Wiki143:Suspected sock puppets/Frys104

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for deatiled instructions.

User:Frys104

Evidence

User has a long history of blanking pages and then blanking out subsequent vandalism warnings. Special:Contributions/Pjh1810, Special:Contributions/Frys104, Special:Contributions/Ryanlong show histories of editing the same pages in the same manner, removing advert tags, adding them to user pages, blanking pages, ignoring vandalism warnings. Suspect active as of today (blanked his vandalism warning, insisting again he was not a sockpuppet, when it's clear from his edit histories he has even reverted to the others' versions on his very FIRST edit). Suspect has received many, many warnings on all three accounts.--Firsfron 20:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A full list of the problems:

On Febrary 8th, I placed a cleanup tag on the Bashas' article.[[1]]

February 14 User:Frys104 removes the cleanup tag, even though the article is mostly advertisement. The user isn't aware at that time of wikipedia policy. I assume good faith

February 19 User:PaulHanson adds an advert tag to the article. User:Frys104 immediately removes the tag. [2] I replace the advert tag, explaining why on the summary, so User:Frys104 will know why the tag was added.

February 22 User:Frys104 removes the advert tag [[3]], and blanks out the talk page [[4]] User:Frys104 vandalizes User:Bovlb's user page [[5]] User:Frys104 vandalizes my user page [[6]] User:Frys104 blanks out my user page and leaves an ALLCAPS message about how I can't edit "his page". [[7]]

February 23 User:Rebelguys2 reinserts the advert tag, and reverts the page blanking done by Frys104 [[8]]. User:Rebelguys2 reverts User:Fry104's vandalism on User:Bovlb's user page.[[9]] I try to clean up the Bashas article, but it still has POV stuff in it, that I wasn't sure how I was going to edit out. I add a vandalism warning on Fry104's talk page.

February 24 I replace the advert tag on the Bashas article, explaining why on the summary. A 'new user' User:Ryanlong joins Wikipedia. His very FIRST edit is vandalism on my talk page [[10]]. User Ryanlong's other edits look surprisingly identical to User:Frys104 [[11]] User:Ryanlong blanks out the Bashas talk page, and leaves a message about how the previous info was nonsense [[12]] I replace the blanked out text on the Bashas talk page. [[13]] I add a second warning on Frys104's talk page, and a first warning on user Ryanlong's talk page. I report the vandalism of the two users on [[14]] User:Ryanlong removes the advert tag [[15]].

February 25th A 'new user' User:Pjh1810 starts editing similar articles as the first two vandals. [[16]] His first edit on the Fry's food and drug talk page is to try to remove references to Frys104's vandalism. [[17]] User:Pjh1810 removes the advert tag on the Bashas article [[18]] User:Frys104 removes the vandalism warnings on his talk page. [[19]], so he's obviously seen them. User:Prasi90 warns Ryanlong against vandalism. [[20]] Ryanlong removes the vandalism warning on his talk page. A new user User:Worstnightmare vandalizes my page and the pages of other a half dozen contributers to those pages, and reverters of Frys104's, Ryanlong's, and Pj1810's vandalism [[21]] He is quickly blocked.

February 26th User:Weregerbil reverts the vandalism warning blanking on Ryanlong's talk page.[[22]] User:Pjh1810 claims on the Fry's food and drug page that he is not the same person as the other vandals [[23]], but his list of contributions is the same as the other two: [[24]]

It seems clear to me that at least three of the vandals (Fry, Ryan, and Pjh) are the same person: the edit histories and vandisms of all three are nearly identical, occurring on the same pages to the same users. Take a look at Frys104's contributions: [[25]], compare to User:Ryanlong's: [[26]] and user:Pjh1810's: [[27]]. They are the same.

Many of the guy's contributions seem sound, but he vandalizes any user he doesn't like, and it's become a bad situation.

I am less certain about User:Worstnightmare's identity, because he was blocked so early that he didn't have a chance to make other contributions before he was blocked.

I placed a notice on the Admin's Noticeboard back in February, but it never received attention. User is again active, and has already blanked out his multiple vandalism warnings. User has violated 3RR today.--Firsfron 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• OK, that's a whole bunch of vandalism. But, I do not ses a clear sign of sockpuppetry. Did any of 3 break WP:3RR together (that is, 3 reverts by one of those accounts, and then additional revert by any other of those accounts)? Were those used for double voting? Apart from some serious vandalism, were this accounts used for explicit sockpuppetry? --Dijxtra 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Clear signs of sockpuppetry:

• Frys104 has less than 100 edits. Among them are 77 edits to Ralphs, Kroger, KVAT Food City, Smith's Food and Drug, King Soopers & City Market, Fry's Food and Drug, Bashas' (all supermarket chains in Arizona), Eddie Basha, Jr., CEO of one of those chains, and KPHO-TV, KPNX, (Phoenix-area TV stations), Elise Finch and Sean McLaughlin (Phoenix-area newscasters), and vandalisms to many user pages, including mine.
• Ryanlong has 19 edits. Among them are 17 edits to Fry's Food and Drug, King Soopers & City Market, Bashas', Eddie Basha, Jr., KPNX, KPHO-TV (re-adding deleted Elise Finch stuff first added by Frys104), and vandalism to my user page, all within days of Fry's edits.
• Pjh1810 has 32 edits. Among them are 11 edits to Bashas', Fry's Food and Drug, Kroger, King Soopers & City Market, KPHO-TV, and vandalisms to my user page, all within days of Ryanlong's edits.
  • That's really nice proof that the same user uses all of this accounts. But, see, that's not prohibited. If you wish, you can have as much alternate accounts as you wish. I need a proof that this 3 accounts were used for prohibited stuff. If this guy vandalised with all of his 3 accounts but didn't do anything from the list of prohibitet uses od multiple accounts, then I can't block him on grounds of sockpuppetry... --Dijxtra 16:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deception: "In addition to double-voting, multiple accounts should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position. " As I already mentioned above, user has claimed on several occasions that he is not the other users. [for example], or on his [page]: "This is the only user name I have. Frys104 & Ryanlong are not my usernames -- so please quitting adding graffiti to my project page. I happen to agree with only a few edits of theirs[...]" (despite the constant reverts to their versions).

Circumventing policy: "Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Similarly, using an alternate account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account." violating 3RR, which PJH did in the past 48 hours [here].

I reeeeally don't know why it's so difficult to report a user for sockpuppetry or vandalism. I've tried on several occasions to: a)warn this user, b)revert this user, and c)report this user, giving many, many links to the problems, only to be ignored by administration, or to give the evidence in the form of quite a few obvious links, only to have the admin say, "well, I see no clear evidence." If this evidence isn't enough, I give up. Let this vandal post garbage all over WP. Let him vandalize user pages under a wide variety of user names. I can't force an admin to do anything, and after about a dozen attempts, it's just not my responsibility anymore. I can't keep trying to solve the problem. At some time, a responsible admin has got to step in. It's unfortunate that it takes this much to try to resolve the problem.--Firsfron 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but this isn't rocket science. If 3 brand-new users make identical edits to the same articles within days of each other, and vandalize in the same manner, there's a high probability they are the same user, especially, when, as I noted earlier, some of those edits are removals of all mention of the previous editor's vandalism, and especially when their very first edit on WP is reverting to a vandalized version from the previous vandal.

There may be 3RR violations between them all, and there are certainly 3RR violations by each of them (PJH within the last couple of days, even). "They" don't know how to vote, so the sockpuppetry was never used for voting, only to revert back to the previous version by themselves (removing cleanup or advert tags, removing vandalism warnings on their pages, adding copyvio, blanking talk or user pages, nonsense).

Thanks for your attention. If you have further questions, please ask here or on my talk page.--Firsfron 15:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK, this is what we do. I see you didn't inform the user(s) in question that he/they are accused. I have done that for you now. So, now we'll wait for a day to see if the accused responds, and if he doesn't I'll request a CheckUser. Is that OK? --Dijxtra 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I had already placed sockpuppet tags on all three acounts. One was removed by the latest user. I had also informed the user via message that he was suspected of sockpuppetry. He responded with a legal threat, which was later removed by another editor.

WP's sockpuppet policy for Checkuser is that "In certain difficult circumstances where there is both significant abuse and serious questions as to whether or not sockpuppetry is in fact taking place, technical means can be used to ascertain whether sock puppetry is at work.

" Since I have already provided clear evidence that sockpuppetry has taken place, I really don't know why a checkuser is even needed. Further, a checkuser won't catch if he did it from different ISPs. Useless.--Firsfron 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinetly by Tawker --Dijxtra 21:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)