Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Thmc1


Thmc1

02 June 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by Aetio
edit

Septran appears to be a brand new account which has only just started editing alongside Thmc1. I have had to create this account in order to report it. Aetio (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzyzx is alleged in edit summaries by other users to be a sock of Thmc1 on the London article so I think it should be checked out. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims. Hey guys, what's this "investigation" all about?! As far as my understanding goes, multiple accounts are allowed on Wikipedia amongst users (especially newer users) sharing a common IP address in order to protect the confidentiality of the IP address. Meatpuppetry is not involved, and as far as I'm concerned, that is the ONLY issue. Am I correct, or have I misunderstood the rules?

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk)

No, Yattum, you are clearly incorrect. Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Yattum, edit wars are just plain unconstructive, as are some of your comments. Let me also mention that facts and references change with time. It should be obvious that not acknowledging that, in favor of serving one's best interests instead, compomises the neutrality and integrity of Wikipedia; what may be less obvious is that it stifles the constructive evolution of Wikipedia to thrive as the most dynamic, vibrant, and most importantly relevant body of information in society. Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When users with multiple accounts share the same IP address, such mistakes are bound to happen. Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does someone know your password, or did you just forget to log out? wiooiw (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) referring to my last post[reply]

I ALWAYS (read: often) forget to log out. Doesn't everybody? Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you may know the other users then, can you comment on Piephone? wiooiw (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really serious, wiooiw? This is ridiculous - there is nothing going on. And that's my final statement regarding this farce. Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets are good.PiephonePiephone (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they are mine. Piephone.Piephone (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Zzzyzx and Septran do share similarities such as starting their talk page with "User talk started" and redirecting their userpage to their talk page. Also Zzzyzx restored an edit that was made earlier by Septran. Then Yattum removed Zzzyzx edit with "Thmc1's sock" edit summary. Thmc1 later reverted Yattum's edit as vandlism. wiooiw (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thmc1 is clearly creating sock accounts in order for them to engage in edits wars which the Thmc1 account is engaged. This is not allowed on Wikipedia and usually those who do this are banned. Yattum (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thmc1 probably made a mistake when he did this. Note that they usually type their username then ~~~~.Zzzyzx has done this and Thmc1 has done this. wiooiw (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Piephone for this. wiooiw (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45garry4 is probably related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Garrysmith10 and from that, open proxies might have been involved. wiooiw (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
01 December 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

(note left on my talk page by User:MBaxter1) - I want to report that someone I suspect to be blocked user Thmc1 (logged on as IP Address 96.242.217.91 and sometimes 151.198.55.159) may be trying to continue his/her use of Wikipaedia as a propaganda tool. This person, whicn I have reason to believe is Thmc1, is attempting to pawn his revisionist pro-NY views, citing un-reliable business/travel sites as his source. When others undo his edits for this very fact, what does he do? He comes back with a similar business/travel site and says "Here's your proof!". If you examine the logs carefully, you will notice that activity from IPs 96.242.217.91 and 151.198.55.159 were virtually non-existent prior to Thmc1 being banned in June 2010. Since then, both IPs have come alive with activity displaying behavior identical to Thmc1's- using business/travel sites as souces over & over again and making edits to the very same pages! In his quest to seek re-instatement, Thmc1 claimed that he had learned his lesson and would never abuse Wikipedia again. Apparently, he has not learned that lesson. You were right in refusing his requests, and I hope that this will carry over to what is happening now. I STRONGLY urge that you initiate an investigation, which will hopefully lead to blocking him out again.MBaxter1  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Upon reviewing the corresponding logs myself, I also have a strong suspicion that Thmc1 and the 2 IP addresses mentioned are one in the same. Thmc1 stated during his investigation that he had no intention of sock-puppeting, and multiple accounts were used out of fear for his IP address-account relationship being exposed (whatever that means). This could explain WHY whoever this person is hasn't made any edits under a registered account. And, just because one IP is less active than the other doesn't mean we should let our guards down. If my assumption is correct, he is purposely keeping a low profile on 151.198.55.159. This way, if 96.242.217.91 were to be blocked he will still have a backup IP. The bottom line: both IPs are used by the same individual with strikingly similar styles to Thmc1. As the old saying goes- if looks like a rat, smells like rat.... My apologies, as this is an insult to the rat.BobTheWrecker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, what is your connection here? You have two edits in total: in February you commented on Thmc's page, and your other edit is on here? Seems a bit suspicious, IMO... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Clerk note: First, let me point out that the above was written by MBaxter1 (talk · contribs) on Ronhjones' talk page, and it was just copypasted here. (I didn't realize that at first.) Anyway, I've looked into this a bit. The IPs locate to the same area, and the edits are similar enough that it is possible they're being used by the same person. The 151 IP is far less active, so I don't think much action needs to be taken there. I'm not quite ready to put a long-term block on the IP as I don't really feel it can be justified. A bunch of the articles that IP edits were protected for awhile, so perhaps that's the better way to go. I'd like a second opinion on this from another clerk, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 151 IP come out as being a library (United States Hackensack Bergen County Cooperative Library)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyong, I think you should re-start the investigation on 96.242.217.91. He's back once again, and making the exact same edit ("NY Chinatown has the largest concentration of Chinese people in the western hemisphere...) on the "Chinatown" page as with the other chinatown pages. I don't think it's merely a co-incidence that this person mysteriously disappears right after the start of the investigation, only to return immediately upon its suspension. Whoever this person is, has been(IMHO) keeping tabs on the Thmc investigation file. If it were somebody else, they wouldn't know where to look since the investigation file was opened under Thmc's user name and not under IP "96.242.217.91". An examination of the IP's edit log also shows no record of deleted messages tipping off the individual in question, so this person clearly had prior knowledge of Thmc1 & was keeping abreast of the current situation. I am now more suspicious than ever that this person is, in fact, Thmc1, or connected to him/her in some way. What's your take on this?MBaxter1 (talk)
05 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

I am filing this report on suspicion that the following IPs and account names may be sockpuppets of blocked user Thmc1. He is using mostly IPs w/out account login, probably to lessen the chance of being blocked. Same vandalous edits, trumping NYC at the dis-credit of other cities/communities.
The following are diffs comparing blocked master, IPs and accounts currently in question. I've organized them the best I can based on articles. Whenever possible, I will try to compare the very same edits from the same articles, or edits that are closely related in subject from the same articles. All IPs are from same small 5X5 mile area of Fair Lawn/Westwood, Bergen County, NE New Jersey, same location as the blocked IPs used by Thmc1.

"Chinatown, Manhattan", Pro-NYC vandalism at expense of other cities
[1] [2] [3] [4]
"Chinatown, Flushing", Ditto
[5] [6] [7]
"Chinatown, Brooklyn", Ditto
[8] [9] [10] [11]
"Avenue U", Virtually same edits
[12] [13] [14]
"Elmhurst, Queens", Ditto
[15] [16] [17]
"Chinatown", Pro-NYC vandalism at expense of other cities
[18] [19] [20]
"Chinatown, San Francisco", Ditto
[21] [22]
"Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin" Virtually Same edits
[23] [24] [25]
"Chinatowns in Canada and the United States", Pro-NYC vandalism at expense of other cities
[26] [27] [28]
"Caput Mundi", Pro-NYC vandalism against city of London and Toronto
[29] [30] [31] [32]
"Homecrest, Brooklyn", Virtually same edits
[33] [34]
"Little India (loction)", Same vandalous edits against city of Toronto
[35] [36]
"List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese American populations", Same vandalous edits, promoting NYC's Chinese community as being larger than agruably larger ones.
[37] [38] [39]
"Tamil language", Same vandalous edits hyping NYC/New Jersey area + continued anti-British bias as the articles above by removing London/UK references.
[40] [41] [42]
"Russian American", More vandalism hyping NYC, this time as home to the largest and best Russian Community
[43] [44] [45]
MBaxter1 (talk)

Comments by other users
edit

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

Reference(Can be used as evidence):
A) Thmc1 has edited the "Fair Lawn, New Jersey" aritcle w/ familiarity, the same area where all of the vandalous edits are coming from [46].
B) 74.88.160.244 has only 8 edits in its history log, used sparingly as a sock for 173.63.176.93.
C) All accounts and IPs in question were created after Thmc1 was blocked.
D) Nyc88 history log was created on June 4, 2012, one day after Thmc1 was blocked. Nearly 100% of the articles edited by Nyc88 was also edited by Thmc1.
E) I didn't have time to pull out evidence for MusikAnimal. After browsing through the log, it appears that it may be using IP from same area/location. Please check. MBaxter1 (talk)

DQ, please give all the diffs and IPs a 2nd careful look, especially the last two (173.63.176.93 & 74.88.160.244). It's because of the history log of the IPs that I was able to pull UP NYC88 and MusikAnimal. To be frank, I did not know that MusikAnimal edited from the same city- I just found that out from you! He is supposedly from Brooklyn, NY(a good 20 miles from Fair Lawn, NJ) according to his user page. I added him to the suspected list because he showed an eerily similar editing pattern to Thmc1. Furthermore, nearly 100% of the individual articles edited by NYC88 were also edited by Thmc1. It's also no coincidence that the given diffs show all, or most of the suspected IPs & accounts making the same edits to the same section of at least 15 same articles. If you have extra time, PLEASE give these diffs another check as it needs a discerning human eye. They all look exactly, or nearly identical except that the IPs & accounts are different. And, of course Thmc1 is stale since he was blocked! That, however, did not stop him from getting back on WP.MBaxter1 (talk)

Hey guys, hopefully I'm defending myself correctly here, if that's even necessary? I do live in Brooklyn, and am not associated with these other users. I worked a good bit on Chinatown because, to be frank, it's a mess! Haha. Most of my work on that page was correcting the format of the references, getting rid of repeated information. Also wanted to mention that I didn't actually add any information or research, merely trying to clean up what was already there. Anyways, let me know if there's anything more I should do? Thank you MusikAnimal (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal- You may be who you say you are, but no one's taking any chances. Thmc1 was even more convincing in his denial during the first investigation. Administration is taking whatever steps necessary, and everything will sort itself out hopefully within a few days.MBaxter1 (talk)

Kudpung, I just completed a preliminary research and also found the Fair Lawn/Westwood edits to the relevant articles outnumber those of IP edits from New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania states combined by a ratio of more than 5 to 1. I find this quite alarming, and should be noted as a red flag. I've also argued in the past that there was some sort of connection between blocked sockmasters Thmc1 and ScottyBerg, which I still believe. Throughout the "Chinatown, Manhattan" history log, you can clearly see the edits of both users are frequently bunched together, with both adding to, and/or improving the other's edits & vice versa, but never reverting or correcting! Posts by both users in that article's talk page also shows them generously complementing each other- ScottyBerg for uploaded images, Thmc1 for the added sources to those images.MBaxter1 (talk)

Hello All. I just logged in today to find out that I am suspected of sockpuppet. I rarely log into my account. I hope I am defending myself here correctly as well. I am also from Brooklyn as well and I just want to say I have no association with MusikAnimal or any of these accounts. Scottyberg has been written on my talk page before on suggestions and I never expected my talk page to have any discussions. I do not even know who they are. I only edit to add materials in if it is relevant and if there are references to back it up. Sometimes I do edits to make the paragraph more organized or clarify details more. But that is it. I never have any intention of doing vandalism. The only edits I have made are relating to Chinese populations in certain areas of NYC.

nyc88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to add that I have no familiarity to New Jersey and have never logged into my wikipedia account there.

nyc88 (talk)20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of my wikipedia log ins and edits have been in the NYC area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc88 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • SysAdmin- Concerning the temporary blockage of 74.88.160.244 in this investigation, I was hoping it was permanent. Ditto for 96.242.217.91. Thmc was blocked, not for light or moderate sockpuppeting, but excessive sockpuppeting. Just him being able to edit is a violation of that policy. Furthermore, he was still making the same old disruptive edits. Quoting what he wrote during the first investigation, "I will sorely miss editing Wikipedia in the meantime" (See Thmc1 talk page). Unbeknownst to the SysAdmins, he had 96.242.217.91 at his disposal which he used to create the Nyc88 account the day before! If anything, all of the suspected IPs and the accounts affiliated with them should be permanently blocked. Same goes for for any other Fair Lawn related accounts and IPs that you discover from this investigation. This individual will surely take advantage of any IPs left open, as already learned since the last investigation. Based on my own research, it seems liklely that these IPs were also used by the same person, and no one else.MBaxter1 (talk)

Hey guys, now I'm starting to get worried. The page about defending myself made it clear I shouldn't have anything to worry about. I created this account a year ago after abandoning my old account, which I thought was "archfiend997" but I can't seem to find it... anyways I couldn't change usernames, I wanted it to be the same as my Twitter. Point being that account had tons of contributions, and was created a LONG time ago. Since May, I made the decision to become consistently active as a contributor (just like I am on StackOverflow, Google Maps and XDA forums, among others), and am currently seeking adoption. I've worked hard to get my list of contributions where it is now, and would be very upset if my account got suspended for something I didn't do. I generally only work on pages involving things I'm passionate about, namely The Smashing Pumpkins (and other music) and New York City, which I've only been a resident of for a year now. I'm not passionate about Chinatown in particular, but I created this custom map on Google Maps of the neighborhoods, with the brief history of each, using Wikipedia to obtain such. I noticed some of the neighborhoods' articles were a bit messy and took it upon myself to try and clean them up. (EDIT: note my work on Civic Center, which when I saw it was a single entire paragraph, which I cleaned up to at least be organized. I did not add any info, and did notice there aren't ANY references, which I hope to correct in the near future). That is the just of my work thus far. I hope the aforementioned can clear any connection with this unruly user. I am trying to build up my reputation, not hinder it by blatantly adding false information. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help this situation... thanks MusikAnimal (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it just so happens this is some sort of freaky coincidnce that your edits happen to be identical to the same articles with the same grammar using the same IPs, then you should take up the issue with him because it's his fault. He's caused so many problems for so many people here.MBaxter1 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SysAdmin- I would like to add that the sockpuppeting, which the accused are obviously doing, isn't the real problem here. It's the nature of the edits, falsely promoting the NYC area through the vandalism of articles for other cities and communities. His disruptive edits to the City of London article had drawn the ire and complaints from many UK editors, leading to his blockage in June of 2010. Just him being here is a violation of that block, but he's gone the extra mile by continuing these disruptive edits. I have also found another suspected sock which I may name. In the meantime, I suggest that you block any and all IPs used by the suspected to prevent further editing through other unknown accounts which is most likely the case here.MBaxter1 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is insane! I can't believe this is actually happening... Same IP? How is it even possible he's using the same IP as me? He's a different user, who's not me, and I don't remember him being in my bedroom? (EDIT: I would assume it would not be considered unusual that many people contributing to articles about NYC would live in... NYC, seems to make sense?) I just wrote on Thmc1's talk page telling him to defend me on here... is that what I need to do? Let me explain what I did with the Chinatown article: reorganized the information, got rid of some duplicate stuff, and corrected the format of a crap ton of references. I'm assuming when I was "cleaning up", e.g. moving one paragraph to another part of the article where I thought it was a better fit, that that was his "false promotion" stuff you speak of. I didn't write any of that, I just moved it around. I think I reworded things too if I remember correctly. That I can see how it would be misconstrued as his vandalism, as I probably was rewording his edits. I didn't question the accuracy of any of it, just made it a little easier to read, as from what I recall it was way out of whack. Like I said, I was merely making that custom map on Google which I planned to use on an Android app. Going from neighborhood to neighborhood I tried to clean up what I could. Did you see my edits for the Civic Center? Didn't change a word, just *cleaned it up*, which is what I was doing with Chinatown. I am NOT sockpuppeting! I'm an honest contributor trying to help the community out. How about giving me a chance to prove my innocence here before blocking me? Just because I'm also obsessed with NYC doesn't mean I'm the guy adding all this inaccurate promotional stuff... I can't believe how adamant you are that I'm the same person... I told my friends over here that I got accused and we're all joking about it, as I was sure it would get resolved that I had nothing to do with it. I'm assuming he can still edit this page, e.g. tell everyone that I'm NOT him?? Just please, give me a chance, sounds like this guy doesn't care if he has to make another account, I do. I don't want to lose my list of contributions that I spent hours upon hours doing. How about comparing other things, such as my talk page with his, how much I've "talked" with other users, like that in the Smashing Pumpkins Oceania' page. Look hard at my edits (NOT Chinatown, since that's apparently too 'similar'), the notes on the changes I made, you'll see clearly I'm an honest user, and surely such patterns won't match up with this guy. Sorry I was only trying to help. Awaiting response from Thmc1 MusikAnimal (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Nyc88 already said here that I have no connection with him. I don't know how to prove myself any further? It should also be noted that I have only one article in common with these people, Chinatown Manhattan. Also I didn't actually change anything on the NoLita article (check it). The only other NYC edits I made were on the DUMBO article, where I added a "citation needed", Lower East Side (small grammar correction), Lorimer St (minor grammer), and finally Civic Center (actually wikifying the article, though not improving by providing any references). Almost ALL of my other edits are music-related. What about these other guys? Nope. Anyways, lesson learned - don't try to improve grammar, reword, or even reorganize any parts of articles that are marked as containing original research. Yeah? OK that makes sense. Only try to remove or correct the original research. In hindsight that is clearly the more meaningful edit. Just know that all I was trying to do was help MusikAnimal (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SysAdmin, also notice how peculiar MusikAnimal removes referenced info of Manhattan's demotion as NY's largest Chinatown w/out counter reference, the bread & butter M.O. typical of Thmc1's(Nyc88) style of editing.MBaxter1 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are unbelievable. Looking at your contribution history, you've been tracking down this thmc1 vandalism since you first signed on. And hey, power to you, but you need to try to do a little bit of a better job, you are being way too cynical. Adding me as a suspect based on a few similar edits is one thing, but to ignore and even humiliate me after I try to defend myself, come on. You say I made my first edit 3 days after the other guy got blocked, my account was created in 2010. My well known alias, MusikAnimal, is present on many many many sites out there. My Twitter (@MusikAnimal) was created in what, 2010? My Facebook username (the same) created when the username was first introduced in what, 2009? My StackOverflow, XDA, LinkedIn, they're all the same username. Point being it's VERY unlikely this guy decided to not only add a new user on Wikipedia, but every single other account he has out there. Right? MOST of my edits on Chinatown were fixing the format of the references, which would support my claim that I was merely trying to clean up the article in general. Yes, I was reorganizing original research, not realizing it. OK. Lesson learned. It should have just been questioned or even removed, not move it around like it's something factual. No idea if NYC88 is the same guy or not either, but I feel like you're being quick to judge him as well. "Bread and butter MO of thmc1"... I'm wondering if anyone is even taking you seriously?? I'm trying to find an impartial mediator on this, I'll be speaking with other administrators on IRC. This is insane that I even have to do this. MusikAnimal (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing, I do remember removing that reference. I think it was present somewhere else, a lot of stuff was repeated which was some of what I was trying to do. Removing that reference may have been wrong, but that's not what this case is about, it's about whether or not I'm sockpuppeting, which I'm NOT. PLENTY of evidence pointing to me being a separate, honest contributor. Look past the Chinatown article for once.... we're trying to see if I'm the same person as Thmc1, not point out all my mistakes in this one article he vandalized MusikAnimal (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to pay closer attention to the edits I have been making. The only edits I have made were only in articles of NYC neighborhoods and only about growing Chinese populations and businesses in those areas. I don't even have good knowledge about other areas outside of NYC to make edits and I don't have much knowledge about the Chinese enclaves/populations in areas outside NYC. I have no association to any accounts. This is actually my first wikipedia account and I only edit logging into my account and I personally never do any edits without logging into my account. I don't use any other wiki accounts. There are differences in the contributions I have made. I contributed a lot of deep information with references to back it up that I thought could be interesting and useful to learn about the NYC Chinese enclaves and other related details that no other users have ever contributed to in those articles.
  • Like what I contributed to the Chinatown, Manhattan and East Broadway (Manhattan) articles that once had movie theaters. I went into details about the relations and differences between two major Chinese groups like the Cantonese and Fujianese immigrants, famous early Chinese businesses and current ones, community services, and educational services in those articles as well as in the Chinatown, Brooklyn and Mott Street (Manhattan) articles including why the Cantonese and Fujianese are subdivided communities within Manhattan's Chinatown.
  • I also even went into adding more deeper details about the smaller developing Chinese enclaves or populations in Elmhurst, Queens, Homecrest, Brooklyn, and Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. The reason why I added information to those developing Chinese enclaves is because there was already existing information in those articles about them and I decided to add more to them with references, which I thought could be useful and interesting to learn like about the community services they have and how there is only one Chinese bank in each Homecrest's and Elmhurst's Chinese enclave serving as the only bank for those growing Chinese enclaves. And since I noticed they did not have references, I decided to add them in.
  • At times, I make edits to make the paragraphs clearer and organized, correcting grammar, and making better clarity. That is it.
  • And you need to pay closer attention to the info about Manhattan's demotion as NY's largest Chinatown. I am the one who added that in, once again with reference. Originally I named the paragraph as "Manhattan's Chinatown Goes From Being Rank 1 to Rank 3 As The Largest Chinatown In New York City". And then some other user changed the title. Why would I add it and then remove it? As a matter of fact, I did not even know that it was removed.
  • I am the one who renamed that paragraph. I simply felt the original title was a bit too long. I did not question the accuracy of it's content. If my memory serves me correct, some information in that paragraph was repeated, almost word for word in other parts of the article. I don't recall removing anything in this article except for repeats. MusikAnimal (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no intention of vandalizing. I only intend to help contribute more details with references to articles that are about NYC neighborhoods that are experiencing growing Chinese populations/enclaves and businesses. All I want to do is improve on how I can be a good contributor.

NYC88 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • MusikAnimal speaking... if this helps, this my old account on Wikipedia Fiend666x. This doesn't say much other than that I already had an active account, with no reason to make a new one other than the fact I wanted this username. E.g. MusikAnimal was not created for the intention of sockpuppetry (apparently you have to request a username change, with a required X number of edits on the account, which I didn't have). Note fiend666x was used primarily when I still resided in Charlotte, NC (and other locations in NC). I moved to NYC last year. Fiend666x (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MusikAnimal- I was trying to prove a point as the similarities are striking. If you are who you really are, then will be exonerated. In the meantime, just go about your business as usual. It also doesn't help your cause to argue on behalf of Thmc1 while he isn't saying much.MBaxter1 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SysAdmin, there's a good possibility that MusikAnimal may not have anything to do with Thmc1 at all. In addition to permanently blocking Nyc88 and the IPs listed above, the best course of action now would be to block any other IPs used by that account, as well as any other accounts affiliated wih them. MBaxter1 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
As posted on my talkpage, Please understand that this is purely a technical result given with the assistance of the CheckUser tool. Then, the closing administrator will have to evalute the behavior through the diffs given by you. It's proper custom at SPI for someone to review the material who did not run the check, and that's for several reasons. Don't worry, your case is not close to being closed, someone is still going to look at your diffs and come to their own result. I only use your diffs to justify a Checkuser per the Privacy policy. If you look at SPI procedures, you will find the list on the right, which has a label "Specific to CheckUser" and those are to indicate the technical evidence only or a procedural change of the case status. No one other except checkusers should be using those templates. I hope this helps your understanding and answers your questions. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thmc1
Edits articles about districts of NYC esp. Chinatown in Manhattan , Brooklyn, and Flushing
Began editing on 16 August 2009. Was blocked on 4 June 2010
  • Nyc88
Edits exclusively articles about districts of NYC esp. Chinatown in Brooklyn, Mahattan, and Flushing;
Began editing on 4 June 2010 - the day Thmc1 was blocked. Most recent edit 24 July 2012.
  • MusikAnimal
Edits articles about districts of NYC esp. Chinatown in Manhattan, and Little Italy
Began editing on 6 July 2011
  • 173.63.176.93
Edits articles about Chinatown in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and San Francisco. Currently writing about metro systems and rapid transist (NYC)
Began editing on 20 May 2012
Broadband, static. ISP Verizon FIOS. Geolocates to Plaza RD/Fair Lawn, NJ, not really far from Manhattan
  • 74.88.160.244
Edits articles about Chinatown Manhattan and makes reports of Vandalism/Socks
Began editing 7 January 2012. Only 8 edits up to 29 June (last edit)
Broadband, static, ISP Optimum Online. Geolocates to Westwood, NJ 07675, not really far from Manhattan
  • For the record:
From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1/Archive I'll also mention User:96.242.217.91 (static broadband, ISP Verizon FiOS), because it geolocates to Elmwood Park, only 8 minutes from Fair lawns and only 16 minutes from Westwood, although not edited since 2 October 2010, and that User:151.198.55.159 (not edited since 3 April 2011) also edits articles on Chinatown, Manhattan, and which is the IP of Bergen County Cooperative Library located at Garfield NJ, only 7 minutes from Elmwood Park.
  • Conclusions:
  1. Nyc88 is clearly a block evasion account of Thmc1
  2. Locations: Westwood, Fair Lawn, and Elmwood Park are close to Highway 17 on opposite sides of it and the locations are only 8 - 17 minutes apart by car.
  3. Based on the evidence, I particulary find the NJ locations, the similarity, and the timing of edits are all too close for coincidence. I am blocking warning the named accounts, and blocking 173.63.176.93, and 74.88.160.244.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have rechecked with the new edits and modified my result above as a mistake, but it really doesn't change much to the result. I underlined what I added (clarified), scratched what was wrong. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thmc1/Archive&oldid=1079419893"
  NODES
admin 15
Association 2
COMMUNITY 5
Idea 1
idea 1
Note 9
Project 1
twitter 2
USERS 18