Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sorrywrongnumber

Sorrywrongnumber ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date January 25 2010, 08:31 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken

This complaint revolves around an independent film, Yesterday Was a Lie, an editor possibly connected to the film, User:Sorrywrongnumber, and a small SPA sockfarm used almost exclusively to edit articles in some way connected with the film.

Pages involved

Articles
Article talk pages
Images
Other

Sorrywrongnumber only edits these related pages

User:Sorrywrongnumber has 142 edits [44], of which the vast majority are to the pages listed above. Only four of this editor's contributions are to articles not related to Yesterday Was a Lie.

Sorrywrongnumber frequently edits while not logged in

With great frequency, Sorrywrongnumber also edited these pages not logged in, using IPs in the range 69.231.xxx.xxx. A comparison on Sorrywrong number's totals for these articles is virtually identical to the total edits on those articles made by IPs in this range. For example, Sorrywrongnumber has 23 edits to Yesterday Was a Lie, while 69.231 IPs have 28. SWN has 16 edits to James Kerwin, while the IPs have 34. On Kipleigh Brown, SWN has 10 and the IPs 20. On Megan Henning 4 and 10, on Amber Benson 3 and 18. Additional statistics are available on request, but this sampling is sufficient to support the reasonable inference that Sorrywrongnumber edits these article using IPs.

The sockfarm only edits these related pages

Virtually all of the edits of the sockpuppets listed above are to the set of pages surrounding the film:

The sockfarm accounts have a similar history

While User:Sorrywrongnumber (account created 24 June 2006) has edited fairly consistently, the sockpuppets have large gaps in their editing history, indicating that they were brought out as necessary to be used:

Recently, after a period of hiatus, a number of these accounts suddenly appeared at the same time to edit the article Yesterday Was a Lie. Somaterc made the desired change [53], and when the change was reverted, 2Misters brought up the rear to revert [54] (etc.). At the same time Filmsnoir, which hadn;t edited since 2009, awoke to blank their talk page. [55].

The mobile IP is used for argumentation & defense

The IPs in the range 166.205.xxx.xxx, which are assigned to mobile devices, are brought out to conduct argumentation and defense of the other sockpuppets. This occured on WP:COIN [56] and on Talk:Yesterday Was a Lie, and on WP:ANI [57]. The vehemence of the arguments made by these IP socks, which do not edit independent of the constellation of articles presented above, is a strong indication of their connection to User:Sorrywrongnumber's sockfarm.

The sockfarm has been used to abuse Wikipedia policy

  • In March 2007, the article Yesterday Was a Lie was nominated for deletion. [58]. In the discussion, two of the accounts presented here participated: Sorrywrongnumber and 2Misters, the latter in the very first edit made by the account. These constituted two of the four "keep" !votes. The article was kept.
  • On the BLP noticeboard [59] in March 2009, Smokefree and Cubert combined to remove a sourced date of birth from the article Chase Masterson. The same two editors supported each other in similar discussions on Talk:Chase Masterson.
  • More recently, a discussion between the sockpuppets 2Misters, Somaterc, and User:166.205.136.251 was staged on Talk:Yesterday Was a Lie to move a mixed film review of Yesterday Was a Lie in Variety, the "bible" of the film industry, down in the article, in favor of a positive review in Film Threat, a minor publication. [60]. The discussion was clearly intended to create a bogus "consensus" for this move. When the change was recently reverted, 2Misters undid the edits, [61], [62] calling them "vandalism" in the edit summary. That editor then requested full protection for the article [63], on the basis that the article was being "vandalized" by an editor with a conflict of interest (myself). No diffs or evidence were supplied to support this allegation.
  • On the same page at about the same time, the sock Rollins12 was brought in, apparently as a "fresh face" to argue for other changes to the article [64], and was backed up by an IP User:76.176.7.158. This account has 7 edits, 4 of which are to the set of pages listed above.

Summary

All together, the behavioral evidence provided above should be sufficient to support a charge of abusive use of multiple accounts, and to warrant a checkuser on the accounts which are not stale. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Except for the multiple IP accounts, I have notified all the accounts listed. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I have notified all the specific IP accounts mentioned in this report. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Please note that what appears to be a retaliatory SPI report has been filed here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Concerning the comment by 2Misters below, it barely needs saying, but the idea that I would write and file a complicated sockpuppet report in "retaliation" for a request for full page protection on the article Yesterday Was a Lie is pretty silly, considering that the protection request has little or no chance of being accepted. In any event, for the record, I learned about the protection request after I first filed this report, and added mention of it here at that timee. [65] Therefore, the timeline does not support 2Misters' allegation. .

As for evidence of abuse of multiple accounts by User:Sorrywrongnumber, the above information speaks for itself. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Note, please, these Wikistalk results [66]. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

This appears to be retaliation for this. No evidence has been provided here of any abusive use of multiple accounts. 2Misters ( talk) 09:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: C  + F (Vote stacking affecting outcome and another reason)
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed. I can say right now that Boxcarwillie ( talk · contribs) and several of the IPs are entirely  Stale, but I think I've seen enough for a check here. Tim Song ( talk) 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed the following appear to be matches:
  1. Helicon Arts Cooperative ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Cubert ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Smokefree ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. 2Misters ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Somaterc ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Filmsnoir ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Rollins12 looks Red X Unrelated. I notice that 2Misters, one of the socks confirmed above, has been recently active at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ed Fitzgerald. – Luna Santin ( talk) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
NuclearWarfare blocked, I tagged. Called Smokefree the master as it's oldest. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 23 2010, 03:20 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken

The five six sockpuppet accounts above were blocked on January 26, 2010 as a result of this sockpuppet invesitigation. Last week, a new account User:B-Wuuu, cleared out the user and talk pages of these accounts, and redirected them to the new account's user & talk page [67], noting on their user page:

Broke some Wikipedia rules. Got punished. Time for a fresh start.

On March 17th, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz filed an administrator's noticeboard report concerning this, but it attracted little attention, and has now scrolled off with no action being taken. [68]

There are two questions here:

  1. Is B-Wuuu actually the editor behind these five six accounts? Without a checkuser report, we have only his word that this is the case.
  2. Should an editor who used multiple accounts and IPs to influence an AfD, warp talk page discussions and attempt to dominate a specific subject area (see the earlier sockpuppet report) be allowed to evade 6 blocks (one blocked account, User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, was not redirected) and give himself a "fresh start", without even a "by your leave" addressed to the community? It's one thing for discussion to be held and another chance given as a result, but do we actually want to reward blatant block evasion in this manner?

B-Wuuu's edits to date have been benign, but, of course, he's under scrutiny at the moment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has expressed concern that personal attacks he received (from the "Cubert" account primarily, I believe) could start up again if this editor is given free reign.

I request a checkuser report to confirm that B-Wuuu is indeed the editor behind the blocked accounts, and some consideration given by admins as to whether he should be allowed to pull this off. ( User:NuclearWarfare was the only admin to participate in the discussion linked above, and he was in favor of allowing B-Wuuu to edit, under scrutiny. The only other opinion expressed by those not involved in the situation was by non-admin User:Off2riorob, saying that B-Wuuu should be blocked.)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've added Helicon Arts Cooperative to this report, and amended what I wrote. I was momentarily confused by the fact that while the other five accounts had both their talk & user pages redirected, in the case of Helicon Arts Cooperative only the talk page was redirected.

Also note that Helicon Arts Cooperative was already blocked at the time of the sockpuppet report, for a username violation. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

An explanation of B-Wuuu: the block was, at root, not of the accounts, but of the person behind the accounts, which you claim is you. Since the editor (you, supposedly) has been blocked, the creation of a new account for that blocked editor to use (B--Wuuu) is, by definition, sockpuppetry. And since your editing is evading a block, it is, again by definition, disruptive editing. What you are doing, if you are indeed the person behind the accounts, is against policy. If the community wants to give you another chance, that's something different, it's the application of WP:IAR to allow somethting that will, hopefully, benefit the project even though policy forbids it – but it doesn't negate the fact that, if what you say is true (which we cannot know for certain unless a checkuser is performed), you are evading a block with a sockpuppet.

I hope that's clear to you. You have no right to edit here, but the community may, if it wishes, overlook your various misdeeds and disruptions and allow you another chance.

First, though, we need to establish if you are who you say you are. Anyone can create an account and go around and re-direct some dead accounts, that proves nothing, which is why I've asked for this checkuser. Personally, I believe you are who you say, and I also think you should be blocked until such time as you ask to be unblocked and that request is accepted in the normal course of events. To allow what you say you've done, create a new account and wave a flag that's says "I declare a fresh start", without apology or contriteness for the things you did would be disastrous in the long run, since it undermines any structure in place to control unauthorized editing.

I'll have to wrap this up, because I see you've filed an AN/I report against me. What fun! Beyond My Ken ( talk) 10:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

For the record, that AN/I report filed by B-Wuuu is here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 10:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

You can do whatever you want, although this situation doesn't technically warrant a Checkuser under Wikipedia:RFCU, because a. Checkuser is not required to demonstrate likely sockpuppetry since I've already admitted it, and b. this wouldn't be sockpuppetry because the other accounts are stale and permanently in disuse due to ban. Either way, there's nothing to accomplish here. I freely admit I was those accounts, so this is an utter waste of time, an abuse of process, and an example of Beyond My Ken's Captain Ahab-like obsession with hounding me because I blew the cover on his own sock accounts a few months ago. Really, I don't care; you can close and lock my account if you like and I'll disappear. I don't really have time for his games any more. B-Wuuu ( talk) 08:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
 Question: - am I right in saying that there's an OTRS ticket associated with some of these accounts? Can someone link me or provide some background, please? - Alison ❤ 04:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Alison: I brought up the OTRS ticket on the noticeboard discussion, but it was about User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, one of the blocked socks that was not redirected by B-Wuuu. My understanding was that it had to do with the film production company Helicon Arts Cooperative claiming that the blocked account was not connected with them. User:Stifle commented on the AN thread that "Nothing of any relevance has come up in the OTRS ticket; I haven't heard anything or taken any action since the last time it came up." The ticket number was Ticket:2010022310001371. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  •  Confirmed and apparently just blocked as a self-confessed sock. There's also this account, as yet unblocked;
  • I've no opinion on whether he should remain blocked/unblocked/whatev, but this really should go to the community before he decides to just return off his own bat, given his prior behaviour - Alison ❤ 11:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Wow. I was so sure that Sorrywrongnumber was connected to these accounts, I'm glad to have that confirmed. Sorry to post in this section, but given this finding, when this report is archived, it should probably go into the Sorrywrongnumber archive, where the previous report was. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Sorrywrongnumber just reverted my placement of the {{CheckedSock-nb}} on their user page, so it would probably be a good idea if they were blocked as well. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 12:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I have blocked Sorrywrongnumber indefinitely. -- Atama 頭 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: this case was originally opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/B-Wuuu Spitfire Tally-ho! 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 3 2010, 01:26 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken

This may be paranoia on my part, but considering my past experience with Sorrywrongnumber's sockfarm [69], I'd rather have my suspicions looked into earlier rather than later.

  • Sorywrongnumber is a sockfarmer apparently obsessed with everything to do with the film Yesterday Was a Lie [70]
  • One of things SWN did was to downplay negative but significant reviews of the film, and play up positive ones that were not nearly as notable. He then used his socks to force a false consensus for these changes.
  • Today, User:Vulcanism made a series of edits [71] to Yesterday Was a Lie which are very similiar to the kind of edit that SWN and his socks used to do, downplaying the Variety review and adding positive reviews in pratically unknown publications.
  • The Vulcanism account was created on April 1, the day after other SWN socks used to vandalize and harrass me on April 9 were created, on March 31.
  • Yesterday Was a Lie is semi-protected because of SWN's sock's vandalism and POV edits. In order to edit it, an account must be autoconfirmed.
  • This series of edits by Vulcanism to Just One of the Guys look suspiciously like "establishing edits" used to get an account autoconfirmed, so that it can edit semi-protected articles -- 11 edits to remove 11 redlinks! [72]
  • Once Vulcanism had made these establishing edits, the account did not edit until today.
  • When I reverted Vulcanism's edits to Yesterday Was a Lie as being "unhelpful", [73] Vulcanism almost immediately reverted back (including som unrelated general cleanup edits I did right afterward) [74] and posted a note on my talk page [75] - showing that he is keeping a close watch on the article.

I believe that this is enough for a checkuser to be run against Vulcanism to see if he is the latest Sorrywrongnumber sock. I am deliberately not informing them of this report, because SWN has a tendency to fly out of control and go on a vandalism spree when they're confronted. If Vulcanism is not SWN, I'll gladly apologize to them afterward -- but I think a checkuser would be safest. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Considering [76] and [77], (compare to the 2nd item here), there's absolutely no doubt now. Checkuser is now needed simply to check for other sleepers, this account can be blocked on behaviorial evidence alone. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
In light of their edits in defense of Vulcanism on WP:COIN [78], I've added the IP 67.23.70.6 to be checked. I do this relunctantly, as this range is different from those that Sorrywrongnumber has used in the past, however, the pattern of behavior is typical of SWN, who used socks from the 166.205.xxx.xxx and 69.231.xxx.xxx ranges to vociferously support his contentions when challenged. In the current instance, 67.23.70.6's reaction to the "evidence" as presented by Vulcanism seems very much out of scale, leading me to believe it may be another sock.
Added after report closed and archived: I made a mistake, there were actually three IPs used: 67.23.70.4, 67.23.70.5 and 67.23.70.6. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties

Something odd is going on here. All I did was make some pretty simple edits to an article. I changed the tense to past (it said April 2010 was in the future), replaced a dead link with citation needed, replaced another citation needed tag with a accurate citation, and added a couple reviews of the DVD release which seemed appropriate.

I also removed one or two weasel word sentences, because the information in them was the opposite of the information in the respective citations (looks like this Beyond person was trying to skew the article a little bit and hoping not to get caught). I didn't downplay anything and I don't get what he is saying I downplayed.

He reverted every thing I did with no explanation. I tired to ask him why and his response was to open a sock investigation into me and not tell me. Looks like it was endorsed for CheckUser attention without me being notified, which is not allowed. He didn't answer my question about what was actually wrong with my edits, because there is no answer.

I think he hit the nail on the head when he said he is paranoid.

I also don't get why he is using as evidence the fact that I "am keeping close watch" on the article. This is some kind of bizzaro world joke or something because he is the one who reverted my edits within minutes of me making them. So by his standard, he must be the sock he is accusing me of being.

Further evidence of this is that he says people (and me) are "downplaying" negative reviews. But actually it looks like he is trying to downplay positive reviews by casting them as "negative." If you look at the article history you can see that he keeps inserting things into the Variety review that are not actually in the citation, and that he has removed a link to Rotten Tomatoes which shows that the Variety review was counted as "positive." He also keeps introducing invalid citations to supposed negative reviews (a dead link and a link to an unrelated article in a different newspaper!). So it seems this person has some type of bone to pick and is pretty preoccupied with introducing fake information about reviews into the article. I think an admin needs to investigate this person to see if they have some type of bias regarding this subject. I think he got caught with his pants down trying to include wrong information in the article and now he's trying to change the subject.

But I am not interested in any fighting. Just please keep this person away from me. There is some sensitive ownership history going on her that I want no part of.

This is a simple content accuracy dispute. I'm happy to peacefully discuss any content accuracy issues in good faith. But what this person is doing is bullying in order to get his way on an article which it looks like he thinks he owns. Vulcanism ( talk) 02:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Looks like it was endorsed for CheckUser attention without me being notified, which is not allowed. → Yes it is. – MuZemike 02:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the correction, MuZemike.
Further evidence of COI here. Vulcanism ( talk) 02:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Considering Mr. ken's request that I be blocked 'for behavior alone," I think there is now little doubt that he is getting a bit frightened that he is going to have to explain why he keeps introducing fake citations and altered quotes into the article to support his negative opinion of this film. Vulcanism ( talk) 03:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed – MuZemike 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • I have blocked this user per WP:DUCK. Behavioral evidence is overwhelming that this is not a new user, and I find it also highly likely this is Sorrywrongnumber per the evidence presented above. Go ahead and run the checkuser to root out any more socks in the drawer, since he's apparently not interested in abiding by his initial block. -- Jayron 32 04:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk declined as the new behavioral evidence and ensuing block now makes CU not necessary. – MuZemike 04:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 4 2010, 06:08 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken

This multiply blocked sockfarmer (his sock User:Vulcanism was blocked just yesterday), is posting on the talk page of the article which is the center of his obsession, Yesterday Was a Lie, without making any real effort to hide his identity. He's used the two IP addresses before, during this event. At that time Tim Song hardblocked the range 208.88.120.0/21.

I've offered to consider any edits to the Yesterday Was a Lie article that SWN wishes to post on his talk page, but I don't believe he should be allowed to continue evading his block and posting to the article talk page, so I'd ask for at least these IPs to be hardblocked for a while. There's no particular need for a checkuser, since behaviorial evidence is clear: he's not really even trying to pretend. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The editor's IP address seems to be completely dynamic -- a new IP every time he posts -- so the only way to block him is to doa range block. Since he's not vandalizing, just talking, I doubt anyone will go for that, so I'm going to take it on myself to archive this without wating for any action to take place.

Discussion is taking place, and that's encouraging. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

After archiving: I spoke too soon, I guess. Nature will out, and Sorrywrongnumber seems to not be cut out to work on a collaborative project. [79] Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Report date May 8 2010, 08:58 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken

Sorrywrongnumber is a multiply-blocked vandalizing puppet master obsessed with everything to do with the film Yesterday Was a Lie [80] [81]. Besides the film itself, one of his primary focuses has been one of the film's stars, Chase Masterson. In the past, Sorrywrongnumber's activities connected with this actress have included:


  • On March 27, Stoopach, a Sorrywrongnumber sock, created the now-deleted article Jeremy Cox (actor) and attempted to insert unreferenced personal information into the article on Chase Masterson, editwarring to do so. The information was that "Jeremy Cox" was the domestic partner of Masterson. "Jeremy Cox" was a name that Sorrywrongnumber self-identified as on his user page. When I attempted to report these and other activities on AN/I, more socks were quickly created to delete my report, and to revert the edits to the other articles. As a result of this spurt of activity, 7 sock accounts were blocked. [82]
  • Sorrywrongnumber has used his socks Smokefree and Cubert to attempt to force the article not to carry a referenced date of birth for Masterson. [83] [84] [85] [86]
  • Sorrywrong number has attempted multiple times to upload an image of Masterson that he did not have the rights to use:
  • Using several sockpuppet accounts, plus dynamic IPs of the 69.231.xxx.xxx and 69.230.xxx.xxx ranges, Sorrywrongnumber attempted to hide the fact that he was dominating the content of the article on Masterson, and, in fact, WP:OWNed it for a considerable time. [90]
  • Sorrywrongnumber also edited the article Carafano v. Metrosplash.com ("Carafano" is Masterson's birth name, and she is the plantiff in this lawsuit), in the same manner. [91]


Today, a brand new account, User:Boobertoober, created just today, replaced the current image of Masterson in the infobox with a newer, but less appropriate image, and edit warred to keep it in. The newer image is less appropriate because it shows Masterson with a large puppet, instead of Masterson by herself, and thus is not as good as the original image, which shows her alone, for identification. The Boopertroober account was created at 3:24 Eastern Standard time [92], and changed the image at 3:27. [93] When I checked my watchlist and reverted at 4:04, Boobertroober reverted the page six minutes later. Clearly, this account was created to upload this image, and was sitting on the article waiting for a reaction.

Normally, this would be relatively innocent behavior, but Sorrywrongnumber has repeatedly shown extreme possessiveness about "his" articles, and both the capability and willingness to vandalize wantonly when he is prevented from controlling them. Because of his past history, and the clear indication that this new account is tightly focused on one of Sorrywrongnumber's pet articles, a checkuser should be run to confirm the identity of the account.

Because of Sorrywrongnumber's repeated history of going off the deep end and personal harrassment, I am deliberately not notifying User:Boobertoober of this report. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorrywrongnumber's last socking activity was 6 days ago. [94] [95] Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
For the sake of completeness, after my second revert, Boobertoober replaced the image they originally put in with another showing Masterson alone. I don't believe there are any grounds for objecting to this image, but the basis of this report is not the content disagreement regarding the photo, but the appearance of an editor focused on Masterson as an indication of a new Sorrywrongnumber sock. As I said about my last report, concerning User:Vulcanism, it may just be paranoia on my part, but I'd rather apologize to Boobertoober afterward than miss the opportunity to nip a new SWN sock at an early moment, before things get out of hand. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I've removed the new image over licensing concerns; my recollection is that the Cubert account was used to insert fair use images into BLP infoboxes,and given the history of disruption and deception associated with these accounts, there's no reason to believe the image licensing is valid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
17 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

One of the bits of information that the Sorrywrongnumber sockfarm created a false consensus about was the birth date of actress Chase Masterson. (See [96], [97], [98] and [99]). Once the farm was shut down, the date was restored to the one available in a reliable source. Recently, one of the IPs changed the date again, this time adding a source that looked, at first, to be legitimate, but under closer scrutiny by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, turned out to be bogus. The other IPs were involved in reinstating the bogus date, and the brand-new, never edited before account User:Scott Scott Hayden reverted twice to restore the information.

It's reasonable to assume that the brand-new editor is a brand-new sock, that the Sorrywrongnumber editor has been editing under another name without incident, and couldn't resist coming back to their old stomping ground, perhqaps thinking that enough time has passed. In any case, there's enough evidence to sustain a check to make sure, since SWN was quite disruptive (and vindictive), and needs to be shut down as soon as possible if I am correct. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Accounts and IPs not notified per WP:BEANS. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Added another ip Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
And another. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Please note that the comment below is User:Scott Scott Hayden's fourth ever to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Added another IP. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I didn't think about the old Sorrywrongnumber accounts all being stale. Is there not sufficient behavioral evidence to check the named account, which is clearly not a new user, for other accounts being used currently? Or, at the very least, to block him for edit-warring with the IPs, since it seems clear they are the same person? If something isn't done here, the likelihood is that when the semi-protection of the Chase Masterson article runs out, they'll be right back at it, and we'll be right back where we started, with disruptive edit-warring to restore information supported with deliberately falsified citations into a BLP. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I am not a sock of anyone; anyone is welcome to run a checkuser on me to verify. I made a legitimate edit to a page that User:Beyond My Ken and a meatpuppet account have been vandalizing -- namely, removing legit references because they "are not indexed by Google Books" (obviously an illegitimate reason to erase references). In return, User:Beyond My Ken flamed my talk page, played God, and is now recruiting other meatpuppets to do his edits for him to circumvent 3RR (see here: [100]). He is violating both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policy here; he's the one who should be blocked. Scott Scott Hayden ( talk) 04:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please review WP:MEAT. Scott Scott Hayden ( talk) 04:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

There really should be zero doubt about this one, per WP:DUCK. The fake referencing that contradicts what can be found, the hair-trigger accusation responses, all fit into the prior editing pattern. And a user whose ostensible edit history began minutes ago sure knows a lot about Wikipedia jargon and practices. This was a long and unpleasant hassle in its early rounds, but can be disposed of quickly now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Unfortunately, the accounts in the archive are  Stale and checkuser cannot disclose connections between named accounts and IPs. TN X Man 14:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please see my note in the evidence section above. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but that's considered fishing. Just because a checkuser cannot be run, does not mean that no action will be taken. There are several admins that act as clerks and if they determine the evidence warrants actions, they can hand out blocks. TN X Man 18:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

24 September 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Sorrywrongnumber is a puppetmaster who used a plethora of named and IP socks to attempt to control all content on the article Yesterday Was a Lie. (See User:Beyond My Ken/Sorrywrongnumber sockfarm facts/list for a list of the socks involved, and User:Beyond My Ken/Sorrywrongnumber sockfarm facts for a synopsis of their activity and interactions with me.)

Today, the IP listed above attempted, again, to control the article, and when I reverted them, Smegsmegsmeg came to their rescue. Smegsmegsmeg has also edited the article on the film's director James Kerwin [101], and the articles on the film's female stars, Kipleigh Brown [102] and Chase Masterson [103], and, of course, the article on the film itself [104].

The overlap between Sorrywrongnumber and Smegsmegsmeg [105] includes all of these articles, plus Peter Mayhew, the actor who played "Chewbacca" in the Star Wars films.

The behavior of Smegsmegsmeg , focused as it is on this one film and its personnel -- their other focus appears to be Star Trek Continues, in which Kipleigh Brown in involved -- is, I think, enough to justify a CU look, especially given how badly Sorrywrongnumber ran off the rails in the earlier incident, creating socks left and right. If they're back, they really should be stopped from editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • information Administrator note I am almost certain that CU would be declined for this case, since the master account has been blocked for 9 years. However,   Looks like a duck to me regarding the account,  Blocked and tagged as such. No action regarding the IP as it hasn't edited since Sept 24. – Darkwind ( talk) 08:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sorrywrongnumber/Archive&oldid=1142566245"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE