Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3MalteseFalcons/Archive

Report date January 25 2009, 23:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

A long series of single-edit accounts have been showing up to promote a film of questionable notability (article AFD from 2007) on the zoophilia article, some of them making unusual claims about being members of an (apparently?) fictional organization depicted in the film. While this isn't necessarily abuse on its face, it makes communicating with the user (or users?) behind this campaign difficult at best, as none of the accounts is used to make more than one or two edits. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Zetawoof(&zeta;)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * CheckUser requests

clerk adding RFCU request to identify whether this disruptive POV pushing editing is coming from a single user, and to identify any potential rangeblocks. Mayalld (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

IP hardblocked. The rest are. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following as one user:
 * Indef blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date January 28 2009, 00:53 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Exact same edits as 3MalteseFalcons et. al, and edit summaries indicating continuity. Really pretty obvious; I'm mainly listing this for CU as a result of the disruptive alt-accounting, and so someone can block the underlying IP (again?). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Zetawoof(&zeta;)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * by behavior and geolocation, but no blockable underlying IP. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 5 2009, 15:42 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Per the page history at Coming Soon (disambiguation). Matches 3MalteseFalcons MO. Repeated addition of non-notable film. Potential sleeper accounts.


 * Evidence submitted by Fribbler (talk)

Fribbler (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Fribbler (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - To check for sleepers. Tiptoety  talk 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Users already blocked, are you wanting a checkuser? If so please request one with the right codeletters. ——  nix eagle email me 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that a potential farm of of sleeper accounts exist. Request edited accordingly. Fribbler (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * that the three listed are socks of 3MalteseFalcons, based mainly on behavior (loud quacking!) & geolocation.
 * that is a sleeper, based mainly on edits & sharing an IP with other known socks during the time those socks were active. -- Versa  geek  01:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Update file note: 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Following yet more socks on this case, which has had activity for 3 years now, I have checked, found 3 more sleepers (plus a few more known but not-yet-blocked accounts), and a number of small IP ranges. These have close to zerotwe other activity (either by users or IPs) on any of them, except one user on a static IP who has IP block exemption. The ranges are all /24s and /29s, with evidence the user revisits them, except one which is a /23 but business owned and zero other edits whatsoever.

Given the case, I have hard-blocked these IP ranges for an extended period.

There is one other IP range used in recent times, but it was used for a limited period only and there is a good chance given technical data, that it may not be re-used. if it is then it too can be blocked.

If any checkuser needs data for this case, please contact me.

FT2 (Talk 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)