppets to see if they should be tagged per WP:CSD#G5." Will do. Thanks for taking care of this, Bbb23. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:26, 1 August 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

• The master and all the master's socks are  Stale. However, based on the evidence and Winkelvi's familiarity with this master, I checked ID man12 for sleepers. Before I list the sleepers, I also want to note that the named account edits a great deal without logging in.
• The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • ID man12 ID (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tumblrfan1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Redirector12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Us 50-53-64-49 er (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• I've blocked and tagged all the accounts. Winkelvi, you should review the articles created by the puppets to see if they should be tagged per WP:CSD#G5. The IP's edits are quite old, so there is no point in blocking it. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• SBUXaddict (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Editing history by SBUXaddict is short so far, however, there are a few 'tells' that I believe prove this user to be Kbabej (at the very least, I hear loud quacking):

• Second edit by SBUXaddict is to their own User page - often a giveaway that someone is a sock and doesn't want a redlink to show up for their username in article editing histories as redlink = new editor. Every Kbabej sock has un-redlinked their user page almost immediately upon creating an account.

• For the same edit, SBUXaddict wrote a short, clever comment on their user page ("Created page with 'But there's so much more than just SBUX... isn't there? I'll start with Wikipedia.'") -- something pretty much every Kbabej sock has done (see the following diffs for more): [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]; [45]; [46]; [47]

• First edit by SBUXaddict was to an article related to Caitlyn Jenner, about Jenner's son and his wife. Jenner, of course, has recently been open about her transition from male to female. Kbabej and his socks have frequented articles regarding LGBT issues, have edited a number of transexual and transgender articles, and have made many edits that involve something in the LGBT world.

• The edit at the Jenner-related article is very, very suspicious as a newbie user would not see the need to un-bold a name in an article - especially not for their first edit.

• Another LGBT related edit for SBUXaddict was the following at Janis Ian (seen here)

• The Janis Ian edit is also telling as Kbabej seemed obsessed with Bill Cosby related edits and articles, as seen here on Kbabej's user page (scroll down the list and you will see Kbabej having created six Cosby-family articles and his edit history at Bill Cosby shows nine edits to the page between December 2014 and January 2015 (right up until the Kbabej account was blocked).

• SBUXaddict has edited several politically-themed articles; Kbabej and his socks have all edited politically-themed articles, often about candidates as well as senators. Suspected sock politically-related article edits here: [48]; [49]; [50]; [51].

• A brand new user, SBUXaddict has already made it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects - something Kbabej and all his socks do quite frequently.

• Another tell is that SBUXaddict has used the following embedded note: "←Created page with '{New unreviewed article|date=August 2015} {Infobox website | name = 'Yo...'" here - something Kbabej and his socks always do when creating a new article. A brand new editor is not likely to do this.

• Kbabej and socks also typically start an article as a draft. Looking at SBUXaddict's contribution history gives evidence of same [52]. A brand new editor is not likely to do this.

• The SBUXaddict account was created just three days after Kbabej's last known sock, User:ID man12 ID, edited for the last time.

Requesting C/U and a check for sleepers. This sock account, during the last Kbabej SPI CU and sleeper check, was obviously missed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Based on the accused party's comments below ("my IP/location/edits will show as such...Check away"), my guess is something has changed with Kbabej's IP and/or ISP. Such a change would help a known sockmaster evade detection, would it not? Making such a comment about IP and location isn't something someone so new and not previously involved in an SPI would know. What's more, there are simply too many similarities in style, articles, article topics, editing habits, and other tells that say WP:DUCK for this user to not be Kbabej, regardless of how the CU might come out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE:Are you kidding me with this nonesense? Will a moderator please tell this yahoo to take a hike? If this is how Wikipedia is going to be, it doesnt seem worth it. --SBUXaddict (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• Anthonywgibson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vervemgmt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Evidence is as follows:

• User name is a variation of previous confirmed Kbabej socks: AndyGibsonSon, AndyR112, and GibsonSon27.

• Sock account's first edit is to work on an article draft created by another account (Vervemgmt). Why? Very suspicious behavior if not the creator of the draft.

• • Account that created the draft did what all Kbabej socks have done when also creating drafts or starting articles: use the imbedded markup "'"
  • Account that created the draft has been blocked as of June 23, 2015. [53]

• Article draft created by Vervemgmt was taken up by suspected sock being reported on September 1, 2015.

• Article is LGBT related - something that has always been one of the content interests of Kbabej and Kbabej socks. Contains references to LGBT related content with LOGO network and OUT Magazine.

• Sock account was first utilized one day after the last known sock of Kbabej was tagged and blocked (SBUXaddict blocked August 31, 2015 blocked, September 1, 2015 Anthonywgibson account first edited).

WP:DUCK at the least, but I believe the evidence shows this is very likely yet another Kbabej sock. Requesting CU as well as a look for sleepers as Kbabej has typically created sleepers for later around the same time as his utilitzed sock accounts. Asking Bbb23 to take a look at this ASAP as he is familiar with this blocked user as well as his sock accounts. One more note: according to Salvidrim, who blocked and tagged at the last SPI (SBUXaddict), there are some changes in Kbabej's socking. Possibly there is something different to be on the lookout for with this sock and all future Kbabej socks that has changed from the ones previous to the last SPI? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding Vervemgmt to the list of suspected socks as it is the (now blocked) account that created the draft article taken over by suspected Kbabej sock Anthonywgibson. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 8 September 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

• Anthonywgibson (talk · contribs · count) and Vervemgmt (talk · contribs · count) are  Technically indistinguishable. The accounts are  Unrelated both to the master and to SBUXaddict (talk · contribs · count). I've CU-blocked Anthonywgibson without tagging the account, and although I have not tagged Vervemgmt, I left an explanatory note and a link to this SPI. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• Cagepanes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Evidence is as follows:

• Two articles in common with Kbabej: Edward Snowden and Irina Walker (see here and here)
  • Kbabej has 6 edits at Irina Walker, 1 at Edward Snowden
  • Cagepanes has 2 edits at Irina Walker, 1 at Edward Snowden
• One article in common (Lily-Rose Depp) with confirmed Kbabej sock, ID man12 ID: [54]
• Suspected sock has one article in common with confirmed Kbabej sock, SBUXaddict, Young Conservatives (website) (see here).
  • That article is also an article SBUXaddict created; the suspected sock has been at the AfD for that article six times, !voting to keep the article. [55]
• At the William Daniel Johnson article, when edited by suspected sock, content added was in regard to the article subject's religion, LDS, a subject Kbabej has expressed a strong interest in and edited quite heavily as Kbabej.
• An article edited by the suspected sock, Michael Mandiberg, has content regarding Portland, Oregon - another strong interest content and editing-wise of Kbabej (also the place where several of his IP socks geolocate to).
• The article subject Irina Walker has a current day connection to the state of Oregon (see article lede), another subject heavily edited by Kbabej.
• An edit by the suspected sock involved replacing content in the Damon Wayans article - the content was in regard to the Bill Cosby sexual harassment scandal [56]. Kbabej created numerous articles surrounding the Cosby's and heavily edited the Bill Cosby article with content connected to the sexual harassment allegations against Cosby.
• Last communication from most recently known Kbabej sock (SBUXaddict) was August 3, 2015. The Cagepanes account's first edit was here, four days after his last comment at the SBUXaddict SPI.

I think the WP:DUCK evidence is pretty compelling and am fairly confident that there will be a positive CU match. Requesting that Bbb23, Mike V, and Salvidrim look into this case, as they are familiar with Kbabej socks and the changes noted with the SBUXaddict account that differed with the previous Kbabej account and connected socks. Also, please look for sleepers - no doubt he has created at least one other account to use (as has been the case previously). Thank you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:58, 12 September 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

• The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other and  Likely to SBUXaddict (talk · contribs · count):
  • Cagepanes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Sammytime1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Imsandy1873 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• All blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

• Helpmechoose54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• OpusDayNotDei (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

By request of an administrator in the course of a standard offer/unblock request, Kbabej has listed what he claims are all the socks he has created. This sockpuppet is on the list he provided and should be tagged and blocked. Link to sockmaster's "confession" here.

As usual when reporting a Kbabej sock, I am requesting CU as well as a check for sleepers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

In case they missed it, Bbb23, Mike V, and PhilKnight should be made aware of this SPI because of their experience with the sockmaster before this report is closed and archived. Vanjagenije, considering this prolific sockmaster has a drawer full of socks, has a history of creating sleepers (exactly what one of these socks was), and is currently asking to be unblocked per the standard offer, I believe a CU should be run on both. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Socks blocked. I declined the CU request because the two accounts are  Stale. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

• MB298 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Kbabej was blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 for socking/block evasion on February 12, 2015. Since that block, he has been caught using no less than 28 socks (including IPs). Evidence is as follows:

• Suspected sock is, according to their User page, from Oregon (diff here). Kbabej is from Oregon (diff here).

• Suspected sock has an interest in and has edited a large number of Oregon-related articles and is a member of WikiProject Oregon, same with Kbabej.

• Suspected sock has a strong interest in politics-related articles - his talk page states, "I will be working on creating gubernatorial election articles for U.S. states". Same with Kbabej - his User page from July 2013 on stated, "My interests:...politics" (diff here).

• One of Kbabej's stated interests topic-wise is "Fundamentalist Mormon sects", one of his "projects" listed on his user page was the article on Brent Jeffs. The suspected sock has edited Brent Jeffs, an obscure article on a Fundamentalist Mormon, that was created and frequented by Kbabej.

• Suspected sock has also edited another Fundamentalist Mormon-related article, Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as has Kbabej.

• Kbabej was quite interested in LGBT topics and articles; suspected sock has edited Stu Rasmussen, an article about "the nation's first openly transgender mayor" from Silverton, OR.

• Kbabej was also quite interested in creating and editing articles about the Bill Cosby family (several of which were deleted as the result of AfD filings after Kbabej's sock block). The suspected sock being reported has edited all three of the Cosby-related articles still existing: Bill Cosby [57], Camille Cosby [58], and Erika Cosby[59].

• An Intersecting Contributions search shows that Kbabej and MB298 have 22 articles in common [60]

• Intersecting Contributions search shows suspected sock has one article in common (Ted Cruz) with Kbabej sock SBUXaddict [61].

• Intersecting Contributions search shows suspected sock has one article in common with Kbabej sock LGBTQ pride (List of transgender people) [62].

• Intersecting Contributions search shows suspected sock has eight articles in common with Kbabej sock ID man12 ID (Bindi Irwin, Bob Irwin, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, Kshama Sawant, Republican In Name Only, Sam Adams (Oregon politician), Steve Irwin, Talk:Barack Obama) [63].

• Intersecting Contributions search shows suspected sock has 5 articles in common with Kbabej sock OpusDayNotDei (Barron Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Melania Trump) [64].

• Suspected sock account was created on March 23, 2015, after Kbabej was blocked indefinitely and in-between the creation of Kbabej socks Garden of Edith and ID man12 ID. The MB298 sock account was not used, for more than six months, until October 6, 2015. MB298 is obviously another one of Kbabej's many sleeper accounts.

Overwhelming duck evidence. Requesting CU and check for sleepers.

Important note for reviewing clerk and CU/admins: I think you will find that the suspected sock account's IP geolocation will match that of Kbabej's most recent socks, SBUXaddict, Cagepanes, Helpmechoose54, and OpusDayNotDei.

Additionally, I think it is very important to note that Kbabej requested the standard offer on March 30, 2016 at his talk page. The reviewing admin, PhilKnight stated in his decline reason, "Before we go any further, I want you to provide a complete list of accounts that you've created". Kbabej replied with the following accounts: AndyGibsonSon, Cagepanes, Garden of Edith, Gibsonson27, Helpmechoose54, ID man12 ID, Kittykane UT, LDS_FLDS, Lgbtq pride, OpusDayNotDei, PDX er1. Conspicuously left out of the list is the sock account being reported here. Kbabej stated in his standard offer/unblock request, "When I evaded, it was because I believed my blocking to be an oversight and I wanted to still contribute. I realize that evading was wrong, and I have committed to no longer trying to go around Wikipedia rules.... I am sorry for the evading I've done; it's taken time away from other editors...I would like to...earn the trust back from the people I've disappointed." If the result of this SPI is yet another block of another Kbabej sock (and I believe it will be), it's obvious Kbabej is not true to his word, as evidenced by what he said in his unblock request as he intentionally left off the account being reported here from the list of socks he knew he created when his request for standard offer was being considered. If this does end up as another sock block, I think it's time to see something more permanent done so that Kbabej can never ask for another standard offer/unblock, because of his complete dishonesty. Time for a community ban?

Along with Bbb23, am pinging Mike V, PhilKnight, and Salvidrim as they are also familiar with the Kbabej socks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Bbb23 I have sent you an email with IRL information that cannot be posted here publicly regarding this SPI. Should I also send the same email to the other admins pinged (Mike V, PhilKnight, and Salvidrim)? Not sure how doing this kind of thing works (IRL information on an editor) -- in other words is more transparency better, in the case of real life identities, is less, more? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem, then, that with your final decision the days of reporting Kbabej socks is over. I get it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:14, 7 June 2016 (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

• MB298 is  Unrelated to the master, who, as far as I know, is the only account that is not  Stale. The technical data is so clear I am closing this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Winkelvi: No, you should not send e-mail to other administrators, some CheckUsers. Responding to your e-mail to me, the decision to close this SPI with no action is final.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

• Richbares12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Maalcoke (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CasinoTYME (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hivehalon34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Stevendehler1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DosezRuble (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Kbabej admitted to creating these accounts on their talk page. It's been over a month since then. Though they appear to be abandoned, shouldn't these socks be still blocked? Sro23 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (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

• All blocked and tagged. CLosing. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sro23: Account Richbares12 does not exist. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanjagenije: Probably meant RichBares12 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same article interests, same articles edited. Coffeeandcrumbs has started following my edits of late (a trait Kbabej exhibited with me in the past - leading him to create socks where he harassed and hounded me in 2014). The suddenly showing up where I was to criticize (or revert) me is what alerted me to the possibility of sock activity, something other Kbabej socks have done in the past (this includes my talk page). When I looked at the articles in common and saw common interests as well, I decided to look further.

Evidence is as follows:

• All three have same interests as sockmaster: Utah, New Mexico, LGBTQ, politics, religion (LDS, Methodism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism), Pacific Northwest (and PNW politics), Canada.
• Same articles edited (see Editor Interaction Analyzer here): [65]
• Same obscure articles edited: Mindy Finn, Patrick J. Conroy, Abella Danger, Joey Gibson (political activist), Deb Haaland, Robert D. Ray, George Clinton (vice president), Smooth toadfish, Lafayette dollar, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Nicholas I of Russia, Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge.
• All three accounts have a wikifriend-relationship with the editor Another Believer
• Kbabej sock Cagepanes and Coffeeandcrumbs also have one obscure article in common, Louise Brown (see EIA here:[66])
• With Kbabej, there have been hours, days between the edits of Coffeeandcrumbs; they have never edited at the same time: [67]
• With MB298 and Coffeeandcrumbs, there has been 20 hours to days in-between their edits - they have never edited at the same time: [68]
• With Kbabej and MB298, there have been several minutes, but mostly hours and days between their edits - they have never edited at the same time: [69]
• The MB298 account was created while Kbabej was indef sock blocked from February 12, 2015 to October 6, 2016.
• Kbabej has a history of many socks used while blocked not just for socking but for other reasons, as well. He also has a history of being dishonest repeatedly about socking and how many socks he had already created.
• Coffeeandcrumbs exhibited a knowledge right away of how to use Wikipedia see here: piping use, adding sources correctly right away sourcing, use of piping, sourcing, bolding, and cite needed tag. These are just in the first few edits of their editing career [70]
• As Kbabej always did with the majority of his socks, Coffeeandcrumbs almost immediately used the page creation feature: [71]
• MB298 and Coffeeandcrumbs have 40 articles/pages in common. Which is remarkable since Coffeeandcrumbs has been in Wikipedia for a little over a year.
• MB298 and Kbabej have an astounding number of 142 articles/pages in common - many of them unusual and obscure articles, many related to LDS and Fundamental LDS subjects, many related to Oregon and Oregon politicians (as well as the other topics listed above)
• Kbabej and Coffeeandcrumbs have 12 articles/pages in common - two of which are obscure: Bill Cosby sexual assault cases and Abella Danger.
• Please also note that as with Kbabej's own account name and 99% of all Kbabej socks, the Coffeeandcrumbs account name is a run-on name. Not conclusive evidence, but I don't believe it's coincidence, either.

This is loud quacking. Requesting a sleeper check as Kbabej has a history of creating numerous sock accounts, not even using all of them but keeping them around for later use if need be.

If any of the evidence I've presented seems unclear, please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify.

Thank you for considering this filing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Why would you remove MB298, Bbb23? Because the previous filing a couple of years ago gave no technical similarities at that time? That could change in two years, could it not? Seems odd that with the damning evidence including the increased number of similar edits, increased number of the same articles/same type of articles in common, and that the two accounts have still never edited simultaneously, there is not less evidence but more which would raise the question once again re: the two being the same editor or at least WP:MEAT? Moreover, the same articles and same type of articles as Coffeeandcrumbs with MB298, not ever editing at the same time, etc. -- surely that also spells WP:DUCK? I'd really appreciate an answer that makes sense, because in light of the continuing pile-up of evidence, I don't see why you would remove MB298 from this filing. Thanks, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Softlavender, at the very least the MB298 account should be CU's against the Coffeeandcrumbs account considering the same articles, same kind of edits, same interests, etc. as pointed out in the extensive evidence I provided. Hence, the reason why I see no logic in removing MB298 from this SPI. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I personally agree. You might have to start a second SPI with the earlier of those two as the master. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wouldn't be frowned upon? I think I recall seeing something similar happening in the past, but I don't want to be accused of fishing, either. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I really don't know about that. Anyway, I just looked at both of their contribs, and they both are extremely prolific (although MB298 has been here much longer), so maybe the crossover is bizarrely coincidental. I guess this all depends on how much all of this matters to you. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It all comes down to how much it matters to admins, SPI clerks/admins, and CUs since they are the final decision makers. And of course, there's policy. If you're implying this is personal, nope - you couldn't be more wrong. Kbabej has a long history of socking as well as harassment/hounding via socks and use of socks to avoid scrutiny along with block-evasion. He lied for a considerable amount of time about his socks while continuing to sock and at the same time asking to be unblocked. All of that should concern anyone. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm not implying that. I was just thinking that I guess you might need to put in some time to demonstrate that the crossovers on obscure articles were not just rapid-fire semi-automated or maintenance edits, but actual substantive edits on very obscure topics. That might be time-consuming, but if the powers that be are nixing MB298 on this SPI, it might be the only way. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Glad you are not. Wasn't trying to accuse you of saying it, I just didn't understand what you were getting at and to me it seemed as if you were thinking this is a personal vendetta for me. There's just one "power" that was involved in the other SPI on MB298 and is the same admin who removed MB298 from this SPI. Actually, another admin, JamesBWatson, was very convinced by the evidence I presented at that time and, if I remember correctly, disagreed that WP:DUCK wasn't enough to block the MB account, in spite of the CU/technical evidence. With even more of the same articles and article types now added to the count (that was about half what it is today) back in 2016, I am still confused as to why MB298 is not being considered for a CU. Technical evidence from two years ago is likely no longer valid. I've seen cases reopened, and what was considered not to be a sock in prior investigations check out the second time around. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This doesn't make any sense. Why would I be socking when my account isn't blocked? I can do what I need to do from Kbabej. I don't have any need to have other accounts. Plus I wouldn't risk socking with my past. A few things:

• I thought it was best practice to actually notify the people you're accusing here so that they can address the concerns, @Winkelvi. The only reason I knew about this is a user emailed me.
• @Coffeeandcrumbs has a markup in their signature to bold part of their username, which I've never done.
• I'm confident whoever looks into this will see it's a ridiculous claim. --Kbabej (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was also alerted by email. See this from just a couple of hours ago: sick burn! comment that aparently hurt some feeings and precipitated this attack. This is retaliatory. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Winkelvi, I agree that's an astounding number of articles for the master and MB298 to have in common. However, if MB298 isn't following your edits, that's no skin off your back if that account isn't checked or considered. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Deskana, the two editors only have 12 pages in common. That's not a large number for such prolific editors. You seem to be thinking of MB298, whom Bbb23 removed from the SPI: [72]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I have removed MB298. See archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Unrelated. Most of the evidence here is circumstantial, but I found the large number of overlapping articles to be just compelling enough, when combined with all the other evidence, to run a check. I'm not especially surprised the check came up negative. Since most of the evidence is circumstantial, and the check was negative, this should probably just be closed now. As an aside, the reason the first edits use wikitext so competently is because those edits were made using the visual editor, which tends to be easier for new people to use and will generate correct wikitext like that. --Deskana (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

• ThrowawayAccount4emailpurposes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dummy Throway (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

See below. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2023 (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

• Checked ThrowawayAccount4emailpurposes per concerns over scrutiny evasion and email abuse (see Special:Permalink/1131738604#Re: Restaurants); found Kbabej and Dummy Throway; all quite unambiguously  Confirmed to each other. I'm not entirely sure what all of this is supposed to achieve, but it's quite blatant evasion of scrutiny, and given Kbabej's history of socking (as documented in the case archive), I'm blocking them all indefinitely; CU blocks for the two socks, and a regular admin action for Kbabej in order to make this block more easily reviewable by the wider community.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]