Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
- WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U), CheckUser policy (Wikipedia:CheckUser), or Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU).
 Skip to: Submitting an SPI case • open cases • cases awaiting CheckUser |
Welcome to Sockpuppet investigations (SPI), a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry amongst users as well as any additional CheckUser requests.
 |
If the evidence is sensitive, privacy is needed, or if it involves sock puppetry by an administrator, seek advice by email from a Checkuser or the Arbitration Committee first. Private information, emails, logs, etc, may not be posted on Wikipedia; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first. |
Important notes
- Before submitting a case, check that there isn't one already in progress using the search button at the bottom of this page.
- Please provide evidence (preferably with diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) that show disruption or deception via IPs or accounts via sock puppetry. Cases without any evidence or with solely vague beliefs or assumptions will likely be rejected.
- Remember to assume good faith when possible.
- Consider notifying the suspected accounts by adding
{{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~to the bottom of their talk pages. Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. - Keep it simple. Simple, concisely presented evidence leads to a quickly resolved case.
- Do I need to request CheckUser?
- CheckUser is a tool used by a small number of trusted users. It allows them to access evidence from Wikipedia's server logs to help resolve the case. For most cases, behavioral evidence is enough, with no need for CheckUser.
- To request CheckUser, there must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry or abuse, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for checkuser without evidence will be declined, because
CheckUser is not for fishing. CheckUser is also not 
magic pixie dust, and should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry, 
Stale account(s) that have not edited for many months, or cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter (see also the 
duck test). Finally, while CheckUser will not be used to confirm that a user is editing from a specific IP address; quick requests may be made for the purpose of getting an underlying IP address or range blocked, however a CheckUser will not disclose what that IP address is. - If you see a purported suicide note or threat of harm (try IRC first in an emergency, at #wikipedia-en-spi connect).
Stale account(s) that have not edited for many months, or cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter (see also the 
| Requesting checkuser work for an existing case |
|---|
|
Anyone can request CheckUser at any time on an open case if it is necessary. If you wish to request CheckUser to any existing open case, then do the following:
|
- Quick CheckUser requests
If you need a CheckUser to review something, but it does not fall into the above categories, please see here for instructions.
- Administrator's instructions
If any administrator wants to help out at SPI, but is unsure how to get started, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions. If you need help with anything, please ask one of the active SPI clerks.
Submitting an SPI case
Create the case by replacing "SOCKMASTER" in the white box below with the user name of the oldest account (the "sockmaster"), or the previous case name, and then clicking the button under the box. For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the white box, and then click the button under the box. You will be taken to the next page, where there is a form to fill out giving the details of your report. Note that this form should be used for both opening a case for the first time, as well as opening a new case for a previous sockmaster.
If CheckUser might be needed, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box.
| Start or continue an SPI case here |
|---|
|
|
See also
- SPI clerks and clerking
- List of indicator icons used at SPI
- Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser – predecessors to SPI which both ceased as of January 2009
- The SPI bot's edits.
Case status summary
Case status summary |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open cases
Cases
P0PP4B34R732 |
|---|
|
P0PP4B34R732
01 February 2012
All four accounts do the exact same work on past created biographies... creating the talk page and then adding tags and minor cleanup to the articles. Last 500 edits of P0PP4B34R732, Millertime246, Sweat1nce, 2MuchCoffee. I've both warned Millertime247 and P0PP4B34R732 on their talk pages about adding the same inappropriate WikiProject Banners. Their edits never overlap, but come uncannily close to each other. For example:
Except for their inappropriate WikiProject Banners, I'm haven't noticed any malicious intent. They have actually done some good work. So, I don't think a block to the master account, P0PP4B34R732, is warranted... I don't know, it is above my pay grade. Bgwhite (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. Right. These accounts appear to be the same, but I can't see what they're doing. There's no abuse I see, so before any blocks are placed, the edits should be checked and the editors contacted. What are they up to?
|
Additional information needed Assuming they are all the same person, what policy is being violated here? --
Charmingworry |
|---|
|
Charmingworry
06 February 2012
Both single purpose accounts, troll-editing at User talk:Lustiger seth. Calabe1992 15:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. These Account are identical with de:user:Thomas7 and meta:user:Thomas7 and hundreds of sockpuppets, mostof them on de.wp. --Seewolf (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC) I use this account to make unbiased contact to the user Lustiger_seth. User Seewolf tries to prevent this communication in the german wp in an unfair way, and under violation of the german discussion-page-rules, so I used the english discussion page owned by the user Lustiger_seth. A second account was taken, because the first account has been object to an hunting attack of the user seewolf. The prevention of "Fernmelde-Botschaft" (a telecommunication-message) by user seewolf is a violation of the german law "Telekommunikationsgesetz". User seewolf is behaving in an unfair manner. The fact, that I do have other account names - for legitimate security reasons - is not a violation of the english SP-Rules, according to this. SeitTuerSchloss (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC) (Pardon for my bad english). Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsCharmingworry is the same as Jokessolid (talk · contribs) (who is globally locked). SeitTuerSchloss is possibly related. TNXMan 15:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
Xebulon |
|---|
|
Xebulon
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive. 08 February 2012
This is my first time in a long time doing this, so I apologize if I mess up. The issue we have is at Nagorno-Karabakh. Here are the historical facts. These should not be in dispute:
That brings us to two weeks ago.
I want to make it clear that I do not care which version is more correct. I don't even really care if the 95k version from September was more correct than the 65k version we have now. It might be, I don't know. I don't care if it was created by sockpuppets, or if the reversion from it was valid. I do care that a user appeared out of nowhere to revert an article back four months without discussion; I do care that two users immediately appeared to defend that edit, having had no previous experience with the article; and I do care that these users have all used universally bad faith edit summaries in their attempts to get this version in place. I have not included Zimmarod in this because his edits are not exactly the same as the others - he did have experience with the article before the last two weeks, and he actually engaged on the talk page. I have also not included Winterbliss as he was mentioned in a previous SSP of Hetoum I and I did not want to pile on. That said, I think he is at least related, since his first edit to the article proper was the mass reversion. But again, unlike the other two, Winterbliss did engage on the talk page. So, I would like to know if anyone thinks Hablabar and Oliveriki are the same person, and if perhaps they are related to Xebulon or Hetoum I or someone. I don't know if this calls for Checkuser, as I said, I don't do this often, but it's not often I'm angered enough to stop beating the articles around with a sock full of nickels and actually bring it to higher authorities. I apologize again if any of the above is in poor form, and please let me know if I can fix anything. Golbez (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
08 February 2012
Something is clearly going on here, and requires a thorough check up. The above accounts came to my attention after appearing one after another on the talk on Nagorno-Karabakh, all agreeing with each other and making identical comments. If one looks at the history of the above accounts, they all have something in common. All those accounts are new, they were created between 1 October 2011/present, soon after the previous bunch of Xebulon socks was blocked. All were created by the same pattern, the very first edit is to deredlink the user and talk pages to look like an established editor. Wikistalk shows that all these new accounts have similar editing interests, [13], the focus is Nagorno-Karabakh, Caucasian Albania, and related articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics, especially various obscure monasteries in the region. In my opinion, we have here the long term disruption by the same user who operated the accounts of Verjakette (talk · contribs), Paligun (talk · contribs) and Xebulon (talk · contribs). These old SPI requests show that those sock masters also used the same tactic of using multiple accounts to edit war and create illusion of consensus on talk pages. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verjakette, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun/Archive. Usual tactics for Verjakette/Xebulon is to have a couple of main accounts that do most editing, and a whole lot of SPAs that do edit warring, voting, etc. The previous tandem was Vandorenfm (talk · contribs) + Gorzaim (talk · contribs), now it seems that Winterbliss and Nocturnal781 took over from them. Winterbliss is a particularly interesting account. For a new user he knows his way around Wikipedia all too well, filing SPI and arbitration enforcement requests and showing familiarity with events that took place before he registered in Wikipedia, and this was noted by admins as well: [14] A previous CU on Winterbliss showed that "Based on technical evidence it's P.S. I just saw that Golbez also saw that something strange is going on and filed his own SPI request. I suggest the admins merge both SPI requests together and combine the evidence. The CU is absolutely necessary, but SPI should not be limited just to that. Behavioral analysis is also important to prevent further disruption. Grandmaster 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Also, it is worth looking at the results of the CU that led to the ban of the previous bunch of socks of Xebulon. [16] Please note that all those socks were used to edit war on the same article of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was noted by the admins who conducted the CU. Grandmaster 15:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsThese accounts have all been checked (see this page) and have been found to be |
Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma |
|---|
|
Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma
08 February 2012
User:Halo laser plasma (new account: Feb. 8) has made no edits outside of the deletion discussions of User:Plasma laser may have been a mistake account per the edit summary here so is not a purposefully subversive account but should be redirect to the sockmaster's page. Curb Chain (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) The halo plasma is my brothers account that I told him about my articles about to be deleted and he commented on his own will. Is this where I comment to back my case up.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsYes, there are a few accounts here, but I don't see any abuse of them. Shawn -you need to pick an account and stick to it. Any old accounts should be redirected to your main account. If your brother is also editing Wikipedia, you should both note that in order to avoid any confusion. TNXMan 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Neiltaculod |
|---|
|
Neiltaculod
08 February 2012
All three active on Neil Taculod. The moment I warn one not to do something, another one comes in. Either this is tag-teaming/meatpuppetry, but it looks very much like sockpuppetry. See e.g. top half of this diff by Neiltaculod at 10:25, 8 February 2012, my warning at 10:30, 8 February 2012 and following edit at 10:37, 8 February 2012 by Zonastroe. Similar: diff by Chadoakley, diff by Zonastroe. Note that in the first diff mentioned, diff, the person is referring in plural: "Artists We Also Like". Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Adding to this, compare the style in this talkpage post by Neiltaculod and these two [17] by Zonastroe. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Confirmed the following are the same:
Brian Boru is awesome |
|---|
|
Brian Boru is awesome
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian Boru is awesome/Archive.
01 February 2012
On January 27th, two IP addresses began making edits similar to the indef blocked user Brian Boru is awesome, a user with a history of block evasion. Both IPs geolocate to the same area as IPs listed in previous SPI investigations of the user. IP 24 has been making identical mass edits with identical edit summaries (such as we don't do apperance lists,[18][19] note that both the IP and Brian misspell appearance the same way) to comic book related articles. IP 96 has mostly been reverting any edits that revert IP 24's initial edit. IP 96 (which is very similar to an IP that Brian commented on using) doesn't use as many edit summaries, but the ones that are used are still very similar (such as the use of we got rid of...). SudoGhost 05:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. IP 24.38.181.81 seems to be supporting the same sort of edits as the other two IPs. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC) As 129 notes, is also acting in the same manner as the other two IPs. It is also geographically tied to the other two. There is also a distinct lack of overlap in the times of the edits. In some ways I find this very frustrating, just like BBIA's indef. There is some good among the edits. If it weren't for the tenancy to edit war, edit without summary, avoidance of talk page use, and apparent block evasion, this would be productive. As it is, it's detrimental since the apparent editing around the indef makes all the edits subject to reversal. - J Greb (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Vacio |
|---|
|
Vacio
03 February 2012
This user is definetely sock puppet of user Vacio, who also clearly section blanked perfect referenced source http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khojaly_Massacre&diff=474424983&oldid=474413329 Also note the how both are appearing same time in the last section of this page, under the heading Warning about Section Blanking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vacio And again in here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khojaly_Massacre&action=history And again in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khojaly_Massacre#sources_occasionally_refer_to_the_massacre_as_Khojaly_Genocide NovaSkola (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by accused partiesI think it wont be difficult for a checkuser to find out whether I use/d multiple accounts or not, since I contribute from Armenia and Divot, apparently from Moscow. Although, I wonder what the real motivations of NovaSkola are. Just because two users edited the same article, the same day, is usually not a reason to suspect them of sock-puppetry. It's even more strange to accuse a user (like here) based on such a suspicion, which is actually per WP rules personal attack. I think anyone looking to my contribution, would see that such suspicions are obviously baseless. I registered to Wikipedia in april 2007. I edit mainly hy-wiki (where I am an admin since a month) and lesser frequently: en-wiki and nl-wiki. I contribute to Wikipedia with my real given name, and even my family name and Twitter account can be found in one of my user pages. Further information about my "wiki background" can be found in this research. I have contributed 5 years to WP with only this account (except my bot) and I have nothing to do with Divot. I even never edited Wikipedia from Russia. Hopefully, when this checkuser is over, user NovaSkola will cooperate on TP's without threats and accusations. Thank you for you time and efforts! --vacio 15:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Divot (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. If checkuser need, I can send him my Moscow phone number, skype, adress, office contacts, Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Did you know that I'm also a well known sockpuppet? [20]. NovaSkola has a bad habit of accusing anyone that disagrees with him of being a sockpuppet. --George Spurlin (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Asgardian |
|---|
|
Asgardian
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asgardian/Archive.
04 February 2012
*Shay Given
* Jerzy Dudek
User:PurpleHeartEditor and User:SoundofRain are currently blocked as sockpuppets of User:Asgardian. Before they were blocked, this user was already familiar with basic Wikipedia Jargon such as a "reliable source" edit, and appears to use the same model as User:Asgardian - i.e. (blanking out and disagreement with the edits of others.) Thus, I ask for a checkuser on this editor because of his tendency to make the very same edits how Asgardian and his other sockpuppets made, which all seem highly suspicious. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 10:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 10:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Clerk note: Sorry, you're going to have to do better on the evidence. Mistersaxon has
Leydn |
|---|
|
Leydn
05 February 2012
User is using 1 account and 1 IP to make unconstructive edits to DEAP (Please see Page History). Both the user account and IP have received several warnings. Both are pasting the same text into the page, and using the exact same edit summary each time, which is "this is the registered trademark of a recording artist". I have reverted the page to the last version before all of this happened today, which was February 18th, 2011. By the time this report is read however, I am sure my reversion would have been undone by the vandal, so please check over the page history. Thank you. Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal) 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Caracas 2000 |
|---|
|
Caracas 2000
07 February 2012
GJRFMorelligu was (essentially) indef-blocked for image copyvios on August 5, 2007. Caracas 2000 started editing on August 9, 2007. I have just discovered (in helping go through Caracas 2000's CCI) both users have introduced direct translation copyvios into Venezuelan presidential biographies from http://www.venezuelatuya.com. (See e.g. here - copyvio by GJRFMorelligu, article later edited by Caracas 2000 and here - copyvio by Caracas 2000.) Seems very odd for two independent users to have done this. It would be nice to know if Caracas 2000 has been through this whole song and dance before so we could just do an outright indef-block again if needed--and also to know if we should open a CCI automatically for GJRFMorelligu. I don't really have any evidence about Caracas1830, but he edits a lot of the same articles and it would be nice just to exclude him for sure based on the similarity of the name. Thanks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
No notifications, no evidence, no retraction: I pinged Caracas1830. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm pretty convinced at this point that User:Caracas 2000 was created to evade the block of User:GJRFMorelligu. :( User:GJRFMorelligu was declined in his last unblock request on 8 August 2006 (not 2007 :)). User:Caracas 2000 created his account on 9 August 2006. Caracas 2000 immediately started uploading images, following the same pattern of the previous editor and some of the uploads are the same. For starers, see File:Juan Bautista Plaza.jpg. I've restored the deleted history for comparison so that you can see it, too, Sandy: [24]. Exactly the same dimensions and resolution; I don't know how to see the metadata of the original. This is also true of File:Alberto Arvelo Torrealba.jpg. Uploaded by GJRF and deleted; later uploaded by Caracas 2000 in precisely the same dimensions. See also File:Mariano Picón Salas.jpg, File:The young Fredy Reyna.jpg. Notable here, both of them uploaded and subsequently had deleted the same image: File:People dancing merengue rucaneao.jpg. This was later uploaded on Commons as public domain (and perhaps it is) by commons:User:Guillermo Ramos Flamerich. The metadata and the dimensions seem the same. I'm going to add any of this you don't already have to your SPI. I have some real concerns about that user. Check his description for File:Fotos Baruta.jpg: "I´m the author of this photo, i take it in August 2006." Why does it say in the metadata "Copyright 9,2002"? And why does it indicate the file had last been altered on 2003:01:26 20:20? And look at Caracas 2000's rationale for his File:Vidal Colmenares.jpg: "I'm the author of this photo, i take it in August 6, 2006, in a public presentation of Vidal Colmenares, Caracas, Venezuela. Guillermo Ramos Flamerich". He had originally signed this here with his username but changed it many months later. I think all three of these users are the same person. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
70.251.101.115 |
|---|
|
70.251.101.115
07 February 2012
[25] & [26] I have reverted this twice now and it's interesting how they both seem to agree with each other. I've checked the sources they are using and have found them to be questionable. Mainly as they are not normal sites used on Wikipedia to govern as reliable sources. But yet these two miraculously agree with each other. HMMMMMMM! Swifty*talkcontribs 15:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsAside from that one overlap, I don't see any common editing areas. The WHOIS data also seems to suggest the IPs are in different places. TNXMan 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Mbhiii |
|---|
|
Mbhiii
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii/Archive.
08 February 2012
Please see my talk page, "Mbhiii sockpuppets (including probably User:Dawakin and User:Trift)". An IP has once or twice now alerted me to such edits/editors, and I think they're probably right about these (caveat: I am not so sure about Somedifferentstuff, but there are thematic similarities). Might as well check them out (the ones that are still up and running): they do all edit the same things (articles like Money trail and Redistribution of wealth) in the same left-wing anti-establishment vein with, unfortunately, a bit too much OR and synthesis and way too much socking (I am convinced they can't help it anymore--it's a disorder). Drmies (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Lihaas |
|---|
|
Lihaas
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lihaas/Archive.
08 February 2012
New user whose first edits are to support Lihaas at Talk:Child sexual abuse[27] and at his MfD[28]. Perhaps I'm being a little paranoid, but that seems a suspicious editing pattern for a brand new user. Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) User:MichelleBlondeau has been identified and blocked as a sock of User:Cataconia, not, as I suspected, User:Lihaas. This investigation can be closed. Yunshui 雲水 15:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments- |
7arazred |
|---|
|
7arazred
08 February 2012
Basically, block evasion, previous sockpuppetry. User's IP where they make it pretty obvious: [29] (tagged as suspected, user points to new account). Rename request on Simple English Wiki: [30]. Same edit pattern: [31]. (Although not directly relevant to SPI, I'd like to point out the user appears to be editing constructively now in the same topics, but that is no excuse for evading a block.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Marquis de la Eirron |
|---|
|
Marquis de la Eirron
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive.
08 February 2012
First off the history of Blue Dog Coalition seems to link the IP and Musical Mind20 together, especially considered the evidence to follow. Due to the IP apparently belonging to an educational establishment which IIRC doesn't correspond to any of Marquis's known IPs, this will have to be done on behavioural analysis. The IP also made this edit to LGBTory, it looks strange even on the face of it as it's clearly reverting the reference formatting done in the edit on the left hand side of the window. Although there are a few differences between the IPs new version and the last sock version, the addition of the unsuccessful candidate names at the bottom originally added in this edit seems quackish enough, especially with this and this from the IP also, that's Marquis style editing to the letter. Now for Musical Mind20. They have uploaded a series of images across a range of articles of minor Conservative politicans. I can't see the deleted images obviously, so any comparisons will be that they uploaded an image for the same article. File:Mark Prisk.jpg matches File:Mark prisk.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:John Henry Hayes.jpg matches John_hayes.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Bob Neill Official.jpg matches Bob-Neill-MP.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Grant Shapps Official.jpg matches Grant_shapps.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Jeremy Hunt Official.jpg matches Jeremy_Hunt2.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Hugo Swire Official.jpg matches Web-Hugo-Swire.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg matches OwenPaterson4.png, originally added here by Marquis. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you've got the point already. Replacing Marquis images previously deleted and reverting to Marquis's version on an article as an IP, seems obvious enough without adding more? 2 lines of K303 12:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Cowback23451 |
|---|
|
Cowback23451
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cowback23451/Archive.
08 February 2012
Larfers and Chris Jalled apparently attempted to create the page Bel Air, North Dakota as a prank. No such town exists. Larfers has a similar name to Lirfers who has vandalized several common pages to the other socks including Ray Reid ([32], [33], [34], as well as two by the IP, [35] and [36] which appear to replace vandalism with other vandalism). Other common pages include Bruce Marshall (ice hockey) and other UConn atheltics articles. Finally, CommunistPaqqq, BigPileofFun, LittlePileofBuns, Cowback23451, JohnnyJorringer, the 198 IP and Elmoknowski have a long history of vandalizing Style Invitational including [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] and [47]. Edit: the 198 IP also has other vandlalsim including [48] The 137 IP traces back to UConn, where several members claim they are from. The 198 IP links to another college. Disclosure: I am also a UConn student. I don't know who is/are doing this, but it isn't me. If I catch anyone in the act, I will yell at them. Smartyllama (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Midnighthours |
|---|
|
Midnighthours
05 February 2012
Using Wikipedia for promotional purposes on the article Rosa Barba, repeated insertion of unsourced material in Violation of the Biographies of living persons policy. Hu12 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Checkuser note: So, if you think it's only possible they are the same, and more likely meatpuppetry, what are you expecting a CU to reveal in this case? 
CheckUser declined unless requestor explains more clearly with diffs. -
TBrandley |
|---|
|
TBrandley
06 February 2012
IP used to comment on AFD for article created by TBrandley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gene_Belcher Very heavy degree of overlap in edit topics between IP editor and TBrandley Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Cases: Administrator Action Needed
Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing
Cases in this section have an open request for Checkuser that is being processed. Any user may update or act on this case, and any patroller or clerk may decide the case. However it will not be closed if the Clerks believe any further action is needed.
- Endorsement or decline of Checkuser request may only be made by a Clerk or Checkuser.
- If your case is not showing up here, or this section seems out of date, please click the .
Awaiting clerk approval
Crazy1980 |
|---|
|
Crazy1980
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980/Archive.
08 February 2012
He's baaaaack...and adding the copyvio Beatles links once more. I know that CU is not used on IPs normally, but the abuse here is approaching the Godzilla Threshold for that, and even if not, if the previous named accounts haven't gone stale yet a check against them might be wise, I think - this chap isn't giving up. The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Typhoonwikihelper |
|---|
|
Typhoonwikihelper
04 February 2012
Handwriting pretty much the same. Editing the same type of articles. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 13:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC) And there was also about 20 IP's (which I think were Typhoonwikihelper's since they were all from Hong Kong) trolling me back in December/January. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 14:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry - what do you mean? Bruvtakesover (T|C) 15:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Truthalwaystriumphs |
|---|
|
Truthalwaystriumphs
07 February 2012
Both contributors are making similar edits to Kushwaha, often around the same time of day and despite the statements to which they object in the article being well sourced. There have also been IPs involved, again operating around the same time period but pointless to list here as the article is now semi-protected for a month. It is clear POV pushing and the similar edits is concerning. Sitush (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Clerk endorsed - It's suspicious, though I think their edits are a little different. Endorsing to clarify. —
Dsouzamarshall |
|---|
|
Dsouzamarshall
07 February 2012
significant overlap of articles Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsI'm sorry, but you'll have to be more specific. Please demonstrate (preferably with diffs) the abuse of our multiple account policy. TNXMan 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Awaiting Checkuser
Quick Checkuser requests
This section is for CheckUser requests unrelated to sockpuppetry, such as:
-
- Underlying IPs – identification and blocking for a longer term than autoblock.
- Collateral damage checks – before hardblocking IPs and ranges.
- Threats of harm (to self or others) – where the location and other details may be needed for law enforcement or medical authorities.
- IP block exemption checks – before granting IPBE or to confirm proper use.
Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above. If posted here, they will be delisted by a clerk without being actioned.
Copy the following template and paste it to the end of this page (quick link to edit) with a useful header and details, then sign using "~~~~" and click "save".
-
==== HEADER ====
{{SPIquick}}
Archived cases
The following are old SPI cases, separated by month. This archival system was deprecated in February 2010.
| 2009 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2010 | ||
| January | February | March |
| April | May | June |
| July | August | September |
| October | November | December |
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
|---|
|
||||||||||||||
![[24]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Juan_Bautista_Plaza.jpg){kind=link}
