Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Atomic Meltdown

Atomic Meltdown (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
23 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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]

Comments by other users[edit]

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]
Requested diffs:
[8] restores essentially the same text as [9] (adjusted in response to the realization in the meantime that the subject was never a "DJ" but rather did a radio talk show).
[10] restores the (deprecated) parameter and info previously added by [11] while also adding minor resumé items to the list of occupations (a recurring goal of McQueen's edits [12][13][14]).
Further evidence is the fact that Film Guy's first edit – a fairy sophisticated one[15] on a page previous edited as Atomic Meltdown[16] – came shortly after McQueen was blocked,[17] and (as noted above) in his short edit history Film Guy has a significant number of shared page interests with both McQueen [18] and Atomic Meltdown [19]. His edit summaries under all IDs are usually blank, but when he adds a (lecturing, argumentative) comment they are often preceded by "/". The absence of participation on Talk pages despite involvement in disputes about content is not damning... but is very consistent between socks, and part of the reason he was blocked in the first place.
By the way, @Vanjagenije: ... perhaps that don't-use-this-tag request could be made clearer somewhere, such as in the template documentation. The text of the template ("An editor has...") kinda makes it sound like something an editor is encouraged to apply. Silly me. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So when Atomic Meltdown starts editing just like before, but anonymously, what do we do then? Because he is.[20] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • 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 Ponyobons 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]
  • Hi SNUGGUMS, not that I could see but there's a fair bit of traffic in there. I imagine there'll be more socks on the way, given the history. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonAQuest: Open new case, please, and provide evidence (diffs of both the sock and the master). To open new case, go to WP:SPI and follow the steps at "How to open an investigation". New case will be added below this one. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


03 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Atomic Meltdown is a serial sockmaster, generally creating a new puppet each time he is blocked (originally for edit-warring). The day after the latest (Film Guy on Wiki) was blocked for puppetry, these two anon IPs began editing Seth MacFarlane, an article edited (by me) in the meantime, on a topic that the editor has edited numerous articles about (MacFarlane and his work): as Atomic Meltdown,[23][24] McQueen.30,[25][26] and Film Guy on Wiki.[27][28] Much of his edit-warring on this subject and other entertainers has been over the contents of infoboxes and lists of occupations in the lede (he insists on completeness over brevity);[29][30][31] these edits also focus on that specific issue.[32][33] As corroborating evidence, his established editing pattern (seen in these diffs and his contribution histories) of summarily reverting, arguing via bluntly assertive edit summaries (if any), and his stylistic tic of sometimes putting a "/" or "//" before an edit summary, also show in these new edits. While these new instances are very new, the pattern seems clear to me: same subject matter, same editing interests, and same style of interaction. Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2015 (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 declined the CU request on procedural grounds. CU is (almost) never used to connect named accounts to IPs. Anyway,  Looks like a duck to me. All three IPs are obviously Atomic Meltdown (see: [34][35][36][37]). I'm calling an admin to block them for few days. For all three IPs, those Atomic Meltdown-related edits are the only edits, so I guess block is possible. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for a few days in most recent and one day for the older two. Feel free to ping me if/when he returns. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
04 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

@Euryalus: New account, very first edit [38] matches past edit as Atomic Meltdown.[39]
This was followed by reverting edits of the last editor to report sockpuppetry (me) on an unrelated article. [40] Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2015 (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]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - To compare Señor Cilantro with previous socks, according to diffs provided by Jason A. Quest. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks very  Likely to me. Mike V • Talk 17:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
05 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The same edits[41][42] as previous IP editing.[43][44] Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuting under nearby IP address[45] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Can I just say that all I'm doing is just putting the following as occupations: actor, animator, filmmaker, comedian, singer, and songwriter. All of a sudden I get accused. How is television-series and film-maker better? I have not seen that format in any other pages like Louis C. K., Tina Fey, Gene Roddenberry, etc. Just saying (166.176.58.243 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: It seems rather odd that the IP knew to look at this SPI report. There's no sock notification on their User page or talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
21 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence is as follows:

  • Suspected sock master is currently on a month-long block.
  • 21 articles in common (see Editor Interaction Analyzer results here [46]
  • Made comments today about edits at Meghan Trainor article that he didn't agree with here [47], then suspected sockpuppet IP account makes comments on the same edits at article talk page just a few hours later (see here [48]).
  • Suspected sock master has been VERY vocal in the past regarding my edits at the Meghan Trainor article (and all Trainor-related articles.

Duck, quacking loudly, too many articles in common (especially some fairly obscure articles) for this to be a coincidence. Suggest checking for sleeper socks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the other IP you uncovered and named below also has an article in common with the suspected sock master. Also, Kuru, does this mean that since you have now performed a rangeblock, if the sockmaster tries to edit with his IP within that range, he will be unable to do so? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 21 April 2015 (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]
The IP above, and 104.161.12.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are fly-by-night vtunnel open proxies. Blocked both, but no idea if this is really the editor in question or a joe-job, unless he was stupid enough to stay logged in with his account. Kuru (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this a bit more, there appears to be an entire range at 104.161.0.0/16 which hosts these; the same editor has been active on many IPs. Rangeblock applied. Kuru (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
02 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence:

  • Suspected sock master, Joseph Prasad, is currently on a month-long block.
  • Suspected sock master has edited Drake Bell -related articles numerous times; the only article edited by the suspected sock is Drake Bell.
  • Suspected sock posted to Snuggums' talk page here [49] and signed it "J.P." (Joseph Prasad).
  • Suspected sock posted to my talk page here [50] - suspected sock master has long had a problem with how I edit articles they have ownership issues with and have a history of vandalizing my talk page.
  • The post at my talk page was also signed "J.P" (Joseph Prasad) by the suspected sock.
  • The message left by the suspected sock indicated they were returning to Wikipedia shortly - Joseph Prasad's block will expire shortly.

At the very least, this should be a duck block for the sock. The behavioral evidence seems fairly strong to implicate the suspected sock master. Requesting a CU. Also requesting sleepers are looked for. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment from non-involved user - I believe that Joseph Prasad wouldn't do this, especially since his block expires just a few days later. I think it is User:Atomic Meltdown instead. He edit-warred with Joseph in his final days and was then blocked indefinitely. He has been socking ever since. Just consider this one too. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the accused - Winkelvi, This most certainly is not me. I have never spoke to User:SNUGGUMS in a negative fashion, I honestly cannot be sure who it is, but it's not me. I would never personally attack people, and certainly not before an unblock, same with sockpuppeting. It appears to be spite from an editor who may have had a problem with me in the past and trying to get me indefinitely blocked. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
09 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Not sure why this didn't show in the most recent CU, as the account was created 2 days prior to the last account was blocked. It's a duck, and the most obvious edits are removing the comedian field from the Drake Bell article (it's, among other things, what got the sock master initially blocked), as well as adding the comedian field to the Seth MacFarlane article (it's what got a few of the other accounts blocked + a couple of IPs just earlier this week).

Oh, and I just noticed that another account called Señor Cilantro was just blocked a few days ago. Quack, quack!

Please do a CU so we can catch any other possible sleepers. Nymf (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm not somebody else. I am Andrew Schultz. I am 24 years old and I speak a little bit of hewbrew, I love The Rolling Stones and Tupac Shakur, I work at a police office. I created this account based on myself and not anybody else. I am not somebody else. Please don't block for being someone I clearly am not. (Señor Schultz (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Yet, you make the exact same edits as Atomic Meltdown, and his socks. And you seem like an experienced editor from you user page and the way you edit, yet you have only edited since the 6th. Obvious sock of someone. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way I edit. It's writing dude it's not hard. And what just because I do the same edits like that automatically makes me somebody else. (Señor Schultz (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Again, from the way your page is set up, you already know some code to a degree, which an three-day old editor would not. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going through other editors user pages seeing that stuff and saw stuff that I like. (Señor Schultz (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Another editor with a similar name was blocked a few days ago, not many editors take an interest in Drake Bell, especially with the randomness you have. The suspected sockmaster removed the same thing you did. Just a coincidence, I think not. Oh, and you sign posts in the exact same fashion. The evidence is too clear. And 11 pages in common. One being Batman: Arkham Knight, which is pretty obscure for the rest of the articles you or Atomic edits. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wikipedia dude, I have the right what to edit and not. Señor just sounds badass, I was going to put a different user name. What I was told to sign like that. Unless you have a different way. (Señor Schultz (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
When you make the exact same edit (be it a reinsertion or a re-removal) that a blocked editor previously made, it makes other people suspicious. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

@Nymf: The Checkuser tool doesn't have a separate "sleeper check". If there are additional socks on the IP or range a CU checks then the accounts will likely be evident; however, when there are multiple dynamic ranges in play (as in this case) finding additional socks or sleepers is a crap shoot as there are tens of thousands of IPs involved. This is why Checkusers state " No sleepers immediately visible".--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Account blocked and tagged. Based upon the behavioral evidence, I don't see sufficient reason to block the IP. Mike V • Talk 20:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


11 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Account was created the same day that Señor Schultz (talk · contribs) was reported to SPI. While some edits were legit (something that many of the AM socks start with) the editor started adding unsourced info [51], as well as unsourced occupations [52] to various articles. Editor also starts referring to others as "dude" [53] as can be seen here MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clear things up here to let you know, I'm not that user at all. You got the wrong user your looking at. I never actually hear of that user before. I'm a completely new, new, new user here on this site, and I never had an account on this site of that name before, never ever, and I wasn't even on this wiki than. I'm a new, new, new user here to this site. I hope this will clear things up to you guys now that I'm not user:Señor Schultz. FrozenFan2 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I find it highly suspicious that this editor knew to look at this page. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he has a unusual enthusiasm for adding occupation listings, both to infoboxes and opening sentences, which is a special interest of AM. [54][55][56][57][58] It is also an atypical focus for someone "completely new, new, new" to Wikipedia (as he doth protest too much, methinks). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Conclusions derived from checkuser data have limited usefulness, and a negative finding by a checkuser rarely precludes obvious sock-puppetry."[59] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonAQuest (talk • contribs)
I could be wrong, but maybe the accounts haven't had enough similar edits so far for CU to detect socking. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but fortunately humans can analyze behavior patterns that a computer can't. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Good to know. Thanks for taking a look at things. MarnetteD|Talk 23:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Back pushing the same diluted "actor, singer, writer, producer, director, comedian, and television host" lead. Is not yet pushing it in the Seth MacFarlane article (that would be too obvious), though he did edit the article, as well as the related award article, which is highly frequented by other accounts by this user. The time of the edits would also indicate that they are in the same timezone. Quack, quack! Nymf (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2015 (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]
02 June 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


These edits add one of the same occupations and signature to the infobox as this one by an Atomic Meltdown sock. As supporting evidence, the IP address is in the same block as past IPs that were connected to Atomic Meltdown. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2015 (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]
Same pattern, same IP range. I've blocked the IP for now. Kuru (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 July 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Caught this one ages ago (see User talk:SNUGGUMS#Dog Bark Man), but was waiting for him to return to the comedian thing in Seth MacFarlane which so many of his previous socks were already blocked for. He finally did, see: this, as well as the previous socks here, here, here etc.

He knows that we'll catch him when he does this, so he has no doubt moved on to a different account (notice the gap in the edit history between his recents edits and the ones before), so please do a CU check.

Other than the ducky thing above, they share the same combative behavior (see the edit history at the bottom here, edit history here, edit history here, etc). Edit warring in articles related to comedy and then referring to some on-going discussion to do this (see this old sock, for example).

Also shared interest in Best Time Ever with Neil Patrick Harris which has exclusively been edited by socks of Atomic Meltdown. Nymf (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2015 (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]

08 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Atomic doesn't seem to be stopping anytime soon. On the articles Louis C.K. and Eddie Murphy, I recently reverted edits made by one of his sock puppets, "Dog Bark Man", only for them to be quickly restored. "Crispy Dream Milk", like the Atomic Meltdown account, frequently adds cherry-picked "notable work" parameters to infoboxes of comedians, despite being repeatedly reverted as a POV addition and unnecessary clutter for infoboxes. Sockmaster and sockpuppets also often times don't even use edit summaries. Atomic Meltdown (original account or sock) also added the exact same "notable work" as Crispy Dream Milk did in articles such as Stephen Colbert. This is not an exhaustive list, but I think it's time for a CU request to find a connection between these two accounts, and maybe detect any sleeper accounts. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The intense interest in The Daily Show and Seth McFarlane[60] are also Meltdown hallmarks. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite true, Jason. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Trevor Noah was recently partially-protected (again) against Meltdown-style anon edits from the 166.x.x.x block, which was followed hours later by CDM editing it for the "first" time. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to know his way around semi-protection. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Began editing shortly after last Meltdown sock was blocked. All edits are to articles about late-night US television that were previously edited by Atomic Meltdown socks, usually making similar changes: [61] is essentially the same edit to this article as [62] and [63] are to that article, even down to the use of the jargon "media critic". And [64] reverts to [65] with a different order. Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also editing anonymously: [66] [67] [68] [69] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (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]

21 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Editing the same sort of articles showing the same sort of behaviour when challenged about something. Both accounts keep changing the occupations of various actors, directors etc in the infoboxes in particular Seth MacFarlane for which consensus has already been reached.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Jackman&diff=prev&oldid=650013575

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Jackman&diff=prev&oldid=680725226

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_MacFarlane&diff=prev&oldid=681701967

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_MacFarlane&diff=prev&oldid=648814690

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_MacFarlane&diff=prev&oldid=648822522

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Stone&diff=prev&oldid=681854758

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atomic_Meltdown&diff=prev&oldid=652696743

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpha_Sunshine&diff=prev&oldid=682011822

I am requesting CheckUser so it can be checked that these accounts are related and also because the user has a history of socking. 5 albert square (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2015 (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]

28 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Account created right after last block, [70] restores the same distinctive terms as [71] Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Actually, the Glencoco8995 account was created in November 2012 while the Atomic Meltdown account was created in August 2014, so it wasn't made "right after last block". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. I didn't notice that there were earlier pages of edits, and only saw 21 September as the earliest on that page. I still find the recent edits of this account somewhat suspicious. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced this is Atomic Meltdown. Unless he is doing the ol' switcheroo, here he is edit warring with a confirmed sock. I have no doubt that Atomic Meltdown is back as another user though, so perhaps the CU could still be useful. Nymf (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen his socks adopt a position he disagrees with in the past, apparently trying to discredit it by asserting it too aggressively (though admittedly that's difficult to distinguish from his standard behavior). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any detectable sleepers, Ponyo? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's weird that Harry Carmichael didn't show up, as I am 99% sure that is Atomic Meltdown. The Daily Show, Seth MacFarlane, bloating occupations, etc. Nymf (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I'm sure there's more than one person with an interest in 1) Seth MacFarlane's singing career, 2) the list of Neil Patrick Harris' occupations, and 3) The Daily Show, it's quite a coincidence that "another" of them just started editing in those areas (including the creation of a whole new fully-formed article) in the past week. I've added it as an additional suspected sockpuppet. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk endorsed due to a large number of confirmed socks of Atomic Meltdown in the SPI archives. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Working from memory since I haven't run the check again today, but IIRC there were no other accounts visible that looked in any way related. Yunshui 雲水 10:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28 October 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Long-time editor's first recent edit to Seth MacFarlane[72] closely parallels one of Atomic-Meltdown-socks' trademark edits to his occupation list: [73] [74] [75].

Latest edits [76] and earlier edits [77] focus on one of AM's topics of special interest: musical work of MacFarlane. Recent edits also focus on musical work of Johnny Depp [78] whose article Atomic Meltdown edited earlier this year [79] Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Thank you, Bbb23. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • When I looked at this, I noticed two things. First, Cartoon Boy is years older than Atomic Meltdown. Second, the evidence presented was thin. Normally, I would have declined the CU request because of that. However, JasonAQuest has a lot of experience with this master, so taking that into account I checked. Cartoon Boy (talk · contribs · count) is Red X Unrelated. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01 November 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Latest edits at Seth MacFarland were a dead giveaway that this account is yet another in the overflowing sockdrawer of Atomic Meltdown.

Account is only 10 days old and they already have five articles in common with Atomic (List of Academy Award Ceremonies being the most obscure and unlikely for the latest account to stumble upon). It's no coincidence. Results of Intersect Contribs query here [80]. Lack of edit summaries, types of edits being made are WP:DUCK evidence. I'm certain the CU will turn up a positive match. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 1 November 2015 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


First edits made three weeks after last AM sock blocked. Commonalities with AM (as seen in previous investigations... ask if you want diffs):

  • First three edits (with confrontational summaries) focus on the list of occupations for a television personality.[81][82][83]
  • Interested in the works of Seth MacFarlane.[84][85]
  • Wants to describe Stephen Colbert as a "singer" (like AM's interest in MacFarlane's singing career).[86]
  • Interested in "influences".[87]
  • Edits to James Corden[88], an article previously edited by several socks[89][90][91][92] and Atomic Meltdown himself.[93]

–Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2015 (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]

03 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Two of the account's first three edits [94][95] are to the latest film by Atomic Meltdown's favorite singer Seth MacFarlane, an article he's edited using various socks.[96][97][98][99] His latest edit to date[100] echoes AM's trademark padding of ledes with "occupations", even down to the specific phrasing he used for this person.[101] In between, the account has been warned for violating 3RR while edit warring[102] (the offense that originally got AM blocked) on List of South Park episodes, and editing Academy Award articles (the topic of AM's last edit before being blocked).[103] Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2016 (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 endorsed - please, compare him to previous socks. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

There's the name. Plus, his edits are about Atomic Meltdown's habitual topics, from the very first edit[104] to AM-favorite Seth MacFarlane's nav template, late-night-TV hosts[105][106][107], animation producers,[108] and awards[109] especially the Oscars.[110]

IPs are edit-warring[111][112] to recreate old AM edits[113] to Trevor Noah, and one edited an Oscars article last Fall.[114] – Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2016 (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 endorsed - Compare to previous socks,. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


First edit [115] restored edits by blocked sock User:Elijah Troll, then he edit-warred attempting to justify himself with contradictory can't-buy-a-clue arguments in his edit summaries, until the page was protected. He then moved on to another article I recently edited, engaging in AM's hobby of adding occupations to the lede.[116] He seems to have stopped bothering with new accounts for now; what else can be done? Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2016 (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]

07 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

A bit of a longshot, because the evidence is thin (so far) and it's a longstanding account (which has become more active since the original AM block in March 2015, however). This account's recent edit[117] to an article about AM's favorite entertainer is substantially the same as this one[118] by an identified sock. It shares an interest in comedians' infoboxes[119] with AM-associated accounts and IPs (e.g.[120]). It was temp-blocked in November 2013 for disruptive editing, and later warned repeatedly for that in July–Sept last year, and again a few months ago.
The first IP is obviously him; he accuses me of persecuting him.[121]
The second IP doesn't have much of a trail, but it targeted a fairly obscure article that I just created,[122] has an interest in animation,[123] and the address is in the same IP range as most of those that AM uses for block-evasion.[124][125] I mention it for the sake of pointing at a pattern. Are there any practical measures possible to impede him by IP address restrictions? I assume a long-term range block would be too blunt a tool, but something that might slow down the revolving door? Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re CheckUser note below: The oldest account attributed to this person is User:Glencoco8995, which was actually created earlier than this one (or User:Atomic Meltdown), but identified only recently. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I simply wish to state that I have not been using any other accounts other than my own and am honestly very surprised that I am being accused because I do not see any reason why I am a suspect in this case. Nevertheless, I firmly assure whoever is accusing me that I have not been using multiple accounts. --LongNailsShortHair (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Checkuser note: LongNailsShortHair is older than the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account is Red X Unrelated. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


After and fiddling with infoboxes [126][127][128][129] just long enough to clear the threshold for semi-protection on Seth MacFarlane, new account expands the occupation list and infobox on AM's favorite article. [130] Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm not Atomic Meltdown. I've already explained it. I didn't say anything bad too you guy's or say any legal threats, those article I edited needed some update and fixing. But I won't add voice actor back int eh Seth Macfarlane article again. I promise. ChickensAreCute! (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 June 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Lots of standard AM hallmarks; I'm copy-pasting diffs from an earlier investigation, where it was noted that AM has a thing about identifying Seth MacFarlane as a "comedian". New account: [131] and Talk:Seth_MacFarlane#Comedian?, previous edits: [132], [133], [134], [135] New account shares with AM an interest in James Corden (new old) and more generally in awards (old new), infobox comedy genres (old new), and for expanding occupation lists. Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Long-term protection of his favorite pages would help. The short-term PP doesn't affect him: he's chronic. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I tried that but got the ol' "please read the protection policy" bog standard reply. Nymf (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried it for the Chris Rock awards page, which is a stronger case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

05 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Geek Pow shares AM's interest in late-night talk show hosts Jon Stewart[136] and James Corden[137], particularly the contents of their info boxes. Edit-warring over infobox content[138][139] is typical of AM, and this is the only situation in which he includes edit summaries (mostly ignoring Talk pages). An interest in the singing careers of people not known for that[140] and in Hollywood awards[141] are also red-flags for AM. See the editor interaction tool for a longer list of shared interests. Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2016 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

172.4.52.98 has been blocked twice, but the IP is still being used by Atomic Meltdown: [142] [143]. Dingozilla restored 172.4.52.98's edit here, and also I believe Atomic Meltdown is known for having an interest in Academy Awards: [144]. Issac the Titan simply edits to all of Atomic Metldown's fav topics: South Park: [145] [146], Family Guy: [147] [148], and Mike Judge: [149], [150] [151] Sro23 (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2016 (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]

18 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Restored sock edits to Seth MacFarlane filmography: [152] [153], also quacking loudly with this awards edit to Family Guy: [154]. I have a feeling there are more accounts I'm missing. Sro23 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2016 (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]

22 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edit warring at List of South Park episodes: [155] [156], removing episode summaries & adding awards info, also late night talk show articles: The Daily Show: [157] [158] and Jimmy Kimmel Live!: [159] Sro23 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (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]

 Confirmed. Blocked without a tag as per Ponyo and WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

26 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Re-adding content previously added[160] and edit-warred[161] by sock accounts on low-traffic article. Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2016 (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]

09 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Per request from DeltaQuad. Results pending. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:46, 9 November 2016 (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]

  • Highly  Likely to the archive. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing. Will allow a clerk to archive. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Vandalism on Billion Dollar Wreck. Its style is similar to User:Atomic Meltdown. --219.79.127.74 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Penguin beaver. Shares Atomic Meltdown's obsession with awards and nominations + Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Sro23 (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2016 (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]

27 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New account started to work on entertainers' occupation lists (several of which AM previously edited) on second edit, promoting one of AM's pet terms: "comedian". Proceeded to edit-war against consensus version of list with no edit summaries for Amanda Bynes[162][163] and Raven-Symoné[164][165] Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2016 (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]

Endorsing for CU check — archive history shows a high likelihood that this person is creating more accounts, including possibly sleepers. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  In progress - Katietalk 14:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Relisted - Looking at the last two confirmed/likely socks, I think it's a mixture between  Unlikely and  Possible. Since I'm on the fence and I'm not that familiar with the master, I'm relisting so another CU can take a look. I'd appreciate a ping or email when a conclusion is reached. Thanks. Katietalk 14:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Katie, from a technical perspective, I would say that Matthewparadoa is at best  Unlikely.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out the account is a sock of Mattmeine. Closing. GABgab 17:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Casper Catch restores sock edit here: [166] [167], also late night talk show host: [168] [169]. Burair7 edits Matt Stone, Trey Parker, a South Park video game, and nearly everything else is awards of accolades, an Atomic Meltdown indicator: [170] [171] [172], etc. Sro23 (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


According to Wikipedia: Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else, I don't use multiple accounts or IPs. Can anyone explain what's the purpose of this case?(Burair7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burair7 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

06 February 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New user edit warring on List of awards and nominations received by Seth MacFarlane. The article in question's semi-protection recently expired. Sro23 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Perhaps the page protection on List of awards and nominations received by Seth MacFarlane should be reinstated? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested protection at WP:RFPP. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Blocked and tagged Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: Closing. TDL (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16 February 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New account, edit-warring on awards article,[173] focusing on entertainer "influences"[174][175] and their listed occupations[176][177] ...all hallmarks of AM. – Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2017 (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]

25 February 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

WP:DUCK, same obsession with awards and Seth MacFarlane. [178] [179] [180] Sro23 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2017 (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]

18 March 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This account's first 16 edits include such AM favorites as: the Academy Awards,[181] Dave Chapelle and his influences,[182] the protection-expired Perks of Being a Wallflower,[183] edit-warring over genre,[184] and... Seth MacFarlane's music career![185] Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2017 (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]

07 April 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New account named after an interest of User:Buzzzinghornet[186] edits the same article,[187] quickly turns attention to AM's fixation on influences of late-night-TV-host article,[188] and makes AM's favoritest edit to one of them.[189] Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • The Stewart and Colbert edits are definitely suspicious. Since AM clearly figured out a while ago how to work around semi-protection, I recommend giving both of those articles extended confirmation protection to help reduce his frequent intrusion even if this account isn't one of his socks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed and blocked. No tag per WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

03 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The usual nonsense, this time on Craig Kilborn and Jimmy Fallon;[190][191] plus now wikihounding me in retribution.[192][193][194] (Likely grooming another sockpuppet too, hence the Checkuser request.) Any chance that these ranges could be (semi)restricted in addition to blocking these specific addresses, or some other measure that might discourage him? Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2017 (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]

  •  Check declined by a checkuser We do not publicly link IP addresses to named accounts. Katietalk 12:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Much better now as there aren't any more errors in the user activity links. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account is now asking to be unblocked, claiming that he's been trying to make a clean start the past three months. However during that time, an anon editor has stalked and harassed me, and (based on behavior and common IP ranges) I'm pretty sure it's him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Sasha Leiva666 recently recreated List of awards and nominations received by South Park, which Ponyo G5'd in 2016 after it was created by Newton Fusion (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a confirmed sock.

The user page claims to have formerly been Sasha Leiva66, who I'm listing as an account for the archive. That account stopped editing on 26 March 2017, the day that the SPI for Dash Badger (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was closed. Possibly abandoned to try to throw off anyone catching it.

Additional behavioral evidence can be found in the contribs, which show similarity to previous blocked socks [195] with a focus on TV and adding large chunks of text to articles: [196]

Requesting CU to be run against any of the socks in the archive that aren't stale and also to check for sleepers as they have had multiple accounts going at the same time in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2017 (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]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

21 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New year, new account, same interests and bad habits: awards[197], late-night hosts[198], awards of late-night hosts [199], Seth MacFarlane[200], the work of Seth MacFarlane[201], and edit warring.[202] Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2018 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

27 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Seth MacFarlane article, talking about adding or changing occupations list in article and adding to it, same manner of communication and wording in requests, IPs geolocate to same area as other Atomic Meltdown IP socks, yada, yada, yada. [203], [204], [205]. Just another WP:DUCK to add to the growing list of Atomic Meltdown WP:LTA socks. The evidence is obvious, but if clerk(s) want more, I will provide it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


No, not joking. He edited several times yesterday and several days before. I can see now I made an error, must have been looking at an old case and copied the wrong IP but only for the first of the five. Did you take time to look at the other four? Or the diffs?

This case needs to be reopened and dealt with completely and properly. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE I did not realize the SPI was already closed when I added the other four IPs. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:46, 28 January 2018 (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]

  • You have to be joking. IP hasn't edited since 2015. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopening based on addition of IPs with more recent edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience, the only way to effectively deal with Atomic Meltdown's IP hopping is through long-term semi-protection. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Could an admin please semi-protect Talk:Seth MacFarlane to prevent further IP block evasion? A week should be long enough I think. Sro23 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edit warring new user, account created one day after the last sock was blocked. Tics off most of the usual areas of interest: Late night talk show hosts ([206] [207] [208] [209]), fixation on Awards/nominations ([210] [211]) and of course Seth MacFarlane ([212] [213]). Sro23 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2018 (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]

31 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All the tell tale signs are present: preoccupation with late-night talk show hosts ([214] [215] [216] [217]), Seth MacFarlane ([218] [219]), Trey Parker ([220] [221]), Awards & nominations lists ([222] [223])... I could keep going. Sro23 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2018 (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]

28 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I've been trying to ignore him, but apparently he's gotten himself temp-blocked, so... Account created after the last indef-block, the usual late-night hosts and their awards[224][225][226][227][228] and the perennial edit-warring with summaries only when he's angry. No Seth MacFarlane edits, but maybe Seth didn't win any awards or put out any CDs this summer. Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2018 (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]

 Confirmed:

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Fairly obvious sock; same fixation on awards ([229] [230]), Late night talk show hosts ([231] [232]), Family Guy ([233] [234]), Marvel ([235] [236]), etc. Unfortunately this sock will require quite a lot of cleanup as it has been active for a while now. Sro23 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2019 (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]

  • Blocked and tagged. Filing for the record. Sro23 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious sock now blocked and tagged. As per usual same obsession with Seth MacFarlane; also recreation of Penguin in other media. Noting for the record. Sro23 (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (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]

12 January 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious sock, identical interest in Seth MacFarlane ([237] [238], Trevor Noah ([239] [240], comic book characters ([241] [242] [243] [244], etc. Filing for the record, already blocked and tagged. Sro23 (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2020 (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]

03 May 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Account's very first edit was a draft for a new article about American Dad by AM's beloved Seth MacFarlane[245] followed by edits to related articles.[246] Shares AM's interest in The Daily Show,[247] and apparently had to go back to the 87th Academy Awards to add an image of Neil Patrick Harris[248] and then tweak his occupations.[249] Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This user doesn't seem to know or care when it's time to quite socking. We should probably prepare for more in the future, perhaps with extended confirmation on certain pages to keep his new accounts from editing those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He knows how to "break in" new accounts to bypass semi-protection. Would temporary restrictions on IP ranges have any value? What about adding him to WP:LTA for better tracking? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Likely and editing while logged out also.  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're free to create an LTA page on this sockpuppeteer if you believe that would be helpful. EC protection may be applied on a case by case basis, depending on how severe the sockpuppetry is on each page. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Account started editing shortly after the blocking of another sock,[250] editing articles about the works of Seth McFarlane,[251] including the musical career that is a particular fascination of AM (and few others).[252] The Daily Show is another perennial interest of AM.[253] Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2020 (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]

27 July 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


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]

  • It's been a while, so adding this new sock to pick up the thread. Blocked and tagged as proven based on obvious targets and CU evidence.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Very experienced new editor. Similar edits to sock User:Kinsley Bottom see [254] and [255] Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2021 (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]

24 June 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

A "new" editor sharing AM's interest in comics characters and Seth MacFarlane quickly turns his attention to splitting off SMcF's discography[256]... again.[257][258] I suspect that User:Sheldon the God and its socks were him too, which would provide more connective tissue among their interests and activities (South Park–comics–SMcF's music). Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2022 (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]

09 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Account created the day after his last block, with a name similar to a previous suspected sock, creates an article for an upcoming Seth MacFarlane album,[259] and proceeds to edit-war over infoboxes[260] for bunch of his old favorites.[261] Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2022 (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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Atomic_Meltdown/Archive&oldid=1098633701"