Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Onelifefreak2007

Onelifefreak2007 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date July 5 2009, 21:15 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — TAnthonyTalk

User admits to being blocked User:Onelifefreak2007 here — TAnthonyTalk 21:15, 5 July 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 It has been archived automatically.

Doesn't expressly mention User:Onelifefreak2007, but the contributions support it. The IP seems to be stable, so I've softblocked it for three months for block evasion. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date October 21 2009, 23:15 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — TAnthonyTalk

Blocked editor continues to edit same articles/genres with this previously-blocked IP sock.— TAnthonyTalk 23:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) — TAnthonyTalk 23:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

As the IP has already admitted to being User:Onelifefreak2007 and was already blocked in the past, I went ahead and re-blocked for another three months. AniMatedraw 23:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 It has been archived automatically.

Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date February 13 2010, 15:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Other already blocked suspected socks to check against for additional technical info, include:


Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. Special:Contributions/72.223.81.148
  2. Special:Contributions/AnthonyA99
  3. Special:Contributions/Razzinator
  4. Special:Contributions/68.118.199.90

Very similar style of edit summaries - on very similar types of articles.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • I agree that AnthonyA99 (talk · contribs) and 72.223.81.148 (talk · contribs) seem to be sock accounts, and the overlap with other Onelifefreak2007 socks is suspicious. The main fact that gives me pause is that 72.223 geolocates to Arizona, while the other IPs are based in Wisconsin. A checkuser would be useful here to confirm or refute whether all these accounts have the same owner. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 13 February 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 Cirt (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Use of socks for block evasion - as master account Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs) is indef blocked. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined. All confirmed and suspected Onelifefreak2007 socks are  Stale. Decide on behavior. Tim Song (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk endorsed to see if there is a link between AnthonyA99 (talk · contribs) and 71.90.0.115 (talk · contribs), the only IP that is not stale, and to determine if proxies are involved. Tim Song (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most everything is either stale, blocked, or both. I blocked one IP for quite a while. Other than that, there aren't any unblocked accounts that I could find. The connection between AnthonyA99 and... well, anyone... is  Inconclusive due to the stale accounts/dynamic IPs. I don't know if proxies are involved or not. J.delanoygabsadds 02:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No action taken per the CU results. –MuZemike 04:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 25 2010, 04:19 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — TAnthonyTalk

Blocked editor continues to edit as this IP (he confirms his identity here.) — TAnthonyTalk 04:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Done for another three months. TNXMan 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


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


Evidence submitted by Steamroller Assault (talk)

Continued behavior of introducing several unreferenced BLPs of non-notable actors, as well as showing no restraint in adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Evidence of common behavior can be found in users' edit summaries. Some of these accounts are already blocked, with User:Winddancer911 being the most recent incarnation. A discussion on the matter can be found here Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note I am convinced thanks to the extremely similar editing style, tag-teamming on some prods and articles others created, and the edit summaries. Blocked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Evidence submitted by Steamroller Assault (talk)

Continuing behavior of adding unreferenced BLPs of non-notable actors to Wikipedia, with consistent edit summaries indicating that Ploterrorman is yet another sock of Onelifefreak2007. Relevant discussion can be found here. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 22:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Evidence submitted by SummerPhD (talk)

Same edit summaries to the same articles. Quack!

(Requesting check user due to huge number of accounts used, looking for others.) SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Cirt

Added two more:

Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs) pattern of behavior:

  1. Similar pattern of edit summaries.
  2. Insertion of completely unsourced info in articles.
  3. Same topic of popular culture articles.
  • Essentially these two IPs could be blocked per WP:DUCK, and one of them was blocked already for repeated disruption independently anyways, but it would be a good idea for further examination and possible rangeblock.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (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 SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed – The edits by the IP itself is clear and I've already blocked AO/ACB. That said, this IP is fairly static compared to the others, and we may be able to get something from this, such as a possible hardblock or sleepers. –MuZemike 15:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on who is editing on them, those ranges are pretty busy. I can't find any sleeper accounts based on the accounts blocked in the last SPI. J.delanoygabsadds 00:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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


Evidence submitted by AussieLegend (talk)

WP:DUCK - As per other puppets of Onelifefreak2007,[1] 72.223.95.58 has added the same references to Matt Nolan to The Penguins of Madagascar.[2] as well as committing other acts of vandalism, such as creating multiple redlinks and removing others, tagging articles incorrectly as stubs etc. At List of characters in Madagascar (franchise) made the same link to Danny Jacobs (voice actor) as another sock.[3][4] The vandalism made by these socks is generally sneaky. At first glance some of the edits seem okay but on closer inspection they are actually disruptive. AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:TonySpaphony - Created to recreate Danny Jacobs (voice actor), an article that Onelifefreak2007's socks keep creating and linking to. 72.223.95.58 copied content from Danny A. Jacobs to Danny Jacobs (actor),[5] then edited Danny Jacobs (disambiguation) to reflect the changes.[6] (Danny Jacobs (disambiguation) was created by and has been the target of other Onelifefreak2007 socks.) TonySpaphony then created Danny Jacobs (voice actor) with content from Danny Jacobs (actor). --AussieLegend (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Tonythephone-ee - Similar username to "TonySpaphony", created after I had added TonySpaphony and added appropriate warnings to his talk page. Created Monster's Inc. 2, an article about a 2012 movie. Prior to creation of the article, 72.223.95.58 added a link to it to Monsters, Inc..[7] Monster's Inc. 2 was then created a few minutes later. Tonythephone-ee has been editing the same articles as both 72.223.95.58 and TonySpaphony. All three of the socks listed so far have similar editing styles. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Accounts blocked and tagged. The IP was autoblocked as a result of the accounts being blocked, but I extended the block to 1 week. Elockid (Talk) 00:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


13 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by SummerPhD (talk)

Same targeted articles, same edit summaries, same patterns of rapid-fire edits. Quack! SummerPhD (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by AussieLegend (talk)

Added Ookieookietooky (talk · contribs) - WP:DUCK by the name, edit history pretty much confirms it. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

72.223.95.58 was reported at the last SPI and was blocked for one week. "Contributions" commenced immediately the block was lifted. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edits to Terry Crews indicate a link between Ookieookietooky and TookieBahookie, plus the username overlap. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be a case of bad hand/good hand here, took is full of warnings about vandalism, the other account has only been used for mostly good edits except for the page blanking--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Both accounts indef'd and IP blocked for 1 month per WP:DUCK. judging from the edit summaries and articles of choice as well as the usernmames, these are pretty obviously the same person. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
14 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by SummerPhD (talk)

Same targeted articles, same edit summaries, same patterns of rapid-fire edits. Quack! SummerPhD (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Looks like a duck to me. I've blocked Anthonyangrywolf (talk · contribs) indefinitely based on editing pattern. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added 72.223.95.58, previously identified and block. Back again. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked the IP for 1 year. Other admins, please feel free to modify it. -- Cirt (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • information Administrator note With no activity in a few days, I've marked this for close. TNXMan 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Cirt [edit]
  • Compare with prior socks of same master sock account.
  • In particular, please see history involving User:Razzinator.

-- Cirt (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 22:57, 13 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 endorsed for a check on Razzfan, please. Similar naming to Onelifefreak2007's previous sock Razzinator, same interest in Total Drama (series) + related articles and editing times are nigh on identical. Please could a checkuser see if there is a link between Razzfan and Onelifefreak2007's socks, and should such a link exist, a sleeper check would be appreciated. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive. Onelifefreak2007 is stale, and there is no data on his IPs in the log. J.delanoygabsadds 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps CU and compare to the other, more recent, user accounts that are in the archives? -- Cirt (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still would not help for this purpose, since Onelifefreak2007 was never checkusered while his data was available. Thus, I have no way to establish if there is a connection between him and the Razz, because I don't know from a technical standpoint if the other socks listed are related. J.delanoygabsadds 02:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it would help for other admins to know if there are technical correlations between above suspected socks and other socks from the archives, such as Razzinator (talk · contribs), etc. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: A CU declared these as stale which means they can't access the information any further, so just awaiting admins to patrol out this one. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: 75.228.1.255 won't be blocked as contribs go back to February -- DQ (t) (e) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note:. Not convinced here. Onelifefreak2007 demonstrates different behavioural characteristics, for example, he uses edit summaries quite a lot, while Razzfan never uses them. The IPs look related behaviourally, but all geolocate to three entirely different areas of the United States. Nothing here is conclusive, behaviourally or technically, so I'm not taking any action here. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Desno exhibits same behavior as user Razzinator, who is sock of sockmaster Onelifefreak2007
  1. Compare Desno (talk · contribs) with Razzinator (talk · contribs), a sock of sockmaster Onelifefreak2007
  2. Both edit related to the Razzie Awards, making completely unsourced changes.
  3. Disruption, Desno (talk · contribs) created hoax page, 31st Golden Raspberry Awards.

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I fixed most of the stuff on the Razzies page linked above. Here is the copy Desno created; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=31st_Golden_Raspberry_Awards&oldid=402323698 --Errant (chat!) 14:08, 14 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]
  • I am not even close to convinced. I maybe (keyword Maybe) see one unsourced information addition to 31st Golden Raspberry Awards. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the list of nominees & winners was a complete unsourced hoax - the nominees aren't even announced yet ;) --Errant (chat!) 13:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Even looking with that, I don't see the link. Also with PeterSymonds comments from last time, I am tempted to close. But will leave to an admin to make final decision just in case I can't see something. -- DQ (t) Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 03:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing per the rationale that the account is not being disruptive enough to merit checkuser, and there really isn't even enough evidence to indicate need for CU. I just am not seeing it at all. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

This new sock's name is quite similar to Anthonyangrywolf (talk · contribs), a previously blocked sock of Onelifefreak2007. Further, he created Darryl Kurylo and put "PLEASE DO NOT DELETE" as the edit summary; the article had been previous deleted as CSD G5 for having been created by Thewinnermon (talk · contribs) and edited by Winddancer911 (talk · contribs), also both socks of Onelifefreak2007. Other similarities involve sets of several edits on a page all at once (compare Winddancer911's edits to AnthonyWAngrywolf's, particularly to Joel McHale) and similar editing topics: television and film.

Oh, and as a side note, a checkuser isn't possible here; the accounts are stale. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:46, 19 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]
08 February 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Almost identical editing pattern as prviously blocked sock AnthonyWAngrywolf - particularly linking to a deleted page started by that editor. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:32, 8 February 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]


23 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This new sock's name and edits are quite similar to Anthonyangrywolf (talk · contribs), a previously blocked sock of Onelifefreak2007. Also suspiciously like those of Spicejohnson, who may have been blocked on his own without being recognized as yet another puppet of the original account. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:40, 23 August 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]

This user is using the same range as Sitcomboy (talk · contribs), which is the same range that was checked in connection with Onelifefreak2007 last year. Throw all of it together and I'd say it comes out as a  Likely match to Spicejohnson and/or Onelifefreak2007. TNXMan 15:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: Let another clerk see if there is enough behavoir to warrant the merge and call them the same. I'm leaning towards merge. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note Just look at AnthonyAngrywolf, Sitcomboy, TheSitcomLover and TheSitcomLiker. Articles they edit in common include topics related to the film series Kung Fu Panda and Open Season, the actor Danny Jacobs, Ayman al-Zawahiri... It goes on and on. On the other hand, Spicejohnson has less in common, really the Open Season film series is the only similarity. I'll note that the SPI for Spicejohnson determined that TheSitcomLiker, TheSitcomLover, and Sitcomboy were technically related to each other, but not Spicejohnson. I am not an SPI clerk but my suspicion is that we have two different sockmasters here. -- Atama頭 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Yeah, I don't really feel 100% on calling them the same. Everyone's blocked so let's leave it alone for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar IP to ones used before, exact same edit patterns. Textbook block evasion. Can we rangeblock this guy? MikeWazowski (talk) 14:45, 29 August 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]
  • information Administrator note The last time we blocked an IP for him was July 2010. I've blocked this IP for a month, but I think a rangeblock based on year-old IPs is a bit premature. If he starts changing IPs, list it here and we'll look at a rangeblock. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK and all that. Similar editing pattern on the same articles as before. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:17, 25 October 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 with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). However, underlying  IPs blocked, so he shouldn't be able to edit anonymously now. AGK [•] 10:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
  1. WP:DUCK applies here, coming back to edit same articles and topics as blocked user Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs).
  2. Compare with prior sock, Razzinator (talk · contribs).
  3. Pattern of adding unsourced info to pages, please see multiple warnings for this, at User talk:FollowGuard.

Thank you for your time. — Cirt (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2012 (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: Cirt, that's a relatively old account - from June 2011. They've got just under 2000 edits. I'm not seeing anything that definitively connects them to this sockmaster. Yes, there's overlap in their edits - but anything specific? Lots of accounts here edit soap opera articles... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Zero use of edit summaries. Compare with Special:Contributions/AnthonyAngrywolf.
  2. Returns to same types of articles, compare with Razzinator (talk · contribs).
  3. Same pattern of edits, compare [8] with [9]
  4. Same types of edits to same articles, compare [10] with [11]
  5. Please also examine the sheer number of warnings at User talk:FollowGuard.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note That was a bit better, I suppose. On behavioral grounds I've blocked and tagged the account. The IP hasn't edited in nearly two months so there's no reason to act on it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
07 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


As for evidence, this admission is pretty cut and dry. The reason I'm filing this report is because I don't think the majority of socks attributed to Onelifefreak2007 are actually his socks. Soapfan2013 seems to have been editing productively since November 2011, and I'm not opposed to letting this user continue since it appears the behavior that lead to the original block hasn't continued. Perhaps a thread at one of the noticeboards is in order, but I think it needs to be established that he isn't the sockmaster for the majority of users reported here. AniMate 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I'm unsure if this goes here, but I have taken a look at both the original account and new account. I have had many so-called "run-ins" with said user in question. While I do feel as if said-user Soapfan2013 has made mini-baby steps towards becoming a better and more productive editor, I do as if feel that there's more of a leap they could, themselves, be making towards becoming a more resourceful editor. From my past run-ins, I feel as this user does not take warnings as seriously as they should, and continually ignore the presence of bringing validity to their points. As per here, here and [12] they ignore the chance to try and prove their points. I simply asked for proof of their claim, and they continued to not prove their point. I was willing to provide such truth to my claims, while they weren't. They were stuck in the "I'm right, you're wrong. End of story" which, of course, we all go through. But they were unable to step up and prove their point. I think they should be allowed to remain to edit, if and only if they're willing to take bigger steps towards making a better effort in their edits. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to make a note that I have changed and most of those sockpuppets were not mine to begin with, most of them were from Pickbothmanlol or something like that, I have been working with other people. This is the only other account I made, the other ones were from Pickbothmanlol. Soapfan2013 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Strongly suggest block on the sock account and checkuser to block underlying IP of the sockmaster. — Cirt (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say I think the results of a checkuser would be very interesting. I really don't think the person I've reported is related to the bulk of the socks brought here. The edits and editing style are way too different. AniMate 00:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I'm with AniMate on this one. The edits aren't really similar enough for me to take action. Per MusicFreak's comment and WP:ROPE, I think I'm going to let this one go for now. Relist if there's sufficient evidence to warrant a block. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21 October 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Same exact previously exhibited pattern of behavioral evidence on "Razzie" award articles.
  2. Compare Razzinator (talk · contribs), a  Confirmed sock of Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs) through self-admission. (Specifically, by comparing 68.185.181.8 (talk · contribs) with 68.118.199.90 (talk · contribs) and postings by the sockmaster. — Cirt (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2012 (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 Declined - Checkuser will not connect IP addresses to users; in any event, Onelifefreak2007 and all of his identified socks are stale for checkuser purposes, so a check would be worthless here. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay thank you, would still request block based on strong behavioral evidence. — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So do you reckon he's holidaying in Thessaloniki and editing on the hotel dialup to relive his triumphs of three years ago? I'm happy to block the IPs for vandalism, but I think the connection to Onelifefreak2007 is tenuous at best. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries, thank you for the evaluation, will keep an eye on it for future vandalism. — Cirt (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPs unrelated to master, vandalised for one day only. Closing case, nothing to do here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
02 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Behavioral evidence correlates many similarities to banned user Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs).
  2. Disrupts Golden Raspberry Award list pages. (Remember, User:Onelifefreak2007 has  Confirmed technical evidence to User:Razzinator.)
  3. History of vandalism diff. And again diff.
  4. Disruption of speedy deletion process diff.
  5. Recreation of deleted material diff. And again diff.
  6. Vandalism, again diff.
  7. Adding Unreferenced and Unsourced info to WP:BLPs diff.
  8. Inserts unsourced info to pages diff.

Thank you for your time. — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Onelifefreak2007 and Defender miz
  1. Compare with sock of User:Onelifefreak2007 = Razzinator (talk · contribs).
  2. User:Razzinator = disrupted pages of Golden Raspberry Awards. Defender miz (talk · contribs) engages in same behavior pattern, also on Golden Raspberry Award pages. diff.
  3. User:Razzinator and User:Onelifefreak2007 = uses no edit summary. When not using the zero edit summary behavior pattern, instead just copies title of page into edit summary box. Defender miz (talk · contribs) also uses no edit summaries. diff
  4. User:Razzinator focus contribs on list pages related to popular culture link. Compare with Defender miz (talk · contribs).link to contribs.
  5. Please see warnings historically at User talk:Razzinator. Note the warnings for disruption and adding unsourced info to WP:BLPs. Compare to User talk:Defender miz.

Thank you for your investigation of this matter, — Cirt (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There's lots more similar info to the other blocked socks, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007/Archive. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 2 May 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]
  •  Clerk note: To expedite the processing of this case, could you link to the similarities in behavior between Onelifefreak and Defender miz? Currently, all that is linked is a set of warnings on Defender's talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood, I've added more to above, please let me know if this is sufficient. — Cirt (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Based on the evidence given and my own look through the contributions, I am suspicious that Defender is a sock of Onelifefreak. However, I'd like another clerk to look over and confirm this, given how long both editors have been around. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, an analysis of edit time doesn't quite add for Onelifefreak2007 and Defender miz. It appears that Onelifefreak2007 sleeps from 8 to 14 and Defender miz sleeps from 2 to 9. It's possible they moved or something, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you've got a major point there. Considering that Defender was active when Razzinator was, I'm guessing two people in slightly different timezones. Closing, then, with no action taken since these now definitely appear to be different people. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you both, I'll respectfully defer to your judgment, — Cirt (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User is an admitted sock-puppet, and their editing behavior is still as combative and incivil as their previous account. User is incapable of co-editing with other editors and cannot help but hurl personal attacks, which is a habit from their original account. They were also told in 2012 to no longer exhibit negative behavior, and yet, they continue to do so. Clearly, their behavior is unacceptable. livelikemusic talk! 23:58, 19 January 2018 (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]

@Livelikemusic: Please show diffs of combative or otherwise disruptive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: This message on my talk page alone is combative. It's the same pattern of behavior they were told not to engage in, and yet, they continue to do so. livelikemusic talk! 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Livelikemusic: I need more. Give me some background as to what led up to Soapfan's post. Also, what does he mean by "you have been told to leave me alone by admins"?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I have zero recollection of being told by any administrator to "leave" them alone; however, I do know they were told to leave me alone by an admin. I quote from this post: Consider this the only and final warning you'll get. Do not post on Musicfreak's talk page and do not post about Musicfreak either. Your opinions of him are irrelevant. If you find yourself disagreeing with him on an article, discuss the edits on the article talk page and only discuss the editing dispute. No personal comments. Final and only warning. It used be noted my previous name was Musicfreak7676 until I changed it to my current at the top of 2012 (six years ago). This arose from their continued edits concerning General Hospital cast members of neglecting edit summaries, providing verifiable sources for their edits, and then completely removing sections, despite persistently being told to hide them, which is what the common practice has been done for quite some time. I do know I was previously asked — back in 2012 — concerning my interactions with Soapfan2013, and did make it known I felt like their intentions were in good faith to change for the better, however, their attitude and editing patterns continue to show that they have yet to change or have any intentions of changing. livelikemusic talk! 03:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's enough evidence here to block Soapfan2013. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Onelifefreak2007/Archive&oldid=1197761427"