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 sockpuppeteer

WiccaWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Proxy User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.30.121.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.172.38.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mmoyer 02:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of these users have done similar (and in some cases identical) vandalism/unconstructive edits to Bandidos. Both Wiccaweb and User:Proxy User have made similarly worded comments on Talk:Bandidos, using same pattern of rude language, bolding and italicization.

Wiccaweb: [1]

Proxy User (also amending edits by 131.30.121.23 to attribute to Proxy User: [2]

User has now violated a block on IP 75.172.38.233 and attempted identical edit using IP 131.30.121.23. [3] and [4]

Comments from Rlevse's talk page, pasted here

I'm sorry, but there is no connection as Mmoyer might like you believe, I’m just a guy with an opinion and too much time on my hands. And, what does an Air Force facility in Colorado Springs have to do with anything (It's 70 miles SOUTH of Denver)? In fact there are several Air Force facilities a lot closer to Denver: Buckley AFB for one (Not to mention the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which has an Air Force component - Google is our friend.), but why would an AFB facility in Colorado and one in Washington State share a set of IP ranges? Of course they would not. "Jumping servers"? Good lord. Mmoyer has no clue what he's talking about. But it's irrelevant, this is a personal vendetta on Mmoyer's part, and should be dismissed as such. What any of this has to do with user WiccaWeb is anyone's guess, probably just Mmoyer thinking out of his tail pipe. Proxy User 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language similarities (from talk pages):

WiccaWeb:

• Please don't patronize me with this kind of crap. I've been around bikers most of my life. Mostly Jokers, but the Bandidos don't stray far from that tree, their own public record simply don't support your flowery view. [5]

• Give it a break. No one would consider that a "personal attack". You're overreacting. And, some might consider YOUR comments on my page as intimidation. Are you trying to intimidate me because you disagree with my comments about the nature of the Bandidos? One might get that impression. I don't intimidate well, I find it an offensive and unbecoming quality all to prevalent here at Wikipedia by the "old timers". Please stop now. I'm sorry you disagree with me about the nature of the Bandidos, but me saying your comments where patronizing is not a "personal attack", it's a suggestion that you maybe need to look at your approach to talking to people. Please get a life and try to focus on worthwhile Wiki activities. [6]

131.30.121.23 (from McChord AFB):

• It is IMPROPER to remove the Neutrality POV tag. Clearly there is an issue, and it's being glossed over by editors that have a bias of denying factual evidence of the nature of Bandidos MC in favor of a fictional description that ignores documental activities. Until it is PROPERLY addressed, the Neutrality POV tag stays. If it takes filing a formal complaint and bringing in an unbiased admin / editor to hash it out, than that’s the way it will be. [7]

Proxy User (account has only been used on [[[Bandidos]]-related issues [8]):

• (re-attributing above edits by 131.30.121.23 to himself) It is IMPROPER to remove the Neutrality POV tag. Clearly there is an issue, and it's being glossed over by editors that have a bias of denying factual evidence of the nature of Bandidos MC in favor of a fictional description that ignores documented activities. Until it is PROPERLY addressed, the Neutrality POV tag stays. If it takes filing a formal complaint and bringing in an unbiased admin / editor to hash it out, than that’s the way it will be. [9]

• As I predicted, you use meaningless centrifuge to restrict content of this article to your point of view (otherwise known as bias). In a week or so, I will add a section on Illegal Activities that will be well supported by proper references, and I will defend it and insure that it stays included. You say that "the statement that the article contains a "fictional depiction of the Bandidos" does not seem entirely true." which of course implies that it is in part true. [10]

Edits to Bandidos:

1. WiccaWeb adds POV tag [11]
2. 131.30.121.23 adds "an outlaw motorcycle club with a worldwide membership linked to organized crime including drugs and rostitution" (4 attempts) [12] [13] [14] [15]
3. 75.172.38.233 adds "with ties to organized crime, drug dealing, and prostitution." [16]
4. 75.172.38.233 re-adds POV tags (4 attempts, and then blocked) [17] [18] [19] [20]
5. 131.30.121.23 re-adds POV tag using exact undo action as 38.233 [21]

Summary. WiccaWeb and Proxy User argue with the same style, both visually and grammatically. Proxy User's account is created only after I suggest that Wiccaweb was rude, with his "don't patronize me with that crap" comment. Proxy user attributes talk by 121.23 to himself by changing the signature line. 121.23 and 38.233 make almost identically worded edits, and then 121.23 attempts to add the same POV tag using the same undo action as that for which 38.233 was blocked. As for the geographical distance between the two IPs, any halfway clever tech can bounce off a couple of servers.

Additionally, WiccaWeb's only edit since 22 October (which was to erase a level 2 warning from his talk page [22]), was to respond to your closure of the sockpuppet case.

In short, there's no such thing as a coincidence.

Oh, BTW, I am female, not "some guy". Also, thanks for reconsidering! You poor admins go through so much. Mmoyer 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Mmoyer disagrees with my contention that there are POV questions concerning the Bandidos article, and refuses to allow (as if taking ownership) the POV tag. Mmoyer brought complaint against me for adding the tag back, and in fact had be banned for the exact same behavior that he himself is guilty of.

Mmoyer seeks to have me permanently banned purely for disagreeing with him about the POV tag, and for no other reason. Mmoyer believes that his opinion and that of his associates are the only valid opinions with respect to the article in question, and Mmoyer seeks to squash out any dissent.

Mmoyer will say "this isn't about the POV tag or the Bandidos article, it's about sockpuppets" But this isn't so, this is simply Mmoyer attempting to have me banned for suggestiong that the Bandidos article suffers from POV. KING Mmoyer has decided that in HIS opinion, no POV is present. Is HE the sole decider of this issue? Does HE have the right to have people HE disagrees with banned?

Mmoyer is being exceptionally heavy handed and indeed selfish. This is clearly improper. I wasn't aware that certain editors where allowed to "own" certain articles to the point of pushing POV and having people they disagrees with banned. This is a shame.

More info: Proxy User is my account, I have no other accounts. Other people use this computer as well as me.

Since I can not prevail here, I will cease to use this account, and will no longer edit any Wikipedia articles.

75.172.38.233 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe you people are wasting your time on this. I can’t really think of a practical reason for me to use a “sockpuppet”. And I would like to point out that there is no official rule against using an IP to do edits. It is “frowned upon”, but that’s not the same as not allowed. Proxy User 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's perfectly legal to use an ip to edit articles, and have a username in addition. But it's not at all legal to pretend to be a different user when editing under an ip in order to evade the 3RR, or to pretend he's a different user in order to add more weight to an argument (i.e. Look, someone else agrees with me!). This is called meatpuppetry, and is strictly forbidden. Gscshoyru 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've used both a user name and an IP, this much is known and perfictly leagal under Wiki rules. But I have done so for no other reason than lazyness in logging in. Sorry to disappoint you. Proxy User 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your current 3RR violation on Bandidos says otherwise. Gscshoyru 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

WiccaWeb is probably 75.172.38.233 (Qwest Comms, Denver, CO), Proxy User is definitely 131.30.121.23 (McChord AFB, WA). The question is, is there meat or sock puppeting going on. This will require a closer look. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't justify blocks here. They both seem to have ceased editing. There was edit warring going on, which they were blocked temp for. With the geographic locales of the IPs, socking is not likely here, possibly meat puppeting, but it's not conclusive to me. If the accounts reactivate and misbehave, report to the appropriate board. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---