Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/036386536a/Archive

21 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

036386536a and the two IP accounts have all made edits identifying their operator as "David Landi". All three accounts are concerned with pages relating to the Landi family, to the exclusion of all other editing. They all exhibit a poor command of the English language; they post machine-translated text into article space and oddly phrased and grammatically incorrect comments on talk pages and in edit summaries; see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865.

036386536a was indefinitely blocked on 15 December 2014 for copyright violations. A couple of hours later, Junior714 was created. Suspiciously, the first edit by Junior714 was a talk page message, in the same broken English as the other accounts, insisting that this was its only username. All its subsequent edits are to House of Landi, an article recently created by 036386536a. Apart from copyvio removals and wikignomish cleanups, this article has had no substantial edits by any other accounts except the ones listed here, plus some one-off IPv6 accounts which were probably also operated by 036386536a. Psychonaut (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

 * I'm requesting a check of the suspected account and the master account. The evidence suggests there is a possible relation, but I think technical evidence is needed to make sure. Mike V  •  Talk  20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely, as they are on the same mobile network. Due to other factors, i'm unable to determine any other connection and behavoiral evidence checks should be used to determine if this sockpuppetry. Definitely a lot of logged out editing from 036386536a though. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The House of Landi edits seem quite telling, so I'm comfortable with a behavioral block. I've also semi-protected the article for a month. I'm leaving the 107.XX IP alone for now, as it hasn't made an edit in over a month. Mike V  •  Talk  17:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

27 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

03638536a is an indefinitely blocked account whose sole purpose has been to edit pages concerning the Landi family. For the last few weeks the above-noted IPs, and doubtless many others, have been editing the same narrow set of pages in the same idiosyncratic style as 03638536a. The strongest behavioural evidence is as follows:
 * The anonymous accounts seem to be dynamically assigned IPs, though it's clear that since May 2015 they've all been operated by someone with an exclusive interest in the House of Landi and the Landi State, just like 036386536a. Like 03638536a, the accounts are particularly defensive of their opinion that the Landi family was incredibly important in Italian history.
 * The accounts have a very poor grasp of how talk pages work; comments tend to be posted at the top of the page or at the top of the section (rather than at the end of the page, or immediately following what they're replying to), and usually without signatures: compare 107.*'s    with 036386536a's
 * Both 107.* and 03638536a use Italian Wikipedia as a source of text or references, even after repeatedly being told not to by other editors: compare (diff of 27 edits by 107.*) with  (article created by 03638536a) and most of the correspondence on User talk:036386536a concerning Italian Wikipedia. (I can't link to specific talk page conversations due to the user's propensity to place his responses randomly.)
 * The accounts have made continued complaints to User:WikiDan61, just like 036386536a did (see User_talk:WikiDan61/Archive20150306 and the following dozen or so sections)
 * The accounts show a tendency to overlink: compare 03638536a's with the warnings 107.* has received for the same behaviour

I know that CheckUser and admins cannot tie IP addresses to named accounts. In the absence of an IP rangeblock, the easiest solution would be to once again semi-protect the affected articles (House of Landi and Landi State) and their associated talk pages. Psychonaut (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

 * The article and the redirect have already been semi-protected by another administrator. I don't see that much disruption, particlarly recent disruption, on the Talk pages to justify protection. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

06 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This fresh account made a handful of very low-quality (disruptive, even) edits to seemingly random articles before diving into articles on the Landi family, which is 036386536a's raison d'être. Further evidence: —Psychonaut (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 036386536a was blocked for persistently copying material from other websites, especially the Italian Wikipedia, into English Wikipedia articles, either verbatim or machine-translated. Previous sockpuppets continued this behaviour (see the previous SPI).   Vincenzo714 is now doing the same thing.  For example, this edit request to the semi-protected House of Landi article contains material from the Italian Wikipedia, and this edit is very clumsily copied and pasted from the Daily Mail website.
 * Vincenzo714's username is similar to that of another proven sockpuppet, User:Junior714, and to the e-mail address posted by 036386536a on his user page.
 * Both 036386536a and Vincenzo714 confusedly try to sign their contributions (even in article space) via edit summaries: compare   with
 * Both accounts demonstrate very poor use of English. Compare Vincenzo714's edits    with pretty much anything 036386536a wrote on User talk:036386536a.
 * This account is probably also involved in an unregistered online course which is disrupting other Wikipedia articles. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for further details. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

 * . Block is needed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At Psychonaut's request, I'm reverting this back to its admin status. If you still believe that a block is deserved after the CU findings (note what Yunshui said on my Talk page), that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply think that the behavioral evidence is strong enough to block him.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

07 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I've added as one of this user's first contributions was to congratulate Vincenzo on his good edits, which smells quite sockish. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I dont think there is a case for me being a sockpuppet for another account as user:WikiDan61 has said. Yes I did send thanks to the user, but that was me testing out some of the features of wikipedia, which is consistent with being a new user. Furthermore, I believe that if you look at my contribution history, I have made small but reasonable improvements to a few articles and furthermore, on the wikipedia page, I edited the wikipedia page "Mascot derby" to make it less bias and removed advertising from the Daily Mail website. Finaltime18645 (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There's some further behavioural evidence which is consistent with the previous socks—namely, some of the edits introduce grammatical errors or odd phrasings, and both accounts edited Mascot derby, a very obscure article, in the midst of a huge flurry of edits to it and two other articles by over two dozen new accounts (as documented at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). On its own all the behavioural evidence is certainly very concerning, though on its own not conclusive. Given the unusual circumstances documented at WP:ANI it's probably best if CU takes a look at this. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I edited Mascot derby specifically because that is the one that Wikipedia sent me too when I first signed up as an introductory article. I believe that this is one of the articles that Wikipedia links to when you first start out or at least, thats the one it linked to me. The odd phrasings and the grammatical errors I cannot speak about, however, I would like to say that i have done my best to contribute as much as possible to Wikipedia and Im sure the evidence points to the fact that it is an honest mistake. Finaltime18645 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

07 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

First edit was to Mascot derby, then magically shows up at Psychonaut's talk page, defending themselves from sock accusations that hadn't been made - shortly after Finaltime's defence. Super fishy. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 13:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

At User talk:Psychonaut, Finaltime18645 and These bones both claim that Wikipedia directed them to edit Mascot derby as part of some process to help new users get started editing. I'm not aware of any automated process on Wikipedia that suggests particular articles for new users to try editing. Can anyone corroborate this claim? I tried creating a throwaway account just now to see what would happen, and I didn't get any message suggesting that I edit Mascot derby or any other individual article. If such a recommender system does exist, then this seems like a pretty terrible idea—at the very least the articles it recommends should be listed in project space somewhere so they can be watched for vandalism and good-faith but unconstructive edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I could see something like Wikipedia Adventure directing people to random articles, but Wikipedia directing people to specific ones? Either we've got an unauthorized educational program being run, or we have a large sock/meat infestation. And it's not like they've received talk page messages, as These bones doesn't even have a talk page right now. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If either user had engaged in the Wikipedia Adventure, they'd have a Wikipedia adventure welcome banner, and user subpages beginning with TWA/... neither of which is true for these users, so that is not the avenue that directed them to the same article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * With regards to:
 * These accounts appear technically ❌ to each other or to . Yunshui 雲 水 12:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing all three reports with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These accounts appear technically ❌ to each other or to . Yunshui 雲 水 12:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing all three reports with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing all three reports with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

12 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

IP editor making a lot of noise at Talk:House of Landi (see, , , ) showing the same tenacity to have his own version of this page, and the same competence problem of not knowing how to sequence discussions on a talk page. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

 * While the diffs do show some disruption, I don't see much that links the IP to the other accounts. I've semi-protected the talk page for a week. No action taken against the IP for now. Mike V • Talk 01:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)