Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Linux monster

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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 detailed instructions.

User:Linux monster[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Linux monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Stanlys212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WatchedHim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yo r W rst Ni ht are (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ScienceArtz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Smurf noodle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Dall ben 08:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

On 17:51, 22 November 2006, I nominated the article Bryan Brandenburg for deletion after discussing the page with another editor (see the now closed AfD discussion page). This was my first AfD, but I tried to research the guidelines and follow procedure as closely as possible. On 22:12, 25 November 2006, Linux monster (which was a brand new user then and now is clearly an SPA) posted a response to the discussion. I replied, stating my views, participating in the discussion. Linux monster seemed to know more about the article's subject, so I asked for more information. Linux monster also posted several links, which I examined and summarized on the article's talk page (now archived).

After I posted my analysis of Linux monster's submitted links, another brand new user, WatchedHim, altered my talk entry on the subject's talk page (see history at 05:44, 1 December 2006). I reverted the edits and informed WatchedHim of Wikipedia talk page guidelines on her/his talk page. Shortly after my revert of WatchedHim's edits, yet another brand new user (Stanlys212) pasted the reverted WatchedHim edits as a new section of the talk page, now available here.

After a previous editor to the Brandenburg article added his voice to the discussion (18:27, 27 November 2006), yet another brand new user (Smurf noodle) chimed in with a "ditto" response. The number of brand new users contributing seemed a bit suspicious and I was concerned that the closing admin might only look at the number of votes instead of the value of the discussion. So, I sent a message to another AfD participant, Doc Tropics, expressing my concern (see our discussion on his talk page).

After I wrote Doc Tropics about the brand new user accounts, he posted suspected SPA notices after the contributions of the brand new accounts (16:06, 1 December 2006). Shortly thereafter (18:01, 1 December 2006), Stanlys212 posted a similar such notice, questioning my (Dallben) legitimacy (even though I was also actively participating in other pages--mostly gnoming, I admit). Doc Tropics reverted the notice, citing bad faith and a bit of an argument ensued between them (see this discussion on Doc Tropics's talk page).

The AfD discussion was relisted to incite more discussion (23:10, 1 December 2006). After relisting, Stanlys212 actively recruited other editors to participate in the AfD (see his contribs from 22:57, 3 December 2006 through 23:18, 3 December 2006). Doc Tropics noticed the behavior and posted a notice about the activity for the supervising administrator (see the AfD discussion 00:51, 4 December 2006). After the posting Stanlys212 ceased this activity, but Linux monster picked right up where Stanlys212 left off (see his contribs from 00:09, 5 December 2006 to 00:57, 5 December 2006). The recruited editors mostly voted in favor of the article and the discussion was closed and kept by an admin whom Linux monster recruited (11:20, 5 December 2006).

After the AfD discussion closed and since I'd done a lot of research on the article's subject, I created a user subpage (which I've since had speedy deleted) to attempt to rewrite the article (as directed by the discussion). Shortly thereafter, Linux monster contacted the admin that closed the AfD (see his talk page). In that discussion, Linux monster makes an odd connection between me (Dallben) and Brandenburg's former employer, Zygote Media Group, suggesting some kind of bad blood between the two--of which I can find no evidence. Curious about this reasoning, I browsed through the history of the Zygote Media Group page, looking for similar SPAs. In so doing, I encoutered ScienceArtz who claims to be Brandenburg and, in a discussion with an admin (01:41, 30 November 2006) also, curiously, claims that I was connected to Zygote after seeing the deletion nomination.

Curiously, on my user subpage (which I should have kept around--hopefully you admins are capable of still looking at it), I cited a link to a webpage that is apparently controlled by Brandenburg to promote one of his books. I was subsequently surprised to discover that the page was changed the same day I accessed it. You can compare versions by looking at the cached and current versions of this Yahoo! search. It was after this change that I discovered I was being monitored by Linux monster and so I speedy deleted my rewrite subpage.

Today at 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC), I received a suspicious note and apparent threat on my user talk page, posted by yet another brand new user account, Yo r W rst Ni ht are. Since I am new to wikipedia and since the suspected sock-puppets are the only users showing any animosity toward me, I can only conclude that this new account corresponds to the group.

Summary

The edits of the suspected accounts occur at disjoint time intervals, exhibiting bursts of activity during specific periods (Users Stanlys212 and Linux monster are the most obvious).
Each of the accounts is clearly single purpose, making no edits outside of this issue (ScienceArtz excepted, although s/he arguably may be considered SPA by promoting Brandenburg).
The editor recruitement strategy of Stanlys212 and Linux monster are surprisingly similar and occur one after the other, respectively.
Linux monster and ScienceArtz (who claims to be Brandenburg) both seem to possess similar inside information about bad-blood between Brandenburg and his former company. Both accounts connect my account with that company.
Linux monster has clearly been monitoring my user page, but a separate webpage that is administered by Brandenburg was changed in response to my edits.
Users Stanlys212, Linux monster, ScienceArtz and Yo r W rst Ni ht are all exhibit similar animosity toward my user account and my participation in the AfD.
Brandenburg is the most likely individual interested in affecting the AfD--other editors in the discussion observed that the article was composed by Brandenburg himself. Thus, he has the clearest modus operandi.
Several of the suspected sock puppets clearly had an effect on the AfD outcome, since the majority of editors contributing to the discussion were recruited by them. In addition, the AfD was closed by an admin that was recruited by one of the suspected sock puppet accounts.

Finally, sorry if this is terribly long—this is the first time I've written one of these (I hope it's the last time too). Thanks for your patience.

Dall ben 08:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Breaking Evidence

A checkuser request that I issued confirmed that Linux monster, Stanlys212, Yo r W rst Ni ht are, and ScienceArtz are the same person. It also confirmed that Smurf noodle and WatchedHim are the same person. The check could not confirm a relation between the two groups.

Dall ben 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Conclusions

First, a disclaimer. I was asked to participate or comment on the AfD in question on my talk page in what is now User_talk:AnonEMouse/Archive_6#AFd_Request, originally by User:Linux monster (don't know why he chose me), later by User:Doc Tropics (who had interacted with me before). I didn't get to the AfD until after it closed, and didn't express a particularly strong opinion either way, so don't consider myself biased, but thought it should be mentioned.

Now the closing. Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Linux monster the case is proven. I will block all but one account. Smurf noodle and WatchedHim are nont-particularly-useful-single-edit accounts, so I am not deeply troubled by the check user being inconclusive linking them to the earlier ones, and will consider them part of the same family. I am choosing User:ScienceArtz to leave unblocked, as the oldest account, and the only one which is not a single purpose account.

I am, however, deeply worried by the apparent threat from User:Yo r W rst Ni ht are, in combination to the disruptive sockpuppetry, so came quite close to blocking absolutely all of them, stopping only due to noticing that they have been inactive for a month, and ScienceArtz did make some apparently useful edits elsewhere. Threats are absolutely not acceptable. If there are any other threats from this account or sockpuppets of this account, it will be blocked indefinitely, and further sockpuppets may be blocked on sight. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]