Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bekeke1/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This is about as obvious a case of longterm socking as I think I've ever seen. Each of these accounts has edited exclusively at and regarding the content at Balloon boy hoax and Talk:Balloon boy hoax, and all following the same basic pattern of disruptive editing which has recently led to the article being placed under page protection by : each of the accounts pushes a narrative that the married couple that are the subject of that article (notably convicted of criminal offenses in regard to these events) have been the subject of a media hit/prosecutorial conspiracy, despite the fact that not a single WP:RS utilized in the article supports this view. Lately, the pattern has shifted to become even more idiosyncratic: each account makes just one to three edits, and tries to push blog posts or youtube videos, by the "internet historian", along with Reddit threads, despite being told none of these are acceptable sources. That account then goes dormant, but within a few weeks to a month and a half, a new one is registered to repeat the process, either through direct attempts to edit the article or through nearly identical arguments advanced on the talk page. They all also share similar gaps in basic editing knowledge, both as regards the policy and technical side of things, and have similar histrionic perspective on how the subjects are being unfairly maligned. Indeed, they often describe one of the subjects, Richard Heene, in such a specific way, that it is hard to escape the suspicion of COI involvement; they often bemoan the fact that one of the tragedies of the media misrepresentation is that this "inventor" is not taken seriously--this seems a red flag after having read Balloon_boy_hoax. They all make a handful of edits to the article or talk and then retire, only to replaced soon after, interspersed with nearly as many similar IP edits (also just one or two per IP) making similar comments.

At a minimum, this goes back several years, and I suspect to the genesis of the article, though I stopped counting after the first 24 SPAs/IPs. I listed only a few of the recent IPs, because I know the options are limited in blocking those, since the sockmaster is obviously jumping around constantly. Indeed, I'm not even sure what can be done in general with regard to the registered accounts, since the blocks would all go against accounts that were apparently dropped instantly upon their edits being reverted or arguments opposed. Still, I suppose blocking the named accounts would at least put the editors who come upon the article on notice as to the extent of the disruption on the article and talk page. At the very least, I thought the SPI gurus should eyeball this one. If anyone wants specific diffs in regard to specific conduct described above, let me know; normally I'd pepper them in by default, but in this instance the case is most effectively made by opening the contribs page for any of the listed editors and clicking at random; basically virtually every last edit conforms to the description above. There are other tell-tale signs in the editing suggestive of a sockmaster connecting the accounts which I have not detailed above, per WP:BEANS, but I think they will be obvious to experienced contributors to this space. Many of the accounts are far too old for a CU, but there's a good four or five that have been active in the last couple of months. In any event, the behavioural case here is probably strong enough for blocks regardless of a CU, imo. Snow let's rap 09:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Just an update, this sockmaster is still at it; as soon as the page protection expired, two new accounts were opened and began editing the article and talk page respectively:




 * Same M.O. as the previous accounts--a couple of edits made solely to the Balloon Boy article and then the accounts apparently abandoned. Clearly this user is IP hopping, but the behavioural case couldn't be more ironclad. I recognize that a formal close of this SPI and a blocking of those accounts will accomplish little directly, as this WP:NOTHERE user (who is very likely the subject of the article themselves) will just open new accounts, using new proxies. But the close will at least help flag this issue for anyone else who stumbles upon this user's multi-year campaign to try to reframe the content of the article; I had to spend quite a bit of time digging through the article and talk page histories after discovering some fishy activity by way of the pending changes backlog, and I'd like to save the next editor that trouble. Additionally, for the purposes of assisting those projects trying to identify proxy service IPs (this user, from a technical standpoint, is almost certainly getting access to these numerous IPs from such a service, in order to facilitate the socking and avoid being permanently shut down), I'd like to take the IPs utilized in opening these accounts to appropriate spaces so they can be investigated and blocked if necesary. To those ends, can I please request a well overdue close on this investigation? Sno<b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 03:47, 6 December 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

 * All other accounts are technically ❌. Technical evidence is useful only in certain situations, and this finding does not preclude a conclusion of disruptive off-wiki co-ordination, meat-puppetry, or other wrongdoing. .   AGK  &#9632;   20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All other accounts are technically ❌. Technical evidence is useful only in certain situations, and this finding does not preclude a conclusion of disruptive off-wiki co-ordination, meat-puppetry, or other wrongdoing. .   AGK  &#9632;   20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All other accounts are technically ❌. Technical evidence is useful only in certain situations, and this finding does not preclude a conclusion of disruptive off-wiki co-ordination, meat-puppetry, or other wrongdoing. .   AGK  &#9632;   20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All other accounts are technically ❌. Technical evidence is useful only in certain situations, and this finding does not preclude a conclusion of disruptive off-wiki co-ordination, meat-puppetry, or other wrongdoing. .   AGK  &#9632;   20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All other accounts are technically ❌. Technical evidence is useful only in certain situations, and this finding does not preclude a conclusion of disruptive off-wiki co-ordination, meat-puppetry, or other wrongdoing. .   AGK  &#9632;   20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All other accounts are technically ❌. Technical evidence is useful only in certain situations, and this finding does not preclude a conclusion of disruptive off-wiki co-ordination, meat-puppetry, or other wrongdoing. .   AGK  &#9632;   20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All other accounts are technically ❌. Technical evidence is useful only in certain situations, and this finding does not preclude a conclusion of disruptive off-wiki co-ordination, meat-puppetry, or other wrongdoing. .   AGK  &#9632;   20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All other accounts are technically ❌. Technical evidence is useful only in certain situations, and this finding does not preclude a conclusion of disruptive off-wiki co-ordination, meat-puppetry, or other wrongdoing. .   AGK  &#9632;   20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)