Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown: Difference between revisions

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• McQueen.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mrs. Meltdown (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Coonman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

After a discussion didn't go his way, Atomic Meltdown had an atomic meltdown and retired himself here. Yesterday, SPA Mrs. Meltdown pasted a deceased template on Atomic's user page here. I reverted that as dubious, as WP:DWG had not been followed, and deceased templates are often misused.

My edit was reverted without explanation by McQueen.30 in this edit. McQueen's account was created March 21, 2015, a few days after Atomic retired. Atomic Meltdown and McQueen.30 have numerous intersecting interests and there is a striking similarity between their user pages (Atomic / McQueen) including an Apprentice Star that McQueen hadn't earned yet. Probably copy/pasted it from Atomic's page.

All parties have already been blocked by some combination of @Euryalus, Kww, Bishonen, and Ponyo: This report is more of a formality so that if new socks spring up (please, Atomic, drop the stick...) the info is here. I'll also point out that in November 2014 Atomic had been implicated as a sockpuppet of Monterrosa by editor Winkelvi, so it might be worth checking these socks against those other socks, in case Atomic isn't the umbrella account.

Related ANI report here (hasn't been closed/archived yet) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure if Atomic Meltdown is the same person as Monterrosa, but if so, this means we'll have to deal with more socks for quite some time given Monterrosa's persistent socking over several months. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking just at Monterrosa's edit history, I see not only a common field of interest (contemporary Hollywood), but also a shared approach to occupations in ledes/infoboxes (list every job they've ever done), and an equal level of Talk activity (none). It appears that a lot of the run-on-sentence resumés that I took a red pen to were built by Monterrosa, so this hypothesis would explain why Atomic McQueen was so protective of them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Coonman" came to my talk page yesterday and reiterated several times the he was "new". When someone is that persistent in letting editors know they are new, usually something's fishy. I wasn't surprised to find out Coonman was likely Atomic Meltdown. Further, I've known for some time that Atomic and Monterrosa are one in the same, however, I was basically told to eff-off with my non-evidence by the clerk in November 2014. So, how much damage has Atomic done since his account was opened and the possibility that AM is a Monterrosa sock was brought to the attention of an admin/clerk here at SPI? Seems pretty sizable to me, looking back on the history. After the last Monterrosa sock report I filed was curtly brushed off, I decided I no longer gave a flip, because it was obvious those who are supposed to be uber-stewards of Wikipedia didn't give a flip. I'll just say one thing in regard to this report if it turns out AM and Monterrosa are the same: told you so - months ago. So, could someone please pay attention NOW and block his ass this time for good? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Meltdown was already blocked last month, Winkelvi, we're just looking for evidence of connection to Monterrosa and maybe any additional sleepers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know. Like I said, my SPI report was dismissed as not containing enough evidence and it was closed with no check done whatsoever. After that, I decided to stop caring if Monterrosa was still socking. At that point, I took AM off my watchlist, hence, not knowing he is already blocked. The previous evidence I presented in November 2014 is still there, if anyone is interested at looking into it. I'm not interested in being told I'm a failure at gathering SPI evidence again, so whomever wants to have at it is welcome to do so. Here's the link to the November report: [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of accuracy, Bbb23 asked you for diffs to support your assertions, which most of us are required to provide. The objection at the time was that you'd provided editor interaction reports, which are useful to supplement sock reports, but diffs are far stronger for showing behavioral similarities upon which admins and CheckUsers may act. To put it in perspective, I have a ton of interactions with Geraldo Perez, but we are not the same person. Let's please keep in mind that CheckUsers need good reason to dig around in sensitive data, and oftentimes we get challenges to provide more detail, even if it's unsatisfying. Sucks, but that's part of what we do, and nobody told you to fuck off, not even a little. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was figurative, not literal, Cyphoidbomb. Regardless, the numerous Monterrosa sock reports I had brought here previously didn't need the kind of evidence that was being asked for the last report I filed - and all the others were CU'd, confirmed, and tagged. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points noted, and no disrespect was intended. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These edits [2][3] by User:Film Guy on Wiki, an account created on 25 April 2015, is typical of reverts by McQueen.30. This "new" editor, who has already been warned about edit-warring, also shows fairly specific common interests with McQueen.30 [4] and Atomic Meltdown [5] I'd like an opinion on whether this is another sock. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the edit warring notice, I became suspicious myself after seeing the user's edits to Stephen Colbert. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tagged him as suspected. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same articles. The same behavior. It's him. [6][7] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but is there something one needs to do so that something happens in a sockpuppet investigation? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Often it's a matter of waiting. If a backlog at SPI starts to build up, I sometimes go to WP:AN and poke the admins. This is sometimes frustrating, as vandalism does require swift movement, but whattayagonnado? Admins get swamped. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The socks in the Monterrosa case are  Stale,however based on what I can cobble together from the SPI and logs, it's certainly  Possible that the two groups are related. DoRD may have additional info available as he ran a number of checks in the Monterrosa SPI. A thorough behavioural check may also be helpful.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinged but not much to add. Coonman is  Technically indistinguishable from McQueen.30, which is confirmed as Atomic Meltdown. Am not familiar with Monterrosa. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: @JasonAQuest and SNUGGUMS: Please, provide WP:diffs of edits made by Film Guy on Wiki and diffs of edits made by master/socks, and explain how are they similar. @JasonAQuest: Please, don't tag users as socks, it's not useful at all per WP:DENY. Leave that to admins and clerks. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]