Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wonderfool

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions. Been ten days now. Any further edits should go to WP:ANI. Iolakana•T 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wonderfool

wikt:Wonderfool (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Wonderfool has been permanantly blocked on the English Wiktionary. AFAIK, when the same stunt was pulled by him last year, he was asked not to edit any WMF project. After considerable contrite apologies were made, he was allowed to edit again (no longer as a sysop.) Creating several sock puppets, he was able to get a new user nominated for sysop, and about one year later, during WikiMania, repeated his stunt.

In IRC channels, he has promised to return next year, for more of the same. He expressed dissatisfaction that his Wikipedia user Dangherous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) narrowly failed the RfA procedure.

This is an active inter-project vandal. As new Wikipedia sockpuppets are uncovered, en.wiktionary.org would greatly appreciate information about them, on the Wiktionary beer parlour.

This user is known to use sleeper accounts. One is User:Dangherous (wikt:Dangherous (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Dangherous). His logs at Wiktionary, starting at August 6, 2006, show what he is capable of doing with administrator tools. When Wonderfool was an administrator under his original username, he went on a similar rampage on September 17, 2005, as you can see in this log. He tried to get adminship here (see this RFA, where he admits he is the same Dangherous as the Dangherous in Wiktionary.

Confirmed en.wiktionary.org sockpuppets


Wonderfool attacked Wiktionary in the same manner that the Anonymex vandal gang is rumored to be trying to use to attack Wikipedia.

Please note that some of the Wiktionary sockpuppets named are possibly impostors on Wiktionary who stole legitimate Wikipedians' usernames. However, some of them could be moles from the Anonymex vandal gang mentioned above that could be waiting for the right moment to attack Wikipedia.

Some of the users listen here are actual proper users. Contact an administrator on Wiktionary, you have a better chance of dealing with them over there. Iolakana|T 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
wikt:User:Connel MacKenzie is the Wiktionary administrator who opened this case. I have added a few notes after he wrote the report up. He wants to warn the Wikipedia administrators about this backstabbing rampage artist and have his sock farm blocked here. Please contact him at wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie if you wish to contact him because he does not spend much time here and therefore is often unaware of talk page changes here. Better yet, if you want to contact any administrator at Wiktionary, please visit the Wiktionary Beer Parlour, which is their analog of our Village pump and Administrators' noticeboard. Jesse Viviano 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. Perhaps I should restate the inter-project nature of this event at the top of this section. AFAIK, Wikipedia knew about Dangherous being Wonderfool, here on Wikipedia and the proper communication channels were not working. This is a multi-project vandal; as Wiktionary gets bigger we are seeing more and more inter-project vandalism. I think we need to coordinate our efforts much, much better. Thanks again Jesse; good clarifications. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If WP knew Dangherous was Wonderfool, why is he not blocked? Iolakana|T 12:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I do wish to note that I think the theory that there is a link to "Anonymex" seems invalid. Wonderfool could have done much more damage, if he had actually been trying to do anything other than get attention. (I.e. "See, I did it again!") --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Corresponding Wikipedia users
I have created a sub page to make it easier to understand Wikipedia users from Wiktionary users, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wonderfool/Wikipedia. Iolakana|T 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, below is a list of users that have had their name stricken because they do not exist or they are suspected (except from Shanel and Freak). Iolakana|T 13:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you mean not suspected? Dangherous/Wonderfool himself (in IRC and on wikt: talk pages) identified the Wonderfool, Dangherous, Dangerfool, Anonymous Editors, Bottletoground, Brandy, Expurgator, Foumidable, Newnoise and TheWayForward as his accounts on both wikt: and wiki:. Whatever criteria you used to conclude they are non suspected, is obviously wrong. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It is possible that Wonderfool could be trying to frame legitimate users on Wikipedia. He already stole Shanel's and Freakofnurture's identities on Wikipedia by creating a Shanel account and a Freakofnurture account on Wiktionary. However, there is a remote possibility that these are Wonderfool's socks, so it looks like this case is becoming a good candidate for being sent to CheckUser. I am not taking this lightly, because the only other time I have requested a CheckUser anywhere is because someone was uploading child pornography on the Wikimedia Commons, and that requires us to find out the pedophile's IP address to prepare an ISP abuse report and a police report. Jesse Viviano 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking at "Oldest contributions", I'd have to say that Wonderfool was trying to gain Wiktionary sysop status from Freakofnurture's and Shanel's reputations. If he had had these accounts the first time around, they likely would have been used for nefarious purposes then. So, on those two I agree with Kilo-Lima, they should be striken from this secondary list. I also agree that users that don't exist here (Note: not the same as not having a user page) can be stricken. It would be more than prudent to CheckUser all the others against Wonderfool/Dangherous though. Indeed, very foolish not to. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 10:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)