Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dance-pop/Archive

Report date February 20 2009, 04:25 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Daniel Case (talk)

While reviewing unblock requests, I came across a request by the IP user to lift an autoblock. Unusually, the IP had a somewhat active recent contrib history. I decided to investigate the blocked user to see if there was any similarity between their edit histories.

I hit paydirt. It seems both Dance-pop (in the middle of his second one-week block for disruptive editing in almost as many weeks) and this IP have focused almost exclusively on Lady GaGa and related articles (songs, discography). And on this AfD, both the IP and Dance-pop voted keep. Vote stacking, on top of block evasion. Nice.

The reviewer will note that both have a slightly-imperfect, perhaps non-native, English and a tendency not to capitalize, and to make minor typoes or misspellings.

I haven't asked for a checkuser because the quacking is too loud. Although it might be a good idea as a followup to see if there are any more in the drawer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: The block has already been extended to a month for this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users:
 * Myself and other users(like Realist2, Efe etc) have also continuously watched this IP doing the same kind of edits in the Lady GaGa related articles. Once Dance-pop almost confessed about this IP. I'll put up that proof again. Me and Realist2 questioned him/her about the IP and the user said he/she doesnot know what sockpuppetry is. Later after reading about it, the user came back and shouted at Realist2. Moments later the IP came back and shouted at Realist2. There are many cases when the IP and Dance-pop have simultaneously contradicted discussions (check the GaGa related talkpages). I'm more than 100% sure that it is the user's IP. --Legolas!!  ( talk to me ) 06:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I realized they were sock puppets a few weeks ago, when they both wrote my user name as "Redlist". — R  2  08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

bot was down Mayalld (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid point. I realised the same when both of them called Legalos instead of Legolas. --Legolas!!  ( talk to me ) 10:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Seems to be pretty conclusive, and action has already been taken. Is there anything else that needs doing here? Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the user is already blocked, what is the point of this case? What is the desired action folks? ——  nix eagle email me 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Case is closed. When Dance-pop was a newbie I tried hinting at him to stop using the IP. He denied it belonged to him. I knew it did, asked a few admins to monitor it, but on the whole I did little about it. Now that Dance-pop has been caught by an admin he is trying to pass the IP off on his younger brother (despite maintaining for several weeks it had nothing to do with him). Dance-Pop should have taken my hint several weeks ago, instead of pretending to be ignorant. — R  2  16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 30 2009, 04:53 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Legolas2186

The contributions history will show that. The same edit warring at theLady Gaga articles and going against consensus. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This user continously partakes in disruptive contributions to Wikipedia including that of going against consensus, making personal attacks, not assuming good faith, edit warring and bringing forward unnecessary drama that we could all deal without. This user has been blocked many times before using previous identities and has obviously not been learnt from their mistakes. There has been no progress with the operator of these numerous accounts. This user does not deserve another chance as improvement is beyond his or her capabilities. • вяαdcяo chat  06:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Just so we're clear, is there a community ban / arbcom sanction that any of these users are alleged to have violated? Nathan  T 22:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, however Dance-pop (the original account) has been known to be very disruptive in the area of dispute, and has created several sockpuppets to evade blocks. Technically, the user is banned under the "nobody willing to unblock" definition, but no formal ban has been brought forth. Because of this, I've changed the Checkuser request code above from E to B; I still think a CU could be useful in this case to investigate the possibility of IP or (small) range blocks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ the following appear to be the same person:
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * I have moved the case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show as appears to be the sock master (based upon block log entries);
 * All the above confirmed sockpuppets have been blocked and tagged as such.
 * Tiptoety talk 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 2 2009, 08:28 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by HermanHiddema

This user is continuing a discussion at Talk:Chess, previously engaged in by User:Cloverfield_Monsta and User:Truth_of_the_World:_Welcome_to_the_Show, both previously identified sockpuppets of Dance-pop. Furthermore, the user is editing Lady Gaga related pages, as other sockpuppets have done. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

The sock completely vandalised two Lady Gaga related articles which I believe is in retaliation for his block. I prefer a range block in this case. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Tiptoety  talk 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Request for CheckUser
 * - Based upon the last CheckUser that revealed a sock farm, CheckUser would be beneficial here. Tiptoety  talk 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

open proxy,. -- Luk  talk 12:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * I went ahead and blocked the account based on the behavioral evidence, plus the fact that they are editing using an open proxy makes me believe they are attempting to circumvent an autoblock or IP block. Tiptoety  talk 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

10 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Blatant WP:DUCK. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  05:02, 10 June 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

 * - Obvious that all four accounts (two blocked) are the same as the master (which is stale) but can the underlying IP address be checked for sleepers? There's been a history of them in the past. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 11:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing else to report. WilliamH (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing up case. The  Helpful  One  13:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

17 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Just in case sleeper check while I duck block this guy. Self endorsed. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Quite obvious and I smell a rangeblock coming up.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added per edit to this page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And now .--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * 202.177.218.0/25 was blocked on the basis of proxies or a web proxy service existing. If there is an indication that this user edits beyond that range, if a CU could extend as appropriate or contact me for more details on this. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't appear to be editing from proxies at the moment. Found one account though: . I could try to place a rangeblock, but I need more data so that we can have a more effective block. Elockid  ( Talk ) 13:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, we'll hold for the next batch. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

16 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

"My friend" deserves this? Fairly obvious sock.  Theo polisme  03:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * CU should root out other socks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding another, both Neckiminajfan21 &Dancep0p1 have been blocked and tagged by . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Added one more, but looks like they're all blocked. Autoblocks should hold them. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

16 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Quack. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 16 September 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
By looking at the block log, this appears to have already been dealt with. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

31 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This edit seems enough for a CU. If it is not the same person, should be blocked due to the name. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  04:51, 31 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

 * . You're asking for a checkuser, but saying that even if it comes back negative they should still be blocked. Then you don't need a checkuser. I've blocked the account as an obvious sockpuppet of someone (doesn't really matter who). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like all required action has been taken. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 06:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

26 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck, filing for the record. Rschen7754 02:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Added as another suspected sock based on edit to an older sock's tag.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 02:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - - Sleeper check, as past CUs have come up positive. Rschen7754 03:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

is ✅. No sleepers that I could find.

has the same user agent as Gargoylea, but the IP geolocates to the other side of the world. However s/he is accessing Wikipedia through an IP address that appears to be part of some kind of a VPN. I'm going to have to call this from a technical aspect. From a non-technical aspect, I'd say they are almost certainly a sock of someone, and to be a sock of Dance-pop. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Reclosing. Rschen7754 07:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

05 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Openly states so. See this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ATRL&oldid=553585333. Also, all edits by this user state they are a sockpuppet. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User already blocked. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive, obvious sock. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ATRL&oldid=553585842&diff=prev Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User blocked. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:04, 5 May 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

 * - - as past sleeper checks have come up positive. Rschen7754 07:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Named accounts are ✅ matches to each other. No obvious unblocked sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Darn. Closing then. Rschen7754 09:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

29 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:DUCK (see deleted contribs), requesting sleeper check. Rschen7754 05:06, 29 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

 * -  Rschen7754 05:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: everything in archives is . --Rschen7754 05:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No obvious sleepers. NativeForeigner Talk 08:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)