Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Random-5000/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Random-5000

Random-5000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date October 24 2009, 07:15 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]

Similar username, similar edits.. yadda yadda yadda..

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
[edit]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]


CU is required to see if a rangeblock is feasible, as this user is obviously able to evade their original block.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date October 24 2009, 20:58 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
[edit]

Do I even have to post the evidence? It's obvious.

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]


CU is required to see if a rangeblock is possible, as this user is obviously able to evade blocks. Please, please check if a rangeblock is possible.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined. This was run by the CheckUsers yesterday; no rangeblock is possible. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Per above. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date December 27 2009, 15:14 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Ironholds
[edit]


Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed – Both accounts go for a while back, so I'm a bit reluctant on WP:DUCK here (unless someone else wants to go ahead and block, I won't mind). –MuZemike 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
  • Comment - The two accounts definitely look more than a little suspicious, their edits correlate with each other way to many times. Lionmadness claims that they (if there is two) know each other in real life, which might be true, but at any rate they should still be blocked for vote stacking. I'd nearly say block without a checkuser, but there's no real rush. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, I think that they are telling the truth about knowing each other in real life. The timing between their edits is close enough I doubt it could be one person. J.delanoygabsadds 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
[edit]

 Clerk note: No action taken per CU results. This would then have to be meatpuppetry, then. –MuZemike 16:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 18, 2009
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 2 2010, 23:38 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by JBsupreme
[edit]

I guess the Trusted Throwaway account got bored and decided it was time to reveal their shenanigans. There is lots of cross-communication, vote stacking, trolling, et cetera going on here. While a few of them did gravitate to my own talk page for unknown reasons, whatever is going on is larger than that. Cheers, JBsupreme (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER  + F (Unknown code and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by JBsupreme (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
information Note: - accepting per rather obvious votestacking on AfD - Alison ❤ 23:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed - the following accounts as being the same editor. These are all actually socks of AtlanticDeep (talk · contribs). Note obvious votestacking which will need to be addressed;
there may be a possible soft rangeblock of a school IP range here, if things get worse - Alison ❤ 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
25 July 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Bsadowski1
[edit]

Both accounts came over from als.wikipedia.org and came straight to English and have edited like AtlanticDeep. Also the username styles gives it away. Bsadowski1 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love those usernames. They are quite creative. Also  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Clerk endorsed To check for any sleepers. --Bsadowski1 02:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 August 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Elektrik Shoos
[edit]

Given the username is a near-exact replica of User:Herbert1989, which IS a confirmed sock, and this account has had one clearly contentious edit on AN/I, I'm suspect to believe this is a sock. elektrikSHOOS 06:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
30 August 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Avraham
[edit]

There was cross-wiki evidence found linking them, and a request was made to check EnWiki. Avi (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

-- Avi (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All the accounts are blocked. TNXMan 11:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Roux
[edit]

Obvious sock is obvious. Suggest CU to nab sleepers etc. →ROUX ₪ 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note Obvious quacker blocked. A CU might be good to get to an IP block, though. Courcelles 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed:

 IP blocked –MuZemike 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

25 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Confirmed (by me) socks of User:Random-5000 / User:AtlanticDeep. There's normally a drawer full, and sometimes a rangeblock to be had. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moneyshear123, which might want to be merged here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you say the evidence? Also, SPI Clerks do not merge archived disscutions to new investigations. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 14:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in the two very distinctive edits, seen in the extensive vandalism history of both articles, as well as the recent SPI. See for example User:Courtpoet22. I've been blocking this guy for four years. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it all, and I saw it. It was just to make sure. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For the record, more backstory here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Random-5000. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just to complete the picture, see Sortages33 (talk · contribs) as an example of the connection to AtlanticDeep. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 15:18, 25 April 2011 (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 following are all the same:

18 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The alleged sock left this diatribe on my talk page. I could make neither head nor tail of it and decided to ignore it until Velella reminded me of my peripheral involvement with Roxburgh NZ (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of AtlanticDeep, two years ago. The two users have a very similar style and a shared interest in Roxburgh, New Zealand. Furthermore, their user pages show a number of similarities: Roxburgh NZ vs. QUIX4U. In my opinion, there's enough similarity to warrant a duck block, but CU is requested because of AtlanticDeep's well documented tendency to create multiple socks. Favonian (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2012 (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]
16 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Three accounts made similar, connected arguments at WP:Articles for deletion/Brenda Lowe within a few hours of each other. Each account made the rare misspelling of the word "independent" as "independant." [1] [2] [3] That seems unlikely to be a coincidence. The accounts have a history of coordinated edits on other articles and AfDs. [4]. Also, recent AfDs on Survivor topics have had socking problems, e.g., WP:Articles_for_deletion/Phillip_Sheppard_(2nd_nomination). Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2013 (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]
04 June 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Two new accounts created shortly (less than a week) after other accounts being blocked. Also editing Survivor (and New Zealand) articles, like the blocked socks (see comments in Archive for this sockmaster). Doing other things like editing templates and assigning articles to projects that would not be typical for brand new users. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example edit by suspect 1.

[7]

Example edit by blocked sock.

[8]

Note these are both edits on the same obscure New Zealand topic. There are other edits on other New Zealand topics.

Example edit by suspect 2.

[9]

Example edit by blocked sock.

[10]

Note these are both edits on the same Survivor contestant. There are other edits on other Survivor contestants.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]

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

To comment on my own request, another one seems awfully similar in terms of topics of edits (Survivor and NZ) and cutesy name.

Artichoke prince (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Not active recently though. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another suspected sock.

Beachball1234 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Example edit from suspect 3.

[11]

Example edit from suspect 4.

[12]

Example edit from blocked sock.

[13]

By the way, per WP:DUCK, it seems like Beachsand is the same as User:Spinning the spinner who is a blocked sock of WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Laughing_lion_of_loudness. It's all the same. Have a look at this. [14] It's a sock parade. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Additional information needed -  Clerk declined. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. 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. Rschen7754 04:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23 June 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same content and style as recently blocked socks such as User:Around the clockwork and User:Artichoke prince. Recreates deleted page Reality GameMasters that other sock had created, with same or similar content--please check this. Other edits are to Stephen Fishbach, which blocked sock had edited, and to other Survivor-related articles, like blocked socks. Unlikely that a brand new editor would create two new articles and edit a template in first edits. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And could you please look at User:Thegoods666 who has reappeared on the same day as this sock and passes the same duck test--SPA who edits Survivor articles only. Seems to be coordinating edits on Survivor: Caramoan with User:Reality Fantasy. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2013 (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 note:  Clerk declined. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

"New" account revisits old pages of other blocked socks. This applies to literally every edit by Robotic Joe, so please see contribs. Here are edits from blocked socks on same pages. [15] [16] [17] [18]. Recreates two deleted pages pages that had been created by blocked socks (I don't have diffs on deleted pages). John Cochran (television personality) Reality GameMasters Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2013 (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]
20 June 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Keeps adding "toast" or related to Ghost movie related pages TL22 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made the same edit as another suspected sock, User:Motelcoops (replacing 'turkey' with 'goobler'). dalahäst (let's talk!) 23:20, 20 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]
22 June 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Makes the same edits as this account and its other socks (adding "toast" to ghost articles, replacing "turkey" with "goobler"). dalahäst (let's talk!) 03:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one making the same edits. dalahäst (let's talk!) 03:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More "toast" and "goobler" editing. dalahäst (let's talk!) 04:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly admits to being this vandal in a message on my talk page. dalahäst (let's talk!) 04:13, 22 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]
A link to Atlantic Deep can be seen here[19]. I'm not 100% about it personally. This ghost/toast/wanker vandal, using New Zealand-based IP addresses and lots of accounts, is usually known as Random-5000. See also: Random-5000 is back (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add Reborn5000 (talk · contribs · block log) as a likely sock. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this not also merit an entry at WP:LTA? dalahäst (let's talk!) 20:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Random-5000 merge/rename seems logical. As far as LTA, LTA as a whole has been nominated for deletion on the same grounds. Adding the case to that page, provided the information given is only as much as is necessary to identify the vandal (i.e. minimal recognition, at least) would help to preclude future occurrences of the recent situation in which editors didn't make the connection between the existing case and the new accounts. dalahäst (let's talk!) 23:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this now. Seams that we all afree to merge this with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AtlanticDeep. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
26 June 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ghost-toast guy is back. dalahäst (let's talk!) 05:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This diff and the username. dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock made an edit declaring the existence of other accounts; found this and one other in the user creation log. Username is an obvious tell. dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one really doesn't like me. Same edit as some of the other recent socks. dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:44, 26 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]
26 June 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Batch reporting a large group, found mostly in the user creation log after one of the socks declared the existence of more as of yet unused accounts. dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All are undauntedly related to Random-5000 (talk · contribs). What a mess. Doc talk 08:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admits to being this vandal on my talk page. dalahäst (let's talk!) 10:18, 26 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]
@Vanjagenije: Sorry, I've been opening them all through Twinkle, which doesn't seem to want to add on to existing cases. If I find any others I'll try to manually add them to an open one. dalahäst (let's talk!) 18:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
28 June 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Matching duck vandalism. Both warranting a block from their own behaviours, the puppeting is reason to throw away the key Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 28 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]
  •  Clerk note: @Andy Dingley: 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:
  1. 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.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. 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) 17:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two  Confirmed groups here, but all of them are  Likely to be the same user:
Group 1:
Ultimatesock22 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Warpsseems (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Thetoastguy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Group 2
Supsviler (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Turkey Uploader (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
T Time007 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Termssaved (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Likely related to the groups above. User:Thetoastguy would appear to be the oldest account, and is already globally locked. This suggests the entire group are socks of Random-5000/AtlanticDeep. Yunshui 雲水 12:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28 December 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP states "I "am" still QUIX4U"; continuing the same rant and legal threats at Talk:David Cossgrove as QUIX4U. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:19, 28 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Random-5000/Archive&oldid=1142566473"