Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curse of Fenric/Archive
Curse of Fenric
- Curse of Fenric (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
02 August 2015
[edit]- Suspected sockpuppets
- GhostLight1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
I believe the three users listed here to be Curse, and here's why. As for the IP. One of his final edits logged in was him posted a link to a blog in which he "defends" himself. He later left a message through the first IP to message to Jojhutton, a known contact who he had a dispute with, thanking Joj for further publicizing his blog at ANI. The second IP is listed on his blog and has made changes to ANI (Wiping his ANI discussion after closed), and his talk page (wiping the link to the ANI discussion after it had closed). The evidence for GhostLight1 is simply that the account was made early this morning, and among his are changes to a talk page he was active on (first edit, too, for Ghost), a message to his blocking admin, saying that Curse shouldn't have been "banned", and yet another message to Jojhutton about COF, calling Joj an "anti-vaxxer", something he did on his blog. Hard to believe a user that's a few hours old would know so much about a blocked user from almost a month ago. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 10:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC) (Updated: 11:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC) by TrueCRaysball)
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 seams to me that those IPs are dynamic, so we shouldn't be blocking them. GhostLight1 is already confirmed as a sock of Jaredgk2008. Closing this case. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
12 November 2016
[edit]Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
This is filed in response to the edit war at List of professional wrestling organizations in Australia. Three IPs (listed above) have been using similar rationale to references to "Wide Bay Pro Wrestling" (once the 110 IP was blocked, the other one quickly took up the cause). The 58 and 101 IPs also have similar editing focuses to indefinitely blocked user Curse of Fenric.
Curse of Fenric was blocked indefinitely for edit warring and has made legal threats since the block (see the "Libel" tab on his "Curse of Fenric vs. Wikipedia" page at [1]). Also on his rant page, you will notice the "WWE Global Warning" tab. This was a particular focus on his editing. Recently, a link to WWE Global Warning was added to Professional wrestling in Australia, and it was removed the next day by 58.162.201.207 [2].
Another editing similarity is the focus on autism/Aspergers. Curse of Fenric was heavily involved in an argument about vaccination, which is a big topic of discussion related to autism (rather than provide links to each diff, the conversation is at [[3]]. Other edits include [4] from Curse of Fenric, and [5] and [6] from 58.162.201.207.
In summary, the three IPs have removing the same information from the same article lately (one as soon as 110 was blocked). All have a similar focus (professional wrestling in Australia) as an indefinitely blocked user (Curse of Fenric), with a specific focus on removing information about one professional wrestling tour. Outside of wrestling, there is also a similarity in the focus on autism with the 101 and 58 IPs. Behavioral evidence appears to pass the WP:DUCK test. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding to the previous evidence: The 101 IP voted to delete the Global Warning Tour article [7] and started a sockpuppet investigation related to another dispute on the History of Asperger syndrome article (against the user that the 58 IP had reverted earlier): [8]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- New IP - 203.45.51.109 has now joined in, reverting the same information that the other IPs were against (a mention of the Global Warning Tour, a mention of the upcoming NXT tour that the 58 IP has reverted, removing multiple organizations from the Australian list page [the sockpuppets have had a crusade against Wide Bay Pro Wrestling], and repeating a warning given by the 58 IP. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by other users
[edit]Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@Mkdw: I noticed that when you blocked the 101 IP, you didn't tag the user page. Any reason for that? PhilrocMy contribs 17:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- We rarely place tags on IP user or user talk pages. —DoRD (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just going to tag the pages myself. PhilrocMy contribs 17:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't place the tags again - leave it to a clerk or CU to determine whether they're necessare. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just going to tag the pages myself. PhilrocMy contribs 17:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Awaiting administrative action - please block 101.182.161.253 (talk · contribs) for 1 week. This IP is clearly the same user as the 110 IP that was blocked recently, and likely the same as 58 based on geolocation and subject area focus (as described by GaryColemanFan); all are involved in hounding of an IP in the 59 range as well. Since 101 and 110 came practically from nowhere to push for deletion of an article that Curse of Fenric has published a vendetta against on their blog, there's little question the IPs are Curse of Fenric. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Administrator note @Ivanvector: I've blocked the IP per your request. No further action on the other IPs? If so please, mark as closed otherwise feel free to ping me. Mkdwtalk 04:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: Thanks. At the time I requested, the 110 IP had already been recently blocked and had stopped editing, and 58 is a few days stale, so no action requested for those two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
01 January 2017
[edit]Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.182.29.49 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.182.161.253
101.182.16.1.253 was already blocked once and confirmed as a sock here. User is still block evading. IPs continue to edit war the same way Curse of Fenric did. They then try to get the other user blocked for Vandalism or turn it on the user putting them at fault. Geolocate all to the same area in Australia.Using IP 101.182.29.49 they have now taken to harrassing user Hellboy42 and issuing warnings to them for Vandalism that are not legit. They are following user Hellboy42 around and reverting all of their edits as seen here and even went so far as to take them to AIV which was declined.As you can see in the diffs they are targeting the same articles and same content in the article. It is because of the reasons listed above I believe that these IPs are blocked user Curse of Fenric. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 09:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: I hope this is the right place to respond. The contributions of the confirmed sock IP and current IP is all I can provide as Master has been blocked since 2015 I believe, Contributions are identical down to article and accusations against users.
Current IP Contributions Confirmed Sock IP Contributions Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said every revert and edit they have done in the last 3 days they accused the same user of Vandalism and then warned them for it. How many do it need to list individually? I've never done an SPI and I was already told this was declined so I'm not sure what's going on right now. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently I've not done this correctly, I was told just to put the Contributions of both as there were so many and to link the archived investigation were the one of the IPS were already confirmed which I did but clearly I was misinformed. I was also told CheckUser cannot confirm a relationship between an IP and a named account so I asked this be closed so as not to waste anymore of anyone's time as I have done appearantly.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
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]We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can an administrator follow through on behavioral evidence, though? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @WarMachineWildThing:
Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
- @WarMachineWildThing:
- At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
- At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
- In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @WarMachineWildThing: I cant review the case unless you provide WP:diffs. You are talking about "accusations against users". Please, provide diffs to show similarities. I don't have time to go through all contributions and look for similar edits. There are dozens of cases to be reviewed, I don't have time for that. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP for a week. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
02 July 2020
[edit]Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]- KrazyKlimber (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TLPG (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- DawgDeputy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Curse of Fenric and KrazyKlimber have both made very similar attacks against User:Ylevental and Jonathan Mitchell (writer). User:KrazyKlimber is already blocked for harassment, but is not listed as a sock of Curse of Fenric.
Evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curse_of_Fenric&diff=prev&oldid=962969874
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrazyKlimber&diff=prev&oldid=698405055
On Wikiquote, the user account TLPG also made very similar attacks towards Ylevental and Jonathan Mitchell around the end of December 2018. User:TLPG is also registered on Wikipedia.
Evidence:
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Mitchell&diff=prev&oldid=2514991
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Mitchell&diff=prev&oldid=2523488
Additionally, both TLPG and Curse of Fenric claim to be the owner of a website titled Phil's World at philgluyas.com:
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Mitchell&diff=next&oldid=2523930
Might be off-topic, but even one of the admins knows that he uses a lot of sockpuppets:
On Wikiquote, DawgDeputy (formerly WikiLubber) made very similar attacks towards Ylevental and Jonathan Mitchell, also around the end of December 2018. User:DawgDeputy is also registered on Wikipedia, and has been blocked for sockpuppetry before. DawgDeputy on Wikiquote also supported adding unreliable sources to the Jonathan Mitchell article on Wikiquote.
Evidence:
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Mitchell&diff=prev&oldid=2522095
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2606:5580:30C:7F9E:4835:8C0D:B816:DAB3&diff=prev&oldid=2522096 107.194.194.207 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
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 note: Tales from long ago (Jan 2019 mostly) and a far-away place (wikiquote) about long departed editors. All too stale to take to m:SRCU. However, given the recent renewal of hostilities between CoF & Ylevental at User talk:Curse of Fenric over Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ylevental I'd note that CoF is fresh for a CU sleeper check for the first time in near on 5 years, and that the most likely person behind the IP reporting this case is Ylevental (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) in defiance of their block. So much for a CU to chew on, and so little to justify a clerk asking... Cabayi (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)- KrazyKlimber is blocked and stale, TLPG has no local edits, DawgDeputy I don't see sufficient evidence for a check, and the filer is blocked. ST47 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
