Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kumioko

Kumioko (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10 March 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


[1] - writing style, subject matter matching up. Rschen7754 20:25, 10 March 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]


10 March 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious quacking to the last IP blocked. Rschen7754 23:59, 10 March 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]
02 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

admission here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACuprum17&diff=584255967&oldid=584254556 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=584253332 Chris Troutman (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • Just wanted to drop a note here. I'm not editing from a "Wikipedia account" alternate or otherwise, I am editing from an IP. I am not participating in voting nor am I trying to deceive anyone. I was participting in a discussion at the WikiProject Military History talk page were several users were telling an IP that they didn't like IP's editing and they strongly inferred they didn't want to talk to the IP editor unless they created an account. I told them that was inappropriate and they then got pissy with me about it. Rather than give credence to this waste of time. Perhaps it would be better to tell teh milhist folks that they have no right to tell an IP they can't edit their articles and to start acting like gentlemen. For what its worth, I don't really care if you block this IP, my user name or my home IP (which I think starts with 207). Unless you intend to range block the entire navy 138 series and the verizon FIOS network my participation in the occassional discussion is really of little consequence. As an additional note, proxy servers are all the rage among internet service provders now for increased security. So if you are going to block every IP as a sock, you may as well just eliminate IP editing and make everyone get an account to edit. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, match it against this. That will help associate them. Of course since the 138 series is a proxy it will probably get a lot of other hits too. But not everyone knows the checkuser program is half garbage and half guesswork. Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the comments below. I have never been sanctioned for socking or anything else. I have been accused of socking a couple times, mostly for using IP's and I have been blocked a couple times for a couple different things. Usually for calling someone who desperately needed it...an A-hole. Also to further clarify, I don't particularly like the insinuation I am socking. Socking is when an editor uses more than one account in an abusive manner (good cop bad cop; voting, vandalizm, debates, etc.) I never edited in a manner that was deceiptful. I just don't particularly need to login to tell a couple jerks to stop being jerks. Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kumioko, when logged in as Kumioko, had some very helpful edits in the past, particularly in the article List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War. Give him a chance to "reboot" by showing us that same spirit that helped so much in the MOH series of articles. I have discussed this with him and there are past issues involving administrators that he felt were unfair in their treatment of his edits. I have witnessed this my self on occasion as a novice editor. Some administrators do have the "power trip" syndrome...it's their way or the highway. For the uninitiated editor this can be very intimidating. While the administrators treatment does not excuse sockpuppetry, I believe that he only wanted to participate without feeling "bossed around". Just my opinion, of course... Cuprum17 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstand WP:SOCK and WP:CLEANSTART. I can only assume Kumioko carried on this conversation at WPMILHIST with the intent of hiding his/her true identity, in contravention of the conditions of his/her clean start. That Kumioko then emphasizes that he/she doesn't need to be logged-in to participate in an argument and Wikipedia can't range block him/her anyway sounds like deliberately hostile activity. It would seem Kumioko can't resist "calling someone who desperately needed it...an A-hole". Chris Troutman (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Ok, thanks. I would suggest that Kumioko stop editing while logged out, but unless he's logging out to evade scrutiny or otherwise deceive the community I'm inclined to take no action here. I'm open to a second opinion though. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that I see in the complaint above is an insinuation that editing while logged out is per se socking, which is erroneous. The real question is whether they violated any of "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" as listed at the policy. I don't see even a claim of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

01 March 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Noting CU results for the record. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2014 (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:

T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Kumioko identified himself in this edit and edit summary and confirmed it in this edit summary, which refers to my complaint to Writ Keeper about K. breaking the voluntary IBAN between us. No Cu necessary - please tweak the filter. BMK (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to K.'s statement below, the community ban is a matter between K. and the Wikipedia community in general, the voluntary IBAn between us was between two people, myself and Kumioko. I have scrupulously upheld my end of it since it was instituted. I did not participate in the community ban discussion, and I have not commented in any place on K's rampant socking antics. I am a man of my word, as much as humanly possible. Kumioko, however, appears to be a man with no honor. His deliberate comment on my talk page and on AN break the IBAN from his side, releasing me from my word and my obligation not to comment on or interact with him.

The IP above, which is now clearly identified as Kumioko's, has been blocked by Writ Keeper, and the IP below should be as well. BMK (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And has been. BMK (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has the IP identified by Ian below. BMK (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic insult slinging does not belong here. Or, frankly, anywhere else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The honorless and shameless banned editor is attempting to flex their muscles. Based on this edit to my talkpage, I added "6minuterunner" to the list. However, they were blocked in minutes. The banned editor continues to shame himself with his behavior. BMK (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me, we should be careful not to glorify and enable banned editors who try to circumvent the will of the community by calling them "puppet masters" or "puppeteers". No, they are simply banned editors, and as such are pitiful people, without honor and without shame at their behavior. They should ask themselves: if my parents knew how I behaved on Wikipedia, would they be proud of me? If my brothers and sisters were aware, would they pat me on the back and congratulate me? If my children saw what I do, would I be setting the best example for them? Perhaps if more banned editors were to actually think about what they are doing and how they are behaving, there might be less socking. Maybe not, if they are mostly self-centered egotists and sociopaths - but some of them must be normal people, simply led astray by circumstances and carried away by emotions. BMK (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2014 (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]


26 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See their edit to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Obviously a sock of Kumioko, give the username. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 14:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

 Clerk note: Already blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
 🎅 Santa Claus Talk  16:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I realize the case is closed and both these have been blocked, added another sock for record keeping's sake. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 22:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the username, which is "Kumioksback" and not "Kumiokoisback". BMK (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk note: Already blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


26 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
 🎅 Santa Claus Talk  23:24, 26 May 2014 (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]
28 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

[2] Dwpaul Talk 00:33, 28 May 2014 (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]
01 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See [3] Dwpaul Talk 00:31, 1 June 2014 (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 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
NeilN talk to me 16:59, 5 June 2014 (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]
08 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual stuff. Talk page messages to me, T.Canens, others. Signs "Kumi" BMK (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just blocked. BMK (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2014 (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]
11 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


[4] Typical love letter to me. BMK (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2014 (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]
18 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious. NeilN talk to me 00:52, 18 June 2014 (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]


18 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Has been vandalizing several admin pages, including Bbb23 [5] (Closing admin on last), Beeblebrox (KoomiokoF1 did it too)[6] and NeilN (who reported last time). Admitted puppetiness[7]. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 02:05, 18 June 2014 (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]
29 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Password0 (talk · contribs) is blocked as a Kumioko sock, and Password00 is doing similar things (RfX) and has a similar username. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • I looked here after leaving a comment at User talk:Dennis Brown. If there are accounts whose names continue the series (more zeros), perhaps it would make sense to preemptively block those. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Making a banned user look worse" ... Let's be clear, Kumiko doesn't look particularly bad compared with some of the editors left behind. He quite rightly says that we are identifying accounts as him that are not him, and, equally clearly, is motivated by keeping his grievances in the limelight, not by "badges" even though they may amuse him. Failure to understand the other party means that success in dealing with them is unlikely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC).
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Based on editing behaviour, Password00 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Password0 (talk · contribs), and I have blocked the former indefinitely. With regard to this edit summary, I think that the user was bluffing. It's probably worth noting that these accounts were registered years ago, in 2007 and 2008 respectively – yet Kumioko was only banned this year. To me, this sudden activity spike is more suggestive of account hacking, but I'm keen to hear what CheckUser has to say. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've removed a couple of tags on the user pages until a CU is run. It is my opinion that we need to stop tagging these socks, under WP:DENY, as we may accidentally encourage more of it by awarding trophies. Having a running total outside of this page serves little purpose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator noteI forgot to add: I'm reasonably confident that these aren't Kumioko for a number of reasons, in particular the deleted contribs. A CU might still be warranted as this is obviously a sock of someone, just not the listed master. If Australian, that would match some observations on the account I mentioned above. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - For confirmation of master and sleeper check per Dennis Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Password0 and Password00 are  Confirmed to be each other, as well as the yet-unused GTS123 (which I've added). As to whether they are Kumioko, they geolocate from the continental US in a manner consistent with past Kumioko socks but there is no conclusive technical data either way. — Coren (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note Based on evidence on and offwiki, I'm even more convinced this isn't Kumioko. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note I'm already seeing a few more joe job accounts, but thankfully not listed here. It appears that now we have a user or two making a hobby out of making a banned user look worse, and they think adding K's name at the end will automatically make us assume it is him, when it isn't. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the last sock, 000. These are not Kumioko, they look like compromised accts and vandals. As such, I don't see any reason to ask a clerk to start a new SPI and move this over. Closing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23 February 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

appears to be little doubt. Geolocate info. highly supportive Leaky Caldron 22:33, 23 February 2015 (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]
6 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Hmmmm.... a new editor: (a) was already commenting (after being here a week) on the vast amount of "abuse" all arbs and admins impose on everyone [8] (b) has been slapping Wikiproject US tags on every conceivable talk page [9], and (c) created his account [10] 2-3 days after Kumioko's last attempt to get an unblock failed [11]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • Thank you very much Floquenbeam for not providing me a link to this insinuation. If you feel like blocking me for adding project tags, creating articles and doing positive edits please do so. I can just create another account later if I want to edit, its really not that big of a deal. But for a project that claims to want more editors you are trying pretty hard to make sure they can't get done. Giraffasaurus (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Blocked indef as a Kumioko sock, per admission above. I don't know what best practice is for sock tagging, all I did was leave a block message on their talk page. I'll defer to an SPI clerk for tags, if any. Not sure if a CU wants to look again for sleepers; I understand that might be a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


07 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Readding CSD on categories that were initially added by User:Giraffasaurus (a sock of Kumioko), see [12], [13], [14]- seems like a duck to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Of course it was me and of course this account is as well and of course I know you will block it and likely revert any edits I did. I should have been unblocked in February per community consensus in my ban review in August. Because a few admins and editors don't care about what the community thinks and who opposed my ban review decision (for a ban that should have never been implemented in the first place) and because they do not agree with the community or the decision in that ban review, they continue to extend the block. What's worse is that now, useful edits, article assessments, new articles and even blatant vandalism that improve the project are reverted was undone without a shred of proof other than conjecture and a guess. There is absolutely nothing you can do to keep me from contributing to the project and continuing to delete useful content contributions and blocking accounts only shows that you are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. The block should have been removed and as far as I am concerned IAR and Bold apply. If you feel compelled to assume any new editor that creates an article or adds a WikiProject banner is me then you really need to reevaluate what you are doing here and whether removing useful improvements to the project is of any benefit, which IMO it is not. I will continue to create new accounts one after the other and I will continue to make improvements to the project. This project is supposed to be about increasing human knowledge, collaboration and building an encyclopedia not in the petty political games you are playing now to enforce what a few want over what the community agreed too. I have no desire to hide and I shouldn't have too but all you are doing is driving me deeper underground and making yourselves look like assholes for reverting useful changes to push your POV. HanselnGretel (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
05 October 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


05 January 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Appears to be DUCK of someone, based on contributions - I can't remember which user it was, but this one comes to mind based on areas and style Mdann52 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2016 (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]
  •  Additional information needed - @Mdann52: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Master was CU-blocked by Courcelles on March 9. Since then, suspected sock has been making the same edits; here is just one example: Master Master Sock. There are many, many more examples of this. They are going around reverting back to the edits of the master, which Courcelles reverted in the first place. Here's another example: Master Sock. I am asking for a CU to look into this, since I do not know the circumstances of the master's initial block. GABHello! 21:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were just blocked, sorry about this. GABHello! 21:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: Sorry about this, it was sort of unnecessary for me to file anyways. I was just wondering if there were any other socks (due to the CU-block), but I decided against that and retracted my CU-request. GABHello! 00:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: We've been able to consolidate the reports including the AN report so it will help inform future cases. I've reviewed some of the other findings and it appears that CU is particularly challenging with Kumioko's sock puppets. Mkdwtalk 06:22, 13 March 2016 (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]

User:DeltaQuad/SPI/Clerk Training Notice


18 March 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Reverting all edits by Courcelles, just like the last sock. GABHello! 19:00, 18 March 2016 (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]


30 March 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Reverting to edits made by Pyrrhia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Of course I am reverting those edits. It's pretty clear to anyone who looks at them that every one of those edits was a positive improvement to the project so reverting them is nothing more than vandalism. Therefore, I am reverting the vandalism done to those edits as such. Eddie Cosmic (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked by Favonian. GABHello! 19:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 April 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me. TJH2018 talk 19:12, 14 April 2016 (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]

29 April 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Possible sock, seems consistent with his editing patterns... TJH2018talk 01:04, 29 April 2016 (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]
  • What "editing patterns" do you mean, TJH? KTF has been around since 2013 (before Kumioko was even blocked), without any of the hallmark disruption, interests, or incessant whining ... I don't really see any similarities whatsoever. -Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed - @TJH2018: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - I'm not seeing whatever it is that the reporting party is seeing. Besides, Kind Tennis Fan has been around for well over two years, and if they were actually Kumioko, they would almost certainly have been noticed long before now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The username says it all. Most edits they have made are reverts, just like some of the past socks dealt with: [17][18][19]. GABHello! 19:44, 10 May 2016 (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]

23 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User created on 2 October 2016, first edit was creation of User:Mr. Nosferatu with text "I am User:Mr. Nosferatu, back from the dead!". By his seventh edit, a few days later, he is suddenly defending Kumioko at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States[20] with impressive knowledge of what happened (from the oft-repeated POV of Kumioko, that is). Editor claims there not to be Kumioko, but that's not the first time he tried that either. Among his so far 20 mainspace edits are three edits to Medal of Honor recipients[21][22][23]. Medal of Honor, together with Wikiproject US, were the main areas of interest for Kumioko. Fram (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: it's no big deal, but a checkuser isn't just for comparison with known older accounts, but also to check for sleeper accounts / other socks. Kumioko (if this is Kumioko of course) has employed many socks, often multiple at the same time, so a checkuser seems useful even when older accounts are stale. Fram (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:138.163.0.41 (obvious IP sockpuppet) added – see recent revision history of this page and block log. SuperMarioMan–Talk 23:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@Bbb23: User:Sunny Side Up is a non-stale puppet. Sro23 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WikiProject USA was certainly near and dear to Kumioko. When he was head of the project he attempted to suck into it everything remotely connected with the United States. I don't know if you can use cross-wiki data for CU, but his Reguyla account is active on Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, any idiot can see that the comments accusing me of being Kumioko are heresay at best. They are nothing more than accusations. If there was proof, you would have blocked my account outright. Yes, certainly anyone who copies the Wikiproject assessment templates and pastes them as I did (you'll notice I only assessed stubs except one I think) must be a sock of Kumioko. Its obvious that anyone who would look at the block log, see comments and accusations from both sides and read hyperbolic statements with obvious errors and lies would just be Kumioko. If you go looking for a justification to block someone you are going to find one. I don't need to argue it, from what I read of what happened to Kumioko (and I read very little frankly) you are going to do whatever you want anyway regardless of what I say or do. I am not going to give you my real life identity, facebook, linkedin or get on Skype to confirm I am not them. So if you are so desperate to accuse an editor who doesn't agree with you just because you can, with nothing but accusations, then Kumioko was right! Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me a sock, it just makes you a dick for accusing me of being one without evidence. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's more to do with the fact that within days of registering you were discussing users on WikiProject talk pages and debating technical areas at WP:VPP. Certainly "evidence" that you are not a new user. Otherwise you clearly did a lot of background reading in less than a week. I support blocking on the basis of WP:DUCK. SuperMarioMan–Talk 23:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperMarioMan: Not really You are looking for any reason regardless of how small to accuse users of this Kumioko editor. I have no idea why other than what I have read but I have to tell you I am 100% in agreement with them right now that the editors on this site have no respect for each other. When allegations are enough to block another user this is no website I want to be a part of. Go ahead and block this account because unless you close this stupid allegation and apologize for the misunderstanding and accusation I want no part of this place. There is no proof, you just want to block me because you hate Kumioko. It's obvious. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since [[User:Fram|Fram] chose to "deny" my request for them to withdraw this here, I will ask for it on this page as well. I request this be closed and someone apologize for this misunderstanding. It is not socially acceptable in any culture to accuse someone of being another user, particularly one that has been banned from it. The people who edit this site shouldn't be different. And maybe I am naive in my belief, but when it is done, it's generally accepted practice for the person who did it to apologize for doing it. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

As far as I can see, all the accounts are  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: Thanks! I've reinstated the CU request.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Nosferatu is  Inconclusive. The only possible sleepers that are technical matches for Mr. Nosferatu were created in August and September 2016. Unless Kumioko has a history of creating accounts that are dormant for months, it made no sense to block them. There are other administrators and CheckUsers who know more about Kumioko’s history than I do. I’m leaving this in a checked status for a behavioral analysis and any additional comments by CUs.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Pinging editors with experience with Kumioko: Favonian, DoRD, Dennis Brown, Timotheus Canens. GABgab 16:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having read his comments at WT:USA, in particular this one in which I get honorable mention, I'm inclined to follow the duck call. Awaiting comments from my pinged colleagues. Favonian (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't pinged, but I'm also convinced this is a sock of Kumioko, or at least a sock of whoever's been getting blocked in the recent archives. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked as an obvious sockpupper, per comments here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kumioko/Archive&oldid=1142508505"