The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sock puppeteer

BreakEvenMatt (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

• Repner1 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• HoboJones (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Windymager (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

• SpinningSpark 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• BreakEvenMatt removes image[1] disruptively claiming hidden offensive message. Repner1 removes same image[2] citing the same rubbish a few hours later.--SpinningSpark

• I have added HoboJones to the suspected socks since he is also clearly perpetuating this nonsense. The image is completely free of messages by any method of examination at my disposal - all pixels have the same value. Not really needed since HoboJones has posted in this discussion, but here are the diffs;[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]-*SpinningSpark

• No, it really has the word "bitch" is the version uploaded by Windymager (talk · contribs): [10]--HoboJones (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also added Windymager as a suspected sock. This is the uploader of the alleged suspect image.[11] Although I do not believe the image is problematic, given the short space of time between the upload and the start of this trolling, I am now suspecting Windy of being a sleeper sock. SpinningSpark 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
• I have probably not found the puppetmaster, request checkuser to determine and block the root IP. SpinningSpark 19:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have only one account. I can clearly see the image displaying the word "bitch" from an angle, and it's more clearly shown when the contrast is turned down. These accusations are ridiculous Repner1 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found that when you are looking at the image alone, when it's in full screen, it's harder to notice since it's higher up on the screen. If you want to check it, it's best to do it on the "Nothing" page instead. It's definitely there though, and this BreakEvenMatt user is just another user who found it, and that's how I noticed the vandalism in the first place. I've checked on Firefox, Google Chrome, and IE7, and it came up with the same results Repner1 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found another method to try. Copy and paste the image onto Paint, or another graphics program, and use the fill tool on the image to turn the rest of the image a different colour. I've found the word appears twice in the image. It's a possibility that that fact I might be using a different graphics card to SpinningSpark allows me to see it in a different quality when on the site Repner1 (talk)

• Yes, it definitely said "bitch" in the bottom-center-ish area, apparently as a result of image vandalism from Windymager (talk · contribs). I have reverted the vandalism, warned the perp (whether a block is in order is up to any admin), and ((db-i8)) nominated the image for deletion since there is an identical image on commons. I move to have this SSP closed.--HoboJones (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really quite bizarre--I solved the "mystery" and now I find myself accused of being a sockpupet by User:Spinningspark. --HoboJones (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Spinningspark now says "I now agree that the image does indeed have some hidden vandalism." He has also escalated this matter into a checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt--HoboJones (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Spinningspark, were you going to do this to everyone who collaborates to this debate? You even added the person that placed the vandalism we tried to deal with. Where's the logic in that? All HoboJones clearly did is see this debate, checked the image for himself, and saw the word. Even you're agreeing now, and your still keeping these accusations up. This isn't funny Repner1 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In response to your Checkuser page. The word was very visible (although faint at first) from my PC. I rarely even edit on Wikipedia, and only use the account to make changes whenever I see a mistake, or (as in this case) vandalism. I couldn't care about trying to build a good reputation Repner1 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please note that User:Balloonman, who is admin coaching the editor who filed this report, has characterized this incides as such: "When an established editor (meaning me, HoboJones) approached you about it, and confirmed that he saw the vandalism as well, and provided a link, you included allegation that he was a potential sock as well." Here is the diff. Also, please not that the phrases: "ARGH!!!" and "I hate to say it, but you messed up my friend" were used to describe this situation. Again, I say that this SSP request is bizarre and should be denied, along with the related checkuser request.--HoboJones (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name has been invoked, yes, I question this SSP/RFCU, but was hoping to let Spinningspark respond to my comments first---unfortunately, Spinningspark doesn't have access to the internet from Mon-Thursday. There is no way that HoboJones should have known this, but I expect his comments tonight.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely uninvolved here, I came across this matter while checking on a SSP case I filed. I'm afraid I see nothing here to corroborrate the SSP allegations here. User:Windymager, with what appears to be his/her first edit in 18 months uploaded a vandalized file. The others simply attempt to fix it. I see no link between the others and Windymager at all, and recommend refusing the case. Cross posted to WP:RFCU. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Due to lack of any evidence of impropriety, the checkuser case has been  Declined -- Avi (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator here, I wish to withdraw this case as I am completely mistaken and have apologised to all on their talk pages. I would have done this yesterday but mistakenly thought the comment above had already closed the case (sorry another mistake). I now agree the image was vandalised and accept that all attempts to correct it against my opposition were good faith. Once again I apologise to everyone for the stress I have caused. Would anyone reviewing this case please note that my statement of evidence at the top of the page no longer makes any sense because it has (presumably accidently) had a chunk edited out by user Repner1. SpinningSpark 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Complainant has withdrawn case; no further action is needed at this time. Hermione1980 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---