Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camponhoyle/Archive

Report date September 18 2009, 21:29 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Blatantly obvious sockpuppetry. There are more older accounts suspected to be linked, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Camponhoyle. All these accounts are blocked but more and more Servanthoyle accounts keep being created in order to taunt me:. Requesting checkuser in order to block IP or IP range if possible. Mango juice talk 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Mangojuice


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Mango juice talk 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * You missed RunnerMarathon and YellowColour. No real chance at a range block. Brandon (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Last two blocked/tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

16 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Oh dear, I did hope this one had gone away, but today this appeared on my talk page from a new user whose only edits were to do with Camponhoyle socks. It was a feature of these socks that they were as much interested in reporting each other and talking about each other as in other mischief, so I have blocked Categoriser per DUCK.

Camponja is an obvious left-over from the previous infestation; it has never edited, so I haven't bothered with it, but maybe it should be blocked and tagged for completeness. The previous lot will all be stale for CU purposes.

The really bad news is here: 25 new "Campon" sock accounts created yesterday. None of them have edited. My first thought was to block them all, but on reflection I think that would just be playing their game - they would simply have a happy time creating lots more and watching us block them. I am inclined to go straight to the "Ignore" bit of RBI, unless they start to edit, but I would be glad of other views. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2011 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, the following:
 * ,, , , , , , ,  and .  TN X Man  16:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and the rest. Just keep reporting them as they pop up. TN X Man  16:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - and what about ? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They're, no? TN X Man  17:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep...my bad :P -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

07 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The user is obviously a sock because he is editing the userpages of his socks. The user has relevance with the username of the sockpuppeteer. Mediran talk to me! 11:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

For User:Hoyleslr see this admission. Maybe we should let them go and see what others they bring up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Camponja see this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I just want the suspected sockpuppeteers to be officially confirmed because I know they are for certain. Camponhoy (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All accounts except for Camponja are now blocked. (I'm not blocking that one in case he is trolling us by adding fake sock tags. If it ever edits, let me know.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I blocked Camponja before seeing your note. I don't think there's much doubt, and WP:RBI is definitely the best tactic with this lot. JohnCD (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

09 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

There are probably many that we do not know about. They are a grave threat to the sites integrity. We must take immediate action to avert the onset of the potential disaster. YOKOSUCKS (talk) 15:46, 9 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

 * Poster blocked as sock of Camponhoyle. Closing Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 15:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

18 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Action and names pretty much speak for themselves, though there's always a chance that this is one of our other "steady customers" feeling bored. In that case, may be of interest. I have blocked the socks as ducks but request a check for sleepers and if possible a range block. Considering the intensity of the production, it seems unlikely that I caught them all, and this worthy editor may have something to do with it. Favonian (talk) 16:12, 18 September 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 ranges are too large to even check. Additionally, he's hopping through various ISPs. As far as I can tell, he is to be User:ControIthedogs and his socks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)