• GreekParadise (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lambchop2008 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 69.126.183.202 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: G

• Supporting evidence: GreekParadise has consistently pushed, and sometimes edit-warred, for inclusion of controversial material in Sarah Palin, often against consensus. The new account, Lambchop2008, arrived to offer support for GreekParadise in discussion[1] and also to repeatedly add "discussion" of a ludicrous fringe theory that Palin is not really the mother of one of her children to the talk page, an action repeated by the IP listed above. Lambchop2008 also left a message on my talk page[2] implying that I was a leader in pro-Palin POV-pushing - strange, because I have never interacted with this user, and I haven't really been active on Wikipedia since this account was created within the last day or so. However, I have recently interacted with GreekParadise, who has made similar comments regarding my editing. Writing style is similar between the two editors, including occasional forgotten signatures, and the accounts have been active at approximately the same time. Kelly ^hi! 04:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Also likely related - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dstern1, where socks were used to promulage the identical BLP-violating fringe theory about Palin's children. Dstern1 was unblocked on the condition that s/he not edit Palin-related articles until after the election. Kelly ^hi! 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection to any of the Dstern1 socks from either GP or L, they are  Unrelated. Also GreekParadise and Lambchop2008 are  Unrelated to each other as well. Ditto the IP which is also unrelated to any of the above. (Let's face it, Sarah Palin brings out the best in our editing community! OR at least a lot of editors anyway...) However GreekParadise has been running 2 socks of their own:

• True 12345 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TruthJusticetheAmericanWay (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Both are now blocked. GP may warrant blocking as well for behaviour but these socks are old and do not merit a block for GP on their own in my view. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is time to stop the witch hunts, and leave checkuser to egregious violations, rather than attempting to use these as a bludgeon (fishing rod?) in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur fully with Lar, there is an overlap with one contribution of True 12345 [3] and GreekParadise shortly thereafter agreeing as if a different user [4], but it is almost two weeks old and only the one diff by the puppet (there also further edits that day in the same theme by GreekParadise). I don't believe GreekParadise should be blocked today for the sockpuppet use. An appropriate warning should be given. And Jossi's comment seems to me to contradict his argument for unprotection that we should be giving the blocking tool more use and the protection tool less - use of checkuser to clean up the sock mess and false consensus is part and parcel of staying out of protection for these articles. GRBerry 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Jossi (after GRB's comment) I'll bite. What are you talking about, Jossi? And why here? Does your comment have relevance to this particular case? I'm not seeing it in the slightest. The case was brought, I looked at the diffs and feel there was merit in running a check, I did so, and reported results. If there is a specific issue with these findings, please raise it. If not, please do not disrupt CU cases with generic polemic statements, these pages are busy and we don't have time for that sort of foolishness. But while we are making generic polemic statements, here's one for you: perhaps if you hadn't futzed around with removing protection on Palin, wheelwarring about it to boot, there wouldn't be quite as much of this tomfoolery, because the line would have remained consistently in place that we are not going to tolerate that sort of thing, instead of wildly oscillating around and giving the POV pushers encouragement, and there would be less casework here to investigate. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I believe that Kelly is on a fishing expedition looking to harass anyone who does not agree with her. She has managed to add her bias to the Sarah Palin by running off all who have a different opinion.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I must agree. Kelly has been relentlessly removing any information on the Palin related pages (or trying to have them deleted) that reflects negatively on Palin, even if it notable and well sourced. GreekParadise and he were edit warring (Kelly was previously warned about this and was told to take a wikibreak from editing Palin related articles). GreekParadise has now left a message on my talk page that he suspects Kelly of being a sockpuppet, I suspect in retaliation. I think it was highly improper for an administrator to actually do a checkuser on GreekParadise based on the limited evidence presented by Kelly but we can't unscramble that egg. I have not seen convincing evidence that Kelly is a sockpuppet yet and I oppose such fishing expeditions. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the GreekParadise account has overwritten the sockpuppet templates on the other user accounts, claiming in one case to be the editor's wife and the other a houseguest who visited temporarily.[5][6] Lar? GRBerry 20:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@GRBerry: See my talk just now (permlink: [7])... I'm not sure what to make of all this. I will say that I have seen husband/wife user pairs before (heck, I'm part of one) and it can be hard to tell the difference between real pairs and puppets, unless there is an extensive history built up of contributions and activity. I'd be inclined to assume good faith, but it has to be an open acknowledgement of the linkage, instead of just placing "retired" there should be an explicit reference in both directions. As for the allegations against Kelly, I have explicit permission, received offline, from Kelly to check Kelly... I will examine the supporting evidence offered, if any, and do a check. But THIS check isn't about Kelly, it's about GP. The behavioural allegations made above and below don't really belong here, but rather elsewhere. Here is only for discussing whether this is socking related. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the above actions of this abusive editor, sockpupeteer and extreme SPA focused entirely on the bridge section of the Palin article "It's really the only section of the article I read.", makes extreme personal attacks [8] against fellow editors, and generally violates with his editing more policies and guidelines that I care to mention. In his short time of actual editing on wikipedia (active editing since 2 September 2008) he was already blocked for disrupting the Palin article [9] for 48 hours and let off for another disruption [10] with the comment " Also warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again." In my opinion with him removing the sockpuppet templates and constant personal attacks against established fellow editors, the time is now to take action to stop the editing abuse. Hobartimus (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]