Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki libs

Wiki libs (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 15 2009, 02:36 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Sumbuddi
[edit]

User:Wiki_libs appears to be using sock puppets for the following purposes:

  • Violating WP:3RR at Russell Blaylock (reverts [1], [2], [3] and [4] - the latter using the 202 IP)
  • Edit warring/wikistalking at Juice. Wiki libs and I came into conflict over Pete Townshend (see for instance [5]), and he appears to have decided to pursue a vendetta anonymously, using anonymous IPs to wikistalk/edit war with me at Juice - see edits to that page from 13 October onwards. Also Violating WP:3RR at that same page ([6], [7], [8], [9]).

Specific comments:

  • the edit war at Juice is highly improbable - the chance that three anon IPs would be checking the page history on an uncontroversial page and all coming to the same conclusion is small. At least two of the anons show an unlikely command of Wikipedia policy, with Special:Contributions/80.175.78.114 accusing me of vandalism and slapping on a Template:Test2a on my user page. This page is not a controversial one and this edit war makes no sense.
'Previous change seems more WP:POINT violation instead of constructive edit. If you don't like the image, find a better one. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox' [10]
as part of the Juice edit war, which is identical in style to the edit summary left by Wiki Libs on Russell Blaylock
'It already says that in the lead-in. No need to duplicate unless you're standing on a soapbox trying to prove a point' [11]
just 37 minutes earlier. The chance of the anon user and Wiki Libs both writing in the same officious, protocol-focused style, linking two the same two protocols on completely different pages within 45 minutes of each other is basically zero, especially given the overlap on pages edited.
=Follow-up - users added following input by Luminifer==
[edit]
  • 142.167.170.136, 142.167.169.71, Peter Fleet, 81.178.36.21 (the latter added by Sumbuddi) - 3RRing/edit warring at Power Ballad [16] - see dispute of 31 August-1 September.
  • 81.178.36.21 IP was also used in a Wiki libs edit war here: [17] - see 22nd April - 26th April 2009. In that war the sequence of reverts to Wiki Libs preferred version is: Wiki Libs, Wiki Libs again, 156.34.142.110 (Wiki Libs signs his posts with this IP - this is definitely him), Wiki Libs again, Wiki Libs again, then 81.178.36.21. Note subsequent use of Wiki libs' IPS 44 and 53. There may be other sockpuppets here. I am not sure.
  • 81.178.36.21 also used to anomyously slap on Luminifer [18]
  • 142.167.163.133, 202.174.177.49 and Peter Fleet - pursuing a sockpuppeted agenda against User_talk:Rockgenre and Luminifer (see sock puppet accusation by the 202 IP here: [19]).
  • Current content dispute at Pete Townshend - 82.69.46.23 posts in defence of Wiki libs' POV - this user's other edits are to death metal type articles, shares similar predilection for removing certain sources as Wiki libs. Likely sockpuppet of Wiki Libs. (Note that 82.69.8.81 is the same (small) ISP, and did Wiki libs' bidding in the '1960s in heavy metal' war, and has an identical editing style to the 82.69.46.23 IP - these two 82.69 IPs are definitely the same person) 202.174.177.44 - proven sockpuppet (see above) posts Wiki libs' POV. Peter Fleet - posts a proposed 'compromise', which Wiki Libs, as puppet master, then reposts, saying he agrees with that user.
  • Fair Deal - same writing style as wiki libs, various overlaps with suspected sock Peter Fleet at Jimmy Page, same 'I am always correct'-type message on user page. All 3 users overlap at [20] with the same POV.
  • GripTheHusk - same writing style, same articles edited, part of the sock network used to simulate consensus on Pete Townshend. Also enforced Wiki libs' POV at 1960s in heavy metal music and at other pages.
  • BC Rocky - same articles edited, employed to simulate consensus for the Pete Townshend RFC, helps Wiki libs and his sock network edit war on numerous pages, see also Talk:Hot Space, where consensus is created using 3 Wiki libs sock puppets to appear like 3 people agreeing and only 1 disagreeing, when in reality there are only two people with different views there - Wiki libs + socks, and Greg D. Barnes.
  • 202.20.0.166 - joining in a sockpuppet investigation with Wiki libs, reverting to Wiki libs version of the 1960s in heavy metal music, getting involved on Wiki libs' side in a dispute about Guns and Roses, likewise at Jimmy Page, where he directly endorses suspected Wiki libs' puppet Fair Deal - who obviously shares Wiki libs' POV, which is also entered at that dispute.
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]

Comment Only one of these IPs is even Canadian. --King Öomie 13:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I know how he's done this, but I won't say because I don't want to be accused of outing. Suffice to say I think the evidence above speaks for itself. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proxies, etc etc. Meh, I'm not sure how much I can say for evidence like this. The editing styles are similar, but the article overlap is simply not a determinant at all- if there was no overlap, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all and, by the same token, if other, uninvolved users had similar overlaps, they'd be listed here as well (who knows, that may be happening now). A starting point, to be certain, but not evidence in and of itself. The ISP used by the canadian IP is an interesting case (see Stentor Alliance)- at this point in time, either a very large portion of Canadian IPs report that ISP, or very small (need a Canadian to clarify). I have a feeling this will come down to Checkuser. --King Öomie 14:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't thinking proxies. And it wasn't the overlap that tipped me off, it was the edit war at 'juice', which would just about be plausible from one anon IP, but when it became three it was a bit of a WTF moment. And then when the last anon IP slapped a warning template on my talkpage accusing me of vandalism, it was a deja vu moment compared with Wiki libs doing much the same to my talk page a few days earlier. The three IPs all doing what they did doesn't make sense until you realise that they are the same person trying to pick a fight. I don't edit Wikipedia much so there aren't really any other candidates for that person. The edit overlap is more the cream on top really. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an analysis of the overlapping edit history of Wiki libs and the IPs you've posted here. There's a 100% intersect between the articles edited by the IPs and Libs, but considering Libs has edited 6,300 pages[21], I can't speak to how significant that is. I will point out that I find it odd that he'd choose to use socks to cumulatively 3rr on a page he'd never edited on his actual account, and use a further sock to edit normally, whilst not using his actual account at all (he's previously pointed out socks to me based on gaps in editing history much like the one you see here- a simple mistake I wouldn't expect him to make if he were to fall to the Dark Side). I'll also point out the the edit one IP referred to as pointy and soapy did seem pointy and soapy (what with its use of scare quotes). I too link policies in that manner on occasion. But again, Checkuser. --King Öomie 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the IPs were used with the intent to 3RR in the first instance, but rather to pick a fight without it being linked to his own account (wikistalking), which, as explained, is in dispute with me. As for editing 6,300 pages, I checked the previous five anon IPs prior to the ones in question here [22] and there is ZERO overlap. 0/5 compared with 3/3 looks pretty significant to me (especially if you consider that something like Russell Blaylock is not an oft-edited page... BTW, the quotes were to clarify that 'juice drink' has specific meaning (defined further up the article in wording that I guess has been there a while). Sumbuddi (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't imagine why he'd sock at all. There's no point, and he knows it. Quickly caught, quickly reverted. I DO wish there was a way to see how a user got from one page to the next. But, checkuser. --King Öomie 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was recently brought to my attention. I would like to point out two similar IPs that also follow this pattern, at [23].. I originally suspected Peter Fleet (who, along with Libs, I have been involved with reprting at WQA), because of the AU IP addresses, so I have added them as well and leave it up to the investigator to decide what to do about this. Two similar IPs were also involved in an edit war here[24] which was related to the WQA I filed, and strangely dissipated soon after. Luminifer (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated + added some more. Not sure about Fair deal, but given the 100% solid evidence of sockpuppeting using the 202.174.177 addresses at the very least, it would be best not to let any slip through the cracks. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100% solid evidence that it is LIBS? You mentioned an explanation for the pervasive Australian IP addresses? --King Öomie 03:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er yeah, all those 202.174.177 IPs not just editing not just Wiki libs' articles, but also supporting him on Wikiquette review and backing him up on his various POVs as well I would say is 100% solid evidence. The explanation for the use of Australian, British, Canadian and New Zealand IPs btw can be found by doing a whois on the 80.175 IP and then looking at the corporate website that should lead you to, which shows a presence in those four countries and those four countries alone. Also if you ping the New Zealand version of that company's corporate website to find the IP that's hosting it, and then do a whois on that, you'll find (a) it's hosted using the same small business-only ISP as the 202.20 IP I listed as a sockpuppet above AND the 202.174.177 range, (b) that that ISP has a presence in both NZ and AUS, and (c) that the 202.174.177.* ISP, the 202.20.x.x ISP and that company's ISP are all the same ISP. So they all tie up rather nicely in fact. And the named user socks all state where they live, and it's various permutations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which you will have seen from the above, Wiki libs is well able to tie up with IP-wise. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: From Libs's (wikipedia) email auto-response:

Work is forcing me to travel to Texas and then to Northern Cal. for the next 9 days. Will be back online soon after. Will still try to check-in along the way.

--King Öomie 00:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what to say about the checkuser results. I'm dumbfounded. This is incredibly disappointing, to say the least.
Of Libs, I mean. Not Brandon. --King Öomie 05:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well heck, I never really thought... anyway, could we put this on hold pending a comment from libs? It seems unfair to have this all go through whilst he's away (I know that the reporter couldn't have know he was away but the point stands). That will mean leaving this open until the 24th (unless he manages to log in during the time he's travelling), hope that's OK with everyone. It looks like he logged in as BC Rocky on the 18th, but that account did not have notification of this discussion, so he may still be unaware of it, I have now notified the accounts BC Rocky, Cold Goast and Alisprings of the investigation, so hopefully libs won't miss it next time he signs on. Kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 06:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent him another email, so yes, hopefully he sees it. What I find interesting is that some of these accounts appear to have been created for no real purpose. No 3rr by proxy, not harassment, no consensus-pushing. It just doesn't make sense to me. --King Öomie 06:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the users all seem to have been created 'clean' with the intent to have an account to bring out at some point in the future. It wouldn't really do to have a brand new user 3RRing/consensus-pusing/whatever, but if you cultivate it for a while then it serves that purpose better. Brandon has added three new users created within the last few days, which I didn't spot, but all the older ones have gone on to perform harassing/3RRing/consensus-pushing later - it seems reasonable to suppose the new ones will do as well. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. This is like finding out a police officer you know, with numerous commendations, has been stealing evidence on the side. --King Öomie 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable....of all of the people I've came across on Wikipedia I never would of thought he'd be a puppetmaster. I'm am shocked, and dissapointed.--SKATER Speak. 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person actually used a number of users (at least 3), sometimes one to defend his or her own point of view, on the LIttle Richard discussion page. As a new user with a great deal of knowledge about the topic, I felt overwhelmed with the tone of some of the comments and unreasonable criticism. Will LIBS be allowed to continue? This is very bad business for Wikipedia.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you posting to a CLOSED SPI to ask this question? Blocks have been doled out, it's over. --King Öomie 15:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I felt it worthwhile to document here what may be the best example of sockpuppeting use of these accounts, [25] (or permalink with my last post on that discussion here [26])... Libs uses 6 of the accounts mentioned here to fake consensus, when in fact there were only two users in the discussion - myself, and Libs. Libs even went so far as to state that consensus was reached, here [27]. I know this is over, but I wanted this particular example documented here for anyone who wanted it. Luminifer (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEADHORSE-It's over, drop it and move on.--SKATER Speak. 07:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, take another look at the Checkuser result. --King Öomie 14:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Sumbuddi (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]
  • information Administrator note Alternate accounts blocked and tagged. Wiki libs given a 1 month block. Any future sockpuppetry will result in an indefinite block. NW (Talk) 23:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone keeping score, this addition has not edited since 10/13 and therefore was not used to circumvent a block. --King Öomie 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 23 2009, 02:23 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare
[edit]

The evidence from Sumbuddi was posted on my talk page, so I am opening this case. Note that if this is indeed Wiki libs' sockpuppet; it would not be a violation of his block, as it stopped editing before Wiki libs' was blocked. NW (Talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually there were three edits on 9 November 2009, after the block.) Sumbuddi (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I failed to notice those. Disregard the last please. NW (Talk) 02:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Sumbuddi
[edit]

Hi, I'm messaging you since it looks as though we may have missed a sockpuppet on the Wiki Libs investigation.

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fozforus with blocked Libs' puppet http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wether_B&oldid=283087295

Libs' sockpuppets modus operandi with his sockpuppets appears to have been in each case to slap together a user page with some userboxes. Fozforus' first actions as a putative new user was to enrol in three wikiprojects [28]

Other proven libs socks for comparison: [29] [30] (and see contributions - same pattern [31]). Blocked User:Alisprings was not yet used for sockpuppeting, but libs also started by creating the puppet - [32]. User:Fair Deal is much older, but starts the same way: [33], as does User:Aussie Ausborn at[34].

Basically this behaviour sticks out like a sore thumb. Anyway, apart from that there are very incriminating edit patterns, check out: Bon Jovi at [35]. Wiki libs has a major obsession with genres for his pet metal bands, and numerous of his socks are active there - see for instance, [36] by 'GripTheHusk', then, a few hours later: [37], much the same edit, by Fozforus (in between them is 142.167.182.250, another definite libs sock, from the same 142.167. range as several socks reported previously, but it's stale, so that's just an aside).

If you go through the other edits by Fozforus, they are all **highly* incriminating if you've seen Libs' editing patterns, e.g., [38] where Queen are removed from glam rock, the discussion at [39] (scroll up also for use of numerous Libs' sockpuppets in this 'debate'), this: [40] 'talking to self' episode on AN/I. Also this: [41] and this: [42] on the Pete Townshend child pornography debate (see closed SPI - large numbers of Libs' sock puppets used here). There is more evidence, I think this is enough though?

As an aside, Wiki Libs (as himself) is denying his sockpuppetry here: [43], when it is plain from the contributions: [44] that it was him. Evidently he has to be formally 'convicted', as he hasn't the sense to admit what's obvious. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit is a violation of WP:NPA.--SKATER Speak. 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki libs actually used (and consistently uses) the abbreviation 'RVV', when reverting edits that he doesn't agree with, that do not actually constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism. This is insulting to the users he is reverting, in this case me. I'm not expecting three Hail Marys from him, but petty reverts and accusations of vandalism are not really a good way to return after a month's block. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still gives you no right to attack his "sense".--SKATER Speak. 03:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA says "Accusations about personal behavior [require] evidence". Which is what we're dealing with here, evidence of sockpuppeting, and specifically the willingness, post-block, to deny it. Which is not sensible, IMVHO. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by NW (Talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]
  • The sock has been blocked indefinitely, and the master indefinitely as well. I'm willing to entertain an unblock request if Wiki libs promises to abide by the sockpuppetry policy in the future. NW (Talk) 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 27 2009, 11:27 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Occultaphenia
[edit]

I am not one to complain, but I suspect sockpuppetry: these editors appear to be attempting to remove previously cited content in regard to the Pete Townsend page, regarding Townsend influencing Jimmy Page appears to have been in the article cited and uncontested. At first the content was removed without reason, all with a (Tag: references removed) in the comment for removal section, all within a quick suspicious amount of time, with most not having much editing outside the Townsend page, with only one (Scieberking) giving an ambigious reason claiming the link is "Malware" which doesn't sound right or legit reason and the link doesn't appear to be this incorrectly claimed classification. They all appear not to have a real log-in, other than the above mentioned. This removal continues, despite the source backing up the claim. I also notice that user 'Wiki Libs' appears to have been very protective of the Jimmy Page article, and appears to have a history of sockpupperty, though this may be less likely due to different editing reasons. I hope i have done the right thing, as I do not want to get into an 'edit war' so to speak, but these accounts point to sneakery to me. Please check just to make sure.


Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Occultaphenia (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]


Given the evidence that :115.167.84.73, 115.167.80.252, 115.167.84.109, 78.144.251.132 and Scieberking appear to have been proven socks of the same account, then shouldnt they be block? action should be taken. --Occultaphenia (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry. I misread Brandon's comment above. As such, I have blocked all the IPs and the named account for a period of one week. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 2 2010, 14:11 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Blackberry IPs - Checkuser NOT requested
Stentor IPs
User


Evidence submitted by Sumbuddi
[edit]

For background on this case read [45]. The user was previously blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting.

Essentially this originated when I disagreed with Wiki libs on Pete Townshend over how to present the issue of Townshend's caution for a child pornography offence.

I made an inoccuous edit at juice and was surprised to find I was reverted by three separate anon IPs. See for instance [46]. This seemed irrational, so I looked a little further and found connections to Wiki libs. After investigation it emerged that he maintained a large number of named user socks, each with elaborate back-stories, used for POV pushing and simulating consensus. After an SPI, which I submitted, he was blocked indefinitely.

He was unblocked on 4th February. Shortly after this time I got involved with a dispute over external links on online gambling pages. The status quo was a link to ODP (dmoz), while I contended that there should be no link unless useful. A third party (User:Wickland who was at this time editing from 68.191.163.74) wanted to replace the ODP links with Yahoo links. An edit war continued over several days.

On 8th February User:Editor 410 was registered. This user is clearly (from contributions) experienced and initially made only edits to wikisyntax - nothing that could possibly cause controversy.

On 10th February the external links dispute is still ongoing, and 68.171.233.177 re-adds [47] a link added by 68.191.163.74, which I had pointed out to 68.191.163.74 was off-topic, and which he had acknowledged and apologised for [48].

The revert by 68.171.233.177, reverting to an off-topic Yahoo link looks odd. When I revert it, 206.53.157.236 adds it back [49].

At the same time another IP is reverting my contribution at Casino, see here: [50], but here, rather than Yahoo, he reverts to an ODP link. When I look up all three IPs I notice that they are all Blackberry IPs. Given the inconsistency of the edits and the trouble that it would be to use a Blackberry to edit Wikipedia I immediately suspect it to be User:Wiki libs, following the same behaviour he had previously done to me at juice, as documented above.

This of course is just a suspicion. However, I noted that since the revert at casino, the IP used there had made an edit to Rust in Peace. I knew this to be one of Wiki libs' main interests, and upon looking at the history of that page, I found a whole mess of IPs 206.53 and 68.171 IPs (all Blackberry) stretching back to December and all perfoming the same edit - reverting the 'Genre' of the album. The EXACT same edits had previously been performed (see 9 October and earlier) by Wiki libs and his socks (Wether B, Aussie Ausborn, Fair Deal, GripTheHusk).

I looked through the entire Blackberry IP range and found that about 90 different Blackberry IPs had been used to perform nearly identical edits, reverting to the Wiki libs position on 'Genre' for these albums, songs and bands. The large number of IPs is presumably because the IP is not persistent on a Blackberry. Note that for this reason there will be other editors from these IPs. From the fact that these edits only began when he was indef blocked and match exactly with his past behaviour, it is clear that he ignored his block to edit war anonymously while indef blocked. Further more, he edit warred with me using these Blackberry IPs (for which I myself was blocked when I reverted him). The combination of these factors makes it IMO certain that Wiki libs evaded his indef block.

Anyway, it is not necessary to examine all the Blackberry IPs, a look at a few should suffice to show the pattern - genre edit wars on articles relating typically to Queen, The Who, Led Zeppelin and Metallica.

I have also listed Stentor IPs that appear to match him, if only for completeness sake (they didn't do anything the Blackberry IPs didn't do).

Regarding Editor 410, after I was blocked for a week for reverting the Blackberry editor at online bingo I was indef blocked. I eventually discovered why - Editor 410 had made false accusations against me at WP:AIV, including claiming that I was a spammer from Namibia as well as claiming I was the user Wickland/68.191.163.74 mentioned above.

Here are edits made by Editor 410 at AIV that would appear to be motivated by a vendetta against me. See firstly: [51] But also: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

In view of the fact that Editor 410 was registered shortly after Wiki libs was unblocked, is clearly experienced, has a vendetta against me (for getting him blocked indefinitely), and adopted 'under-the-radar' tactics to stay low profile (only posting to WP:AIV, even though no vandalism was involved), I am requesting checkuser on this user (note that Wiki libs is known to have access to a wide variety of IP ranges, see the first SPI for some details), so that he can be blocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki libs. Of course if the reviewing admin feels that there is sufficient evidence that Editor 410 is a sock of WIki libs without checkuser evidence, then that won't be necessary.

There is no need for checkuser for any of the other IPs, the behavioural evidence is overwhelming, and I don't think it's likely that anyone would ever edit logged in from a Blackberry. In view of the behavioural evidence that Wiki libs (currently unblocked) sockpuppeted for the exclusive purpose of edit warring and POV pushing while indefinitely blocked, I suggest that the indefinite block on User:Wiki libs be restored with a immediate effect, pending investigation of Editor 410. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, PENDING investigation? Let's also perform the dunk test. Witch_hunt.jpg --King Öomie 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly quick off the mark.
My point is simply that there are two separate issues here. Firstly Wiki libs CAN be blocked immediately, because the IP evidence speaks for itself. There is no 'pending investigation' - I've already done the investigation, I scanned the Blackberry IP blocks and listed all the IPs that match Wiki libs' past behaviour, these can be reviewed by any reader of this page and the accusations confirmed. Because he did this while indefinitely blocked (and has since continued to use to use the IPs to evade scrutiny) his unblock should be reversed.
Since it's very clear Wiki libs used IPs to edit while blocked, the second issue is the status of Editor 410. We don't have any IPs for him (hence my suggestion of checkuser), and he's avoided making any content-related edits, so there is an investigation into him. I considered listing him separately as this SPI is split between IPs edit warring on music genres (as per Wiki libs) and Editor 410, who simply bears a grudge against me. However the evidence of the massive sockpuppeting and the fact that there is an overlap between the IPs and the user in that the IPs were also used to edit war with me resulted in my decision to list them together. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That word "confirmed" doesn't mean what you think it means. You can't just look at a list absent of context and say "Yerp, confirmed". And if you recall, you were confirmed to be abusing multiple accounts, by the same checkuser who dealt with Libs' original SPI. That had to be cleared up by ANOTHER checkuser. --King Öomie 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mojoworker came to your aid out of the blue, and that sock allegation was crazy, but now a new editor doesn't like you, and socking is the only answer? --King Öomie 14:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference. Both accounts are relatively 'fresh', and that obviously aroused suspicion against both users, the difference however is that Mojoworker was assuming good faith and his comments accorded with the eventual decision taken by the clerk closing the case, whereas Editor 410 made false and malicious claims against me, and not only that, but IPs used by Wiki libs were used to edit war with me at the same time, further linking the behaviour of the two. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Editor 410 has responded to Wiki libs 'Prophaniti' comment below by disrupting SPI with nonsensical smears against me: [62]. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some edit summaries of note:

Compare this, by proven Wiki libs sock 'Gripthehusk' [63] 'reverting earlier IP testing' where he reverts an edit that is clearly NOT a test, with these [64] by the Blackberry IPs 'revert earlier IP test edit' and [65] 'Undid test edit by Ducky610'. It's very clear that none of the three edits were in fact tests, and this further suggests the Blackberry IPs are Wiki libs, given that they share the same pattern of falsely labelling changes as 'tests'.

[66] "Undid revision 336071093 by User:Prophaniti". Made after only five edits by the IP. Same here: [67] after only two edits from the UK's predominant ISP (one third of all users).

And now Editor 410/Wiki libs have suggested that because I use BT, I must be a sock of 'Prophaniti' too.

Comments by accused parties
[edit]
Statement made by Wiki libs

See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I was alerted to this SPI via my talk page... but not by the person who submitted the report. Perhaps some courtesy next time to avoid such a rude interruption to my morning coffee.
  • Some pre-history as to my unblock on February 4, 2010.
    • On February 3rd I sent an email to the blocking admin (Nuclear Warfare) stating that if he was willing to unblock then I would "guarantee that I would only login to Wikipedia using my single work PC and my static IP." I assured NW that I "will not login to any PC available to me on campus or even login from my home PC." And stated that "all logins would be as Wiki libs and no other logins will be used. In doing so the Wiki libs logins and the Static IP can be confirmed at any time by anyone who requests it."
    • Nuclear Warfare's reply to me on February 4, 2010 was "OK then. I'm willing to believe you in this case. Even if you had abused those other accounts, it's been over two months since you were blocked, and I'm willing to give you a second chance." If he is able to be contacted then Nuclear Warfare can confirm this correspondence on February 4th, 2010
  • For the record, I have held to the agreement between Nuclear Warfare and myself and have not been active on Wikipedia from any location other than my static location and all activity has been during regular working hours.
    • As for User:Sumbuddi's claims:
      • A) I do not own a Blackberry... I have never owned one.
      • B) Some of the IP edits listed by Sumbuddi, in particular [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]....
        • After I returned to Wikipedia on February 4th...I actually undid one of those Blackberry IP edits here. Also note that one of those Blackberry IP edits undid an earlier change by Wikipedia administrator User:Enigmaman, who I have work closely with on Wikipedia in ongoing counter-vandalism activity... an editor I would never undo without first speaking to him directly about his edit.
      • Also note that many of the Blackberry IP edits occur after my account was re-instated to me on February 4th, 2010.
        • Even if I did own a Blackberry.... why would I edit using one if I had access via my Wikipedia account?... and why would I edit war with myself?
  • During my hiatus and re-think over my role as an editor I had long decided that if I were given the chance to return to Wikipedia I would not waste time reverting petty IP POV edits, like many of the ones listed above. All edits like the above examples shown should be discussed... but it doesn't need the edit-countitus fluff just to revert them waiting for discussion that never comes. It simply isn't worth it. Some of the Blackberry edits shown above are actually quite valid. But some, lke the one I reverted were not. And some have been reverted by editors other than me.
    • The Blackberry IPs above seem to repeatedly revert edits like these. But the last edit done by that IP was reverted by User:Nymf (and she has many other reverts in her edit history similar to my revert example shown above) Does that mean that he/she is me as well??? Does that mean that he/she is the Blackberry user? That account's edit history and mine are extremely similar. And the User:Nymf account has many edits similar to the Blackberry IP edits listed above. As do many other accounts that frequent Wikipedia's music related articles. Sumbuddi's account was blocked temporarily by an inadvertent WP:DUCK test. If that sort of comparison is done with some of the diffs listed above... an awful lot of accounts would end up being blocked.
          • I will re-state one more time... I do not own a Blackberry.. or any other type of web-accessible hand-held device.
  • As for the accusation that I edit under the account name User:Editor 410. By all means... I gladly support a check for this account and my own. As quickly as one can be done so that this accusation can be laid to rest. I am not Editor 410 and a checkuser will prove that to be so.
  • On February 4th Nuclear Warfare showed the greatest respect for WP:AGF by unblocking my account and allowing me to edit. Since that time I have held firmly to the pledge that I gave to him and have not deviated from my restrictions in any way.
  • Also, since my return, I have made a grand effort to avoid crossing paths with User:Sumbuddi (due to our previous confrontations). The edits that User:Sumbuddi made to the Online bingo and Casino which resulted in him being blocked for using IP sockpuppets while blocked were valid edits. He was 100% right to remove the external links from those articles but should not have continued to removed while he was blocked. I hold no grudge or vendetta against this person. But must admit that my past negative experiences with this user would have had an impact on my decision to speak to his defence of those link removals on the talk pages of those 2 gambling related articles. I have received a number of anti-spam Barnstars for doing the same sort of link removals as User:Sumbuddi. I can understand his fervour to continue removing the links using an IP after his account was blocked. Spam links and pirated images are 2 of the most negative elements which hold Wikipedia from being a trusted source for information. I hope that "post-SPI", if I were to see User:Sumbuddi struggling with anon IPs to remove similar external links, I would be able to push aside my past experience with this editor to help in keeping Wikipedia clean of links which do not belong within the project. On February 4th WP:AGF was extended to me... so I will uphold WP:AGF myself to help another editor... even one that I have had such a negative epxerience with. Wiki libs (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
Unfortunately it is impossible for us to verify whether you own or use a Blackberry or not. Moving on from that one....
The problem is that the Blackberry edits start only after you were blocked. It is hard to imagine why anyone would edit from a Blackberry unless they had no other choice, e.g. if they were indefinitely blocked. It certainly isn't plausible that they would revert all these different pages without having a separate account on an actual computer with watchlist to monitor them all. And if that was the case, why wouldn't they just revert them from there? Unless of course they were blocked.
While someone like Nymf might have performed similar single edits to the ones made by the Blackberry IPs, she had no reason to do so from a Blackberry. And of course she had no reason to edit war with me (at online bingo and [[casino), whereas you've already been blocked for doing just that.
As for why the edits continued after you were unblocked, the edit war at for instance Rust in Peace is rather incriminating that you ignored your indefinite block, should you suddenly go from Blackberry IP to 'Wiki libs' so it would make sense to continue using the Blackberry. Indeed nobody would ever have noticed this, were it not for the inexplicable Blackberry edit warring against me at online bingo and casino, warring which matches your behaviour at juice last year.
With respect to your partial revert of the Blackberry IP, I'm not sure what this is expected to show, other than that you are capable of changing your mind. In particular, if you compare your partial revert there with your edit here [82], it's clear that you DID previously adopt the exact same position adopted by the Blackberry IPs. You did hold the exact position held by the Blackberry IPs.
The edit summaries match with yours, things like "remove nonsense" to revert the addition of 'thrash metal' (which, subjectively right or wrong, is not nonsense) match with your past patterns of labeling different views as vandalism/nonsense. The label of WP:GENRE TROLL is also distinctive.
I had a look at the Enigmaman edit, seems he reverted this: [83], which is a 100% valid grammar correction (so you were correct to revert it - asking him 'hey, you know Hounds should have a capital H, right', would just look sarcastic), plus he added back the 'Thrash metal' genre. We already know that you were opposed to that genre, this edit made by 'Wiki libs' removes it [84]. I'm not quite sure the reason for Enigmaman's edit, it looks like a mistake, but saying 'look, this IP reverted my friend's edit to go back to my own position', seems to support, not refute the allegations. You had a straight choice, disagreeing with him or disagreeing with yourself. You chose to agree with yourself and disagree with him. Whoop.
Your point about DUCKs doesn't really hold up - Wickland made opposite edits from me, and has a different posting style. I can point to links showing us disagreeing with each other - and we only have a few edits on the same pages to compare with. OTOH, out of 100+ edits made by these Blackberry IPs, I didn't see any edits that are not consistent with them being you, and there's a much bigger sample to choose from. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most impressive part of your post is how you didn't stumble at all when you stomped directly on the giant olive branch. --King Öomie 18:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I find it hard to take apologies of a 'Oh shit, I'm about to get blocked' nature seriously. I previously made it clear I didn't want to continue any past quarrels with him: [85]. Unfortunately this was shortly followed by an anonymous edit war and malicious lies about me on WP:AIV.
A 'hey, sorry about what happened before, let's keep out of each others way' three weeks ago on my talk page would have gone down really well. Now however, after I spent over a week trying to get unblocked, during which this attempt to smear somebody else as my sock [86] was Libs' only apparent contribution is really not the time. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the comments above, I'd add that I'd already spotted the Blackberry IPs before the edit Wiki libs cites above as having 'undid' a Blackberry edit. See [87] So it's possible that he was changing his mind for the sake of appearances, as that edit follows about two hours after my spotting him. It doesn't make much difference either way, as the Blackberry IPs did spend months reverting to his previous documented position. The other problem with that edit is that it doesn't really make sense for the Blackberry user, having spent weeks removing the genre 'thrash metal', to suddenly fall silent when Wiki libs decides that the song is 'trash metal' after all. Unless of course the Blackberry user is Wiki libs, in which case it is wholly rational. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing what you can find when you already know what you really, really want to find. --King Öomie 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to find anything. However when a Blackberry user reverted me in an irrational manner that was an 'eh, I've seen this before, Wiki libs has form for this'. And then when I later found 100+ edits matching him from the same range, there was no doubt. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can only state simply... I do not own a web-accessible hand-held device... Blackberry, iPhone or any other such device. Neither does my wife. Nor do my kids. The edits you point out do not prove anything (although they are to written to convict rather than to suggest... Administrators can think for themselves... they don't need hidden agenda commentary) The IPs in your list show some diffs similar to mine... they show some that contradict mine. I know what a genre-warrior is.... I would not apply that label to someone such as User:TheSickBehemoth - who has been editing heavy metal related pages for a long time. (the Blackberry user does... even so far as to call him a sock of someone else) Many of those edits listed above resemble the permanently blocked User:Prophaniti. Except that he isn't based in North America he is an 86.X BT IP user. Just like you seem to be. Whoops... you have some Prophaniti IPs posted above that are supposedly me. Or were they you?
And again, again... I was unblocked because of WP:AGF And I have remained true to the pledge I made when I was re-instated. I edit from my static IP and no where else. Since my return I have not followed you around anonymously to alter any of the pages that you edit frequently. In fact, I have made a bold effort to avoid editing any pages that I know you have an interest in.... simply so that we would not cross paths and you would not feel any need to bring some sort of vindictive charge against me. But apparently avoiding you did not work. In the time it took you to stalk and compile all these supposed edits of mine you could've written a featured article.
I welcome a checkuser for Editor 410 and myself. It would clear my name. Although a checkuser can't be used simply to "clear-a-name."
As for the other accusations... they are just hopeful fishing. And CU's aren't supposed to be used for fishing either. Wiki libs (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BT have approximately one third of the UK broadband market. [88] I've removed the two BT IPs, they looked to have some similarity but on closer examination I am happy to remove them - there are 90+ others up there.
As for writing a featured article instead of doing this, I compiled these first on my talk page while indefinitely blocked as a result of your malicious sockpuppetry. Not allowed to contribute any content.
As for being followed around, since I got you blocked that's all that's happened, users connected to you, with no connection to me have followed me around.
And then you repeated the same behaviour that got you blocked before, edit warring with me for no reason than to edit war.
To summarise:
On the one hand we have edits exactly matching your style made from a Blackberry that started only after you were indef blocked. And then someone on the same Blackberry range decided to anonymously edit war with me, exactly as you did last year at juice.
On the other, you claim, unverifiably, not to own a Blackberry.
And as yet, you've not provided one single diff inconsistent with the Blackberry user being you.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lock for you. As you said yourself, those IPs are massively dynamic. Any given diff that Libs points to, you can just say "Oh, that must be some other, unconnected person using a blackberry". This applies to the entire Contribs page of every blackberry IP. Hmm, what do they say about unfalsifiability? --King Öomie 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. If you look through the Blackberry IPs there's a fairly random set of articles edited. Except that after Libs was blocked, the edits to articles like All Nightmare Long start, whereas previously there were none at all. All the edits made by Blackberry IPs to these articles are Libs. If he can show any single edit made by a Blackberry IP to one of these articles inconsistent with being him, let's see it. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Find a diff that looks like an edit Libs might make, and tell me how it doesn't look like Libs made it"
Gotcha. How about, there are a number of other editors this could be? --King Öomie 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, more to the point, several diffs have been pointed to with un-Libsey activity on the articles you're talking about. You hand-waved them away with further allegations of deliberate attempts to deceive you and others. --King Öomie 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out that the supposed 'un-Libsey' activity was in fact 100% consistent with activity he had previously performed under his own 'Wiki libs' login. Hardly what you can call 'hand waving'. Just to make this completely firm and not in the least bit hand wavey, let's go over those again:
This edit (1): [89] made by the Blackberry IPs several times, and claimed above as having been 'undid' is exactly the same as these [90] [91] [92] edits made by Wiki libs. And this edit (2) [93] cited above as having reverted Enigmaman is likewise the same as numerous previous edits by Wiki libs.
Is that 'non hand wavey' enough?Sumbuddi (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could re-read above, where Libs lays out why those edits are out of character. That they aren't out of the pattern of the IP really doesn't matter. --King Öomie 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my post? The edits made by the IP and claimed to be 'out of character' were made by 'Wiki libs' previously. Any inconsistencies are inconsistencies of libs himself, e.g. comparing this 'Wiki libs' edit [94] with this 'Wiki libs' edit [95] Sumbuddi (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the same articles. Why aren't you accusing me as well? These IPs could just as likely be me. Libs doesn't have to prove anything, but you do. WP:PROVEIT. Nymf hideliho! 23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they couldn't just as likely be you. You weren't indef blocked shortly before the edits started, you had no reason to painstakingly revert from a Blackberry. You are apparently in Europe, whereas these are North American IPs. You and I have had no past disagreement that would explain the irrational reverts at casino and online bingo, whereas Wiki libs was blocked for doing that. Your edit summaries assume good faith whereas the edits made by the IPs are frequently abrasive 'remove nonsense', 'revert Jockee sockpuppet', 'see; WP:GENRE TROLL' etc., which matches the behaviour of Wiki libs, who for instance maintains this page of genre enemies: [96]Sumbuddi (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I deal quite often with POV pushing IPs, simply reverting them without even stating a reason. Here's a few edits where I use the "nonsense" edit summary: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]. I could go on as there's quite a lot of them in my edit history. I also kept a page of various trolls once (which I have since deleted). Nymf hideliho! 00:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But those edits are by any reasonable standard 'nonsense'; OTOH adding 'thrash metal' to a Metallica single is not 'nonsense', merely a difference of opinion. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An edit summary is usually more time than I am willing to give those IPs. Nymf hideliho! 01:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is interesting. Me and Libs have 782 overlapping edits, and we both registered in October 2007. Does it mean anything, you think? Nymf hideliho! 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I went over your edits in last year's SP report. If I'd thought you were him, I would have listed you then, but it's not simply about article overlap (people share common interests, that's true), it's also behaviour and editing style. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 1
[edit]

I'm not going to read that wall of text. Short summary, please? Tim Song (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbuddi sees editing similarities in the suspected socks above, the majority of which are Blackberry edits. He suspects they are all Wiki Libs, grudge, trolling, etc. Libs says he simply doesn't own a blackberry.
He also suspects that Editor 410 is Libs, and is using that to tie the rest together and 'debunk' Libs' assertion that he simply doesn't care enough to harass Sumbuddi in the manner he's being accused.
It's been pointed out by several editors that the editing style (and even the specific edits warred over by the blackberry IPs) are not unique to Wiki Libs.
Meanwhile, Editor 410 continues to mess with Sumbuddi, opening and closing an SPI against him based on a spurious point of fact made by Libs in his own defense. --King Öomie 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sumbuddi, can you provide a short summary why you think Editor 410 is a sock of Wiki libs? I doubt anyone is going to block now for block evasion more than a month ago, so the blackberry IP part is moot. Tim Song (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For your reference- Wikistalk comparison of Libs' and 410's stomping grounds. The User Talk edits by 410 were performed today after he opened the Prophaniti SPI, and removed when he retracted it. I would post Wikichecker analysis, but it's apparently broken for editors with over 500 edits. --King Öomie 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I did check wikistalk, and frankly don't think that's enough evidence. [104] Tim Song (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm saying it's odd. It's outside the realm of reasonable possibility to think that Libs would create an account and go off on a 200-edit tangent for content fields he's historically had no interest in, and then use the account for the express purpose of harassing a user- even one he has history with.
The crux of Sumbuddi's suspicion is that 410 accused him of being a sock of User:Wickland, despite there being really any... anything to support that, and that he and Libs have had... run-ins in the past. Beyond "410 doesn't like me" + "Me and Libs have had problems", there's NO connection. It's Fishing 101. --King Öomie 19:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please wait until Sumbuddi himself comments here? King, no offense intended, but you are not exactly the most impartial observer. Luminifer (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About King not being impartial, the same could actually be said for Sumbuddi, who has held a grudge against Wiki libs for over half a year. Nymf hideliho! 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Pleased to make your acquaintance, Kettle. I'm Pot. I've made my case. Debunk it, not me. --King Öomie 20:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Alright, if any of the involved parties want to present new evidence or provide an accurate summary of their stance to Tim Song then that's fine. If you are not going to do this then please refrain from commenting in this section. Brevity is important. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abridged version of earlier statement by Wiki libs
  • Some pre-history as to my unblock on February 4, 2010.
    • On February 3rd I sent an email to the blocking admin (Nuclear Warfare) stating that if he was willing to unblock then I would "guarantee that I would only login to Wikipedia using my single work PC and my static IP." I assured NW that I "will not login to any PC available to me on campus or even login from my home PC." And stated that "all logins would be as Wiki libs and no other logins will be used. In doing so the Wiki libs logins and the Static IP can be confirmed at any time by anyone who requests it."
    • Nuclear Warfare's reply to me on February 4, 2010 was "OK then. I'm willing to believe you in this case. Even if you had abused those other accounts, it's been over two months since you were blocked, and I'm willing to give you a second chance."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&curid=14340863&diff=347563868&oldid=347557598[ If he is able to be contacted then Nuclear Warfare can confirm this correspondence on February 4th, 2010
  • For the record, I have held to the agreement between Nuclear Warfare and myself and have not been active on Wikipedia from any location other than my static location and all activity has been during regular working hours.
    • As for User:Sumbuddi's claims:
      • A) I do not own a Blackberry... I have never owned one.
      • B) Some of the IP edits listed by Sumbuddi, (see above defence statement for links)
        • After I returned to Wikipedia on February 4th...I actually undid one of those Blackberry IP edits here. Also note that one of those Blackberry IP edits undid an earlier change by Wikipedia administrator User:Enigmaman, who I have work closely with on Wikipedia in ongoing counter-vandalism activity... an editor I would never undo without first speaking to him directly about his edit.
      • Also note that many of the Blackberry IP edits occur after my account was re-instated to me on February 4th, 2010.
        • Even if I did own a Blackberry.... why would I edit using one if I had access via my Wikipedia account?... and why would I edit war with myself?
          • I will re-state one more time... I do not own a Blackberry.. or any other type of web-accessible hand-held device.
  • As for the accusation that I edit under the account name User:Editor 410. By all means... I gladly support a check for this account and my own. As quickly as one can be done so that this accusation can be laid to rest. I am not Editor 410 and a checkuser will prove that to be so.
  • On February 4th Nuclear Warfare showed the greatest respect for WP:AGF by unblocking my account and allowing me to edit. Since that time I have held firmly to the pledge that I gave to him and have not deviated from my restrictions in any way. Wiki libs (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short summary: recently I was involved in an edit war at online bingo and casino. During a heated point in the war, Blackberry IPs were used to revert me on those two pages. This seemed odd, because the edits were logically inconsistent between the two pages, and they all had the same goal 'revert Sumbuddi'. This immediately brought to mind the fact that Wiki libs was proven to have done exactly this in the first SPI last year - using IPs to revert me anonymously. Shortly after the Blackberry IPs made their reverts, I used an anon IP to revert the edit made by the Blackberry at 'online bingo', but the Blackberry IPs did not return - they only performed 'Revert User:Sumbuddi', no attention was paid to content. I was blocked for a week for using the anon IP to revert the Blackberry. During this time, false reports were made by 'Editor 410' claiming that I was other users whom I clearly am not. This resulted in me getting indef blocked, something that has now been reversed, but only after much drama.
I investigated the Blackberry IPs, and I found that the same IPs and about 90 others from that range had been used to make edits on pages relating to the 'genre' of articles relating to Metallica, Queen, Led Zeppelin et al that Wiki libs (and his SPI-proven socks) had been involved with long-running genre edit wars over. The edits to these pages were all consistent not just in content, but in edit summary with them being him. In addition, the edits only started after Wiki libs was indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Despite protestations by some of the users above, it simply isn't plausible that anybody else would have made these edits - he makes edits under his 'Wiki libs' account (plus numerous socks), he gets blocked, but the same edits (in edit summary style and content) continue from a Blackberry to be sure to avoid detection, having been busted so thoroughly at the previous SPI. He's claimed he undid one of the Blackbery IPs, but in fact he made the exact same edit made by the Blackberry IP several months previously, so all he can show is that he changed his mind - the Blackberry edit remains 100% consistent with Wiki libs' position up to the point that edit was made. He was proven to have warred with me last year, and then the exact same inexplicable warring is observed from the same IPs that made edits matching his long-running and observable 'genre war' edits, starting only after he was blocked.
I filed this report, not because I am interest in his 'genre' POV pushing, but because I got blocked when I reverted the edits he made using his Blackberry, and then indef blocked as a result of the lies of suspected-sock 'Editor 410'. Wiki libs attacked me last year, and was PROVEN to be guilty of this through checkuser evidence - he has form for edit warring with me on unrelated subjects. This time he has used a Blackberry to try and evade detection, and, just as before, had he stuck to either attacking me or to POV pushing on music genres, he would have got away with it, but he didn't, and he can't. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically with regard to Editor 410, he has actually not contributed any 'content', he has only made housekeeping-type changes. This lack of content is consistent with trying to 'stay under the radar'. I do not suggest Wikistalk is useful here, because Editor 410 has deliberately avoided showing any kind of interest in anything other than attacking me.
His account was registered very soon after Wiki libs was unblocked. It's clear from 'Editor 410s early edits that he is not a new user, see [105] [106] among others.
Within a few days of registering the account, he makes a false claim against me at [[WP:AIV]. [107] Numerous further edits to WP:AIV directed against me follow this. It is my contention that Editor 410, undeniably an experienced Wikipedia user, is Wiki libs, due to the fact that Wiki libs was, as described above, edit warring with me from his Blackberry, and has clear motivation to make false claims against me.Sumbuddi (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In brief, making small, housekeeping edits is called "wikignoming", actually, not "laying low". --King Öomie 01:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so indef block on Editor 410 for socking/block evasion.

Ref the Stentor IPs, I had a look at .183.

[108] is 100% the same edit as Wiki libs [109] These edits are very similar [110] [111]. Identical: [112] [113] Also identical [114] [115]. Should I continue, noting that the articles edited overlap 100% with Wiki libs and there are further such matches. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, WHO is editor 410? --King Öomie 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, under what circumstances are REVERTS not identical? Seems the users reverted the same edit (or same chain of reverts). Happens every day in edit wars, doesn't mean both sides are all sockpuppets. --King Öomie 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, reverts are by no means a sign of sock puppetry, or I would obviously be a sock as well. Nymf hideliho! 16:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they most certainly are a sign of sockpuppetry. An edit war is almost by definition a series of reverts, and people are blocked for socking in edit wars all the time. People are frequently blocked as socks for performing the same reverts as known sockmasters. Obviously you are not a sock, because you have an account with behaviour that differs from him, whereas these IPs do not. Also, unlike the 142.167 IPs, I'm guessing you don't edit from the same IP block that Wiki libs has said he uses. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In context it may be an indication of sock puppetry, but hardly as an act itself. Where does Libs admit to belonging to this range? Nymf hideliho! 22:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was determined in the last SPI:
On Stentor (Canada):
Wiki libs (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
Wether B (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
GripTheHusk (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
Aussie Ausborn (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser) Sumbuddi (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that Wiki libs has said that he edits from that range. What is it now? Besides, as far as I know, Bell Aliant is one of the largest ISPs in North America. It would be like claiming that I am socking because another user from Telia edits the same articles as me. It is far too ambiguous to be treated as evidence. Nymf hideliho! 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's FAR more specific than that. Per his own statement, he edited from 156.34.0.0/16 IPs - see User:156.34.142.110. This is Bell Alliant New Brunswick, a much much smaller set of users than simply 'Bell Alliant'. The 142.167 IPs are - guess what - Bell Alliant New Brunswick.
There are other Stentor ranges, for instance 142.176.0.0/16 is Stentor/Bell Alliant Ottawa, 'New Brunswick' is but a small subset of Bell Alliant users.
Further, that exact same 142.167.0.0/16 range was the cause of the first SPI - his edit from 142.167.160.196 to war with me at juice (which ties us neatly back up to the cause of this SPI)
I just added another Stentor IP, after looking at the history for Led Zeppelin (album). An edit war started on 24 October 2008 about the genre of that album. [116] The protagonists are User:Indopug and Wiki libs. Wiki libs wants several genres, Indopug wants one. User:WesleyDodds weighs in on the side of one. Libs reverts. Indopug reverts again, Libs reverts. Indopug and WesleyDodds give up. In February another use adds a genre, this is reverted by a Libs' sock: [117] and again [118]. 3 January 2010, after Wiki libs has been banned, Indopugs removes the genres: [119]. Although nobody except Wiki libs seemed to care previously, a whole bunch of Blackberry IPs (as also used to war with me) pop out, along with the Stentor New Brunswick IPs. These facts, along with the other evidence are consistent with it being Wiki libs. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anger22
[edit]

States he is in the same location and same approximate age as Wiki libs. Not much active lately. Comparison of articles edited here: [120] expired. Amazing overlap. Both users share similar edit patterns, a high volume of reverting, not much content contribution.

Looking at specific articles, for instance List of Gibson players, the top editors are:

Anger22
Wiki libs
Sssoul
Wiki libs' IP
Funeral
Nymf
Libs' proven sock
Libs' proven sock
Libs' proven sock
Libs' proven sock

6 of the 10 editors are Wiki libs, and it looks that Anger22 is also.

Full list of articles edited by Anger22 is here: [121]

The first article on that list absent from the overlap w/libs list is War of 1812, except of course that a quick look at the stats for that shows '15 (15/0) 156.34.142.110', which is of course Wiki libs. And of course while it's possible that people might share an interest in any given subject, such as rock music, a shared interest in 'War of 1812' is far more unlikely. Next is Giant Panda, but here too we find Wiki libs' presence, six edits by [122].

First article unedited by Wiki libs is at #57 on Anger22's list, 1989, where Anger22 spent a few months reverting vandalism. Other articles where a shared interest would be less likely include Ferdinand Magellan, where Libs' 110 IP makes 21 edits, Anger22 53. [123] Same story at Vasco da Gama

I took a look at the list of articles created by Anger22. They have ALL been edited by Wiki libs, even ultra-obscure stuff like this Godspeed_(band).

Despite tens of thousands of edits between them, there's no evidence of any disagreement, or anything to suggest they are not the same person. They also share the same writing style. Anger22 looks to be another in the same vein as Wiki libs' other socks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumbuddi (talk • contribs)

Consistent edit summary use by this editor, a distinctly non-libsey trait. Oh, but I know, I know, he's changing everything BUT what you need to identify him to fool you. --King Öomie 14:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and he did this for 4 years. It's all a conspiracy! Sumbuddi, how about you show Anger22 some courtesy and inform him of your accusation? Nymf hideliho! 15:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he did do it since 2006, you're right, that was proven in the last SPI. "18:20, 12 April 2006 Fair Deal (talk | contribs) ‎ (New user) ". "23:33, 19 October 2009 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Fair Deal (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs) ". You are talking as if this is somehow out-of-character. It's not. He had numerous long-term socks; this is another. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Anger22 hasn't edited much recently, apart from a big chunk of bulk edits, and a few edits in February. Compare: [124] [125] They look the same to me.
E.g., Wiki Libs: '14:43, 27 August 2008 (hist | diff) New World Order (Megadeth song) ‎ (piped label link) ' Anger 22: '00:05, 18 August 2008 (hist | diff) Tyranny and Mutation ‎ (piped label link) ' That's a pretty esoteric edit summary for two users from the same place, the same age, and with the exact same articles edited to both be using.... There are others: Wiki Libs: 21:14, 24 August 2008 (hist | diff) Mosrite ‎ (WP:LC) vs. 23:22, 21 July 2008 (hist | diff) Album-oriented rock ‎ (WP:LC) etc.
I had a look at Edit times:
13 July 2008. 00:55, 56, 56, 57 - popups reverts by Anger22. 1:01, 04, 06, 07, 09, small edits by Wiki libs. 1:12, switch back to Anger22, 1:13, 1:15, further reverts by Anger 22. 1:17, trivial edit by Wiki libs, 1:18 another. 1:18 switch back to Anger22, automated Twinkle warning.
Then there is a 28 minute gap presumably Libs/22 is away from his computer, 1:46 a revert by Anger22 at Steely Dan, and at 1:47 by Anger22 at Deep Purple. 1:49, Wiki Libs reverts at Steely Dan, back to the version made by ..... Anger22. Wiki libs makes further reverts and slaps an (unjustified) vandalism template on the other user involved at Steely Dan, at 1:49, 1:53, 1:53, 1:54. A brief gap, 2:14, back to Anger22, he reverts at Led Zeppelin, and then, just as Wiki libs did, slaps an unjustified template on the user involved. At 2:28 Anger22 removes a polite message left by an IP he'd improperly accused of vandalism for putting a Peacock tag on an article. After 1:54, Wiki libs is silent, and after 2:28 Anger22 is silent. But wait, whaddya know, at 08:36, Anger22 is back. And at 08:41, so is Wiki libs. The last edit by libs is at 08:51, and by Anger22 at 09:04.
Can you guess what happens next?
That's right! Wiki libs comes back at 13:23, makes some edits to 13:40, and Anger22 follows on, 13:52-14:05. And it continues.
17 July 2008, Anger22 is fiddling with markup on genres. 00:25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48. What's that you say? There's a big gap between 40 and 45? Well of course, because Wiki libs makes edits at 41, 42, and 44, then none till 1:02.
Or we could look on 20 July 2008, edits by Anger22 at 11:39, 11:40, 11:41, 11:47, then 12:05, 12:06, 12:08, 12:10. What is Wiki libs doing? 11:49-11:58 he performs about 30 reverts, leaves a message at 12:02, then performs two edits at 12:13, 12:16. In other words, exactly the times Anger22 is in hiatus Sumbuddi (talk)
When you browse primarily through your watchlist, you become active around the same time as other edits. That's how it works. --King Öomie 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, there are times where they both don't edit like that. Take me and the System of a Down article, generally every time that article's genre is changed one of the editors comes minutes later and changes it back.--SKATER Speak. 23:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously sometimes the sockmaster just edits with one account. What I am looking at is evidence of an editing sessions continuing between the two users. We could tie back to other socks too. For instance 'Fair Deal' (known sock) edits on 20th May 2008, 10:08-10:24. Then stops. Anger22 continues 10:27-10:33.
Try 17th May: Anger22, 11:16,17,18, switch to Fair Deal, 11:22,23, back to Anger 22, 11:28,11:39, then 47,48,48,49,50,50,50,51,57 by Fair Deal. 'Wiki libs' makes only two edits that day, 19:36 and 19:41, at the end of an Anger22 session (ends at 19:39), and in the gap between 19:32 and 19:37.
Another thing worth noting is that Anger22 makes 2496 edits in July 2008, and Wiki libs 1104. In August, Anger22 falls to 779, and 'Wiki libs' rises to 2172 - so the total activity between the two is comparable to the previous month. The next month Anger22 falls almost to nothing, only 16 edits, and Wiki libs goes to 2772 - again, Wiki libs rises as Anger22 falls. From that point onwards, Anger22 makes only a few edits per month. At the time Anger22 went quiet, Wiki libs had two proven socks - Peter Fleet and Fair Deal. With Anger22 semi-retired, down to only 16 edits, the other socks step up - having made only 45 edits between them the previous month (43 the month before that), the edit count goes up to 450, then 467, then 476 (the last figure inclusive of Wether B, who was created that month). Sumbuddi (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new SPI, as far as I'm concerned. Refile for clerk approval.
I wonder if this will simply never stop for you. I wonder if I'll be seeing further fishing expeditions months down the line. It was impressive how you literally didn't skip a beat when Libs was cleared here, though. You're a trooper. --King Öomie 04:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the same SPI, this is SPI/Wiki libs, and if you find new socks, you add them to the existing open SPI, you don't create a new one.
He's not been 'cleared', I listed 90+ socks here, it's been stated that one of those socks is a sock of another user, I don't see any point in making this page any messier by delving into that when the outcome is the same either way, block Editor 410 indefinitely.
I wonder if this will simply never stop for you. Your buddy, Wiki libs, spent years sockpuppeting, this was proven in the first SPI, the evidence is here again, you were in denial then, and now you're responding to every piece of new evidence with the sort of righteous indignation I would expect to see if this was SPI/Jimbo Wales, not a user who perpetrated massive abuses of trust pushing his POV and using socks to form consensus and did so for years.Sumbuddi (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is getting old and tiresome: Sumbuddi, you need to either step away from Wiki for a while and relax and realise that it's not the be all and end all of life or do something else on Wiki. Peoples' patience with this whole thing is rapidly running out. For the record, I would like to state that I have met Libs in real life and can safely say that he wouldn't do anything to harm the project. I'm beginning to think that you have a very prominent grudge against Libs which is obviously a bad thing. You need to just relax and move away from this situation. If you would like to work on any article's with me I'll be happy to take a break from my "retirement" and lend a hand :-) I don't check my talk page often so an e-mail would be best. Take care and regards, ScarianCall me Pat! 07:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very sweet of you to defend your sockpuppeting friend, and I'm sure he really appreciates it.
That said, speaking of 'prominent grudge', the only one I've seen is the one that the various 'He didn't do it's', and 'Look, we've made this page so long, it should just be closed' have been pursuing against me since I got Wiki libs blocked last year (and he was blocked with very good cause, he attacked me anonymously and perpetrated massive abuses of trust, got users banned improperly, etc.)
In case there's any confusion about the nature of your 'offer', let me re-post my comments that I made while blocked (the immediate cause of this) [126]
User:Scarian, for instance claims to be retired, yet watches me avidly, reporting me wherever possible [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]. I told him I wasn't interested in what User:Wiki libs was going to do now he was unblocked: [132] - we don't really share any common interests. Despite this making it clear I didn't want to get involved, he decides to tittle-tattle again: [133] on a subject he has zero prior involvement with.
Hope that makes things clear. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of record-keeping, allow me to point out again (because I've yet to see you respond to it),
  • Lib's first SPI was closed as "Accounts connected", not "Confirmed", and
  • The same CU recently "Confirmed" your connection to Wickland, until another CU reversed it.
So your allegations of "years of socking" are far from the objective fact you're presenting. You're ignoring the subjective issue in favor of your convictions regarding Libs. "I personally called several admins to task for BLATANTLY, OBVIOUSLY FALSELY banning me. But now that they've come to a conclusion I like, they could not POSSIBLY be incorrect." --King Öomie 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. At the conclusion of that SPI " There are a number of  Confirmed groups of users, who I all believe to be connected." Wiki libs was confirmed to be Wether B, and confirmed to be Wether B, GripTheHusk and Aussie Ausborn. In addition, other groups of users were confirmed: Aussie Ausborn, GripTheHusk, Fair Deal, Cold Goast, and Peter Fleet were confirmed to be the same (which, since GripTheHusk was confirmed as Wiki libs, means that Wiki libs was those users as well), with Alisprings possible. The groups of users were connected, but the individual groups were confirmed.
If there was any doubt about these conclusions, if a mistake had been made, any of these users could have objected at the time, just as I did. Otherwise you might just say 'look, a mistake was made and corrected on one SPI, thaat means all the other SPIs ever are false'. Now is not the time to indulge in historical revisionism on someone else's behalf, it just looks desperate. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If any of them had objected, you would have handwaved it away just as you did with editor 410. And that's most certainly not what I said. I said you're completely disregarding the possibility because of what you want to be true, despite the possibility having made itself quite clear to you (as a scar on your block log). --King Öomie 16:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of them did object. Had they done so, I would have looked more closely at them individually. But NONE of the numerous socks/users did.
I haven't 'handwaved' Editor 410 away, I said upfront (see near the top) that there were two issues here: 'I considered listing [Editor 410] separately as this SPI is split between IPs edit warring on music genres (as per Wiki libs) and Editor 410, who simply bears a grudge against me'. He's been checkusered, and he's been blocked. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You handwaved his objection. You literally didn't even address it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's fine, I suppose, but it's ridiculous to admonish someone for not stepping out of the way of one gun and in front of another. Glad to see that getting someone blocked was a win, regardless of who they actually were. Your accusations were off-base, regardless of the outcome. It's similarly ridiculous to lambaste me for acting as though the ends justify the means and then claim absolution by exactly that point. --King Öomie 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I still see no message at Anger22's talk page that this discussion is even taking place. Way to go assuming good faith! Nymf hideliho! 16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed that having noticed the oversight, you would have corrected it. I didn't realise you were just trying to make a point. Anyway, I've added the SSP template there now. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Sumbuddi (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed on User:Editor 410/User:Wiki libs only, unless a CU seriously wants comb through most of Blackberry (which I highly doubt). –MuZemike 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I find it unlikely that anyone would login from the Blackberry. The Blackberry edits are to be considered on behavioural grounds.Sumbuddi (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against just Libs? Or also including the several other editors who revert edits at that page in exactly that manner? --King Öomie 02:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a CU was already run on Sumbuddi in the last clusterf**k of an SPI case and that Editor 410 has to belong to someone. We don't know who, yet. –MuZemike 02:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously guys, this is one of my pet cases and I even don't care enough to read all of that. Editor 140 appears to be I-10, if somebody would be so kind as to move that drama to that case page. The Stentor IPs are  Possible based on user agent/ISP but they lack any of the damning evidence I found last time. Brandon (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here? [134]
Or here? [135] Sumbuddi (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Folks, this is the second time I've had to move irrelevant back-and-forth commentary from this section back up. Please keep the discussions in your own relevant locations in the case. –MuZemike 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as closed as nobody has acted on this, and probably nobody will. I don't think the behavioral evidence is conclusive enough to show socking, and there is nothing actionable as this is old stuff, anyways. With that said, I strongly advise both parties to stay away from each other and quit antagonizing each other. This is an encyclopedia, work on it; play nice. –MuZemike 18:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


19 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First reason I looked into Mr Pyles is his tricky edits where he reverted my edit but change the edit summary to pretend like he is reverting TO my edit, 2 times [136] [137]. This made me look through other Queen song articles to see if it is an ongoing issue. Then I made a discovery.

  • Mr Pyles started editing in October 2005 but stopped in 2006[138]. Libs talks about a "login account" used until 2006 but never disclosed what iwas [139]. Wiki Libs mysteriously stops editing in March 2011[140]. Mr Pyles mysteriously starts later in 2011, and continues the behavior Libs had of reverting genre changes to rock pages, plus many other reversions. One of Mr Pyles first edits after doing alot of huge reverts is to add js monobook [141] which Wiki Libs also has [142]
  • Example, look at history of [143], behavior of Mr Pyles and Wiki Libs are the same.
  • Running wikistalk on 4 of LIbs' socks and Mr Pyles reveals some incredible overlap[144]. Similar edit summaries too.
  • Most damning is same edit description "reverting IP test" from Wiki Libs [145] and Mr Pyles [146] there are more examples than these 2.
  • He might be using IPs also but I see that IPs are not part of Check User[147].
  • Mr Pyles also mention fake consensus about Queen pages[148], and Wiki Libs mention it too [149] and insert it here too [150] . Other users who are putting in fake consensus are John of Lancaster[151] but might not be informed and do an automatic revert and Friginator might be a different person too [152].
  • It is mentioned on the original SPI that Wiki Libs created accounts just to give himself barnstars. Here is an account that exists only to give Mr Pyles barnstars [153]. Do not know if there are others.
  • Wiki Libs was blocked but then unblocked if he promised not to edit from other accounts. It looks as if he did edit from other accounts. MarioNovi (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also did some violations as his original IP after the block [154]

Wiki libs said in this edit [155] that he would never edit under another account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioNovi (talk • contribs) 08:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_libs/Archive&oldid=1142566014"