Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BeasttoBeast/Archive

07 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both edits by the IP are followed by BeasttoBeast. When the user, who is currently blocked, requested an unblock, this IP was displayed. Additionally, both edits by the IP are in the same style as BeasttoBeast's edits. There have been no edits by the IP since the block. GSK ● talk ● evidence 04:15, 7 October 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)  21:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He is also but how do we know that he wasn't simply logged out and logged back in? How is this illegitimate socking?
 * There is no evidence of malicious socking. This unblock request was the result of an autoblock. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

10 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Editing patterns are extremely similar (down to articles edited, comments left, and the types of edits made). GSK ● talk ● contribs 18:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing CheckUser request after the IP admitted to being BeasttoBeast. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 18:38, 10 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
Reiterating the conclusions from the previous case, I do not see malicious intentions. Closing as no action. Elockid  ( Talk ) 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

21 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Alright, there have been SPIs for this user before, they've all been closed with no action taken, but there's a pattern here.

Both King of Editing and BeasttoBeast have a particular editing history. They both make questionable edits to the same articles involving images, notably questionable contested deletion reasons, blatant lies, repeatedly breaking the layout of pages,, , and adding unreferenced information. This kind of behavior was previously a major issue with the BeasttoBeast account. I and several other editors have had to spend a lot of time cleaning up this user's mistakes. The user even believed it was appropriate to attack me personally and then pass it off as just blowing off steam. I think it's time something be done here, because there is an incredibly long history of disruptive editing, and I'm sure others who have been involved would not hesitate to agree. GSK ● talk ● contribs 18:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Now the user is even uploading  images and replacing good versions in articles with this! --GSK ● talk ● contribs 19:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the images, I'm not sure if administrators are able to view deleted files (though I assume so), but both of the images were horizontally stretched and in extremely poor quality. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * File:Apollo 9 on display.png is the same image as File:Apollo 9 San Diego.png uploaded by BeasttoBeast. For me that is, case proven. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The sock is already indef'ed on behaviour. No reason to checkuser.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do, closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

01 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I received a threat from this user, a new account, today warning me to "Layoff of these two users, you might be blocked for harassing them with your "useless" messages." So, immediately, I believed this was another sock. Why else would a brand new account warn me about leaving two other accounts alone, one of which is blocked for socking? GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:49, 1 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

 * - Not needed. Obvious sock is obvious. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Beast is also King, found in the archive, even though he wasn't blocked for it. History of disruption and I can't see a time that will fix the problem, so indef. blocking the lot. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

08 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This edit especially indicated this was another sock of BeasttoBeast. Additionally, other contributions fit the profile for BeasttoBeast, King of Editing, and other accounts he's made over the last several months. You think he'd understand what blocking and sockpuppeting are, but I guess not. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 23:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This edit confirms the user also created the User:Jared Stowell account, which itself is a sock of BeasttoBeast. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 8 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

 * - Quack. Blocked; endorse CU to check for sleepers Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, the two named accounts are a confirmed match. No sleepers found. Unfortunately, at the moment, a rangeblock is not possible either. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

17 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Quack.

The IP address 65.130.223.170 added this user to the Spaceflight Wikiproject, where BeasttoBeast has added himself numerous times under numerous usernames. Furthermore, the first two number classes, 65 and 130, have been used by IP addresses associated with BeasttoBeast. Finally, the IP and user have similar editing patterns to BeasttoBeast. There's also this. Requesting CU to confirm and to find any additional IPs or user accounts. Maybe it's time we start looking into a WP:RANGEBLOCK? GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 17 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

 * seems fairly duckish per matching, but I'd appreciate a check as I would be cautious of blocking an account based on the actions of the IP address, rather than the actions of the account. We shouldn't let socks incriminate other accounts, the accounts need to incriminate themselves. I would also appreciate a sleeper sweep. The previous case concluded that a rangeblock was not workable, I assume this remains the case. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Named user is ✅, no sleepers are apparent, and a rangeblock is still not feasible. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked and tagged, done here. ( X! ·  talk )  · @862  · 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

30 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 05:09, 30 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

 * If the behavior is similar enough to call duck, then CheckUser isn't necessary or warranted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In past cases regarding this user, CU has generally been used to find sleeper accounts or IP addresses. --<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know there's been a holiday, but is this going to get any attention? --<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 05:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked based on behavioral evidence. No sleepers and a rangeblock appears to be impossible. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

08 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I realize this might be jumping the gun a bit, but the IP's one edit (as of this report) is in line with BeasttoBeast's numerous other edits, especially ones made to Matterhorn Bobsleds. Furthermore, the IP's first five numbers match previous IP addresses used.

The single edit may not be enough to go on, so even though it's probably a, I'm going to request CU evidence. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:04, 8 February 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

 * - CU cannot be used, per the privacy policy, to publicly link an IP to an account. If it truly is a duck, however, it can be blocked for evasion even without technical evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 week and closing. Rschen7754 07:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

28 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same edit and upload patterns. Eeekster (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Meets prior editing patterns, especially in regards to image uploading. Pretty obvious case of. Considering the history of this user, maybe an administrator can explain why a rangeblock isn't possible. --<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Even though the nominator did not request it, I have to recommend running CU to check for any sleepers. The length of time that this account has been able to exist undetected worries me. --<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Before I can endorse it for checkuser, there needs to be some more specific evidence (usually in the form of diffs) of sockpuppetry. A rangeblock is likely impossible because he is on a /11 netblock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * - after no answer. Rschen7754 05:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking sock, seems pretty clear (copyvio issues). Closing. Rschen7754 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

26 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I've been observing and editing with on the article Incidents at Disneyland Resort. After undoing an uncited good-faith edit, I went to their talk page to leave a note. I saw the astronaut picture, which was added here and read its caption. The caption, added by the editor, stated that the picture was added "when I was using a different account". For whatever reason, I got suspicious and clicked on the image and saw the original uploader was, which had been blocked as a sock of. This editor has a thing for Disney attraction articles, same as Disney fan 71, notably Matterhorn Bobsleds, mentioned and edited by all three. This appears to be an unintentional self-outing, if you ask me.  McDoob AU93  18:31, 26 May 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

 * Based on the contribs and the evidence provided, it seems obvious that this is a sock. Blocked and tagged. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 18:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

30 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This IP, which belongs to CenturyLink and geolocates to Salt Lake City, Utah (the same as other IPs that have been connected to BeasttoBeast), undid an edit I made on Incidents at Disneyland Resort, one that undid an uncited edit made by, the last identified sock of BeasttoBeast. I find it unusual that an anon's very first edit is to undo an edit by another editor, especially one further back in the edit history due to subsequent edits by other editors. Something smells, or rather quacks.  McDoob AU93  03:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit appears to pick up where GoBYU! left off, as well. -- McDoob AU93  04:46, 31 May 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

 * SLC, really? For me all of them geolocate to Qwest Communications in Denver. Anyways, blocked 1 week per WP:DUCK, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

12 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:29, 12 June 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

 * No longer active. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  01:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

20 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Editing pattern matches previously used socks. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So considering that there has been a case open for almost two weeks, should I just stop reporting socks belonging to this user? I can't imagine why it would take two weeks to come to a conclusion. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 21:48, 22 June 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

 * The delay may be because we are volunteers. Vacations, real life, etc. Looking now. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  01:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Several intersects, and edits like Manvs.Food: and  make it a duck.  Blocked, tagged, templated, closing  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  01:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

26 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Editing history is very similar. Not close enough to be a duck, so requesting CU to confirm. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:25, 26 July 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

 * this is your master. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking, tagging and closing. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

08 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Maybe I'm jumping the gun right now, but how likely is it that a "new" account would re-add changes made by a previous account blocked for socking almost two weeks ago? I'm talking about these edits by a BtB sock that I reverted, only to find this 'new' account come in and make the exact same changes today. I'm willing to sit back and wait, but I think this is probably another BtB sock. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:09, 8 August 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

 * - - Requesting checkuser to see if these two are the same. See  and . Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ match to America'sFunniestHomeVideos. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

30 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Editing pattern is once again very similar, limited to game shows, Disney articles, and NASA topics. This edit convinced me since similar edits have been made previously. As before, requesting CU to confirm and check for sleepers. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering this has been going on intermittently for almost a year, should this user be a candidate for classifying as WP:LTA, or is it too early? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The user has started to upload images as PD once again, exactly matching the behavior of known socks. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:29, 1 October 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

 * Technically, NASA whiz is a match to WDW Vs. DLP and America'sFunniestHomeVideos (which were and are ✅ to each other). Behavioral evidence is important here. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NASA whiz blocked indef and tagged. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

11 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same editing pattern: Disney and game show articles. Most of the puppeteer's edits involving Disney articles regard changing images in some way, which makes up most of this user's edits to the same subject. The user also left me a WikiLove message; I probably wouldn't have even noticed the editing similarities if not for this (not to mention there is absolutely zero reason for the WikiLove message since I don't write Disney articles) Requesting CU to confirm. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 21:26, 11 October 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

 * - Claim makes sense and there is some behavioral similarities. Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * HeadofCurls is a match to WDW Vs. DLP and NASA whiz. Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * HeadofCurls blocked indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

12 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Without a doubt. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:43, 12 October 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

 * IP blocked one month for block evasion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)