Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 94: Line 94:
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
*I've checked and blocked all non-stale accounts. I'm not bothering with tagging, I think it's a waste of time. I have to agree with the comments in the section above; I've just blocked >150 accounts but I'm not entirely convinced I've prevented any disruption (although I have detected several open proxies). Maybe just report the accounts that actually edit disruptively to AIV? [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
*I've checked and blocked all non-stale accounts. I'm not bothering with tagging, I think it's a waste of time. I have to agree with the comments in the section above; I've just blocked >150 accounts but I'm not entirely convinced I've prevented any disruption (although I have detected several open proxies). Maybe just report the accounts that actually edit disruptively to AIV? [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]]: I'm a bit puzzled by some of these blocks. A number of the accounts you blocked seem to have no relationship between each other, aside from having non-latin usernames and sharing (very wide!) ranges. Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 16:45, 1 April 2024

あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと

あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

This SPI case may involve cross-wiki abuse. Please consider reporting the results on Meta; checkusers can send an email to the interwiki checkuser mailing list if required.
This case's socks should have their talk page and email access revoked due to abuse.


22 February 2024

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack quack quack, あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと is back. (This week's sock report)

The following accounts are CU blocked but need tags and a lock request:

The following accounts are DUCK blocked but need tags and a lock request (and possibly CU):

The following accounts are CU blocked and tagged, but need a lock request:

The following accounts have been blocked without CU confirmation or edits, but locks have been requested:

The following accounts are ducky by username:

There are other accounts that are slightly less ducky, and are listed here. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, more ducks were spotted at the sock pond. Note the username similarities. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget 嫗瑰蘋嫗 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). ClumsyOwlet (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Log says that 檢摑檢 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created by 嫗瑰蘋嫗ピオラ. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another one, 嬋點嬋ブイ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Actually caught them in the process of blanking their user talk page. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And they're back: ClumsyOwlet (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could a CU look at the already blocked to make sure?
سرنئپ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) also did something a bit different on their talk page. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another one blanking their talk page just now: देंकृध्यानपया (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). ClumsyOwlet (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, there is ነሜንገቀን (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) now. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More suspicious accounts:

and the still unblocked ones here:

ClumsyOwlet (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

蕪誦北 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) just confirmed it. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk endorsed - please check for potential sleepers. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the edit filter, I also found:
    0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to ask, because I keep wondering. Is there any indication that systematically seeking out, compiling, checking and blocking these accounts is ultimately providing a tangible benefit from an abuse prevention perspective? As far as I can tell, many of them never edit enwiki, and the ones that do only do so on their own talk pages. Basically all of them are long gone by the time they are blocked. Now, it is undesirable for someone to constantly produce these accounts, no doubt about it. But considering that getting blocked by the hundreds for years on end has done nothing to dissuade them, I'm not sure whether it's worth our time. Ultimately, it seems that the outcome remains essentially the same whether or not we end up investing our time: The accounts still get made, they still post a few words about building renovations or somesuch on their talk pages, and that cycle still repeats, with basically no reader-facing consequences. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much agree. There's no point to blocking them and I'd even argue that even just blocking them would go a bit against WP:DENY. Though won't they run out of IP addresses? They seem to be really good at block evasion. I think in the case where the occasional user vandalizes and removes mentions of Aspergers syndrome, we can always use protection. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though won't they run out of IP addresses? - the history of this case should indicate that that is very unlikely. Spicy (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I"ve run the sweep and blocked what I found, all my taggings from 19:02 to 19:09 today are them. Courcelles (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Case closed, doesn't seem to be anything else to do for now. Courcelles (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15 March 2024

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

...Wow, OK, I'm going to do this in parts because it's breaking the template...

Non-obvious ducks here:

The first three socks (ਗੈਪ ਹੈ, Упгаз, ጋዝሉፔ) are tagged incorrectly and should be tagged to this case.

سپئا has a very similar username to a previous sockpuppet, سپئاە.

އަޕެގަރްޒުއާ އެވެ ("Apegaruza is") is probably an anagram of Asperger's and it's unlikely for anyone to register a Dhivehi name on the English Wikipedia.

AspergerNext is the oldest account tagged to Bulut on jawiki.

Everything else either is a WP:DUCK (editing their talk page), has some form of "Aspe" in their name, or is a rearrangement of previous usernames.ClumsyOwlet (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm going to try again and replace the above with the non-stale accounts so the CheckUser request will work. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More showing up now. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four more. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking this, HJ Mitchell.
Another list: . ClumsyOwlet (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@HJ Mitchell: I don't know if all of those are ASPE

don't seem like ASPE's usernames (along with about 40 other accounts in the block log), and

don't act like ASPE. Some in the log have also been blocked on itwiki. Can these be checked against ISECHIKA (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and their sockpuppets? ClumsyOwlet (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I've checked and blocked all non-stale accounts. I'm not bothering with tagging, I think it's a waste of time. I have to agree with the comments in the section above; I've just blocked >150 accounts but I'm not entirely convinced I've prevented any disruption (although I have detected several open proxies). Maybe just report the accounts that actually edit disruptively to AIV? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell: I'm a bit puzzled by some of these blocks. A number of the accounts you blocked seem to have no relationship between each other, aside from having non-latin usernames and sharing (very wide!) ranges. Is there something I'm missing? --Blablubbs (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと&oldid=1216723079"