Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Access Denied/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Access Denied


Access Denied

Access Denied (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

These accounts are having fun trying to vandalise ANI again. Minimac (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

All blocked already. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Clerk note: all blocked by Bsadowski1, who is keeping an eye on the situation for now. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User:Access_Denied.27s_bad-hand_sock_account

CheckUser for other socks; Access Denied has increased in activity. Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:03, 11 January 2011 (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

  Clerk note: Merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Access Denied (2nd nomination) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A check was run on these accounts this morning after they popped up at ANI. I haven't gone through each account - has anyone edited since this morning? TNXMan 20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the same. I don't think that it is reasonable to do this check, primarily because the latest blocks have been done by checkusers and recent checks have been made. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to HelloAnnyong) Per CheckUser, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) is unrelated to Access Denied (talk · contribs). Also, yes, I also endorse a CU for any sleepers. HeyMid (contribs) 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Access Denied II, User:Access Denied III, and User:Access Denied IV were the most recent editors, except User:Denial of Access. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missed two: User:Access Denied V and User:Access Denied has no life. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tried hunting through Special:ListUsers. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that User:Access Denied has no life is a sock; it may be a troll. HeyMid (contribs) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I still don't see any new socks since the check was run this morning. TNXMan 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no new socks since the last check can be found, then we have to do either effective RBI or perform a range block (if possible). If no new socks can be found, is there anything more that needs to be done here? HeyMid (contribs) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry if I wasn't clear. I haven't run a check - I don't see any reason to run a new one if there haven't been any more accounts. TNXMan 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egg on my face here. Sorry for jumping the gun a bit; I didn't realize the CU was run as recently as this morning. I don't really see a reason to run another one, then. Maybe in a few days or something. I also missed Alison's comment about a connection to TFM, so that's withdrawn as well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn' realize it either... --Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Trouting myself for opening a case without checking. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Since it looks like everything's been settled, I'll mark for close. Please do refile however, if more activity occurs. TNXMan 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

ME Access Denied VIII (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

He's still out there, as we can see now. Possibly editing from a phone again as that seems to be his preferred method of evading blocks. I know very little about cellular Internet so I'm not sure if it's possible to rangeblock cellphone users the same way we can range block traditional Internet, without blocking out the whole ISP. Has this problem come up before, and if so, how do we handle it? —Soap— 00:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added numbers 6, 7, 9 and 10 just for completeness. :-/ Favonian (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

We can't even block ranges at this point. –MuZemike 09:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I am no longer bothering to check any of these accounts. There is absolutely nothing useful CheckUser can do here. –MuZemike 09:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effective RBI seems to be the only thing we can do, then. Eventually we have to semi-protect ANI (temporarily) if excessive sock puppetry continues. (has already been done) I understand if a range block isn't possible or causes too much damage. For those who didn't know, two cases were filed yesterday. I think we should close this case now. HeyMid (contribs) 10:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

This IP logged in to IRC and after a short conversation it became clearly evident this was access denied. Also note before this another IP logged in with a username Accessed Denied (or something of the sort) claiming to have a massive sockfarm. Listing this IP for a check as this seems quite suspicious.

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:06pm Whois : wp10-en-577009 [18ab9766@gateway/web/freenode/ip.24.171.151.102]: user-0can5r6.cable.mindspring.com/24.171.151.102 -

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:06pm Channels: +#wikipedia-ten

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:06pm Server : bear.freenode.net (London, England)

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:02pm *wp10-en-577009* Hey whats up?

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:02pm *russet* hey

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:02pm *wp10-en-577009* Hey whats up?

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:02pm *russet* who are you?

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:03pm *wp10-en-577009* Man shut up

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:03pm *wp10-en-577009* ; )

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:04pm *russet* Are you Accessed Denied?

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:04pm *wp10-en-577009* idk

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:04pm *russet* seriously :p

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:04pm *wp10-en-577009* goon

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:06pm *russet* come on

<russet> Sat Jan 15 2011 3:06pm *wp10-en-577009* bye

--Addihockey10 e-mail 00:41, 16 January 2011 (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
19 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Kinda WP:DUCK. Already blocked, but request checkuser to double check it's not a vandal impersonation (like with User:Access Denied has no life) and to check for sleepers. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

For the fifth time in less than a month, starting an SPI isn't gonna help anything; put quite simply, revert, block, ignore. Please consider undoing this SPI report. HeyMid (contribs) 15:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it probably won't, but I don't see that a 5 minute job for a checkuser is going to cause much harm either. I usually report all sockpuppets I see to SPI just so there's at least a log of them in the case archives, whether they be sockpuppets of User:TungstenCarbide, Access Denied, or someone else. So long as no one really turns this into a drama fest all will be fine. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could always try CheckUsering it... --Perseus, Son of Zeus 15:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thus the request I made here. I'm not a checkuser...in fact, I'm not even an admin. =) Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I though you were. The cat Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied is getting big. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if a new SPI case has already been opened, why are you tagging the socks? HeyMid (contribs) 16:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Clerk declined a CU has already stated that running a check on these accounts is pointless. Please just block them as they come. Since this account has now been blocked, closing this case. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

08 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

I noticed this range of IP numbers after vandalism occurred to the T-shirt article. IP number added bold text to call attention to the word T-shirt in a manner inconsistent with WP:MoS. Then they went to the @ sign article and replaced the image of the @ sign with one of gigantic size. In December before he was banned, Access Denied had made changes to his monobook.css to increase to 140%, having mentioned he was trying to save his eyesight.[1] Access Denied is known to communicate using CODES, including his choice of user name (HTTP 403). The articles the IPs are editing are codes or symbols: Bracket, At sign, Registered trademark symbol, XD, Numero sign, Enclosed A, Ditto mark, Bracket, Guillemets, Space (punctuation), Circumflex accent. 201.123.66.158 edited Thumb (see Access Denied's‎ left and right hands, knees, feet....). They edited the México article too (the IPs geolocate to Mexico). ‎

Sorry to have opened the investigation again but I suspect he's now using IP socks instead of user names. The IPs have a notice on them. This lousy T-shirt (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (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
  • Good to know. None of these IPs has edited in a few days, though, so I'm closing without any action for staleness. In the future you can report this to AIV for block evasion, or just list it here (though I think we're not really accepting more SPI cases for this account.) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with closing this; we can't know whether he has switched to IPs like these (and thus whether to report IPs acting in this way to AIV for block evasion) without some kind of check. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he has switched to IPs, checkuser won't reveal them. Further, if you look in the archive you'll see that a checkuser stated that "I am no longer bothering to check any of these accounts. There is absolutely nothing useful CheckUser can do here." All we can do is RBI at this point. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try a whois query maybe? --Perseus8235 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As T-shirt mentioned above, the IPs geolocate to Mexico. Does that really help at all here? This user has been known to hop around a whole lot. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Old userpage says user is native English speaker, Spanish and Hebrew, French and Dutch. --Perseus8235 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added 201.123.90.36. --Perseus8235 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And 201.123.35.120. --Perseus8235 17:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And 201.123.77.234. --Perseus8235 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Following an abusive outburst Malleus Fatuorum's talk page today [2] et seq, Jswap was blocked for 3RR on an article. The three newly-created accounts' only contributions have been to insult Malleus [3][4][5] and SandyGeorgia [6]. Gives the impression of block-evading sockpuppets with a grudge. -- RexxS (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Possibly related IP just hit my talk: [7] I know you can't connect IPs to usernames, but just thought I'd add it for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Confirmed:
  •   Unrelated:
28 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

SilentBlues discloses on his userpage that his IP address is 81.164.215.61, which geolocates to Belgium. White Cat resides in Belgium (per his userpage and the past part of [8]). White Cat and Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been in conflict since the time when the latter was known as Davenbelle, and the new SilentBlues account has taken to tagging the userpages of Jack's secondary accounts with {{sock}} ([9][10], see also Special:Contributions/SilentBlues). AGK [•] 10:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Two sock accusations in three days. Yay. My career as an editor is getting off to a flying start. :P --SilentBlues | Talk 10:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be a coincidence, of course. But the accounts of a long-term editor is rather an odd way to begin an editing career, which is why I find the whole situation rather suspicious. Regards, AGK [•] 12:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioral evidence here is damning. White Cat has been extremely vocal in previous arbitration requests concerning Jack et al, yet was strangely silent during the most recent spate between those two. The self-connected IP, however, made a quite vocal point regarding the matter. Additionally, the IP's eleventh edit (out of only 29 total), undid a Jack Merridew edit. A quick look at SilentBlues' contributions shows an unhealthy obsession with Jack Merridew and an innate knowledge of Jack Merridew's various accounts. As Jack deleted his own list of previous accounts prior to SilentBlues' joining the wiki, this information would be quite difficult to obtain without SilentBlues having extensive preexisting knowledge of Jack's history. Additionally White Cat's contributions show a user not contributing on a routine basis yet completely aware and involved with matters concerning him. Connecting all of this with the location evidence already presented it's clear that SilentBlues is White Cat. N419BH 00:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this SPI is no longer relevant as I have requested WP:RTV. --SilentBlues | Talk 07:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an acknowledgment that you also control the White Cat account, and are you vanishing with all your accounts? Amalthea 08:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an acknowledgement that I also control the White Cat account, because I am not White Cat.
And yes, I am vanishing with all my accounts: this is the only one I own. --SilentBlues | Talk 08:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me none of you have any sense of understanding how evidence is collected. This charade is insulting to my contribution to this site for over half a decade. You all should simply be ashamed of yourselves for associating me with this "SilentBlues" person. Why is this Sockpuppet investigation not labeled "SilentBlues"? -- Cat chi? 14:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
One person made a valid concern above in which someone who was engaging in similar behaviors about Jack as you, not to mention both accounts seem to originate from the same country. I fail to see how that would not raise any concerns that something fishy is going on, especially given your involvement with Jack in the past. Again, you are claiming "lack of evidence" because you are simply dismissing what has been said above. –MuZemike 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 
 
Fair enough but all I want to see is diffs comparing my edits and the other persons. For instance edit hours, edit topics and even spelling errors through Lexical analysis can be used. What about my conduct matches that other guy. What compelled anyone to even file this RCI. The answer to that should be provable with objective evidence. Why me and not someone else. The list of editors who have left wikipedia due to Jack Merridews trolling is rather long. If anything I have a history of properly dealing with Jack Merridew and his manifestations through methods policy allows such as arbitration.
Belgium has 11 million residents and with organizations such as UN, NATO and EU Belgium has lots of people coming in and out of this country. Any one of those people can vandalize wikipedia or engage in bad edits. I cannot be held accountable of edits by others. I have been living in different countries over the past years. My checkuser record would show me in those countries - would that make me a suspect for potential edits by over 400 million people? Indeed the art of imposter/sockpuppet identification relies on geographic location but it is never meant to only rely on that aside for blatant cases like vandalism. In order for a checkuser investigation to be accepted at all people are expected to provide compelling evidence that the two or more accounts are related prior to an actual check. At this page I see no such evidence so far.
Also I do not know the conduct of the other person but I have not pursued Jack Merridew at all. Indeed I have collected evidence for my arbitration case against Jack Merridew but that is what arbitration comittee expects us to do when submitting cases. Because I have had over 3 direct arbitration cases and two indirect arbitration cases plus countless WP:ANI posts, multiple RFCs (and god knows what else) I have been carefully keeping record of each encounter due to this persons (Davenbelle's aka Jack Merridew's) disruptive edit history. I have indeed maintained a long term record. It is not like I am nitpicking. Each manifestation of this individual does the exact same thing where I am portrayed as the bad guy until I prove otherwise using that same evidence mentioned. All my evidence gathering is passive. I do not taunt Jack Merridew like how he taunts me. Also this user (Jack Merridew) is indef blocked for the 6th time I believe (who is counting). Why am I being reviewed under SPI over someone who is blocked indefinitely anyways.
With this account I have not conducted any sort of bad behavior. I am not claiming to be the best editor out there but I certainly am not the worst either. With this account I have a history of tens of thousands of good human edits and hundreds of thousands of good bot edits through my bot account spanning multiple wikis. At a minimum I expect and I think should expect the courtesy to be talked to before being subjugated to an RCI.
-- Cat chi? 23:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Both the reason for this investigation, and a comment made at the related ANI discussion, are quite worrying in showing how easily people who should know better jump to conclusions: "My question is: Why do we now have two Belgian users who have focused on Jack Merridew (assuming the IP is clearly the vanished user in question, as well as the sock tagging)? To me, that sounds a little too coincidental to believe. –MuZemike 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)" This is basically also all the evidence brought to this SPI, and is sufficient for actually doing a checkuser, even though it is not for fishing. Well, in that case, it owuld be better if you opened a CU against me for the same reasons, as I was one of the more vocal and persistent opposers of Jack Merridew, and I openly admit being a Belgian living in Belgium. I have seriously clashed with White Cat in the (distant) past over other things, but he has been the victim in this whole Merridew charade for years, and to associate him with abusive sockpuppeteering on such flimsy grounds is way over the line. It would be best if AGK and Muzemike would retract their statements and apologize to White Cat for this mistake. Fram (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what I need to apologize for here. There were some suspicions made, and, in my opinion, though they were valid. If I was wrong, so be it; that doesn't mean those who had the original suspicions should have never had them in the first place. –MuZemike 15:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one gets to randomly suspect people and make baseless accusations. I still do not see any evidence of why you were suspicious in the first place. What evidence prompted your suspicions? You have been avoiding such a simple question. I want to know so that I can perhaps explain... -- Cat chi? 17:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment So to sum up; is this White Cat? Possibly but probably not. The End. Roll credits, resume life and/or editing Wikipedia. pablo 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the true White Cat, everyone else is a poor imitation. :p -- Cat chi? 23:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ready for Closure I agree with Pablo, we can call this one. SilentBlues was definitely not a new user, but we don't know who it is and the likelihood it's White Cat is fairly remote. The activities that have occurred on the account since it "vanished" indicate to me that it is NOT White Cat and that it IS probably someone impersonating White Cat. Is it possible White Cat is fooling us all? Yes. Is it likely? No. I apologize to White Cat for my strongly worded statement above connecting the dots; I obviously fell for the impersonation. N419BH 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

No comment on the IP, but two named accounts are a   Possible match to each other. TNXMan 13:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? -- Cat chi? 14:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Based on what? --VanishedUser99 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanishedUser99 (talk • contribs)

Note: after conferring with Amalthea and Tnxman, it seems unlikely that SilentBlues/VU99 was Access Denied. Cool Hand Luke 12:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Access_Denied/Archive&oldid=1144418385"