Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shutterbug

Shutterbug (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Cirt [edit]
Sock account evidence
  1. Shutterbug (talk · contribs) -- edit to a Scientology-related article (Scientology), removing a link to "http://www.xenu.net/archive/lrhbare/lrhbare08.html", and changing it to "http://www._vetted_.net/archive/lrhbare/lrhbare08.html". [1]
  2. Wobblegenerator (talk · contribs) -- edit to a Scientology-related article (David Miscavige), removing a link to "http://www.xenu-directory.net/scienos/david_miscavige1.html", and changing it to "http://www._vetted_-directory.net/scienos/david_miscavige1.html". Also removes word "Xenu" from the link description. [2]
NOTE - Violation of ArbCom remedies from WP:ARBSCI
  1. Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted
  2. Account limitation
  3. Editors instructed

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

I'm saying this is obvious, as the evidence shows. I believe he is guilty. Old Al (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Upon request I looked over the evidence and Shutterbugs old edits. In the end I think there is enough evidence to verify the connection and am blocking User:Wobblegenerator for the violation. At the moment I'm not blocking User:Shutterbug but will run it by other admins or arbcom members to see if that would be necessary. Suspected Sock tag was already placed by another party, I've left block notice and logged the block on the case enforcement log. James (T C) 19:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive Wobblegenerator operating from open proxy, so it cannot be conclusively linked to Shutterbug on the technical end. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is a violation of WP:ARBSCI. For past history of sock info related to Shutterbug, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS#Update:_Additional_confirmations_in_COFS_checkuser_case. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
24 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Cirt [edit]

Block evasion. Violation of multiple sections of WP:ARBSCI, notably restrictions on multiple accounts, and restrictions on use of open proxies and disclosure of Church of Scientology-controlled IPs and managed sock accounts.

  1. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk · contribs) -- spam/promo at article on leader of Church of Scientology, example includes, [3]
  2. JessaRinaldi (talk · contribs) -- Blocked for violations of WP:BLP policy, on page on critic of Scientology, [4]
  3. Whoismarty (talk · contribs) -- Blocked for violations of WP:BLP on Scientology critic article page, [5]
  4. Johnalexwood (talk · contribs) -- Prior block for use of non reliable sources on WP:BLP pages within Scientology topic, [6]
  5. Monsignore (talk · contribs) -- Removal of links to subject's website, on article about Scientology critic, [7]
  6. MrSimmonds (talk · contribs) -- Removal of subject's own blog from article about subject, who is a Scientology critic [8]
  7. Jimgreensboro (talk · contribs) -- Additions of primary-sourced-Church of Scientology-material and promotional webpages, to article on Scientology spokesperson [9]
  8. Jbsweden9 (talk · contribs) -- Blocked, for using Wikipedia for spam/advertising, removing critical content about Scientology across multiple pages [10]
  9. Fairyday (talk · contribs) -- Page blanking, removal of sourced (critical) content from Scientology article, example, [11]

Most likely that most, if not all, of these accounts, have used forms of technical IP usage which violates WP:ARBSCI. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If not Shutterbug (talk · contribs), some of these accounts may also be tied with technical data correlations to another sockmaster on Scientology topic, that of banned user DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 24 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]
  •  Confirmed the following as one user:
  1. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. JessaRinaldi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also  Confirmed the following as one user:

  1. MrSimmonds (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Mike Greenwood (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Monsignore (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Jimgreensboro (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It appears that these two groups of users are Red X Unrelated. No open proxies as far as I can tell, just a lot of mobile editing, which makes it harder to connect the accounts to each other. The first group of users could be related to Shutterbug based on geolocation of IPs, but again, it's nothing concrete. Fairyday (talk · contribs) appears Red X Unrelated to any of the above users, but could be Shutterbug based on location. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jbsweden9 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be using Scientology opened IP addresses and I have reblocked under WP:ARBSCI. However lacking a connection to the rest of the accounts it doesn't really help much. Brandon (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All accounts have been blocked by others, with the exception of Johnalexwood, who is stale. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Cirt [edit]
Mariomedici707 evidence
  1. Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) repeating edits of  Confirmed blocked sock, AlexJohnTorres12 (talk · contribs). Compare edit by Mariomedici707 (note word "renaissance" added, in quotes, to the article) 00:33, 19 October 2010, with prior edits by the already-blocked-sock: 17:15, 20 August 2010 and 22:30, 25 August 2010
  2. Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) sets up account, new user account created on 17:30, 25 August 2010
  3. Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) then has zero edits with it until 13 September 2010 - and proceeds to make edits to other pages before arriving at topic of Scientology with page David Miscavige to make the above edit repeating pattern of AlexJohnTorres12 (talk · contribs), see Special:Contributions/Mariomedici707.
Block evasion and ban evasion
  1. This is block evasion, as Shutterbug is indef blocked [12].
  2. This is ban evasion, as Shutterbug has been community-banned after unanimous consensus from the community [13].
  3. This is a violation of ArbCom sanctions, as per WP:ARBSCI, Shutterbug has both been topic-banned indef from Scientology topics, and restricted to one account [14]. (Note that this is incidental to this proceeding, as the block evasion and violation of sanctions from the community is primary.)
Checkuser requested
  1. Checkuser is requested, to check for underlying IP and for sleeper sock accounts.
  2. Shutterbug has created sock accounts since being indef-blocked, see blocks on accounts including: Fairyday, Margaret's son, Jimgreensboro, JessaRinaldi, MrSimmonds
  3. Checkuser investigation of block evasion by Shutterbug recently has resulted in checkuser block on the underlying IP address used, see block carried out by Checkuser

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 19 October 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]

 Confirmed

All blocked & tagged. Marking for closure. Tiptoety talk 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Cirt [edit]
Evidence KarenViceroy = banned User:Shutterbug
  1. Very similar editing behavior pattern to the most recently  Confirmed blocked socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug/Archive#19_October_2010.
  2. Account created 15 July 2010
  3. Account sits dormant, sleeper sock, first edit is not until 3 August 2010
  4. Account makes about 20 edits before arriving at Scientology-related page, David Miscavige - see Special:Contributions/KarenViceroy
  5. Account adds promotional material to "Media coverage" section of article, David Miscavige - see [15]
  6. Compare with edit by most recently  Confirmed blocked sock = same topic, same article, similar style promotional edit [16]
  7. Compare with contribs of blocked sock, some edit summaries in the beginning, then none: Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) and KarenViceroy (talk · contribs).

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 21 October 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 - Could be some sleepers here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Confirmed. I don't see any sleepers, but then I'm not too surprised there. This account was partially editing from a Starbucks, and the other edits came from a very crowded range that checkuser refused to give results for until I cut it down into quarters. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Tagged and blocked. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Cirt [edit]
Sock of banned user Shutterbug (talk · contribs)
  1. Low activity sleeper account for banned User:Shutterbug — note the odd and very low pattern of contribs [17].
  2. No edits for one full year, then comes back to change link at Scientology-related article to newly created website [18]
  3. Turbotad (talk · contribs) = has made a total number of 21 edits to date - from 2006 through 2010. Of those, 76 percent are Scientology-related. [19]
Recent activity revisits page of previously blocked sock Jbsweden9 (talk · contribs)
  1. Recent edits by Turbotad (talk · contribs) are to Scientology page, Silent birth [20] [21]
  2. The page has recent history, prior to Turbotad (talk · contribs), of being vandalized by a blocked-sock of User:Shutterbug = Jbsweden9 (talk · contribs) [22] [23] [24], see block log
Early spam link history from 2006
  1. Very first edit from 2006 is to spam links to Scientology-related websites into articles [25]
  2. Subsequent edits in 2006 carry out same pattern of spamming links to Scientology websites [26][27][28][29][30]
  3. Spams link to Volunteer Ministers front group of Scientology to article Hurricane Katrina [31]
  4. The spamming is as obscure as to add link to Scientology organization at page Martin, Slovakia [32]
  5. Subtle concealed spamming to Scientology front group in edit at Cyclone Larry, masking it as a "Disaster response team" [33]
Block evasion, ban evasion, use of sock account in violation of sanctions
  1. User:Shutterbug is indef blocked, this is block evasion [34].
  2. User:Shutterbug is community-banned, this is ban evasion [35].
  3. User:Shutterbug is restricted to one account, this is violation of ArbCom sanctions [36].

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom update [edit]
  • Following receipt of credible fresh evidence, the Arbitration Committee en banc has today vacated the decision above and unblocked the editor without restriction.  Roger talk 10:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
03 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Use of multiple IPs to evade ban and indef block of banned account Shutterbug (talk · contribs)
  1. 64.134.220.232 (talk · contribs) = only one edit, edit is to Scientology topic, edit is to page of leader of the organization, David Miscavige - spam and promotional material only, see diff link
  2. 134.71.95.197 (talk · contribs) = only one edit, edit is to Scientology topic, edit is to page of leader of the organization, David Miscavige - spam and promotional material only, see diff link
  3. 202.143.140.250 (talk · contribs) = only one edit, edit is to Scientology topic, edit is to page of leader of the organization, David Miscavige - spam and promotional material only, see diff link
Prior pattern of socking at the exact same page
  1. Prior pattern of checkuser  Confirmed socking at the exact same page, David Miscavige
  2. KarenViceroy (talk · contribs) = blocked for socking, edited the same page, see diff link
  3. Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) = blocked for socking, edited the same page, see diff link
Block evasion, ban evasion, use of sock account in violation of sanctions
  1. User:Shutterbug is indef blocked, this is block evasion [37].
  2. User:Shutterbug is community-banned, this is ban evasion [38].
  3. User:Shutterbug is restricted to one account, this is violation of ArbCom sanctions [39].

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 23:38, 3 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]

 Clerk note: 202.143.140.250 has a lot of hits on being an open proxy. It was also blocked previously as an open proxy. Could some please check if this is an open proxy? Elockid (Talk) 23:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the other IPs? Elockid (Talk) 23:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
202. is still an open proxy, reblocked. Nakon 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 64. is part of Wayport, Inc., while the other resolves to a university. Nakon 00:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can the other two IPs be blocked, under above behavioral evidence, as socks of banned User:Shutterbug? They engaged in same behavior, at exact same page, as the now blocked (again) IP proxy. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and logged. Nakon 01:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Sock of banned user Shutterbug
  1. See prior evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug/Archive
  2. Exact same behavior pattern.
  3. Creates account, edits to get past semi-protection, shows up at exact same article = David Miscavige
  4. Edits article to add same promotional material pushed out by the Scientology organization [40]
Prior pattern of socking at the exact same page
  1. Prior pattern of checkuser  Confirmed socking at the exact same page, David Miscavige
  2. KarenViceroy (talk · contribs) = blocked for socking, edited the same page, see diff link
  3. Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) = blocked for socking, edited the same page, see diff link
Block evasion, ban evasion, use of sock account in violation of sanctions
  1. User:Shutterbug is indef blocked, this is block evasion [41].
  2. User:Shutterbug is community-banned, this is ban evasion [42].
  3. User:Shutterbug is restricted to one account, this is violation of ArbCom sanctions [43].

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 12 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]

KentKnight007 is  Confirmed. Slobeachboy is Red X Unrelated. –MuZemike 19:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Renewed socking by banned user Shutterbug
  1. RobinHoudt - account created in May 2009, at conclusion of Scientology ArbCom case = [44]
  2. RobinHoudt - clearly experienced account, first edits are to userpage, monobook, etc [45]
  3. RobinHoudt - After minor edits and sleeper account edits, comes to Scientology page [46]
  4. John lilburne - clearly experienced account, 2nd edit ever is to AFD page [47]
  5. John lilburne - creates userpage, one-line entry to make it blue, 18 December 2010 [48]
  6. John lilburne - next edit after userpage creation is to comment at Scientology AFD [49]
Block evasion, ban evasion, use of sock account in violation of sanctions
  1. User:Shutterbug is indef blocked, this is block evasion [50].
  2. User:Shutterbug is community-banned, this is ban evasion [51].
  3. User:Shutterbug is restricted to one account, this is violation of ArbCom sanctions [52].

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Lovely, Shutterbug is toying with me, Can we expedite this? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, WP:AGF can make dupes of us all at times The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

- Alison ❤ 03:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the underlying IPs to see if there proxys? these sleeper accounts are very Shutterbug (talk · contribs) like The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, I blocked him for this edit; it struck me as a bit of mockery. But I was wrong, so I would've unblocked if you hadn't already. Apologies to all. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)-[reply]
I see you say Allison checked in edit summary. Thanx again for your time The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non of the underlying IPs are proxies. They're quite distinctive, in fact. Both of the above editors are very clearly geolocated in two separate European nations, which is all I wish to say, per privacy policy. I know what ShutterBug is like & I just cross-referenced one or two already confirmed accounts, and these two accounts are simply Red X Unrelated. The first guy - RobinHoudt - has only made one, largely innocuous edit in the past few months. Blocking User:John_lilburne for his one, wry comment, was a clear overreaction - Alison ❤ 03:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

  1. Account registered shortly after conclusion of Scientology case, sleeper sock account. [53]
  2. Edits turn user page blue, create sleeper account and then immediately create userpage [54]
  3. Knowledge of wiki coding by 2nd edit, wikified userpage to link to Scientology, [55]. -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 26 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]
  • As this account is  Stale, there's nothing that Checkuser can do here, sorry - Alison ❤ 14:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the check, though one was not requested in this particular case. The reviewing admins can decide what to do with the sock sleeper account, based on behavioral evidence and similar patterns from previously blocked sleeper sock accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I'm going to leave the account alone for now. If it starts editing again then relist it, but I'd rather not act on an account that hasn't edited in 18 months. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
03 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Sock of banned user Shutterbug
  1. See prior evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug/Archive
  2. Similar behavior pattern.
  3. Creates account, edits a few times, then shows up at page, David Miscavige.
  4. Please compare diff link, with edits below by (blocked) socks including KarenViceroy (talk · contribs) and Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) at the exact same page.
  5. WP:SPA account, only created for usage as sleeper/throwaway account by Shutterbug on this topic, see Special:Contributions/NestleNW911
  6. Sleeper account, prior wiki experience, very first edit is to create userpage, [56], 2nd edit is to join a WikiProject (Scientology project), diff link
Prior pattern of socking at the exact same page
  1. Prior pattern of checkuser  Confirmed socking at the exact same page, David Miscavige
  2. KarenViceroy (talk · contribs) = blocked for socking, edited the same page, see diff link
  3. Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) = blocked for socking, edited the same page, see diff link
Block evasion, ban evasion, use of sock account in violation of sanctions
  1. User:Shutterbug is indef blocked, this is block evasion [57].
  2. User:Shutterbug is community-banned, this is ban evasion [58].
  3. User:Shutterbug is restricted to one account, this is violation of ArbCom sanctions [59].

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 08:57, 3 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]
I only gained checkuser a few days ago, so my findings probably should be checked by someone more experienced, however, it seems there could be a possible match between NestleNW911 (talk · contribs) and KarenViceroy (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also see a  Possible connection between the two. I can add, it's  Likely Akwyoung (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the same as KarenViceroy (talk · contribs). TNXMan 20:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I'm calling it. Based on behavioral evidence, I've blocked NestleNW911. And I blocked the likely account that Tnxman found. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 February 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Showed up with extremely low edit count to L. Ron Hubbard FAR

As with every shutter bug request

Block evasion, ban evasion, use of sock account in violation of sanctions
  1. User:Shutterbug is indef blocked, this is block evasion [60].
  2. User:Shutterbug is community-banned, this is ban evasion [61].
  3. User:Shutterbug is restricted to one account, this is violation of ArbCom sanctions [62].

Edit pattern and pro-scientology relate to similiar pattern of Scientology sleepers of amassing a few dozen edits and bee-lining to Scientology subject The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:44, 16 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]

 Unlikely to be Shutterbug or KarenViceroy. Quantumsilverfish's IP geolocates more than 3000 km away from both. Unusual user agents, though. I'm not going to say this is totally impossible, just close to it. J.delanoygabsadds 23:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sock is actually a rather old account. Without further evidence actually connecting behavior, I'm closing with no action. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


1 May 2011 [edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Sock of banned user Shutterbug
  1. See prior evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug/Archive
  2. See prior sock ban at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug/Archive#03 January 2011
  3. See overturn of ban discussion.
  4. Similar behavior pattern.
  5. First edit is to user page to avoid red account, followed by adding name to Wikiproject Scientology/Participants
  6. forth edit ever, added him/herself to WP:Neutralit in Scientology project.
  7. Blocked for possible socking, but block overturned by User:HJ Mitchell on 12 January 2011 due to "behavior seems different to all the other Shutterbug socks" User:NestleNW911 made claim that "I have not made a single Scientology page edit."
  8. since block was overturned due to "behavior seems different", focuses on L. Ron. Hubbard and David Miscavige pages exclusively including several WP:COPYPASTE violations coming from Scientology main pages.
  9. Please compare diff link, with edits below by (blocked) socks including KarenViceroy (talk · contribs) and Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) at the exact same page.
  10. focuses on deleting the "Tom Cruise confessional files" section from David Miscavige using similar arguments as blocked sock Wobblegenerator (talk · contribs)
  11. Checkuser confirmed  Possible connection.
Prior pattern of socking at the exact same page
  1. Prior pattern of checkuser  Confirmed socking at the exact same page, David Miscavige
  2. KarenViceroy (talk · contribs) = blocked for socking, edited the same page, see diff link
  3. Mariomedici707 (talk · contribs) = blocked for socking, edited the same page, see diff link
Block evasion, ban evasion, use of sock account in violation of sanctions
  1. User:Shutterbug is indef blocked, this is block evasion [63].
  2. User:Shutterbug is community-banned, this is ban evasion [64].
  3. User:Shutterbug is restricted to one account, this is violation of ArbCom sanctions [65].

Thank you Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. If memory serves at the time of the last CU, Nestle had only made a couple of edits and as blocked in relationship to the CU under possible. An WP:AN thread followed in which Nestle was unblocked after an unblock request. There several anomalies at the time of Block compared to past Shutterbug socks...

  1. Nestle openly declared their relationship as CoS member (No sock had ever made anything sort of declaration)
  2. Nestle seemed to edit in good faith often beginning with talk page discussions of intentions (Sock usually just added stuff)
  3. Nestle's WP:COMPETENCE level is far below that of past socks
  4. Shutterbug sock have never placed an unblock request after an SPI block

These initially tended to give me hope that this was a case of friendly fire and the  Possible as TNXMan noted came from large city where plausible they were not the same individual. CoffeePusher has now outlined Behavioral Pattern extremely similar to past attempts by Shutterbug accounts thus despite the Caveats I have mentioned above I am leaning more in favor of action here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've perused the "guidance" page on Sockpuppet investigations and I would like to highlight a couple of points here that apply to my case:

First: "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse-nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." Answering the question, "what qualifies as abusive sock puppetry?", we find: "A sockpuppet inquiry case may only be opened if there is evidence or good cause to suspect that there has been abuse of multiple accounts, or IPs."

Most of the evidence listed here is circumstantial. The definition of circumstantial evidence in Wikipedia is: "Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact." The determination of a "possible connection" to Shutterbug is based on mere inference. There is no conclusive evidence that shows that I have "abused multiple accounts or IP's." Furthermore, I have used my account with diligence and care. As emphasized by Resident Anthropologist, I have openly declared my affiliation from the very beginning and have complied with Wikipedia policy every step of the way. I made sure that I opened up my proposed edits for discussion before posting them, and always allowed ample time, generally several days, for admins to respond before I make a bold move (WP:BOLD) and apply it. I have also made sure that all my edits are backed up with reliable sources, sometimes even using the references that have already been cited by other Wikipedians.

Regarding the WP:COPYPASTE violations. CoffeePusher insists that I've had "several WP:COPYPASTE violations." Admittedly, I made the first error of posting text would violate WP:COPYPASTE. However, after the first warning by CoffeePusher, I diligently revised my text based on my understanding of the policy. I communicated with CoffeePusher the whole time. The recent text I posted fully complies with WP:COPYPASTE and is backed up by reliable sources. I tried my hardest to comply with CoffeePusher's emphasis on this policy. Furtheremore, Wikipedia actually says that I do not have to defend myself against these accusations - but I do so for clarity. The WP:COPYPASTE policy has nothing to with sockpuppetry.

I have no knowledge of "Karen Viceroy" or "MarioMedici" and do not comprehend why I am being connected to these accounts.

About the focus on deleting the "Tom Cruise confessional files." Yes, I do believe that this section should be removed, not for any other reason but to achieve WP:NPOV. I genuinely believe this is based on mere hearsay, does nothing to enhance the David Miscavige BLP, and could even have libelous consequences. Similarity in argument does not prove a direct connection to Wobble Generator -- many admins also use similar arguments to manage editing and revert edits - but this does not mean they are one person.

My focus on the David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard pages should not be taken as evidence for a "similar behavior pattern." As I've disclosed I am a Scientologist, and these are two public figures that are very important to me and to Scientology as a whole. An interest in these pages is only natural.

Second: If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly.

I have reason to believe that this accusation was made in "bad faith." At the time the case was reported, I had been communicating with CoffeePusher about applying some edits to the David Miscavige page. The edits on the "Ideal Orgs" in particular was insistently taken down. The Tom Cruise section was reinstated without sufficient reasoning. WP:BURDEN says that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I was awaiting on Coffeepusher's response to my argument, since he has the burden of evidence. Instead he brought me to a sockpuppet investigation.

I also have reason to believe that Coffeepusher was avoiding a WP:3RR violation, and resorted to a sockpuppetry report in order to deter me from editing. He would have violated the 3RR if my most recent edits was once again reverted. Furthermore, a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Coffeepusher shows that Coffeepusher has an obvious focus on policing Scientolology related articles. I have reason to believe that he has initiated the investigation out of bias.

Based on these arguments, I attest to the fact that I am not a sock of "Shutterbug."

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NestleNW911 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominemCoffeepusher (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I've re-run the checkuser and the result is pretty much the same. Based on technical evidence alone, I'd describe this as  Possible. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving a quick post to follow-up on this case. I have promptly posted my defense against the above claims, and am awaiting a decisive response from concerned admins. Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Referal to previous sockpuppets investigations

There have been two sockpuppets investigations into this user before, on January 3rd and May 1st 2011 (see prior evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug/Archive). The first investigation lead to a block but NestleNW911 succesfully requested an unblock. The second investigation was never finalized, as far as I can tell. I will not be repeating evidence of these previous investigations, but note they are still very relevant to the case.

Additional evidence
  1. Addition of promotional material in David Miscagive and Scientology. Links provided to support these edits are either Scientology press releases or newspaper articles that do not support nor contain the claimed facts.
  2. This particular argument made in the talk:David Miscavige page, makes a very strong case that NestleNW911 is not a public Scientologist, but an OSA operative. Arguably, you need access to OSA's dead agent files on Tony Ortega to make the argument forwarded by NestleNW911. Edit: I retract this argument. The examples that NestleNW911 lists to argue that Village Voice is not a reliable source can be googled.
  3. Similar edits to David Miscavige as previous sockpuppets. Compare Nestle's edit to previously confirmed socks such as KentKnight007 or Mariomedici707.
  4. I would like to reiterate the fact that Nestle's extreme focus on David Miscavige is in line with previous Shutterbug sockpuppets.
Response to previously reported anomalies.

I believe The resident anthropologist correctly noted the following anomalies in the second Shutterbug investigation (see archive):

  1. Nestle openly declared their relationship as CoS member (No sock had ever made anything sort of declaration)
  2. Nestle seemed to edit in good faith often beginning with talk page discussions of intentions (Sock usually just added stuff)
  3. Nestle's WP:COMPETENCE level is far below that of past socks
  4. Shutterbug sock have never placed an unblock request after an SPI block

I would argue that such anomalies can be easily be seen as natural evolution in a serial sockpuppetry case such as Shutterbug and that the behavioral pattern provides sufficient basis to block NestleNW911.

Disclaimer

I am a Scientology critic and not too familiar with Wikipedia's bureaucracy. I hope I have done this SPI initiation according to standards. Startwater (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

My proposition to add the section about the newly opened churches of Scientology is to fill in the information gap on this subject. The church expansion is an important event to Scientologists and I aim for that to be recognized as such. I disagree that this is promotional,- informing and promoting are two different things. Furthermore, I proposed that the information be added to the David Miscavige page, but admin Coffeepusher recommended that I post it on the Scientology page, a suggestion that I promptly applied. From the very beginning, I have been open about my interest in Scientology editing, and it is a mere coincidence that previous accounts have had a keen focus on David Miscavige as well. He IS the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion, and is a subject that is very important to Scientology and this is not too surprising. I've also decided to start editing on the Scientology page to branch out my interest; but it seems that I have bumped into an obstacle.

I've done my best to comply with Wikipedia policy with every edit, and have respectfully taken to the talk page to seek community feedback for all the edits I make. I remain firm that my editing privileges should remain. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By ResidentAnthropologist

Can we make some sort of Final call here? This is the third SPI since Nestle started editing. CU evidence is inconclusive thus behavioral is left. I really am getting tired of Nestle having to come here every month to defend them self. In this case I honestly find the filer looking more like a sock than the defendant. I have met some astute new users but none that would have done a SPI report in their first 10 edits. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By BTfromLA

I'm a little out of my depth here--I have no experience with sockpuppets or detecting same. But I agree with Resident Anthropologist that repeated accusations are not justified if they are based only on the fact that Nestle acts like a devoted promoter of Scientology and David Miscavige. I think Nestle may have some problems in differentiating between what is important from the point of view of an active Scientologist versus what is important for a Wikipedia article, but he seems willing to negotiate with other editors. Unless there is something I'm missing here, I can't see how his behavior warrants what amounts to harassment on suspicion of sockpuppetry. (FWIW, I am a complete outsider when it comes to Scientology.) --BTfromLA (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466

[66], [67]. Startwater is a single-purpose account that started editing one day before filing this request. --JN466 14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I'll say right now that the CU results won't be any different from the previous two times this user was checked. –MuZemike 11:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug/Archive&oldid=1145837941"