Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents


Simulation12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report date April 16 2009, 23:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Avruch (talk · contribs)


[1] Admission. Account in current use (Simulation13 (talk · contribs)) shares obvious characteristics with Simulation12 (talk · contribs). Check for additional sleeper accounts, and leave for a WP:DUCK block? Avruch T 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Symbol redirect vote.svg Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Avruch T 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed: Self-endorsed. Avruch T 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

No new sleepers found. No collateral damage likely from extending a block on 154.20.62.173 for a while, I think. No other IPs found at present.

Please advise of any questions. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Synergy 22:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)




Report date September 14 2009, 01:58 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by AussieLegend


After User:Suiteman, another sock of User:Fjfhgfhdstty, was blocked I noticed the following:

  • 15:52, 7 July 2009 - User:Extremeguy is created.
  • 16:04, 7 July 2009 - Suiteman changed his talk page.[2] I reverted and added a sockpuppet notice
  • 16:14, 7 July 2009 - He again reverts
  • 16:18, 7 July 2009 - Administrator changed block settings to prevent editor from editing his own talk page
  • 16:26, 7 July 2009 - User:Extremeguy edits FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman, adding some uncited information. He then proceeds to edit the same group of articles that Suiteman had edited. Edit summaries use the same terminology and spelling used by Suiteman. eg "no proof"[3][4][5][6][7][8][9], "dealte" instead of "delete"[10][11][12][13]

I expressed these concerns on the talk page of the administrator who blocked Suiteman.[14] Extremeguy continued editing the same range of articles as Suiteman however, his edits were generally constructive, with the exception being that to this day he persists in adding copyrighted material to List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes,[15][16] despite numerous discussions we have had about not doing this. Eventually, User:JimConroy38 was created and has directly supported Extremeguy,[17] which immediately raised a red flag. Extremeguy admits on his userpage that he is an "alternative account" of MAIN ACCOUNT, a permanently blocked sockpuppet.[18][19] On 30 August 2009, User:NrDg, a sysop, noted on his talk page that he had been identified as a sockpuppet.[20] While the evidence linking User:JimConroy38 is thinner than that identifying Extremeguy as a sock, I believe JimConroy38's actions pass WP:DUCK. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Extremeguy has repeatedly declared himself to be the same as MAIN ACCOUNT (in this edit [21], for example). MAIN ACCOUNT has been indefinitely blocked as a Sockpuppet of a permanently blocked user. Is this not sufficient reason to block Extremeguy?
As for JimConroy38, I think there is a striking relationship between his editing and Extremeguy's. Apart from editing the same articles to a considerable extent, and one another's user pages/user talk pages, they also share a tendency to write without or with erroneous punctuation and capitalisation, e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc. This tendency is also shared by other confirmed sockpuppets of Fjfhgfhdstty, e.g. [28], [29], [30] etc etc. It looks pretty much like a duck to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Administrator note: I am waiting until what happens with regards to the block on User:JimConroy38 that was placed today. If that user is not actually Jim Conroy, then the case will be much more clear. MuZemike 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He isn't. Brandon (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 Confirmed as:
Conclusions

 Administrator note: per the above CU results:

All other accounts have already been indefinitely blocked and tagged appropriately. MuZemike 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Symbol comment vote.svg This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date November 4 2009, 05:15 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Beeblebrox (talk)

Made an RPP request identical to one made by another blocked sock of this user in September [31][32]. General editing pattern is consistent with previous socks. There are several "layers" of SPI tags and reports here, but it seems to ultimately resolve to this account via User:Extremeguy and User:Fjfhgfhdstty. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Administrator note: Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Simulation12

Simulation12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
Report date November 23 2009, 06:32 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Gladys j cortez [edit]

The 2 IP's and the RuffRuffman user are obviously connected--they admit it in the series of diffs beginning here: [33] and ending here: [34] (Note that in the second diff, the named user copyedits the last IP's comment.) Accordingly, I have blocked the named user, since the IPs were apparently already blocked (though the block has expired by now on the IP's.) I am more concerned, however, with the possibility of the user being de-facto banned user User:Mayme08 The users' areas of interest are very similar; their language use is similar; and they make similar non-beneficial edits.GJC 06:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Conclusions: [edit]

 Clerk note: They're clear socks of Simulation12, and they've already been blocked. Accounts tagged myself. MuZemike 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 28 2009, 18:10 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Beeblebrox (talk)

General editing pattern very consistent with previous socks, however unlike most of the others this account is denying the allegation of socking. Although I have already blocked them, I have also indicated that any remarks they post on this matter on their talk page will be copy/pasted here.Would like to verify this sock, and perhaps CheckUsers could gather evidence to form a rangeblock based on the large pile of socks of this user. See also: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fjfhgfhdstty. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He's just admitted that it is him in an unblock request, so there's no need to confirm, but it would be good if you could check for other accounts nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests


Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Symbol redirect vote.svg Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk endorsed – I don't know what good it's going to do, as the previous SPI cases indicate different IPs in other places. However, Simulation12 has been known to create sockfarms, so a check for sleepers wouldn't hurt here. –MuZemike 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed, unsurprisingly. I couldn't find any obvious sleepers. J.delanoygabsadds 02:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Thanks for the effort anyway. I'll just keep blocking them as they spring up. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Symbol comment vote.svg This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date January 16, 2010, 17:44 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by --Mikey (talk) 17
53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Mayme08 is a sockpuppet of Simulation12 cause Mayme started using Wikipedia in December 2008 Simulation12 used user names based on his Simulation account I don't think Simulation12 used those accounts. So I don't think Mayme08 is a sockpuppet of Simulation12. --Mikey (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  • May I ask what brought this matter to your attention? Your accounts edit history only goes back two weeks, but Mayme08 was blocked ten months ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mayme08 can't be Simulation12 look at her edits and compare it with Simulation12 I don't think they're exactly the same cause Mayme08 did not edit what Simulation12 edit. Mayme08 created an account just for herself not to sockpuppet from another user. I don't think that's Simulation12 period. --Mikey (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from being dead wrong, you didn't answer my question at all. What brought this matter to your attention? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I came here to ask why is Mayme08 a sockpuppet of Simulation12 and please you don't have to be upset I asked nicely. --Mikey (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In case it's not clear to you yet, It seems likely to me that you are in fact yet another sock and I should probably stop talking to you and just block your account. Your refusal to directly answer my question reinforces this perception. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WHAT!!! Why do say I'm another sock I'm not Simulation12. --Mikey (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk note: You are a suspected suckpuppet, and this will be verified shortly, if you are not actually another sock, then don't worry, nothing will happen. The reason that you are suspected is because often sockpuppeteers make attempts at getting their account/s unblocked using socks. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
CU has been of limited use in Simulation12's previous cases. I'm thinking WP:DUCK on this one. Edits the same articles, and is trying to clear a block on an account they never interacted with and have no reason to even be aware of. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Symbol unsupport2 vote.svg Declined, the reason can be found below.
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: endorsed for checkuser on BetsyandKevin89 and Simulation12, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Reporting user blocked as a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Self request for CU declined, no longer needed as the account has been blocked. SpitfireTally-ho! 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Conclusions

 Clerk note: filing user blocked, suspected sock of Simulation12. SpitfireTally-ho! 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date January 28 2010, 00:17 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Checker Fred [edit]

Okay, Simulation22 is Obvious by this edit here: [35]. User:The Cool Kat2, I just don't know, It might seem to be a sock. Can You just check This user out or Block for UsernameChecker Fred (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by AussieLegend [edit]

Checker Fred's editing habits and style are remarkably similar to Simulation12 and his/her many socks. This was already noted at a previous SPI case by another editor.[36] Part of the evidence against Checker Fred is the recent SPI case submitted by him. Checker Fred only registered on 30 December 2009. Simulation 22 and The Kool Cat2 registered on 25 and 23 January repectively. They had only made three posts between them, the last on 25 January, when Checker Fred, a relatively new user, reported them on 28 January. The problem here is that Simulation12's socks aren't so blatant with their usernames or actions. This post is far too obvious and completely out of character with all of the other socks that have appeared since April 2009. The Cool Kat2's two posts aren't suspicious enough to raise the suspicions of a new user.[37] Of course, this isn't the only time that Checker Fred has opened an SPI case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Cool Kat attempts to link The Cool Kat2 and BetsyandKevin89 to The Cool Kat, who is a user who has previously expressed concerns to me about Sim12's socks. There is clearly something that is not right in the way that Checker Fred has so easily identified troublesome users, who all just happen to be Sim12 socks, and tried to link them to a Sim12 opponent. It would seem that Sim12 is now creating socks and reporting them so as to (unsuccessfully) throw suspicion off socks he wants to remain active and undetected.

Further suspicions were prompted by a request by Checker Fred to unprotect List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes. This is a tack used previously by Sim12 socks in order to make a protected page available to a new sock. Having seen The Cool Kat 2's edits at FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman, I don't see why Fred would then ask for List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes to be unprotected, as this would open that page to the same sort of "abuse". I checked the edit history of List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes and discovered recent edits to the page by Checker Fred.[38] These add information for the 2011 season due to air around 20 months from now. An earlier sock had done something very similar and, before I realised he was a sock, had mentored him, resulting in additions for the 2009 season that are remarkably similar to what Fred had added, right down to spacing and positioning of the hidden comment tags.

The final nail is a clerk added comment to the last SPI case.[39][40] I can't see theThe results but the url seems to link User:Extremeguy (another Sim12 sock) and Checker Fred. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • User:Fetch123 added 2 February 2010 - WP:DUCK Checker Fred requests unprotection of List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes and page is unprotected. I then report Checker Fred here as a sock. Meanwhile, Checker Fred adds WP:CRYSTAL information to List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes and it gets reverted. He restores it and it gets reverted again. He then posts to my talk page about it[41] and then disappears.[42] Several hours later Fetch123 is registered and the very first, and only, post of this new user is to revert my edits back to Checker Fred's version on the page that was unprotected at Checker Fred's request. This is exactly what I said would happen two paragraphs ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims. I am Defiantly not a sock. Other users edit the same pages. I was Just editing to making the pages better. Also, I was trying to stop a sock that could in any harm of anyone else. Checker Fred (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users [edit]
  • I'm not sure what to make of this. I actually suggested that the user making this report might be another Sim12 sock after they made a post at WP:RPP that was eerily similar to requests made by socks off this farm, including User:Extremeguy. I had kind of backed off from this, but the pattern of similar editing between Checker Fred and the previous Sim12 socks is compelling. CheckUser has been of limited use in the past in these cases because Sim12 apparently uses multiple ips.I admit that I have actually suspected Fred for a long time, but I grew tired of chasing Sim12's endless parade of socks and had unwatched most of the pages edited by previous socks. Then, I kept finding that I had missed some page or other because it showed up on my list when Fred made an edit to it. I'm pretty sure I have cleaned them all out now, and only noticed this because I was monitoring RPP, and saw that he wants the exact same page unprotected that so many previous socks wanted unprotected. Personally I find all that pretty compelling as far as WP:DUCK, but I'm just reporting my own observations here, and I leave it to others to make a determination. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I did block Simulation22 as an obvious sock/troll though. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I knew Sim12 before she was a vandal. And she is either very resourceful, or obsessed. Maybe a bit of both. I've lost count of how many socks she's had. TCK| chat 16:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That would explain the accounts that have impersonated your name. I'm surprised at the "she," most of the other recent accounts have had male names, and I guess I have a tendency to assume that all the obsessed socking vandals are guys. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the next move is in light of the CU results. Sim12 has been known to use numerous ips in the past, and the behavioral evidence seems fairly strong. They have in the past between used "throwaway" type accounts such as the two reported here that are already blocked as distractions. I'm thinking block despite the CU evidence, but I also said I was just a "witness" this time around and wouldn't be doing the blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite the checkuser results I am still convinced that Checker Fred is a sock. As Beeblebrox indicated, Sim12 has used different IPs before and the posts he's made recently at my talk page,[43][44] are too incredibly similar to numerous posts made by previous socks there since they started in April 2009.[45] The edit history speaks for itself. I'm sure if we watch, all will be revealed. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Symbol redirect vote.svg Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk endorsed to check on Checker Fred (talk · contribs) and also sleepers. I find Beeblebrox's narrative compelling. This is unlikely to be a coincidence. Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed

 Likely

 Unrelated

J.delanoygabsadds 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions [edit]

 Clerk note: Those confirmed have been blocked and tagged already. NJA (t/c) 10:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



25 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Checker Fred [edit]

User:MuZemike thinks User:FetchFan21 is a sock of User:Simulation12. I do not think that is the case.

I have known him for awhile and he is not a sock of that account. The first edit war he had was more of an disagreement. He saw a video on somewhere and just put that would be the opening for season 5 as well. Also that made a little more sence after he found out Season 5 of FETCH! is the final season according to WGBH Boston, due to lack of funding. Also a recent edit he did AussieLegend tended to agree in several accepts. He was just reverting those edits from vandals. I don't really think he is a sock. I have looked through the edits of Simulation12 and they really don't match up. the user editing The FETCH pages was just trying to be helpful. I would like a checkuser to look into this further.

User:Hidividedby5 just looks a little suspicious and reminds of sock User:CNGLITCHINFO a little bit. her edits are not constructive and a bit of vandalism. Also a bit of threats on the FETCH with Ruff Ruffman pages. Can you look into this person. Thanks.

Also I did want to point out that FetchFan21 does not realy now kow to use the unblock templete and where the socks of Simulation12 do know how to use it.Checker Fred (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just can arcoss User:Anakinimanand his edits are similar to Simulation12. Also he has been in a little edit war on the FETCH with Ruff Ruffman page. Can we just get a check on this user as well. Checker Fred (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by AussieLegend [edit]

I've just added User:WGBH Boston, a new editor whose only articlespace edit has been to List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes,[46] to "confirm" start and finish dates of the upcoming season.[47] Not surprisingly, this account was registered and the edit made after I had removed these very same uncited/improperly cited dates from the article after Checker Fred was blocked.[48] Given the previous experience with User:JimConroy38 and the considerably more recent experience with User:FETCH! With Ruff Ruffman, it seems clear that User:WGBH Boston is yet another sock. While I've been writing this, the user has been blocked but I'm still submitting this post for the permanent record. I'm sure it will come in handy in the future. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Clarification added by AussieLegend
  • The following were posted by FetchFan21 on his talk page and added here by Checker Fred:

that was not really an edit war. it was more of an disagreement. I saw a video on somewhere and just put that would be the opening for season 5 as well. Also that made a little more sence after I found out Season 5 of FETCH! is the final season according to WGBH Boston, due to lack of funding. Also a recent edit I did AussieLegend tended to agree in several accepts. --FetchFan21 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC) diff

I started Wikipedia in Late 2009 and Simulation12 got blocked in November 2008 how could you guys figure if I started Wikipedia in 2009 if Simulation12 got blocked in 2008. --FetchFan21 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC) diff


I am sorry about the threat at Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman. I did not read the policy at WP:INTIM, as noone told me about these policies until recently. I have undone my own edit before this sockpuppetry investigation, and (in my knowledge) there are no other accounts on this computer, and noone else logged in on this computer.hidividedby5 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users [edit]

There is something fishy going on here. [49] suspects FetchFan21 of being a sock, and now that has been completely reneged above. In any case, I still stand by my suspicion and block, as already explained before. –MuZemike 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above concerns that there's something fishy going on and since the accusation is that FetchFan21 is a sock of User:Simulation12, it's worth referencing the Simulation 12 SPI cases, with particular note of my comments at the most recent one, which I stand by regardless of the confusing, but not unexpected, CU results.[50] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold the case FetchFan21 is innocent allow me to introduce myself I am Ruff Ruffman the host of the PBS Kids Show FETCH! With Ruff Ruffman. I've been checking up on his edits and he's doing a great job with the page. I don't why anybody would accuse FetchFan for some sock he edits fine and he actually found out from our producers that Season 5 of FETCH! will be the final season. So whoever framed FetchFan21 should unblock him please. --FETCH! With Ruff Ruffman (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again. If that's not convincing enough, then I don't know what is. –MuZemike 03:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Shades of User:JimConroy38 there and it takes me back to the evidence I presented at the last SPI case.[51] One comment gives me a great sense of Déjà vu: "There is clearly something that is not right in the way that Checker Fred has so easily identified troublesome users, who all just happen to be Sim12 socks, and tried to link them to a Sim12 opponent. It would seem that Sim12 is now creating socks and reporting them so as to (unsuccessfully) throw suspicion off socks he wants to remain active and undetected."" --AussieLegend (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that User:Anakiniman has been reported as a sock. I'm not surprised that this has happened but Anakiniman's only "crime" has been to try to change the start date for the last season that aired. Strangely, he was warned about this, not for changing the date but for adding a spam link.[52] The link in question was used as a reference for the date change,[53] and is not a spam link but the official website of the article's subject so I've taken the matter up with the admin concerned.[54] As I told the admin, the start date of the last season was a point of contention. At the time, September 11, 2009 was supported by a citation added by an actual sock of User:Simulation12.[55] I confirmed the date and expanded the citation with the correct date,[56] but the sock argued that September 14 was the real start date as September 11 was just a "sneak peek",[57] even though he added nothing in support of that claim. I don't see any evidence that Anakiniman is a sock. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to bring this back up, but I suggested some time ago that Fred was actually Sim12 again and nobody took me seriously. That was when I stopped watching these articles, but Fred was kind enough to spam my talk page about some new WikiProject today and get me wondering whatever happened with all this. It's in the SPI archives somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12/Archive, it seems Jdelanoy found him to be unrelated at that time despite the behavioral evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
As we all know,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, and if someone could compile a detailed set of behavioral evidence sufficient to overcome the CU evidence we can block on that basis. T. Canens (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what was so frustrating. AussieLegend and myself outlined the behavioral evidence in that SPI, and were told rather flatly that CU found it to be unrelated. Since Sim12 obviously has some knowledge of how to cover his tracks so that CU is of very limited use, I don't get why the behavioral evidence (which I note you found "compelling" at the time) was ignored in favor of apparent CU evidence that contradicted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've asked J.delanoy to comment here on how he came to that decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I was only a lowly trainee clerk/editor at that time :( T. Canens (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Should I mention that I referenced the Sim12 SPI archives several days ago,[58] and my evidence specifically two days later?[59] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
After reading that again, I see that J. didn't actually say anything other than that CU said they were unrelated, and I didn't block because I was trying to get away from this issue. Chasing these these serial sockpuppeteers can get very personal and I was pretty tired of it at the time, having had Sim12 socks created for the sole purpose of attacking me. I find it interesting that both times this has come up, Fred has just clammed up and said nothing in his own defense. I will give him credit for realizing that sometimes the smartest thing to do is shut up and hope it will go away, it kept this matter from being settled for five months. Since we all seem to agree that there is sufficient behavioral evidence that CheckerFred has been snowing us this whole time, I'm going to go ahead and block. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I think you're giving him too much credit. We had him pegged back in January and damning evidence against him back then was the SPI he raised. If he'd been quiet this time and hadn't raised another SPI he'd still be quietly editing somewhere. Applying for Adminship was also a foolish move. I was drafting my "Oppose immeasurably strongly with every fibre of my being" vote at the time the RfA was closed as WP:NOTNOW and it was going to link straight back to the January SPI case. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed Something weird is going on here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm minded to block Checker Fred as a sock/meatpuppet of Sim12. He managed to find a RfA of a Sim12 sock who has ~100 edits, which has never been transcluded or linked to, 6 minutes after the sock made the last edit to the RfA, and 22 minutes after it was created. Whatever the checkuser evidence says, given the behavioral evidence already adduced and the pattern here, and bearing in mind that checkuser has its limits, I think there's enough for a block here. T. Canens (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, is there anything left for a checkuser to do here? T. Canens (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    •  Clerk note: Case moved to /Simulation12 per usual practice. T. Canens (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • While I respect MuZemike's opinion, I'm not entirely convinced of FetchFan21's status and I don't think Anakinimanand is a sock at all, but rather he's just someone who disagreed with Checker Fred. Is CU justified to condemn or exonerate those two? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Side note: on 6/29, Checker Fred created six new accounts in a row; that's a pretty clear sign of questionable intent to me. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

15 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Similar editing pattern. Confession0791 talk 02:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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]
  •  Administrator note: Blocked two weeks for evasion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Administrator note: Blocked one month for evasion and edit warring. KrakatoaKatie 22:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

30 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Simulation1212 was created a few hours ago and, by his own admission, is a sock of Simulation12. This editor was reported at WP:AIV and has been indef blocked. After that Simulation1212 posted cheekily in an edit summary on his talk page, "I'll be back or am I already".[60] Only four minutes later, Simulation60 posted to his talk page.[61] Simulation60 added to that with "Others User:Hidividedby5".[62] That editor's edit history shows a final edit to Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman, which is one of the pages where Simulation12 and his socks hung out so I suspect this is another sock. Like Simulation1212,[63] Simulation60 has made conspicuous edits to talk pages belonging to editors who have participated in these discussions or blocked Simulation12 and his socks.[64][65][66] He has also made this post to a page he has never previously visited, obviously stalking me. Given the reference to Hidividedby5, who has been dormant since 2014 I think that checkuser is required to identify other sleepers. AussieLegend () 20:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Earlier I added another 18 accounts after Simulation1212 listed them on his talkpage as "other accounts".[67] I assumed good faith, thinking Simulation1212 was coming clean, but realised this was a mistaked when he added several more accounts including mine,[68] and subsequently reverted the addition.[69] However, a brand new editor, Victorthegreat256 restored these and added the new editors on the list.[70] I strongly suspect that this editor is another actual sock who is just Simulation 12 "screwing with us". --AussieLegend () 16:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The account Aussielegend [71] is vary different from your this AussieLegend, [72]Victorthegreat256 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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]

 Technically indistinguishable to each other:

Hidividedby5 is stale.

 Technically indistinguishable to each other:

 Technically indistinguishable to each other:

  • I didn't check all of the accounts above and I don't know if this is a sock looking for recognition or an impersonator.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: closed, see below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

04 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Victorthegreat256, previously blocked as a sock, has been rather forthcoming on his talkpage and has listed the first 17 accounts as socks he still commands. Number 18, Bigteddy11, is not listed although Bigteddy1, BigTeddy5 and Bigteddy21 are. Bigteddy11's only edit to date has been on my talk page. all of the socks need blocking with talkpage access revoked as this seems to be the only way he will get the message that his edits are unnacceptable. AussieLegend () 16:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Zzuuzz: - I don't trust anything he says, which is why I self-reverted at the recent SPI case,[73] and why I reverted Victorthegreat256,[74] but he insisted.[75] That sort of paid off. To be honest, the only one I am absolutely convinced is Simulation 12 is Bigteddy11 but you'v blocked him already. --AussieLegend () 18:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
We are having a little chat about this: User talk:Bigteddy11. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I have been wrongfully accused of sockpuppetry and I have no relation to the user Bigteddy11. This user has not really edited and has just attacked users, but I have not done any of that as my editing shows that I haven't attacked any users and made necessary improvements when needed. Bigteddy1 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bigteddy1: You can safely ignore this, it happens sometimes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • See also User talk:Bigteddy45, which is also unlisted. I believe there's some joe-jobbing going on. @AussieLegend: I wouldn't trust a single word from this blocked sock. For example I would say ExtraEditing and VHS99 and Bigteddy1 are almost certainly unrelated to each other and to Bigteddy11 and Victorthegreat256. Can you reduce this to behavioural matches? -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I note the discussion at User talk:Bigteddy11. I also note that User:Programmerfrom2222 et al. (from the previous report) is definitely unrelated. The users I mentioned above are unrelated, in addition to several others. There are several stale accounts. Bigteddy11 is confirmed to the other Simulation12 socks mentioned in the previous report. The rest are  Declined. I don't doubt User:Berean Hunter's previous results but I'll just ping them anyway. I'll leave this report open for second opinions and as there may be some cleaning up to do, for example the unblock request at User_talk:WP_Editor_2012. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • My three different groups may be different individuals and I'm not sold on any of them as being Sim12. Still thinking we have an impersonator...
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: the user, or one of them, or whoever, is obviously screwing with us for their own amusement. I'm not giving this any more time. Closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

14 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

For the record. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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]

​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

15 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Awhile back a user name simuliar to my name Underman came to my user talk page blacking my page and have a feeling this new user is the same person. I just don't know, It might seem to be a sock. Can you just check this user out or Block. --Bigteddy1 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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]

 Confirmed and blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of their talk page antics on other accounts, but I think there's no more to do here. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

08 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


My original account was account was hacked by Simulaton12’s other sock after many attempts. The blocking admin for my account approve my request to create another account. Today a User: Mikeybigteddy was created using my email address. It looks like he is back in action. I have added a few other accounts to check as he does admit that they are his as well. --CaptainDanger25 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users[edit]

Sorry, I shouldn't of fixed CaptainDanger25 edits. I came across his account. while looking at the Fuller House pages. I ended up clicking on his name and noticed a user edited his user page instead of his talk page, so I corrected the page. I liked his design on his profile for my user page, so I did copy it and used it as well.Captain Kid 2018 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Endorsed for CU. I might not get around to this in a hurry, but it warrants CU attention - and, related, we can add Captain Kid 2018 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) to the list of suspicious accounts. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


26 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I noticed here, [76] that this user listed in AussieLegend's talkpage is back at it again. I have no relation to him. he mentioned another user, but by looking at other cases he is probably setting up NickBubbleBuddy. --CaptainDanger25 (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users[edit]

Just want to Point out that Checker Fred and BestyandKevin89 always reported users and they turned out to be socks

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed to previous socks. Blocked without tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


1 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Account was created using my email. Nuff said. --CaptainDanger25 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users[edit]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. @CaptainDanger25: Please use the instructions at WP:SPI to file reports in the future. You're doing them ad hoc and not doing them properly. Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


27 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Self-admitted here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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]

  • Named user appears to be  Unrelated.  No comment with respect to IP address(es). —DoRD (talk)​ 22:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

17 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Ionel05 is already indef blocked, but this makes it clear that User:Ionel05 is a self-admitted sock of Simulation12, and I'd like it added to the case file.

Also, probably worth it to check for sleepers... --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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]

  • As in the previous report, Ionel05 appears to be an  Unrelated victim of a joe job. —DoRD (talk)​ 01:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, I wouldn't pay any attention to what those IP addresses are saying. Closing.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)