Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aquarius2/Archive

25 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

For the past couple of years, I have been seeing a lot of vandalism to (Philippine) reality show articles by an IP hopping editor. These edits generally involved the addition of results before the end of a program, which were almost always completely wrong. I've been keeping an eye on Secret222 (who may not be the parent account but it's the one who's been active lately), and I've discovered he made a redirect for a non-existant season of a TV show, and tonight I found that Aaaarat turned that redirect into an article. I've also found Aquarius2 on User talk:49.145.67.220, an IP who has never touched the article space but has an entire fake article comprising his talk page, with information added by other IPs. We need to shut this guy down. This is just getting annoying now that he's creating fake articles in the main space. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 06:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Diffs: Much of the evidence is found in the deleted history of and the entire creation of. There's no real diffs in question. It's simply an extremely similar edit history and shared creations of hoax content on reality shows in the Philppines. The fact that they also all have sandboxes that have drafts of fake reality show articles in them is also very telling.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Following a request by Ryulong, I've blocked User:Secret222 indefinitely as a vandalism-only account for the creation of the hoax pages Amazing Cooking Kids (season 2) and Amazing Cooking Kids (season 3), both of which I've now deleted. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved the case to Aquarius2 as that is the oldest account. Please provide diffs as evidence as checkusers require this.
 * Indef remaining sock and 48 hours for the master. Please refile if there is new evidence of socking.

04 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Creation of (again, see edits of previously identified socks) and. Edits to Amazing Cooking Kids (a target of previous socks) and creation of a sandbox with fake reality show results. Due to the fact that he returned less than 4 days after his other slew of socks were blocked, I would like to request that his IP be hardblocked for a period of time this time around. Or, as it is suspected, that he is from the Philippines, that the range he operates on be locked down.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:12, 4 November 2012 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * - to check into the possibility of hardblocking the master's range(s).

No possibility of any kind of hardblocking or rangeblocking. They are coming from a country which typically has awful IP assignment. Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocking master 1 month and indeffing sock.

11 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar editing history and area of contributions as Aquarius2, thought it might bear a checkuser to verify. If I'm off base I apologize to the editor Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Hello, I just came on today to find a notice about me in my message history, I responded to a discussion topic on The Amazing Race 22 only to find someone has maliciously reported me for being a 'sockpuppet' of someone. I edit The Amazing Race China Rush 3 page because no one else at the time was doing it, if you review my history of edits, before I started work on China Rush 3, I updated ratings. I find this utterly unfair to be singled out because I was the only IP user to give an opinion on a topic, and this user has maliciously reported me for no reason 86.15.195.205 (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This wasn't malicious, the Article was created by a sock who had other socks as well. When you see a IP editor popping up right after that sock is blocked with a history of the same edits it does seem a bit odd. Now if you can understand it from that reasoning, you don't have to agree just understand you'll also see that I apologized if I was wrong. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no basis for this accusation, that's the problem. I have no idea what other users here are doing, I only edit a few pages here and have contacted random editors for advice like Ryulong when I needed a question answered on how to update a page, this was my first Amazing Race page, besides a few random edits here and there. I dedicated my time to update the China Rush 3 page extensively, if I knew someone would try this I wouldn't of bothered. You are going to be proven wrong when an admin comes along, when this occurs I'll wipe the notice from my talk page, I have a right too. Your only 'source' is simply that I responded to your deletion topic and nothing more, I've done this before for Football players as I'm British. No doubt if someone else came along with an IP address you'd accuse them too. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For example I contributed to a debate here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dominic_Poleon I didn't realise it was a crime to respond to deletion debates. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just reviewed this users edits, and my edits are nothing like his. Aquarius2s edit history seems to suggest he is from the Phillipines, he has also never updated TV ratings on this website, nor has he ever updated the China Rush pages. I have never editted any page remotely like his/hers before, nor do I even know how to use a sandbox here. Ridiculus accusation, completely and utterly 86.15.195.205 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the history of Aquarius2 as you have archived on here, he has a history of disruptive edits and vandalism, I would love for someone to point out what I have done which could be remotely on this level, I have also not editted pages remotely like the ones he has before, not one of my edits on this website could be classed as vandalism, I have been entirely honest and followed the rules here, and have made constructive edits.

You also list an IP on Aquarius2s archive page which you blocked which originates from the Phillipines. I personally am in the United Kingdom.

Can this witch hunt be over now please? Or am I still under threat of being blocked for absolutely no reason because one user has a bone to pick with me, with no actual evidence provided to support his claims.86.15.195.205 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Aquarius2 is a disruptive editor originating from the Philippines due to his interest in primarily Philippine television shows, such as The Amazing Race Asia and Amazing Cooking Kids. This IP actually responds to messages, where Aquarius2 and his socks have not. This report is spurious.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * + - We don't use CU to connect registered editors to IPs.  I've taken a quick look, and I don't see one article in common between Aquarius2 and 86.15.195.205.  You are going to have to provide some actual evidence in the form of diffs, showing some kind of similarity in order for us to review the case. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've checked the other socks, no crossover, so will need more info. For the record, based on public information, it is more likely that Aquarius2 is from somewhere in far western Europe, not far eastern Asia.  Again, this needs to be determined by behavior, which is why diffs are helpful, showing us what you saw when you filed the report. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Deferring to Ryulong's judgement as to geolocation and linkage, which I agree as I found nothing to definitively or mildly link the two. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

23 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is part of a cross-wiki pattern, but the English Wikipedia appears to be where the accounts are most active. Their edits are focused on the reality television series Top Model and (in most instances, but not all) reality shows in the Philippines.

Each account follows the same pattern of adding false (or prophetical) material to articles about reality shows. If the article is protected, the user will make an request on the talk page for another user to add their "prediction" for the show's outcome (cf. and ).

Each account creates a user sandbox within their first few edits, which they fill with blatantly unencyclopaedic material about a fictitious television series or fake results for a real one (most likely more "predictions").

The timing of the account registrations, compared below, shows that the user intends to continues to evade the blocks by creating multiple additional accounts.

Osiris (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

From experience, I can say that the socks all match the pattern I've seen in the past. This is getting out of hand. He hasn't even been blocked on two of them and he's still creating new accounts. We need to lock down the range, regardless of the fact that the Philippines aren't the best place to block ranges. The level of abuse is getting out of hand. The fact that he understands how talk pages are meant to work is astounding, considering he never responds to his own.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 13:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ryulong. Could you clarify what you mean when you say he hasn't been blocked on "two of them"? Osiris (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that he has created three accounts in the past couple of weeks when none of them have been blocked.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 14:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh! I see. Thanks for clarifying! :) Osiris (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to know how talk pages work. I'm confused as to how that's an insult though. Also, several of the locally hosted sandboxes have been deleted (one got sent to MFD because someone doesn't know WP:IAR).— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DQ! That's all I need to know. Blocked on simple and will post a note for the Tagalog Wikipedia. Osiris (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All three are ✅, and are also highly to be related to MakeBeliever, a previously blocked sock. but i'm ruluctant to accept any connection to the master (behavoiral wise, everything else is stale) without diffs.  Modified --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The behavioral evidence relating to the master account is the creation of the sandbox (now deleted) and the editing focus on reality TV, particularly Philippine TV. It's somewhat clear that the individual is now at a stage of taunting by creating accounts and abandoning them part way through. Can the range be locked down or is it a high traffic one that the benefits of blocking this guy outweigh the number of regular users we have through the locality? It might also be good to see if there are any new sleepers.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 20:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking specifically about rangeblocks only, it might be possible, but I can't do it based on three accounts (since the rest are stale). -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeBeliever was active recently though.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is true. Looking at it, rangeblock is not possible right now. Too much collateral as I see it. (I also modified my statement above). -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that too much collateral damage would occur if we blocked his range. I know the Philippines (and much of the southeast Asian countries) have dynamic IP assignment, but he can't possibly be a drop in the bucket for incoming edits (also have you found any sleepers).— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 08:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any sleepers as far as I remember, and would have already listed them if I did. I may have a low tolerance on what collateral damage is, but I feel there are simply too many other users editing from anything worth blocking. I can't show you what I see, so your going to have to take my word for it. I remember checking specifically also on smaller ranges possibility, but the IP address changed higher ranges (i'm not saying how high) too much, and blocking the larger range that would have any effect had a lot more other users on it than it did socks. Also remember I only have a certain period that CU goes back, and I can't see into deep space from here on earth. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Master's block upgraded to indef; all tagged. T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

19 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Lonely678's first edit was to Aquarius2's preferred topic area.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:48, 19 December 2012 (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

 * - Endorsed for CU, as edits are similar to Aquarius's previous socks, but would benefit from a CU checking. ( X! ·  talk )  · @211  · 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly ❌. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Behavior alone isn't enough to link, particularly when combined with CU data. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 19:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

10 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Editing overlap with previous confirmed socks, created shortly after previous sock set was discovered and blocked. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jutyr also shows a similar interest in reality television originating from southeast Asia, such as a recent attachment to Asia's Next Top Model, which actually came out after the last confirmed socks were banned (however the previous accounts all edited the pages for the American version of the show). Jutyr also refuses to acknowledge edits to his talk page or requests left otherwise.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 08:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * America's Next Top Model, Asia's Next Top Model. Why do I have to give diffs (which I already did) when I already described the technical evidence?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:56, 12 January 2013 (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

 * - Need more specific evidence than this - two people editing the same article isn't enough justification for a CU. Rschen7754 08:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give specific diffs; it is not the clerks' responsibility to make your case for you. --Rschen7754 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - The reason we ask for specific evidence is because the clerks and CUs are not familiar with the case, and what may be obvious to you may not be obvious to them. The CUs need to be sure a check is justified, as they are held solely liable for any improper checks. Rschen7754 07:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely, and looks . WilliamH (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Tiptoety  talk 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)