Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1wikideb1/Archive

27 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Both Robedia and Timbot18 have been editing Dutch customs and etiquette; the only other article Timbot18 has been editing is International Debutante Ball; Robedia has edited the same article before. Robedia and Timbot18 have also both been active on the user-talkpage of. Timbot18 left a message but forgot to sign, resulting in Sinebot signing their message - 1. They then went back and replaced the Sinebot-sign with their own signature 2, which they then undid, leaving the message unsigned 3. Within two minutes, Robedia then signed the message by Timbot18 4 and bolded a word in said message 5. The last line of this message (" Do not undo any edits until a consensus has been agreed."), left originally on the talkpage by Timbot18, is near-identical to the edit summary used by Robedia here (6) and in a similar style as their edit summaries on various articles (namely loudly saying that people should not undo this-or-that, usually with some form of emphasis on the word "not"; and remarking on the other person's grammar). Timbot18 appeared on the Dutch customs and etiquette article after the third time that some of Robedia's edits were reverted.

Junotemple has made only three edits. One, their first edit, was to, within ten minutes of the creation of their account, dump a lot of barnstars on the talkpage of User:Ballopedia7, who has solely edited articles related to debutantes and balls, one of the major areas of interest of Robedia. Junotemple then disappeared for ten days, only to resurface on Dutch customs and etiquette a few minutes before Timbot18 to make two edits (8 and 9). They have not edited since then. Although I do not have as much evidence as in the case of Timebot18, I feel that their few edits are suspicious through timing. User:Ballopedia has only made a handful of article-space edits on a very small number of articles, all in the same area of interest. For a new user to come across them and leave them barnstars within minutes of registering would be suspicious. For that new editor to then never actually edit articles in that area of interest, considering that that is the only place they could have come across said user, makes it even more suspicious. For that user to then show up on an article on a rather different subject within the same ten minutes as another editor (Timbot18) who, previous to coming there, also showed no interest in matters not related to debutantes or balls, after an editor with a larger number of edits and also a major interest in debutantes and balls (Robedia) has been making controversial edits that were reverted a few times, makes it too suspicious for me to not list it here. Because both suspected socks involved here have existed for a few weeks prior to Robedia starting to edit Dutch customs and etiquette, I would like to request CheckUser evidence to see if there are any sleepers. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 12:03, 27 January 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
for checkuser attention, definitely enough here to warrant a check. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Master and all confirmed socks tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

18 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * Already checked. Noting for the record. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:43, 18 November 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

 * The above accounts are all ✅ from each other and are  based on technical and behavioural evidence.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  03:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional information: Find nl:Wikipedia:Checklijst_langdurig_structureel_vandalisme/1wikideb1 here the complete data on this vandal. I blocked all on nl-wiki after checkuser done and pass on those accounts to you guys since he/she continued with you and with us. The following are still unblocked on en-wiki: Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * static home adress since 2010
 * saw this one has a hard block for 3 months ITMT - over with us it is a year. MoiraMoira (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the original account
 * Done--blocked and tagged. Thanks for the overtime, . Drmies (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

13 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Antipromotion's edit behavior is strikingly similar to Renoiretmoi and Dailybeasts (the latter a blocked sockpuppet of 1wikideb1).

Antipromotion's very first edit, like Renoiretmoi's second edit (minutes after posting a complaint at Talk:Bal des débutantes, was a complaint at the Teahouse about relatively obscure article Bal des débutantes, drawing other editors' attention to unspecified NPOV problems with the article. Dailybeasts' first 30 edits were also to that article, and their comments also allege NPOV violations, generally without being specific about what the problems are.

Antipromotion's edits, after the 4 days and 10 change minimum required to achieve the autoconfirmed status necessary to edit semi-protected article Bal des débutantes, have all been to that article. All but one of Renoiretmoi's edits were about that article - to that article's talk page or warnings to other editors of that article. 75 of Dailybeasts's 92 edits were to that article or its talk page. 1wikideb1's edits likewise were focused on debutant ball articles and included considerable editing of Bal des débutantes.

In these 12 edits, with edit summaries stressing "puffery", Antipromotion has removed 70% of Bal des débutantes, including sourced material and 36 of its 50 sources (such as Aujourd'hui, Bloomberg, The Daily Telegraph, Elle, Fashion (magazine), Hello (magazine), Le Parisien, Paris Match, and Vogue). This is after awarding a barnstar to another editor for "removing the 99% of promotional content and puffery on the Bal des debutantes article." This is similar to Dailybeast's slashing of the article in these series of edits, , and and to 1wikideb1's  and. Like Antipromotion, they were fond of using the words "puffery" and "irrelevant" in the associated edit summaries.

Finally, Antipromotion exhibits a high degree of familiarity with Wikipedia processes for someone who writes "I am a new editor" in their first edit. In the first week (24 edits) they have posted at the Teahouse, figured out user talk pages, awarded a barnstar, and nominated an article for deletion. Worldbruce (talk) 04:56, 13 November 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 following accounts are ✅ as :


 * Note that although Bbqjo was a technical match and ✅ from the rest of the group, the behaviour is off somewhat. That being said, they were using a webhost used nearly exclusively by 1wikideb1 socks and their first edit was to create an AfD, so they're clearly not a new editor. I've tagged them as suspected. is, but an obvious sock making the same arguments in the same fashion so I've blocked the account as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum As this confirmed sock also created an AfD out of the gate I have updated 's tag to confirmed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A pattern of edits on Bal des Débutantes and its talk page that was previously identified as sock puppetry seems to be happening again with these two accounts. The second is used to support the edits of the first on the talk page. I'm not sure, but this pattern seems to be very similar to a series of edits that was ruled sock puppetry with user:Ponyo and user:Dailybeasts a few years ago. Dbarthelme (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2018 (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
Please move to Sockpuppet investigations/1wikideb1.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC) --Risker (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 01:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Checkuser Comment: I was nearly going to decline this, because the two users have very different editing profiles; however, the past history of socking (including accounts that were not editing the same article or topic area) was enough to get me to look more closely.  The following are ✅, and are ready for blocking and tagging as appropriate:
 * -- The SandDoctor Talk 10:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on Hunc, ? -- The SandDoctor Talk 10:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not related at all technically. Editing pattern is very different.  Thanks for cleaning up, TheSandDoctor.  Risker (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, thanks for the clarification. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)