Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Brucejenner

Brucejenner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date August 28 2009, 22:28 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Obvious SPA looking to get around 3rr or somesuch.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • Indef blocked. NW (Talk) 22:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date September 1 2009, 01:34 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Same name, same contribs.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added IH8reggins (talk · contribs). Brand new account, immediately comes in and starts revert people, has done BLP vandalism, and has reverted to a previous revision created by a sock.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]


CU is required to see if a rangeblock is feasible. This user is obviously able to evade bans, lets see if we can stop them in their tracks.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorsing per findings below. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The request for a rangeblock was prescient, as there are apparently quite a few hidden issues: sleepers, IP edits, sneaky socking, etc. The three accounts to date were on one IP, but the other activity appears to be on other IPs too.

I'll provisionally take a few steps until it's sorted out - I can't be sure what range is involved for this guy's editing so for a week it'll be the range from which all activity seems to be happening, and a number of accounts that look highly suspect will get blocked. This case might need wider Checkuser review. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The following are  Confirmed as the same person:

Brucejenner is also the editor behind the following IP accounts (behaviorally and with CU, crosschecked with Nathan) and possibly others:

The following are a concern, they need extra checking:

There may well be other sleepers and IPs. A suitable hard block would probably be worthwhile. I'll look into this shortly.

FT2 (Talk | email) 05:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

There were two active IPs identified in a 152.x.x.x range and multiple IPs from a 68.127.x.x range. The former are individually blocked, the latter are under discussion by checkusers for best handling, and temporarily range blocked. The sock user is prolific and may use other IPs. The blocks and ranges may need to be expanded if so. For now though, checkuser work is done.

There is cleanup. The edits by the above accounts will need careful review (there's vandalism) and some queries remain as listed.

FT2 (Talk | email) 06:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
  • Accounts blocked and tagged. Rangeblock performed by FT2/Jake Wartenberg. Nathan T 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date September 2 2009, 03:55 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Brand-new account, comes right in and starts edit warring right where the other accounts left off.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date September 3 2009, 23:50 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Again just reverting to the sockpuppet's version.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • IP blocked, but AIV might be faster for blatant cases like these in the future. NW (Talk) 00:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date September 8 2009, 03:43 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Another obvious sock, this is just to keep track of them.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

I gave those IPs an anon-only rangeblock (68.127.168.0/21). PeterSymonds (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date September 23 2009, 20:08 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Obvious sock reverting to sockmaster's preferred version.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • Blocked for a week. NW (Talk) 20:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report date September 24 2009, 00:14 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Another sock reverting to the sockmaster's preferred version. This report is simply to keep track of the socks as they appear.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. NW (Talk) 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a checkuser please check to see if a range block for these IPs would be possible? Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verizon cell range, no luck. Brandon (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • IP blocked for a week. NW (Talk) 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date February 7 2010, 22:14 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Ctjf83 [edit]

User:Jstanierm had stopped editing for 2 years between December 6, 2007 and January 27, 2010. User:OscarMilde account was created 4 days later on January 31, 2010. Before the 2 year break, Jstanierm had 0 edits to articles related to LGBT issues. Upon returning, Jstanierm has several anti-LGBT edits, and OscarMilde has all but a few eidts to anti-LGBT material. I reverted this. Jstanierm reverted me with what I believe is a source that violates WP:NPOV. After Jstanierm reverted again, and I reverted again as a NPOV source, OscarMilde reverted me apparently saying the article is currently pro gay marriage, so this was warranted. CTJF83 chat 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Phoenix_of9 [edit]

OscarMilde seems like a SPA [1]. Edit wars in Same-sex marriage just like Jstanierm. Both got blocked [2] [3]. OscarMilde reverts to Jstanierm in Same-sex marriage [4] Phoenix of9 06:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not a sockpuppet. You may notice a difference in editting style between Oscar and I. I have contributed much to talk page discussions, and I don't believe I've ever added anything without citations. On the articles in question I have only added law review article citations or referred to a sel published UCLA law professor's blog.

It's not impossible that while ctjf83 and I were edit warring on a contentious issue such as same sex marriage that there would be single purpose accounts or ip users popping in and out.

I just want to note briefly that I feel this accusation is just a part of what has been ongoing debate and edit warring between ctjf83 and myself and is possibly a vengeful attempt to ban me for reporting him and having him blocked for 3rr.

I am not totally familiar with wikipedia policy being a fairly new user but I would encourage an ip check which will easily prove that I am not the same person as Oscar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstanierm (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one other thing... I do have another account Stanier Manning but it's not a puppet. I made it a long time ago when I first started. Didn't like the account name so I made this one.Jstanierm (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser for two reasons. First, to check he Jstanierm = OscarMilde (which IMO is unlikely given the editing patterns, even though they both edit similar articles). Second, per DrKiernan's block rationale on OscarMilde, suggesting that OscarMilde may be banned user DavidYork71. –MuZemike 17:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that OscarMilde is Brucejenner. Also confirmed:

Jstanierm is Red X Unrelated. Dominic·t 12:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All accounts blocked and tagged as sock of Brucejenner. –MuZemike 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 26 2010, 07:08 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

The SSP has a similar editing style, and their communication with users is the same. Both have been uncivil, and both edit war without discussing. This person seems to know more about WP as a newbie might, as with the very first edit they make, they use an edit summary. Not something a new person would usually do in my experience.

The next bit may or may not be all that relevant, but they have both edited very similarly, in that,

An aside to the above is the obvious understanding of a wikilink in their 5th edit(the last one linked(here it is again)). Again, not something a newbie would do.

That's all I have for now.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

CU is required as this user usually creates sleeper accounts. If one would simply check the last report, you would see it turned up 30 something accounts. But that aside, this user has a history of socking to insert their POV into articles, mainly about SSM. It would be helpful to see if it's actually him, although I have my doubts that it is not.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed to check for sleepers, SpitfireTally-ho! 07:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. No other accounts found. I have tried a range block, so let's see how that works. Dominic·t 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information Administrator note Block is now indefinite. –MuZemike 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 27 2010, 17:42 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by LadyofShalott [edit]

User:SmallMentula was just confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Brucejenner. In this edit he states his intent to create a new sock account. Fummundacheese reverted Same-sex marriage to a version of SmallMentula's and added the word "faggot" to another article. I have already blocked Fummundacheese as an obvious sock of Brucejenner, but think checkuser to look for other accounts could be useful. LadyofShalott 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B, E (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by LadyofShalott 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. No other unblocked accounts that I could find. However, as this particular account is editing from a mobile range, that doesn't mean there aren't any. J.delanoygabsadds 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Note:J.D. and I edit-conflicted on this one. I concur with his findings, and, as mobile devices hop IPs very frequently, I expanded the check to the mobile block and would say that the following users share technical evidence with Fummundacheese (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), but behavioral evidence may be required to confirm connections:

-- Avi (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With no edits listed for Tifferrr89, there's no way to tell via any behavioral evidence that Tifferrr89 is Brucejenner. –MuZemike 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 4 2010, 05:41 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Ctjf83 [edit]

Same edits as confirmed socks User:OscarMilde and User:PeshawarPat (probably among more) adding homosexual agenda to pages. CTJF83 chat 05:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by CTJF83 chat 05:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed to confirm the link and look for any sleepers, any possible IP blocks would also be appreciated. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 11 2010, 02:35 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Georgewilliamherbert [edit]

Edit style matches prior Brucejenner CU confirmed socks - adding Homosexual agenda to other pages, other disruptive edits thereof, etc. Admin Bongwarrior indef blocked on a username block, but I believe we need to CU verify if this is Brucejenner and change the block to reflect that if this is him (which I strongly suspect, looking at recent Brucejenner socks and this guy's edit pattern). Also, as Brucejenner has been unusually prolific, it seems to me to be time for an underlying IP or IP range block if this is him again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor noted Montystone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who also matches the pattern; I have added them to the request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'm guessing the first listed sockpuppet was meant to be User:Montystone. LadyofShalott 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could guess that. Both are sockpuppets.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been edited since her comment - I accidentally listed Brucejenner at the top in the first draft. Subsequently removed that and added Montystone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thank you.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are  Confirmed, FWIW. Looking for more accounts now, could take a bit. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also found Steelseal16 (talk · contribs) and Rickyambers (talk · contribs), both blocked and tagged. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Slightystainedmanties (talk · contribs) and Tifferrr89 (talk · contribs). I've also blocked 69.78.0.0/16 for a month; let's see if that slows down the sock farm a bit. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: all have been blocked and are tagged, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 30 2010, 05:47 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CTJF83 chat

Probable sock of User:Brucejenner same type of edits CTJF83 chat 05:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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 – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by CTJF83 chat 05:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Sleepers/IPs etc. Tim Song (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

DarkFalls beat me to blocking this obvious sock. I think CU could be useful to check for sleeper socks. LadyofShalott 06:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Moved to correct sockmaster. Tim Song (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed, nothing new on the already blocked /20. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Clerk note: account has been blocked and tagged, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 30 2010, 20:53 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Vandalizing Same-sex marriage a day or two apart.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Self-endorsed by clerk for Checkuser attention.

 Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweetpete1990. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed self endorsed to run another sleeper check please, (noting that Sweetpete1990 was created almost directly after the last sweep) SpitfireTally-ho! 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Also:
  1. Maddierey98 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Beerchugginglunatic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. InSecrecy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I've also rangeblocked 66.174.0.0/16, where a lot of these accounts have been created. It's a Verizon cellular range, I think. There might be some more sleepers on there, but only these three were very obviously Brucejenner. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 5 2010, 04:36 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Native94080 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: case moved form Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coorsdudeman SpitfireTally-ho! 11:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check please, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very  Likely match, no obvious sleepers. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 11 2010, 08:03 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Same pattern of contributions and personal attacks on editors that are reverted as vandalism.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Native94080 (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: Moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Admiralandy --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Definite duck, but a checkuser is warranted as has been done in the past to check for possible sleepers and perhaps a new rangeblock. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very  Likely: Same MO: they create an account using their Blackberry and then use it to go through the rangeblock... -- Luk talk 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is a hardblock on the range possible? Tim Song (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Deskana (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
God dammit, another Crackberry user? :( —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 16 2010, 06:44 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Same pattern of behavior and incivility as other usernames associated with Brucejenner.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Native94080 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined already blocked by Materialscientist in which I concur per the clear behavioral evidence. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 07:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 17 2010, 05:29 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

Same MO as prolific sock master. Not much else to say. The account is already blocked, I know, but this report is in regard to possible sleepers.


Just added Pyromania1967 (talk · contribs), as while they do not seem to have the same MO as the sock master, they do seem similar, in that they edit war while refusing to discuss matters.

I am not asking for a CU on Pyro, only Flam.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 05:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

CU is not required to confirm this obvious duck. What it is required for, however, is to route out any sleepers(and we all know he creates sleepers), and determine if a range block is at all possible.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a clarification, per the addition of Pyromania1967 (talk · contribs), as said above, I am not requesting CU on Pyro, only Flam for the previously stated reasons, as well as the fact that any such evidence regarding Pyro is extremely weak.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check on Flamboyantcornhusker (talk · contribs) SpitfireTally-ho! 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Clerk note: Merged two cases' sockpuppets together (with the same sockmaster) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sleepers found. Also, I didn't check Pyromania1967, for reasons noted above. --Deskana (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: all the accounts have been blocked and tagged, apart from Pyromania1967 (talk · contribs) who has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Marking as closed SpitfireTally-ho! 01:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 19 2010, 01:29 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Same pattern of vandalism as other users.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Seems unrelated to me. Not the same pattern at all. BJ has a specific MO, and this isn't it.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Native94080 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined Wildly different styles of vandalism. Using homosexuality as an insult is different than trying to insult homosexuals. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 27 2010, 02:54 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Same pattern of vandalism as other users.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Quack.

As an aside - I don't know the range sizes, but this guy is crying out for a large long rangeblock if that's not too damaging to other editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IINM, this guy creates accounts on a Crackberry; if he's using the same ranges this guy is then the SPI I filed here might get both of them with one Westboro-thrown chicken wing. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Native94080 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined Already blocked as WP:VOA, and seems possible from the edits (although they are a bit more vitriolic than normal). CU said two weeks ago that a hardblock on the range wasn't possible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Account already blocked, no rangeblock possible. TNXMan 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 29 2010, 04:40 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Same pattern of derogatory edits and evasion from Wikipedia editing policies, including to user's own talk page.

I Second Native's rational, and was suspecting it when I reverted the vandalism. Sleeper check would be great too, please. CTJF83 chat 04:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll give a third to this one. Its obviously him, see this recently blocked sock, compare language of unblock request, and manner of edits. Also, consider that he pledged to create a new account to continue to dodge the block, I'd like to add a special request for an IP block/IP range block on the IPs he is using, if possible, to shut him down for good. --Jayron32 04:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I hope an admin will step it up and do a range block for a while, he is really old to deal with. CTJF83 chat 05:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged and reblocked with the block evasion and incident in the block reason.
I asked last time (earlier this week) for a rangeblock; apparently not that simple, as accounts come from / are created in Blackberry user space and then are used from a wide range of IPs inside a major major providers' netspace... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we need to discuss solutions,if rangeblock isn't an option, either here or somewhere. CTJF83 chat 05:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

I believe Brucejenner IIRC is on a Crackberry range, which makes it virtually impossible to do any rangeblock. –MuZemike 05:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 1 2010, 19:15 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Duck test should show that this user is a Brucejenner sock. One of this user's edits to their talk page reveals that this user intends on creating another account.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

This diff shows the edit stating intent to commit further sockpuppetry (gee, what a surprise). Checkuser for additional socks could be useful. LadyofShalott 04:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check. Tim Song (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One new sleeper: Peteraktins (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 4 2010, 04:06 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Duck test shows that this user may be a Brucejenner sock.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

I don't really care if this is BJ or not. Already blocked as a VOA and I'll leave it at that. Tim Song (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 12 2010, 02:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Derogatory, anti-gay, edits.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 02:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
17 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Derogatory, anti-gay, edits. Some of the above users have indicated creating "another account" in their user page edits.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

This looks completely unrelated to me. There is a difference between using homosexuality as an insult, and insulting homosexuality. BJ's MO is to add things like Homosexual agenda and POV forks to LG.. something articles. This user doesn't fit his MO at all.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given a few other edits I read, along with this statement about creating another account, I hereby request CU to route out any sleepers.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few additional user names above. Native94080 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Actually, that's exactly what he's been doing as of late. In any case. He's already blocked. –MuZemike 05:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclosing;  Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check. Tim Song (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All listed accounts are  Confirmed fwiw. Also, Artestthenog (talk · contribs). I blocked a few ranges, but he's editing from his mobile phone quite frequently, so I don't know how effective the blocks will be. J.delanoygabsadds 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: thanks, J.delanoy. All the acocunts are now blocked and have been tagged, closing SpitfireTally-ho! 17:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
21 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Same derogatory editing as other socks.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

They were both blocked a while ago. There is no need to report them here if they're already blocked. –MuZemike 19:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
22 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Same pattern of derogatory, anti-gay, vandalous edits. These users need to be indefinitely blocked without the possibility of being given a second chance, as almost happened with User:PeshawarPat. Additionally, the style of vandalism from User:Castrobasher differs from the Brucejenner socks, so User:Castrobasher isn't being reported as a Brucejenner sock (rather, this user's screen name is inappropriate and was reported for being so).

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

He already blocked. You don't need to report and document every instance of this; we already have many good admins on this job. –MuZemike 08:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, if you spot a clear sock of Brucejenner, feel free to let any of us administrators know, and we'll take care of it. –MuZemike 08:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
27 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Polkerpatty: same style of derogatory editing, and claimed to create another user account from this edit.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

 Clerk note: has been blocked indefinitely. SpitfireTally-ho! 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
31 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Same inappropriate user names and style of grossly insulting, reverted editing. Both names targeted same-sex marriage in Massachusetts article.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

 Clerk note: both have been blocked indefintely, no need to tag. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: archived from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sfsunsetphagetslammer. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
02 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Iridescent [edit]

Quack quack quack. – iridescent 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Supershortangle has already been blocked by Jeske Couriano with a long term abuse summary and Dorkotherobot by DMacks with a vandalism only account justification. They definitely both quack. Do we need to check for sleepers? LadyofShalott 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed

Plus, FWIW, some more that are already indeffed:

What was I thinking, applying for this job. Amalthea 22:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
05 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Sigh. When will the madness end? Native94080 (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • His historical comments and revisions need to be removed as well. I don't know how to go about requesting for that.Native94080 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

 Confirmed  IP blocked - hardblocked his main range. Don't know how effective it will be, since he's creating accounts with a mobile phone. J.delanoygabsadds 04:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
09 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Isn't it obvious? This sock never gives up. --Native94080 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Already indef-blocked as a VOA. Amalthea 10:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


15 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Quack. Native94080 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) And this one is already tagged for vandalizing the same article. Native94080 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence? All you go by is that someone else objected to the same article? What is this? (EnochBethany (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

This is an outrage. First an outrageous article was put on Wikipedia on Homophobia, attempting to demonize certain persons as having a mental disorder, an irrational fear if they opposed homosexuality. Then I attempted to neutralize the soap box. I argued my case on the talk page extensively. Now that is called trolling, and now an outrageous, false charge of sockpuppetry has been made with Check User, which I guess gives my enemies the right to look at my IP address? Now where is the evidence that justifies this treatment? Is it only that someone in the past objected to the slur word homophobia being discussed without acknowledging that it is a slur word? I came to the talk page this evening to bid farewell for the moment & wish everyone the best, & now this outrage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany (talk • (EnochBethany (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC))contribs) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (EnochBethany (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Native94080 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Whoops, it would have helped if I looked in the archives! Given the master account's past, a check would be helpful for sleepers. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding User:EnochBethany to the list. See Talk:Homophobia for extended BJ-type trolling. LadyofShalott 02:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sasparillaheights (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Inconclusive, since s/he exclusively used a mobile phone to edit. EnochBethany (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Possible. They are on the same ISP, but not the same node. Also, the UAs are different and the IPs geolocate quite far apart. Still, I have seen other puppeteers hop across different nodes on this ISP before. J.delanoygabsadds 05:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I protest this outrage. No evidence was submitted to warrant this. Same ISP? How many people use AT&T for crying out loud. I demand that you change that possible to highly unlikely. You say that the IPs geolocate quite far apart. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

 Clerk note: No action taken. I will note that further disruption as a result of this CheckUser request will be handled with blocking. –MuZemike 06:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
29 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

Should check for sleepers, which happens often with this sock.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Native94080 (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers which is bound to turn up. Bsadowski1 08:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking for sleepers on this range is largely fruitless. Just WP:RBI them as they come. Amalthea 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
29 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Native94080 [edit]

These socks need to be indefinitely blocked. Update: Issue now resolved. This can be archived.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Native94080 (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined per blocks by Tim Song on the accounts and IP. Pointless to check for sleepers on this range. SpitfireTally-ho! 23:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
13 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Joe Decker [edit]

WP:DUCK-- name similarity, and Continued a discussion about an edit war [5] after 1968 was blocked for 3RR. Whole discussion is [6], edit war spans roughly these edits [7]. Both account's talk pages show similar content warring warnings, etc. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as I see now that both accounts are blocked, this may be moot. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

There's also at least one IP associated with it, 167.206.79.227‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is currently under suspension for a year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

information Administrator note Everyone's already blocked, so marking as closed. TNXMan 18:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about doing a sweep for lurking socks??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: if there had been more socks, they would have shown their faces by now. I would also guess that any future disruption would come from socks yet-to-be, not existing sleepers. TNXMan 18:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin has now tied them to Brucejenner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a sock rap sheet a mile long. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's another kettle of fish. I agree that sleeper check may be warranted then. TNXMan 20:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined per what checkusers have previously stated about sweeping Brucejenner socks for sleepers, namely that it is fairly fruitless. WP:RBI is the best policy. Will archive under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner shortly. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: please note that this case was originally opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pyromania1967 and then archived to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner/Archive. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pyromania1967 for original page history. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

This edit by one of BJ's recent socks, and this edit by the suspected sock. On top of that, per the UserCompare report, the suspected sock has roughly the same editing time as a recent WP:DUCK sock. Lastly, the suspected sock exhibits similar behavior to BJ socks in that he edit wars with little to no discussion, and exhibits the idea that they get to have their way before consensus is achieved. — Dædαlus Contribs 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, CU is required as this banned user has a habit of creating sleeper accounts.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk declined - (X! · talk)  · @910  ·  20:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are already blocked, so it is moot. As per the comment in the SPI archive, it's pointless to do a CU, and RBI is the best course of action from here. (X! · talk)  · @910  ·  20:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

This is the third sock(from a previous report, but it appeared today) this sockmaster has created. It is already blocked, but per the recent sockfarm, and this user's history of creating sleeper accounts, I request that a CU be done so that any sleepers can be routed out, and if possible, a rangeblock set in place. — Dædαlus Contribs 03:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


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

 Clerk declined – NuclearWarfare already made the block; I don't think any other CUs will come up with much. –MuZemike 01:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

29 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Dlabtot [edit]

edit history on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape and the limited scope of edits indicate possible sockpuppetry. Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new sockpuppet Dlabtot (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

I do not know and am not any of those users. Richmondian (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • WP:DUCK, down to the similar styles of reverts and editing in general. Blocked and tagged. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 02:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, PeterSymonds, for re-opening this. I've been asked to review this duck-block case by a number of unrelated editors in good standing. I've had some dealings with Richmondian in the past and, while I personally don't like his POV, this case didn't seem right. I've run a check of all the accounts involved and here are the results;
  • Richmondian (talk · contribs) is highly  Unlikely to be any of the accounts mentioned here. There are many technical factors that don't line up. Checking shows that he is not, to my knowledge, abusing multiple accounts.
  • The following accounts are  Confirmed as being the same editor;
  • The following accounts are highly  Likely to be the same editor;
- Alison ❤ 10:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I didn't even look at the userpage tags before I started and it turns out that Vomitstains (talk · contribs) is tagged as a BruceJenner sock. That, in retrospect, actually makes a lot of sense and, as it happens, both of those accounts are on the same, mobile IP address within minutes of each other - Alison ❤ 10:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Clerk note: Open cases merged. T. Canens (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • information Administrator note All of the socks have been tagged as Brucejenner and Richmondian has been unblocked by PeterSymonds. Looks like everything is finished up. TNXMan 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano [edit]

Tagged as a Brucejenner sock based upon the account's edits at Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Requesting checkuser to confirm that this is, in fact, he and not another walking insult to Christ's message. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


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

 Clerk declined pretty clear duck based on this edit summary and Brucejenner's long standing interest in Perry v. Schwarzenegger; not that it matters whether or not this is a BJ sock, since it was blocked as a VOA. No point in a sleeper check on BJ's range (see checkuser Amalthea's comment in the /archive), just RBI. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

71's first edit is to support 82, which was later shown to be DMS as he logged in and posted this, so that issue isn't what this SPI is about. This user appears to be pretending to be two different people, either through use of an anonymity site, or as a meatpuppet of BJ. As to them being BJ, they, and 82 keep claiming that others editing the article have some kind of 'agenda', a rather favorite term of BJ and past socks, and don't seem to want to abandon this claim, instead of discussing the content of the articles, they feel the need to claim others have an agenda, and thus shouldn't be discussing things. It is evidenced that 71 is referring to a Homosexual agenda, as he claims here that 'giving LGBT barnstars shows what an agenda they have(not exact wording)'. As those who have investigated past BJ reports(and as noted above, although not delving into specifics), BJ has a common MO of posting links to 'homosexual agenda' into articles, or claiming such of other editors, in that they would not be able to edit in a neutral manner. They have been told several times to drop the issue, but won't let it go(just like BJ, who will edit war because he think's he is right). To say the least, claiming editors have any kind of agenda is disruptive and draws away from discussing the article content, especially when such a claim just hinges on the giving of barnstars. — Dædαlus Contribs 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that 71 and D/8 never edit at the same time, further demonstrating possible sockpuppetry. CU isn't needed here, only behavioral. D was registered this year, and has mostly only edited 2 large articles: Ejaculation and Marriage, which as anyone who has researched the BJ case would know, is a common article he hits.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One's in Belfast, Ireland and one's in Kansas City, MO. They seem far from BJ's usual locations (unless he's moved; I'm not a CU and not 100% sure where he is now, but...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made sure not to exclude the possibility of meatpuppets; I have several friends in Europe, while I'm on the west coast of USA.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how we'd distinguish meatpuppets from the large crowd of anti-gay and anti-gay-marriage folks out there in the world writ large.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn't BJ, it could still be WP:MEAT, in regards to how D/8 and 71 never really appear to edit at the same time, and how 71's first edit is to support D/8.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would observe that it's possible they are different ducks, but it certainly seems to be the same quack. The user's reaction to being compared with BJ, first was "Who is that?", and then he started leveling veiled threats that we should be careful of "defamation", which frankly by itself is close to a blockable legal threat. But he came across as someone who's been here awhile, and as such he should be aware of who BJ is (especially as it was mentioned in the paragraph just above the one where he asked that question). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Well, first off, no one let me know any investigation had been started for several days, until I asked User:Ctjf83 if he/she would desist from accusing me on the talk page of being "brucejenner". At least two users there persist in refering to me DMSBel (Bel as in Belfast) (IP 82.18.164.15) as a troll. When my posts are signed with my IP it is simply because I forgot to sign-in. Now I state for the record (and the talk page will bear this out) that I was trying to reach a consensus on including "between a man and woman" somewhere in the intro to the marriage article, but not insisting on any particular location such as the first sentence. A close review of the discussions on that page (several of which are closed) will show that in first joining the discussion I quoted the OED definition of marriage and said "don't tell me this is just western". I had asked for no change in the article text at that point. I had not edited the marriage article before that, and I have never actually seen any of the controversial edits that brucejenner made, though over the last few days User:Baseball Bugs drew my attention to edit-warring that took place in March 2010 by suspected sock-puppets.

The user with the IP beginning 71 then replied telling me that I was wasting my time, that the "gay lobby" (that IP's words) would not allow it if I was trying to get a recognition in the intro that marriage is most commonly recognised as being between a man and a woman. That IP’s arguing that there was a POV in the article and an agenda to block efforts to remove it, persuaded me he was correct, and a few times in the subsequent discussion I refered to that.

Actually I did not find IP. 71's comment (cited by Daedalus above) supporting at all, I was confused by it and actually thought it was to discourage me seeking to continue the discussion about the OED definition.

We now have a consensus on the wording ("between a man and a woman") within the first sentence in the third paragraph.

I have been met in bad faith by User:Baseball Bugs with regard to other non-controversial changes I suggested to the article. I also made a small change to the order of one of the sections. Not once have I made a change without explaining it on the talk page first – with regard to the current wording of the first sentence of the third paragraph, that change was made by another editor, and there was a consensus for it.

I noted what I thought was a improperly placed comment within the text to prevent changes, stating <!—DO NOT change: it will be reverted!--> placed there some months ago (I don’t know if it was with agreement from other editors) by user User:Ctjf83. User:Maunus and myself had both agreed (on the talk page) that it was not really good practice to put these instructions in the text of the article. And I had said it was open to abuse. User:Baseball Bugs re-inserted this and threatened have me blocked if I removed it again.

There has been a lot of discussion over this and other content in the article, sometimes it gets confusing, but I have sought to be civil as much as I can even when being accussed wrongly, though I acknowledge I have not always been polite.

I have not responded in kind to the last accusation made about me on the talk page(by User:Ctjf83) after a consensus and agreement had been reached, but did send a message to that user asking him/her to stop.

I would also ask those investigaing this matter to consider how (on the marriage discussion page) accusations of POV-pushing and agendas have been allowed to pass unchallenged when made by User:Ctjf83 (against myself and IP.71), while other discussions have been closed and even this investigation started against myself and IP-71 when we made mention of POV-pushing. DMSBel (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I just clarify a couple of things? First I re-edited my defence above, as I thought I needed to make things clearer, I have done this the same evening as I first posted it and as soon as I became aware of anything that needed to be more clearly explained. I apologise for using signatures. At first I had just typed the usernames in (ie. in this form user:example, but forgot to put [[ ]] to link it). But I thought it might be clearer to others if I cut-pasted the actual signatures - I did not realise there was anything incorrect in doing that.

Also the evidence cited above is inaccurate, I have edited quite a few more articles than ejaculation and marriage. I have not once btw been accused of being "brucejenner" on the ejaculation page.

I would appreciate this investigation be handled as swiftly as possible as I have other things to do. DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on your user page, the signature thing is not a big deal at all, just a friendly notice. CTJF83 chat 02:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
25 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

Simply compare the following.

Please tag and bag. As to CU justification, this sock master is known for creating sock farms. A check is necessary to route out any sleepers. — Dædαlus Contribs 05:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • The following accounts are  Confirmed as being Brucejenner socks;


  • And DMSBel (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to any of these. No comments on IP addresses.
- Alison ❤ 06:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Accounts noted by Alison are blocked and tagged. DMSBel is not blocked. It does appear that 82.18.164.15 is DMSBel (as the IP noted on their talk page), but this appears to be an issue with forgetting to log in, rather than anything nefarious. The other IP has not edited in two weeks and is not blocked at this time. TNXMan 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Fæ [edit]

As well as timing and name pattern the edits made to Talk:Anderson Cooper (history) make this a blatant puppetmaster/block dodger. Fæ (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
22 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat [edit]

In his profane goodbye edit after being blocked, Normalguy818 claimed to have already created more account. a few minutes later, Brooklynsam resumed the same anti-gay POV editing at Marriage CU requested to ferret out the remaining socks WuhWuzDat 19:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]


This case belongs under Brucejenner (talk · contribs), not here. It's obviously him.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts are already blocked per previous checkuser. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed that

are Normalguy818 (talk · contribs), a previously confirmed Brucejenner sock.

Also  Confirmed that

are all Brucejenner.

Amalthea 13:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked and tagged. TNXMan 13:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimvdLinde [edit]

Same type of edits as other banned sockpuppets. Comes in with intimate knowledge of WP, including tagging templates etc. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Per TT, I was about to file a similar case myself. Let me get someone who I've discussed this with over irc.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me. This case seems pretty obvious; same area of interest, same agenda and familiarity with wikipedia. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something of interest. Seems someone has something to hide. They've responded to everything else, and yet they blank that? Hmm.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Self-endorsing for CU attention per the number of recent socks that have popped up as of late. –MuZemike 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. It's not Brucejenner, CU data indicated Skoojal connection, Will could confirm behavioral match. Amalthea 08:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Roux [edit]

Using an IP sock to attempt a strange unblock request, bypassing the fact that the user (EaglesGolden) had tpage access revoked. Including EaglesGolden for CU reference. →ROUX ₪ 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I am (former) user EaglesGolden. All of my posts as EaglesGolden were made from IP - 173.55.9.179. I see on my former User Page (EaglesGolden) a declaration that my user name (EaglesGolden) IS a sockpuppet of "brucejenner". This assertion is totally false.
First, as we see noted above, the correct term is "suspected". EaglesGolden is a "suspected" sockpuppet, etc. Not IS a sockpuppet, etc. This error needs to be corrected. It's like the judgment was made, before the jury even convened.
Second, as to the INVESTIGATION to see whether this suspicion is correct or not, I would point out that there is no IP correlation between my IP (173.55.9.179) and any IP used by ANY sockpuppet associated with brucejenner.
Third, as to the INVESTIGATION to see whether this suspicion is correct or not, after reviewing some of the history of brucejenner sockpuppets, I can see that the behavior patterns of brucejenner sockpuppets differ from the behavior patterns of EaglesGolden (myself) in several key respects.
1. The first activity of myself, as EaglesGolden, was to enter into an extensive discussion on a talk page (John McCain) concerning an edit that I wanted to make. By contrast Brucejenner sockpuppets NEVER began their activity in this manner.
2. After one editor denied the veracity of my request, I stayed around and tried to PERSUADE, and at length. By contrast Brucejenner sockpuppets NEVER entered into such a persuasion effort.
3. As you can see from the contribution history of EaglesGolden (on talk pages), I spent a considerable amount of time explaining my position. Brucejenner sockpuppets never made any effort to stay around and explain the basis for their actions.
4. Brucejenner sockpuppets were notorious for inserting derogatory remarks about homosexuals into articles. I never inserted one derogatory remark about homosexuals in any article.
5. My editing was sincere, based on principle, explained beforehand, and highly targeted, simply to replace the term "gay" with the technically correct term "homosexual" in appropriate places in a short test run.
The record indicates that I have only one thing in common with the individuals who have been identified as brucejenner sockpuppets. I believe the homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong. And I share that view with millions of Americans. Many people who have strong beliefs on this subject will want to make an effort to see the truth expressed in the pages of wikipedia. They will edit out what they see as error, and replace that with truth. And they will do this based on principle. They, and me, cannot ALL be painted with this big black brush stroke which declares them all to be brucejenner sockpuppets.
Signed: 173.55.9.179 (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
19 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by The Thing That Should Not Be [edit]

Same edits and similar username as previously identified socks vandalizing the same article(s). The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
11 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Exhibits the same style of all the other socks.. yadda yadda yadda. CU needed to check for sleepers because this user has a habit of creating massive sock farms.. etetera. — Dædαlus+ Contribs 20:25, 11 December 2010 (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]

Appears to be Red X Unrelated to Brucejenner. TNXMan 21:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, interesting. The sock has been blocked for vandalism anyway, so I don't think there's anything else to do here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Usual harassment of Ctjf83 (talk · contribs), today's socks. Standard sock sweep. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2010 (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]
  •  Confirmed - all of the above. Brucejenner is using a wireless mobile device to create accounts & make one edit at a time. No other socks that I can see of right now - Alison ❤ 22:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
08 March 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

All of these SP accounts have been vandalizing Same-sex marriage in the United States. Some of them have been blocked as socks of Brucejenner, presumably based on similarity to the user or to other confirmed socks of his; one would assume that the others, which are making largely the same edits, are also socks. While the article is now semiprotected, at this point, a checkuser for the sake of effecting a range block would probably be helpful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 8 March 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]
  • The following accounts are  Confirmed Brucejenner socks;
  • The following accounts are  Stale but highly likely Brucejenner socks (  Looks like a duck to me );
  • Many of these I'd already blocked myself over the last few months. Normally I wouldn't even bother running a case like this, as they all massively pass the duck test but it's kinda useful to flush out a handful of sleeper socks that may be hanging around. I tend to watch and check/block his socks on a regular basis anyways and there are plenty of accounts that are simply blocked, unmarked. We can't really effect a rangeblock right now, though, for reasons that I don't want to go into. In short; no rangeblock.
  • Frankly, this behaviour a complete waste of everyone's time - including his - I really don't get it. Also, he seems a little too ... interested ... in anal sex and clowns. Makes me wonder why ... :/ - Alison ❤ 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Semi'd for half a year. All blocked. Looks like were done. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
05 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Please see the edit filter hits for Violetsmile above. Any more Phyrexians coming thru that portal? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:07, 5 April 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]
05 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Any more superheroes needing to be dragged into a final crisis? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 18:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 18:52, 5 April 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]
  •  Confirmed of course, but nothing else pops up at this time. Which doesn't mean too much though. Amalthea 19:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note All blocked/tagged. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
05 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Given the number of socks that keep popping up, is there a range that can be blocked? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 23:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 23:36, 5 April 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]

No sleepers; he is on a mobile ISP. –MuZemike 02:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Similar removal of an image on Kiss Jasper Deng (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Probable User:Brucejenner CTJF83 15:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
17 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Don Lemon and Talk:Anderson Cooper are the only articles edited by either one. All edits re identical claims. There seem to be some IPs being used on the talk page for similar claims. SummerPhD (talk) 21:28, 17 May 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]

Both of these accounts match the MO and location of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs), and as such I have blocked and tagged both myself. –MuZemike 00:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


19 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Quack. SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 19 May 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]
  •  Confirmed - all of these;
21 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me See his edit to a checkuser-confirmed sock's page. Requesting checkuser due to this user's habit of sockfarms. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:17, 21 May 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]
  •  Confirmed - also;
- Alison ❤ 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
03 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Quack. SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 3 June 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]

 Confirmed plus:

–MuZemike 04:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Any more Roger Wilcos in need of lethal sarcasm? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:37, 6 June 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]

 Checkuser note:  Confirmed; also:

 Frank  |  talk  12:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same type of anti-gay edits. Sock sweep due to this comment CTJF83 06:16, 10 June 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]

 Confirmed, nobody else at the moment. –MuZemike 06:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

same types of anti-gay edits CTJF83 20:52, 29 November 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]
03 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


DUCK following me on gay related pages, always the first few edits, and always claim it's for the children CTJF83 06:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added similar IP CTJF83 20:00, 3 December 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]
04 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This user was brought up on my talk page. Can't hurt to look for sleepers, I guess. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Please do a sock sweep, as he usually stockpiles. CTJF83 15:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed plus:

There are other untagged socks, but they're already blocked; I see little point giving them the light of day and dragging their unpalatable edits here. A range block is not possible. WilliamH (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24 January 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Most of these are already blocked, but let's clarify that they're socks and catch any sleepers. They quack loudly as they vandalize pages of gay politicians. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 24 January 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/Brucejenner/Archive&oldid=1091460888"