Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andreisme/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Andreisme



Andreisme

Report date August 20 2009, 22:31 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Spinningspark

This user confines his/her edits to talk pages and are all unsourced opinions or requests for unsourced additions to articles. While on the face of it, this appears to be good faith, a number of editors have characterised it as disruptive and issued warnings including to Andreisme, on Tesla page, to SWORDINHAND and several including a final warning to PINEAPPLEMAN. All have interests in Southern California (eg Talk:Huntington Beach, California) and electrical inventors, notably Talk:Nikola Tesla. Most of their edits conclude with a characteristic "Thanks!" eg [1]. The user has been warned several times [2][3] about using multiple accounts, including this message on a talk page of an article known to be frequented by the user (in case he/she is not seeing messages due to switching accounts). The response to all these warnings is invariably the same: not to engage and simply to create a fresh account. Although any one edit can be construed as good faith, the overall effect is to troll the talk pages with the appearance of many editors taking part and to disrupt the running of the encyclopedia by getting editors to chase down all these unsourced claims. I could accept this as good faith if just once the editor would engage but he/she does not. I therefore think a checkuser is justified and the underlying IP should be blocked. SpinningSpark 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by SpinningSpark 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Teslaguy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is   Stale.

  Confirmed SoCalKid (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

Given my success (or lack thereof) on the last case similar to this, I'm going to ask that another CU to confirm (or reject) my results before any blocks are made. J.delanoygabsadds 04:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic said my results looked OK. J.delanoygabsadds 04:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean I am free to block these guys? SpinningSpark 19:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Brandon (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged. Closing. NW (Talk) 19:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 18 2009, 18:31 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Adolphus79
edit

Just a few more obvious sockpuppets of Andreisme (talk · contribs)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Blocked them all. This was obvious, as the socking editor was kind enough to sign most of his entries in exactly the same fashion. Can we get a CU on underlying IP's? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Conclusions
edit

While all of the The IP ranges used are varied, I will try a rangeblock for a while and see if collateral damage may require it being lifted. The range blocked will be one used exclusively by this vandal; other ranges may have too much collateral damage. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 11 2010, 07:23 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by Hu12
edit
Same pattern as the others in this case, even hit some of the same Talkpages.
Probably more lurking. Thanks --Hu12 (talk) 07:23, 11 January 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: F (Other reason )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Hu12 (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk endorsed – even though it's likely that WP:DUCK applies, I think there might be some other sleepers out there, given the sporadic range of talk pages edited. –MuZemike 08:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed

All of these are either blocked, globally locked, or both. J.delanoygabsadds 23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Report date March 12 2010, 21:16 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by McGeddon (talk)

Couple of new accounts with similar names echoing Andreisme's past behaviour of doing nothing but posting vague "Didn't I hear...?" questions at Talk:Nikola Tesla and other articles. McGeddon (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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.

  Clerk endorsed. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.

PeterSymonds (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Has Andre in it which has occasionaly been a MO for him, A different sockpuppet WINNERMOI that I welcomed was also on very recently blocked.

Thebirdlover (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I go in without enough evidence?

--Thebirdlover (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original account had regular capitalization, but I understand your reasoning. Want me to withdraw the sockpuppet template?

--Thebirdlover (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
It's not his username pattern. His pattern is using capital letters for his username and using "MOI" or "ANDRE", and other ones. --Bsadowski1 01:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andreisme/Archive&oldid=1091460998"