Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DVDfan12/Archive

Report date June 22 2009, 13:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Treelo

User has been disruptive in the past and has used a sockpuppet  in order to sidestep any possible blocks or bad faith attached to that account. The sockpuppet account has been blocked indefinitely after appearing less than a week ago. The main issues with this sockpuppeteer is that this user is a minor (12 years old with autism) and often self-identifies with his name and other personal details, edit warring and recreating deleted articles.A checkuser is requested to find any sockpuppets which are dormant if any and possibly block the underlying IP address(es). treelo radda  13:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by treelo  radda  13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

to check for rangeblock potential. — Jake   Wartenberg  21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ as well. I've blocked a couple of IPs, but I don't think it's possible to rangeblock all the ranges he is on. Dominic·t 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date July 23 2009, 14:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Treelo

Repeated recreation and creation of articles regarding non-notable subjects such as actors. The usernames follow no given pattern besides word/number CamelCase usernames but all have created or recreated the same articles, created new articles which are shortly deleted later for lack of notability or content and never communicate with any other editors. Checkuser is required for yet another sweep of accounts and IP addresses used by this person. treelo radda  14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by treelo  radda  14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - Though will be stale.  Tiptoety  talk 03:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

There are separate groups of sockpuppets in this report:
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Group #1 - Currently available technical or behavioral evidence indicates the following accounts are related:
 * ✅ Group #2 - Currently available technical or behavioral evidence indicates the following accounts are related:
 * ✅ Group #3 - Currently available technical or behavioral evidence indicates the following accounts are related:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ✅ Group #3 - Currently available technical or behavioral evidence indicates the following accounts are related:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ✅ Group #3 - Currently available technical or behavioral evidence indicates the following accounts are related:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ✅ Group #3 - Currently available technical or behavioral evidence indicates the following accounts are related:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:
 * ❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the following accounts or any of those above:

-- Avi (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 25 2009, 13:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Evading a block issued to this serial sockpuppeteer. Due to the period of time between the creation of DVDfan12 and NickelodeonFan being long enough the CU data for DVDfan12 was stale, there was no connection between these accounts but recently NickelodeonFan has self-identified as the same person behind DVDfan12 using the exact same personally identifiable information as was used before. A Checkuser is requested not to prove a link but to issue a fairly long-term block for the IP address(es) used by NickelodeonFan/DVDfan12 to prevent further disruption.
 * Evidence submitted by treelo  radda


 * Example of identifying information for NickelodeonFan:
 * Example of identifying information for DVDfan12:

His name and age were deleted per WP:CHILD from User:DVDfan12 but the names are the same as is location and age for both accounts when self-idenitfying. treelo radda  14:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by treelo  radda  13:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Please provide a link or diff identifying NickelodeonFan as DVDfan12. — Jake   Wartenberg  14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * I'll ask Avi to check into this. A previous case (in the archives) already checked NickelodeonFan against the DVDfan12 farms and returned unrelated results. It is suspicious that the userpages show matching demographic information (originally from Portugal, living in the UK, etc.) but it could be coincidence without additional diff evidence showing similarity. Nathan  T 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The DVDfan12 account was considered stale so I was to assume that there was no information to tie it to any of the rest of the sockdrawer, the only results was through the other accounts connecting themselves together and not through the DVDfan12 account. Diffs are above showing more but again, I can't provide the diffs for DVDfan12 showing the same name due to it being deleted. treelo  radda  15:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The technical information available now seems to be a different computer on the same dial-up network in the same place. While I do not see any single IP shared by the DVD et. al. and NFan, they are consistently on the same dial-up network in the same locality, and therefore the behavioral evidence of town-of-birth etc. should be given significant weight for sock/meat puppetry purposes. A finding of seems reasonable. However, the range is so wide that a rangeblock is contraindicated; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thing I don't want a rangeblock, I know he's on a very big range with a large amount of collateral damage involved. What I am looking for however is a 3 month or so block on the IP addresses he's used so far if only to slow him down. treelo  radda  15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's simply no point. He'll just come back on a different IP on the same range. That won't slow him down, sadly. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date September 28 2009, 20:36 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Treelo

DVDfan still seems to be active in creating articles but has moved to a new /19 range owned by Cabo TV indicating he's now back in Portugal once more. Evidence that this user is still active is scattered across several IP addresses listed above as all edits are relating to Latin American/Portugese content or variants in regards to children's television or media aimed at children, including multiple redirect creation. I recently tagged one of these "articles" with a PROD but it was removed some minutes later by an IP address which has been editing related articles. I can't provide diffs for his creation of these minor offshoots of channels in talkspace as most have been deleted but can request you check the deleted contribs of any of the anons above. HVL has some links (including the mentioned diff) to the IP edits but not enough I feel to link them so a Checkuser is requested for a connection and the usual sweep for IPs I might have missed. treelo radda  20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by treelo  radda  20:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

– while this is WP:DUCK, I'd like to get a check on 213.190.192.0/19 for possible collateral damage. MuZemike 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, HomeVideoLover is not editing from 213.190.192.0/19, and appears to be totally ❌. I can't give any indication of whether DVDfan is the same person as these IPs, as his account is. J.delanoy gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I see a lot of quacking from all the IPs involved though HVL's actions seem to point towards him being somewhat related to the anon editing or has a meatpuppet. The most recent range DVDfan was found on other than this one was 92.0.0.0/11, at least that can be of some help to working out if we're dealing with the same user or someone unrelated yet connected. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  16:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:HomeVideoLover has been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Also, 213.190.201.156 has been blocked for 2 weeks as an IP sock. I am leaving alone the remaining IPs as well as the range at this time as
 * Conclusions
 * 1) A few have not edited in a while.
 * 2) There is a little uninvolved activity on the range.
 * 3) Looking at the histories of the articles, the IPs look like they're jumping well outside the /16 range.

MuZemike 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)