Matt14451

Matt14451 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

29 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

I believe that User Matt14451 is using these sock puppet IPs and Cbradmiller to add an unsourced nickname and deliberately circumvent WP:3RR at Jack Tretton. The first addition of the "Jackie T" nickname was made by IP 108.2.127.113 and was reverted by User:Materialscientist. It was re-added about 30 minutes later by IP 72.45.59.156 and removed by me. The following day, Matt14451 reverted my edit with the explanation "common nickname, needs to stay". Administrator User:Kuru removed it, and stated "does not appear to be in common use by the subject; please do not re-add without a source. Matt14451 restored it the following day, providing the following source that I found to be unsatisfactory and removed once again, and invited Matt14451 to use the talk page to discuss his addition.

User Matt14451 then waited a day before adding the still unsourced nickname again, which I removed, explaining that I did not believe that a one-off mention in the sub-title of an article was enough evidence to support this name. Which brings us to today (March 29), when a new IP, 149.138.103.194 re-added the nickname, once again without a source. I removed it, before the IP reverted me and included a podcast ("PS I Love You XOXO" by Greg Miller and Colin Moriarty) as a source for their edit. I stated that the source used was not evidence that Tretton uses the nickname personally, and appeared to me to be an informal slang-type name he is referred to by internet commenters. Rather than remove the information, I attempted to appease everyone involved by moving it from the lead to the body of the article. User Matt14451 reverted me and stated "It is valid and shows how he is treated externally". I'm not sure what that has to do with a personal nickname, but again I tried to compromise by moving it to a seperate "reception" section where I had hoped this would end. However, a new account was registered, User Cbradmiller, and had re-added "Jackie T" to the middle of his name in the lead.

This whole string of edits seems way too coincidental to me (especially my edit and summary where I warn Matt14451 about violating WP:3RR being followed by a completely new account making the same edit he had been pushing), and I am hopeful that someone will be able to investigate these IPs and new account to see if Matt14451 is abusing multiple accounts. To close, I am aware that I have pushed the limits of 3RR on the page and I apologize for doing so. I have tried to engage Matt14451 in discussion on the talk page but so far he has yet to respond. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new IP (2602:306:3696:7770:2D0F:F49D:3032:ADE2) to the investigation. This user recently made 3 edits to the page attempting to re-add the Jackie T nickname (diffs here, here, and here). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 01:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The two accounts are Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The behavioural evidence is so convincing that despite the negative CheckUser result, I think it may still be sockpuppetry. However, the editing in question has not taken place for over three weeks now, and that being so there is no case for taking any action on the basis of such doubtful evidence, so I am closing this investigation without any action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


To me, it seems pretty obvious that Matt14451 is 77.100.241.132. This user is logging out to vote rig merge/deletion discussions and edit war with users while trying to imply that they are different user. -- The1337gamer (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@The1337gamer: - I was not aware of this, next time you do this to someone please post on their talk page. Matt14451 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

23 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


  • [2] - DownFame includes a graph on the page without consensus.
  • [3] - After being reverted an IP editor with no history editing any page related to the show appears within hours to restore the same edit.
  • [4] - DownFame attempts to add the same type of graph on the Gotham show page.
  • [5] - The same IP as before appears the next day to revert me, also with no history editing a Gotham page.
  • [6] - The same IP appears on the edit war discussion board despite the notice being left on DownFames page and not theirs.
  • [7] - After expressing some valid concerns about the IP, a user called Matt14451 appears to confirm that they were indeed the IP user.
  • [8] - Matt14451 quickly removes his edit, obviously realizing he was logged in.
  • [9] - Matt14451 claims that they are not DownFame,

Diffs explained.

There are a few reverts here and there that I haven't included as diffs in this investigation but you can check on the page history of both shows. To sum this entire thing up an editor called DownFame appeared on the List of Agents of Shield and Gotham pages and attempted to war to force their changes through. An IP editor with no prior history of editing either of the pages appeared to support DownFames edits. When a report was opened about DownFame, the same IP editor appeared to join in the discussion. When I expressed my concerns about the IP editor another editor called Matt14451 appeared and basically confirmed that they were the IP editor and made the ludicrous excuse that they check the page "every few hours" despite there being no history of them editing the page either. They then quickly removed their edit from the admin board.

After I pointed out that Matt14451 was the IP editor and cited his confession which he had removed, they then responded claiming editing as an IP was a "mistake". I don't think this is a legitimate excuse as he had displayed over the past 48 hours that he was willing to show the same edit war behavior as DownFame and responded to the admin board discussion using the IP. He only used his main account after he was found out.

I believe there is enough there to link these three users. Esuka323 (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I don't know how to prove I'm not the same person as that user. They seem to edit a very specialised group of articles. Matt14451 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have no history editing the Agents of Shield & Gotham pages and only appeared as an IP to restore DownFames edits within hours of them being removed. There's enough to cast suspicion that you are one and the same. There also seems to be another report on here that confirms that you are also using your IP to abuse the system. I'll await the admins judgement before commenting further. Esuka323 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have history of editing similar pages, if not those in particular, such as creating episode pages for Arrow and Supergirl. Might be best to await an admins response as your attitude is increasingly hostile and have clearly already made a decision. I don't know what else to say to prove my innocence. Matt14451 (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick followup. While I'm happy to accept the decisions made by the admin, I would just like to point out that the DownFame account appears to be a single purpose account to add ratings graphs to Wikipedia. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that it may be someones sock to avoid any sort of hassle on their main account knowing that such inclusions of the graphs would draw controversy. What I found suspicious is why this IP was even on both show pages knowing that neither of them has any sort of history on the pages. Matt made the excuse that he "checks the page every few hours" but why would someone check a page they don't even edit? That literally makes no sense, and they're not the most active of show pages either. I accept that the similar behavior linking them may not be enough but there is something there that's more than coincidental.

I also think it would be fair at the very least for the IP mentioned above to be tagged as a sock of Matt14451. Not only have they used the IP as a strawman per the other report, they have used it to war on pages they had no history on to support a now banned editor. And they have used it to "Avoid scrutiny" per your sock puppet information page by editing as an IP to respond to the admin board discussion about DownFame, and their reverts on the two pages as said. Esuka323 (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Administrator note: Per the apparent admission by Matt14451, explained by Esuka23 at this post, I now agree that Matt14451 and the IP are likely to be the same person. However I don't see behavioral evidence that Matt14451 is the same as DownFame, which was the original reason for filing this SPI. I have blocked DownFame 48 hours for edit warring per this report at WP:AN3. Policy does not allow the clerks to approve checkuser for comparing the IP to either of the mentioned accounts. I assume that Matt14451 is now aware of the perils of using both an account and an IP in this domain. In particular, Matt using the IP to pretend to offer independent support to Matt14451 had better not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Esuka323: Regarding User:DownFame, their pattern of restoring templates has been very predictable, and they never participate in article talk. If this continues after the current block, they could well be blocked for a longer period. I recommend that you let this socking complaint go since the problem has now been fully explained to administrators and further action can be taken if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm marking for close, but a clerk can undo this if they disagree. Anybody who notices further problems in this area can leave a note on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 December 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matt14451/Archive
No tags for this post.