Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Only edit so far has been to a controversial Mfd requesting that JzG be desysoped, this is likely a sock of someone who doesn't like JzG. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:13, 7 October 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
This report had been deleted and I restored it since it is germane to current socking and placing it in the record. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:29, 5 March 2019 (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
✅ to AttackTheMoonNow

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

As with the recently blocked AttackTheMoonNow sock, this WanderingWanda account showed up recently just as a bunch of gender-related disputes erupted or re-erupted, and has done little on WP other than get embroiled in them. Editor's contribs history is quite short; if you want specific links, see the ANI that WW opened and WW's comments therein here, and compare to MaryKontana's even shorter contribs list, e.g. this stuff at my own talk page. Exhibits way too much WP:ANI and WP:P&G know-how to be an actual new editor, in my view. The language style is similar, and both MaryKontana and WanderingWanda leapt right into being part of a "User:Fæ defense brigade" pattern. I have another bit of evidence better sent in e-mail, since spelling it out here might make it more difficult to detect future AttackTheMoonNow socks. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Someone accused me of being a sock of another user on my talk page, as well. You may want to check that too, to be thorough. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon also indicated, on his talk page, that he would be investigating me with the idea that I was a sock, you may want to check with him to see if he has any suggestions, as well.


 * Anyway, my broader response to the allegation: 1. It isn't true. I have never, in my entire life, that I can recall, had another Wikipedia account. (I'm adding "that I can recall" because I do think I made a couple of Wikipedia edits in middle school, which was a long, long time ago. Literally just a couple minor edits, and I believe they were made without making an account.) 2. There is not enough evidence to warrant an investigation. (SMc says I showed up just as a bunch of gender-related disputes erupted or re-erupted. He may be referring to his hurtful Signpost humor essay Pesky Pronouns about transgender pronouns, which got a lot of attention and criticism within and outside of Wikipedia. I made a couple of thoughtful posts about his essay, but I became a regular contributor before that issue of the Signpost even came out and before that controversy erupted.) 3. If I am investigated, naturally I'd prefer to be cleared as thoroughly as I can be, thus the suggestions above about potential avenues of investigation. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (Hmm, maybe I made my case a little too well. While I can't consent to any investigation on principle – if the cops ask if they can search you, the answer should always be "no" – I was kinda looking forward to any checks coming back negative. In any case, thank you to the investigators for the hard work that you do. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC))

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I find barely any case for a technical check or behavioural block. You did not give any diffs but merely gave your point of view, which is not how sockpuppet investigations works, you don't claim two editors are the same and expect a result. All I can see is a knee-jerk reaction to a relatively inactive editor accusing you of things you believe you didn't do. Putting on hold pending some receiver of your email finds something. qedk (t 桜 c) 15:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This report has no merit. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Lengthy trolling with clear intention to harass at User talk:Jesswade88, consistent with the behavior of their earlier sock,. The behavior is also reminiscent of the Best Known for IP, though I don't think BKFIP has specifically targeted female editors. Barnes VQ is already blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:50, 25 February 2021 (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
Do you have reason to think that there are CU records pertaining to this user? If so, I'd be happy to endorse to look for sleepers. Girth Summit  (blether) 16:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The last CU on this SPI appeared to have uncovered a number of sleepers. I'm assuming that their habits haven't changed, so I think a CU is warranted. Otherwise, the behavioral evidence is clear on the current user without CU.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd further note that previous incarnations have specifically targeted Jesswade88, and been blocked for implicit threats, so a check is needed to refresh CU data and to head off more harassment via new socks - this has gone on for a while.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * - understood. CU is unlikely to be able to connect the sock to the master, but I agree it's worth checking for sleepers given the history, and the harassment campaign.  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . Not on the same range as previous socks and the master, but in the same country. Users are blocked; this SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The user has made 3 edits, the first two were just to make it so that their user and talk pages don't show up as redlinks. Then they reinstated a PROD that was originally added by User:Barnes VQ, an editor added to the SPI in the last report. The edit summary used is was to try to get an editor to not question the readding of the PROD, "c2cBugFix 2.3". Please check for any other new accounts they might have made. ~ GB fan 11:34, 28 February 2021 (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

 * - duck, endorse sleeper check.  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - Mz7 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ., closing. Mz7 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

Whilst reviewing bios of scientists, I noticed on ones recently created by there seems to always (well I only checked articles since 1st March) a seemingly new user account doing edits, mostly removing material, soon after each article's creation. Whilst removing unsourced material is to be expected, I found it odd it was a different account each day, and they didn't look like the edits of brand new users. The edit summaries of all accounted listed looked very similar. I'm sure the account I've listed as the master, which is already blocked, is not the real master, merely the oldest account I found in my brief look. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

, before this is closed, there seems to be a new one:

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

 * - Moved to AttackTheMoonNow, this seems like their style and the oldest account is locked as an ATMN sock. All suspected are . CU, please verify and check for sleepers; holding on lock requests pending the check. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - Mz7 (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts named above are ✅ to BMB Fortune (from the archive) plus:
 * It looks like these extra accounts have already been blocked or globally locked. I would add sock tags and request locks on all accounts that haven't been locked yet. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like these extra accounts have already been blocked or globally locked. I would add sock tags and request locks on all accounts that haven't been locked yet. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like these extra accounts have already been blocked or globally locked. I would add sock tags and request locks on all accounts that haven't been locked yet. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like these extra accounts have already been blocked or globally locked. I would add sock tags and request locks on all accounts that haven't been locked yet. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like these extra accounts have already been blocked or globally locked. I would add sock tags and request locks on all accounts that haven't been locked yet. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like these extra accounts have already been blocked or globally locked. I would add sock tags and request locks on all accounts that haven't been locked yet. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Tags & lock requests. Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone appears to be blocked, tagged, and locked, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Another one from today:   Acroterion   (talk)   19:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagged Captain Cheetsem KJ Bootsie -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Latest crop of new accounts to appear at new articles created by to tag them. All blocked. Please check for sleepers and leakers. Keisha78 is already checkuser blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Two more added, one obvious, the other similar behavior, but registered in 2015 and edited a single article until now.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:20, 10 March 2021 (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

 * Scottymackie is ❌. The rest are ✅ plus the following:
 * per WP:DENY, closing. Mz7 (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * per WP:DENY, closing. Mz7 (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * per WP:DENY, closing. Mz7 (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The SandDoctor Talk 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Typical harassment of Jesswade88, see also previous revdel'd revision of blocked sock on the same talk page. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I created Sockpuppet investigations/Mario Cruelties in parallel (requested G7 now), I agree a CU could be useful in uncovering more of these accounts. Also Mary Shiston was active today and blocked as AttackTheMoonNow.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 11:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY is a thing, but given the BLP nature of the content I did check out the sockpuppets' claim of un-sourced notability information, and while the specific line did not have a reference right next to it, the information was in a reference already present in the article. Much quacking about nothing much.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 13:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All the above are confirmed, plus: ...and lots more previously done. I mentioned in the User:Brian K Horton SPI that there is no longer any distinction to be made between these cases. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - there has been renewed activity, please see if we can get an IP block in place and if there are any sleepers. A block in the meantime would be much appreciated. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now blocked by (thanks) – leaving the CU request in place and added the previous sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Added, who is clearly related. Thanks Eostrix. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And another one: . --Blablubbs (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * for the remaining ones that came up in the sleeper check, if I recall correctly, the rest is already at SRG. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Edit summary here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Michael_J._Fox_Foundation&diff=next&oldid=1197455566) suggests this user is the same as User:PM 68 Fortune or User:Doctor Maripol, both blocked for sockpuppetry Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, have a great rest of your day! Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:12, 20 January 2024 (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

 * Yep. No unblocked other s seen, and already got this one. Closing.  --Blablubbs (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * for this one and some other unlocked ones. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)