Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/90731fly/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recently I was made aware that an editor, 90731fly, was using the talk page for the article Wolfwalkers as a forum. The posts under the account were focused on whether or not the film would get a sequel as well as adding templates for what they speculated would be a franchise. I must note that a search for mentions of a sequel do not bring up any evidence that this will be part of a series. The only mentions of other films mention it in relation to a trilogy of independent, unrelated films by the same creative team. The director has made no comment about sequels and seems to be known for not making sequels. I went to go leave the user a warning and saw that they had been warned in the past about using talk pages improperly, so I gave them a short block from editing with a warning that they need to follow guidelines.

Of note is that in the past an IP address posted fanfiction to the page and also made edits to 90731fly's posts, namely to sign them and add similar comments about whether or not there will be a sequel. This gives off the strong impression that this was them logged out.

In the days since I gave 90731fly a short block, IP addresses have been posting to the article's talk page and reposting similar NOTFORUM posts. One posted about whether there will be a sequel and removed my post on the talk page about not using it as a forum. Another made a post about it being delayed. This is actually more in the line of what should be on the talk page, however I noted that it had a similar writing style and came from a very similar IP.

My thought here is that the user is evading their block to post NOTFORUM posts to the talk page. I'd like to have this checked to see if this is the case and if so, if there are other IPs they're using and if a range block is needed. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Of note is that one of the IPs did mention the editor like they were a separate user, but their writing style is just too similar for comfort, as they have similar issues with grammar, punctuation, and style, as well as similar things that they ask about the film. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It just seems a little suspicious and my SPI senses are mildly tingling. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm adding another IP, this one is re-adding content about non-existent sequels that may never get made and will likely never get made. If this keeps up I'm going to semi-protect the talk page. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added the IPs mentioned by AtA. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also of note is that the suspected sockmaster (90731fly) is editing again after the expiration of their most recent block, however there have been continued similar posts by the IPs. I do try to assume good faith, however given the evidence above I have to assume that this is the editor trying to evade detection by using IPs to post NOTFORUM posts. I've warned them on their talk page that IPs can be traced to the user and that IPs are not a way to evade repercussions for warnings given on their main account. I've also semi'd the talk page to prevent further posts as well, albeit for a week. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a new IP address, 2600:1700:BFA1:B110:BCED:77D:71A2:958E. They made an unhelpful edit to the live article here, with the edit summary "but they have to announce the sequel of Wolfwalkers because Moore's "Irish Folklore Trilogy" is wrong it can be a third installment it has to be the first installment of Wolfwalkers But Robyn, Mebh, Bill, and Moll then travel with their pack to find a new home. But fans wanted to know when are they going to find there new home in next sequels, but don't you thank they have to planned to get new directors of United States and Ireland to make Wolfwalkers 2 and Wolfwalkers 3 pretty please". They also edited a hoax draft for the franchise at Draft:Wolfwalkers (franchise), which was created by 90731fly.
 * I think that the behavioral evidence here is extremely strong to suggest that 90731fly is the one making most, if not all, of the edits from the IPs above or at least directing others to add the information in their stead. The behavioral evidence is strong enough to where I'm going to indef the suspected sockmaster, but I do want to have the IPs checked against their account. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Yes, these IPs are obviously used by the same user, as we can observe these behaviors such as the nonstop treatment of talk pages as forum and the wish for Wolfwalkers to become independent from Moore's "Irish Folklore Trilogy" under a franchise à la Frozen.

But I also found two more IPs as I take a look on the affected talk page: one of them created a section in the talk page about the mentioned animated film about werewolves which it is titled "They have to announce the sequel of Wolfwalkers" and the other one ignored an extended confirmed user's question if the IP had sources by asking if the Irish film deserves two sequels.-- André the Android (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The two key ranges seem to be 2600:1700:bfa1:b110:696c:6d9f:ba56:704a/64 and 2600:8805:9100:418:2d9c:aa2e:33e1:98de/66. Looking at their contributions, I doubt either would be missed; therefore I wonder whether blocking the /64 and /66 respectively might be one solution to the IPs. Jack Frost (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to that! I have no problem with blocking the IP ranges, but I would like someone to take a look at this for at least behavioral evidence. My thought here is whether or not the sockmaster should be blocked from editing. I don't really see where they've acknowledged the reasons for the block. They don't seem to have absorbed similar warnings on NOTFORUM posts in the past, so I think that them behaving under their account is likely temporary. If the IPs are indeed them, which I believe they are, then that doesn't really bode well for them. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm going to close this, as I see you've already blocked 90731fly and the IPs. One thing I will note is that the 2600:1700 range geolocates to zip code 90731 in California, so that's kind of a slam-dunk.  The 2600:8805 range is in Rhode Island, so maybe not the same person? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't blocked all of the IPs, but I will do so now. I thought about the different zones, so I didn't know if this is a case of separate people working separately, meatpuppetry, or a case of the individual traveling to see maybe a family member. My thought is probably meatpuppetry or travel given the similarity of the writing styles. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)