Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bojdufa/Archive

24 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * - account was originally named Ytprograms and was renamed here
 * Stale accounts
 * Stale accounts
 * Stale accounts


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

Zhitelew (last edit July 2015), Gatsby2015 (last edit June 2015), and the IP (last edit June 2015) are stale so will not bear CU, but the other three are current. Everyone except Zhitelew is a WP:SPA for Youth Time.
 * Zhitelew created the article as a translation from the Russian version in 2013. They made only a few more edits, including one in May 2015 (shortly before Gatsby and the IP appeared) removing critical content about YT possibly being a propaganda tool for Russia. Their last edit was replacing a picture that explicitly tied YT to a Russian government minister's pet project with another one.
 * The IP removed the infobox in August 2014 and re-emerged in June 2015 to make the same deletion of critical content that Zhitelew had made, here
 * Gatsby appeared the same day as the IP in June 2015 and in a series of edits did the same thing as the IP - removed the infobox and the critical content.
 * And then vanished.


 * Bofdufa appeared on 16 Feb of this year, with the account originally named Ytprograms. Their first edit was adding an infobox in Russian. Then a series of edits copying stuff from their website.  and of course removing the critical content in this dif.  This led to a response from the community, some edit warring, and a report to COIN.
 * That caught my attention and I cleaned up the article and tried to open a discussion with Bojdufa about COI. (they had already been notified)


 * A new account, Programsyt, showed up just after i finished revising the article and restored the "Manifesto" and other promotional content from the YT website, and edit warred over it.  During that time they left a note on my Talk page, saying Hello jytdog, I see you've overwritten all of my edits on the page.... Please note their first contrib was made after I worked over the page.  They are admitting being a sock there.
 * Programsyt was blocked for 31 hours starting at 16:44, 24 February 2016 by for disruptive editing.


 * at the same time that Programsyt was editing warring, Bojdufa was arguing on the talk page for those changes, not editing directly.
 * at 19:10, 24 February 2016, about 2 and a half hours after the Programsyt account was blocked, the Jimmano account appeared and created a cloned article, Youth Time Movement, the content of which is very very close to what Bofdufa had been arguing for on the Talk page of YT, per the dif above.

I believe Bojdufa, Programsyt, and Jimmano are at least MEAT and are probably SOCKS. Behaviorally, they appear to be the same person as the other accounts I listed. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC) (re-signed Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2016 (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 following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * is very to the above accounts.
 * Blocked without tags. I will leave it to a clerk to decide what tags are warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This should be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Bojdufa. I would do it myself but I'm not sure whether to just leave a redirect or add a note. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags. I will leave it to a clerk to decide what tags are warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This should be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Bojdufa. I would do it myself but I'm not sure whether to just leave a redirect or add a note. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

12 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

per the prior SPI case, we recently went through a wave of representatives of Youth Time trying to make our article into a webhost. They appear to be back. See current COIN case here and the ANI they filed here.
 * Spaceludens has made one edit going right for the mission statement with an edit note similar to those by the prior sock farm: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one"
 * F aristocrat has an edit history similar to one of the socks, who first translated an article or two from Russian WP, and then proceeded to YouthTime.   F aristocrat did the same thing, first translating an article, and then proceeding to Youth Time, where they rewrote the article here and then edit-warred that version in here and here.  That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page and press releases.  It also removed negative content and added specific positive content - same edits that the prior sock farm had made. See for example this overwriting of the article by  Bojdufa with a bunch of cites to their website, copy/pasting of their mission, etc.
 * F artistocrat also left this message at my Talk page, in which they at least acknowledged MEAT or perhaps more aptly WP:PROXYING: "yesterday one of their representatives asked me to edit this article for them and provided information to add." Which pretty much bags it.

Please note that there were a bunch of sleeper accounts the first time around, so I do hope a CU is done. thx Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * F aristocrat was blocked following this ANI about a different sock. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the CU. Two things:
 * F artistocrat was absolutely MEAT as they revealed at the COIN case. Blocked now in any case.
 * Spaceludens made some one additional edit since the first one, here at COIN. That comment consistent with the first bunch of SOCKS and they should be blocked per SOCK or MEAT or PROXYING, as you will.
 * MagneticMarcella and Thegranitekitty are socks of an editor calling itself WURT that is being discussed in Sockpuppet investigations/Renameduser024 where it is actually separate from the Master under discussion there Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2016 (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

 * Spaceludens is.
 * and are ✅ to each other.
 * F aristocrat is ❌ to any of the above.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to do here as far as I can tell. Closing now.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Youth Time has waves of promotional pressure, including socking. We have now had Dialogue of civilizations (institute), created, speedy deleted per PROMO, recreated, then speedy deleted per PROMO again. Small group worked on it, and added WL to it to Youth Time and Vladimir Yakunin. These accounts are limited to this field across other projects as well. Likely is socking yet again. There maybe more but I forgot to check the history before the Dialogue article was deleted again. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (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 following three accounts are ✅ to each other:


 * is to the group above. The previous socks are  so a connection to the master account needs to be based upon behavior. Mike V • Talk 19:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the three confirmed. Jane Donovan doesn't look related behaviorally to me. Their only edit was on the deleted article, but it was removing an external link added by one of the other accounts here. It was also a mobile edit whereas all other edits are not mobile. The behavioral link between these three accounts and the master looks a bit tenuous, so I'll leave it to a clerk to examine that and tag as appropriate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above. Marking as closed and clerks will review at the archival step. Mkdw talk 22:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)