Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CaptainHog/Archive

16 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:CaptainHog was blocked by User:Diannaa on July 6 (blocked was later upped to indef by User:Jpgordon). CaptainHog claimed if blocked he would make multiple accounts. He lived up to that promise by creating the User:LeJBoy0 account on July 14. That account was indef-blocked by User:Diannaa on the same day. In an unblock request, he admitted to "abusing my two accounts" and claimed he had "fulfilled pledge of block evasion".

Combined with the users own words and the already created (and blocked) sockpuppet, I believe a checkuser is necessary to smoke out any sleeper accounts. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 15:54, 16 July 2015 (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

 * Ping since you already know the background. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything sleeperish. Both accounts used otherwise widely-used ranges, but I didn't see anything suspicious that matched these two otherwise. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there aren't any sleepers, then that's really all I needed to know. With both accounts blocked, and the CU completed (thanks Jpgordon), that's the extent of what we can do at the moment. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 17:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thus, marking as closed. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

16 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Based on editing patterns of adding unsourced information to TV station articles in Southern Virginia, I am concerned that this IP is a sock of User:CaptainHog/User:LeJBoy0. Example diffs:, ,. agt x 22:08, 16 July 2015 (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

 * . Block the IP for three days.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * for 3 days per Vanja. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

17 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same pattern as previously: random and unsourced edits to TV station articles (although moving outside the geographical region of Southern VA this time). This set of IP users is editing Sirius radio related articles as well, making it less clear that it is the same user. However the edits are similar enough in nature that I think WP:DUCK still applies. agt x 19:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't stopping. I'm not sure what other IP addresses this person is operating under, but the vandalism is sneaky and I'm getting concerned. agt x  18:59, 22 July 2015 (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

 * These IPs are not active any more. I'm closing this. There's nothing we can do here. IPs do not belong to the same range, so we can't block the range.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

27 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The sock account, created July 26, posted this on User:Diannaa's talk page. She, of course, blocked the user as a DUCK sock of CaptainHog. This is, once again, another instance of CaptainHog fulfilling his promise to create numerous accounts after the CaptainHog account was blocked.

I am requesting a checkuser be performed to identify any sleeper accounts and to see if a range block is possible. Thank you. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:24, 27 July 2015 (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

 * ✅ and associated tags updated. .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, thank you! -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

13 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

CaptainHog insisted that WSFF did broadcast in HD, even though sources showed that the station did. The user created the User:HDRadioGuy2100 and User:RadioFanLMAO accounts to continue these edits after the CaptainHog account was blocked. The user has continued this with the RevoltFan384 account.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have notified everyone of this SPI, including admins which blocked the original account and the socks. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have gathered enough photographic evidence to prove that the station does not broadcast in HD Radio and that your source is bullshit. RevoltFan384 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 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
on behavioural evidence. Ready to close — Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets





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

CaptainHog continues to add the same incorrect information to various Roanoke, Virginia area radio station pages. The user was indef-blocked previously and is now creating socks. The current sock is EndAll6969, the last two previous socks are AAAAA001 and DoNotKillMePlease555. The latter two have been blocked, but might be helpful with whomever runs the checkuser.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 07:14 on August 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * Another CaptainHog sock has popped up, NoMoreSilence420. Same edits, same pages.  A checkuser and range block, as suggested by myself and Diannaa respectively, is clearly needed. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:22 on August 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * The NoMoreSilence420 sock has been blocked. A checkuser for sleepers is needed. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:32 on August 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Another sock has popped up, Justwhy69. Can't edit any of the pages, but has actually asked for permission to edit.  Is anyone going to do a checkuser? -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 08:31 on August 9, 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
I have blocked EndAll6969 on behavioural evidence: the same edits to the same articles; similar pattern in the username. It would be useful to have a range block on the underlying range. The last round of socking was about three weeks ago. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since no sleepers were found previously, I do not endorse sleepers check. Also, I do not see a need for range block. There is no evidence that autoblock is failing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Autoblock is obviously failing since this is the fourth instance of sockpuppetry in as many weeks. A checkuser and a range block are necessary. -  Neutralhomer has Escaped  •  Talk  • 20:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Autoblock only lasts for 24 hours, and the duration of range block would also be similar. We rarely make long range-blocks due to collateral damage. So, neither can prevent the user from making new sock in a week of few.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If we knew the range, then we could determine whether or not there would be any collateral damage, but we would need a checkuser to do that. Since one hasn't been run, we are just guessing.  Plus, we don't know if any sleepers exist until the checkuser is run.  Longer we wait, the more stale the information gets. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:00 on August 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ the first three accounts plus.
 * the bottom two accounts.
 * A block will be placed later today to slow them down further. At the moment, this does look containable, but I'm not going to be blocking everything they have access to due to things being stale or risk of collaterial atm. Further sleeper checks are recommended at the sight of more socks. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time and running the CU. It is very greatly appreciated. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 11:09 on August 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Yet another CaptainHog sock. Requesting sleeper check. was the last known sock and was the last known sleeper for CaptainHog. Hopefully this will give the CU something to go by. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:22 on August 13, 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

 * Everything that can be done has been done. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The last known sock of CaptainHog, User:NoMoreSilence420 (see the SPI above dated August 1, 2016), shows identical edits two the current sock, Sjick14. Here are some examples....

WSFF: NoMoreSilence420 Edit - Sjick14 Edit

WVBE-FM: NoMoreSilence420 Edit - Sjick14 Edit

WVBB: NoMoreSilence420 Edit - Sjick 14 Edit

As you can see, these are near identical edits. The first edits by Sjick14 are "good edits", not typical of a CaptainHog sock, but I believe that is to throw off users/admin watching CaptainHog's usual haunts (ie: WSFF, WVBE-FM, WVBB).

I am requesting a checkuser compared with the previous two checkusers and a check for sleepers. I believe this is a DUCK sock, but am just going through the motions.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 15:20 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * User has been notified. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 15:23 on September 3, 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
✅, no sleepers found. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 15:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)