Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel L. Barth/Archive

15 May 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This looks like a web of sock- or meat-puppets. Some more likely than others: First Flight High School. - Sinneed  23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by - Sinneed
 * 2 new ones for today from FFHS.- Sinneed  00:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Well, Most of them are disruptive. This thread was totally pointless. And TissueCube18, Jimmy44512, 75.139.104.160 and LibertyChurch loves to add exclamation points at the end of there messages when one really isn't needed. And this and also this kinda jumps out.
 * Comments by other users

Jimmy44512 and LibertyChurch are definitely the same person for adding the same youtube link.wiooiw (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

FirstFlight periodically gets high levels of this sort of nonsense, and has had a many-months-long low level of it. Seems to spread to other random pages and wasting time on uninvolved(?) users' pages too, so simply protecting FirstFlight won't really solve the whole problem. By behavior, it's probably a few real-world people who know each other, and perhaps each has several socks. Are there some static IPs that could stem this flood? DMacks (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

DumbSponge62 quacks too. dmacks

User talk:Othersended has a comment ties Ihaveteeth. to Othersended by behavior. DMacks (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Per this comment, obvious intent to disrupt (FFHS page was semi-protected, hence standard MO of 10 innocuous edits). DMacks (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of Jonpebs, this looks like a nest of meat-puppets. Probably students of First Flight High School having a bit of fun. Multiple blocks have been issued, yet it continues. Perhaps a checkuser can find an underlying IP range to block and take care of it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Requested by User:Kww

–MuZemike 00:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

✅

All blocked and tagged.


 * and are.

- hardblocked main IPs, will softblock range if they find more to use. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by DMacks
New school year, same multiple-account vandalism problem on First Flight High School. I guess block of underlying IP from last spring expired or they found a new one? Some blocked, article semi'ed. But need CU to root out sleepers and block underlying IPs, since user(s) is/are apparently known to create many accounts, game the autoconfirmed system, and vandalize various articles other than this one common target. DMacks (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
any technical link to Daniel L. Barth is (although there is a behavioral link). Endorsed for a sleeper check on the accounts listed above, per the large number of sleepers created by last time round, if possible an IP block would be appreciated too. A quick look through the history for First Flight High School and the archive for this case should give some context on this for those unfamiliar with the user. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ with respect to each other


 * as well. TN X Man  14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * as well. TN X Man  14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * as well. TN X Man  14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * as well. TN X Man  14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by DMacks
Another pile of new SPIs adding lots of questionable material to First Flight High School and seeming mainly to try to run up the article's edit count (as usual for this sock-drawer), promptly resumed as soon as page-protection expired (also per this interesting revelation and next two edits by that IP). Does previous IP block need extension, or did they get a new one to abuse? I blocked the above accounts per WP:DUCK but previously have had sleepers found for them too. DMacks (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
All ✅ with respect to each other and a match the accounts I found last time. No sleepers that I saw and no comment on the listed IP. In response to your question, they've moved to a new range. TN X Man 14:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked & tagged. Marking for closure. Tiptoety  talk 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

30 November 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets

previous rounds (WP:RBI'ed at that time, now figure better keep the evidence pile):

today's:


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Two recent rounds of socks. Behavior all matches, usernames and IPs resemble previous ones. As before, sleeper or alt IP check needed, and rangeblock if feasible for this long-term puppetfest that tends to fester under the radar at times. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2010 (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

 * Looks like this editor runs a huge sockfarm and CU could shed some light on other accounts. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No sleepers found. as well.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing for now. The article is protected for a year, too, so I'm not sure there's much else to do here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

01 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

The two IPs (one of which was previously listed in this same SPI) are back to the usual "run up the view-count and then discuss it" (sock-match based on behavior and IP range), which has lately been on the 2012 phenomenon article the past few sock-cycles as well as the usual high-school one. The appletart game is a second long-term behavior pattern in this sock-drawer. User:Appletartgame and User:DoYouPlayTheAppletartGame? are long-dormant but I just uncovered them as part of the same long-term edit problem, so may as well list them for completeness. DMacks (talk) 18:26, 1 January 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

 * I'm declining the CU as there's no new evidence of socking aside from some IP edits, and we can't go fishing for accounts based on that. And since all of the editors listed are stale, there isn't much else to do here, I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there were some CU-invoked blocks of underlying ranges from previous rounds. Would be useful to know if those have expired, and if so if these IPs are in those ranges as part of the long-term problem. DMacks (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's interesting. Okay, I'll endorse for a CU - not to get sleepers, but to see if we can renew an IP block or rangeblock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked (but not checked) the IP that DMacks blocked the last time - the behavior clearly indicates it's the same person. I also re-checked the accounts listed in the archive and there are no sleepers. I've marked this for close. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  17:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

18 January 2011

 * 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 " ~ "''

IP block lapsed, returned to usual behavior; User:HelloAnnyong reblocked it for a while. Also spamming an image into many articles that was uploaded by and also being spammed by User:Appletart26, whose other behavior is also part of the usual MO for this sock-drawer. Not sure there is more to do here, just adding to evidence of need for long blocks and possible CU scans when the drawer reopens. DMacks (talk) 14:04, 18 January 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
I'll go ahead and mark for close. If more accounts pop up, please let us know. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

29 January 2011

 * 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 " ~ "''

Same behavior as before. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Can we get an underlying IP block here? Report history indicates that this is a long-term sock problem. The current report re-illustrates that bunches of users get created when the sock-drawer opens and often require lots of cleanup each time. There have been underlying-IP blocks in the past. Not sure why a CU never commented on the previous report's request for underlying IP block. Some but not all of the IPs listed in previous reports were blocked at the time the current report's accounts were created--do we need to just (re)block them, or are there new ones? DMacks (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK, but I'm endorsing for a sleeper check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 02:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 02:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 02:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 02:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Remaining unblocked accounts blocked and tagged. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm relisting to see if we can get a IP block here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added comment about this above. DMacks (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked what I can, but it will only be partially effective. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Deskana handled it, so I guess we'll see. Relist when more stuff happens. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

05 February 2011

 * 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 " ~ "''

Likely, based on previous behavior. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:16, 5 February 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

 * CU for confirmation and sleeper check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ as socks of :
 * ,, and  The Cavalry (Message me) 16:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

13 June 2011

 * 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 " ~ "''

Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK, but endorsing for sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:17, 13 June 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
No sleepers that I saw. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

28 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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 just blocked this account per WP:DUCK. Endorsing for sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, no other accounts. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

03 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The usual First Flight edits. Self-endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

And



is sock/meat-puppet. Same 75.139.x.x netblock as a previously-mentioned anon. Maybe an underlying rangeblock has expired and needs to be renewed for the new school year? DMacks (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * In the meantime I've blocked HurricaneIrene for disruptive editing and potential socking. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely quacks. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

✅ plus:



–MuZemike 17:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

09 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Back in action on First Flight High School, as well as adding in basically the same content as usual. I've blocked and tagged the account, but am endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:46, 9 October 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
✅, but no other unblocked accounts found. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 00:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

30 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Brand new account making edits on First Flight High School that show a decent knowledge of Wiki software. Endorsing for confirmation. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:56, 30 October 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

 * ✅ along with as a sleeper. WilliamH (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * socks blocked and tagged. Alexandria   (talk)  23:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

25 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Previously I had blocked the first two of the three socks listed here as ducks. Willm16 just showed up on First Flight High School - Barth's usual hangout - and made some curious edits. I'm listing this case here, however, because Willm is a really old account, so it's possible they're just not connected. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:34, 25 November 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
The following are ✅ as each other: . It is very that the operator of these also operated Intomybigbrick (who was confirmed with Tradeempty1; check the case previous to this in the archives).

Willm16 is ❌. WilliamH (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirmed socks blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

06 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All users are new and have solely edited 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks and/or pages related to it. All appear to have similar summary styles (little to none) and the same disregard for sourcing. Those who have !voted have had an ILIKEIT approach at the AFD. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Similarities
 * Thinks that Wikipedia edits themselves should be recognized in the article:
 * YummyDonutsmmm: ,
 * 71.80.51.24:
 * Multiple edits within minutes in lieu of preview:
 * YummyDonutsmmm: standard method of editing
 * : 5 edits in 8 minutes; only other WP edit was to add two redirects
 * : 7 edits in 16 minutes; no other WP edits
 * : 6 edits in 12 minutes; no other WP edits
 * : 6 edits in 7 minutes; no other WP edits
 * : 5 edits in 4 minutes; only other WP edit was AFD !vote
 * : 5 edits in 6 minutes; only other WP edit was to same article a few minutes earlier
 * ; 2 edits in 2 minutes; no other WP edits
 * Edit summary of add detail:
 * Raw Pepperss: ,
 * Colgate-2333: ,
 * Edits that only add headings:
 * YummyDonutsmmm:, , , , , , , , and so on
 * Al4xstop:
 * 75.139.97.169:
 * 71.80.51.24:, ,
 * Adding bare links to the text of the article itself (i.e., not as refs):
 * YummyDonutsmmm:, , ,
 * 71.80.51.24: ,
 * Participated in AFD:
 * <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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

71.80.51.24 is located in North Carolina and 75.34.84.43 in Texas. Since the article involved refers to a recent event of some mass media interest it's likely to be disproportionately edited by new editors. This is not to say no sockpuppets but that at a minimum a Checkuser will have to look at this before concluding sockpuppetry.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the checkuser request per this. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think YummyDonutsmmm is unaware that it is wrong to have more than one account. He wants to improve Wikipedia and I personally feel a few editors haven't been assuming good faith and biting the newbie, myself included. He should maybe just get a short block at most and maybe look into WP:ADOPTION. I promised myself I wouldn't get into this mess anymore, but two AfDs, yelling at him, warning him, and a sockpuppet case is bad faith. I realized this and in a change of heart I feel I need to defend him. Thanks to Magister Scienta for being friendly and welcoming YummyDonutsmmm and giving him a barnstar. Now that I know that this is a bigger case, I have lost all hope in YummyDonutsmmm. I strike my previous comments. <span style="-moz-border-radius:1em;border:1px solid black;font-size:11px;background-color:red;color:white;padding:1px 4px 1px 5px">BCS  (Talk) 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Bar Code Symmetry, this isn't so much about blocks (at least not to me); it's more about seeing if there's been an attempt to manipulate the AFD discussion. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Bar Code Symmetry, I understand your viewpoint, but by participating in the AfD, YummyDonutsmmm probably would have seen the warning "that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust" . Chris the Paleontologist  (talk &#124; contribs) 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by the accused (copied here from elsewhere):
 * Or in other words: not a new user, and not someone who doesn't realize that sockpuppeteering is against policy. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or in other words: not a new user, and not someone who doesn't realize that sockpuppeteering is against policy. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or in other words: not a new user, and not someone who doesn't realize that sockpuppeteering is against policy. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or in other words: not a new user, and not someone who doesn't realize that sockpuppeteering is against policy. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or in other words: not a new user, and not someone who doesn't realize that sockpuppeteering is against policy. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here because I was investigating  this user's edits for something  else. I think  what  we may have here is a case of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. User only has 167 or so  edits, but  this SPI  may demonstrate that  they have more 'experience'. Perhaps consider WP:OFFER tied to  WP:ADOPT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Minded to agree, but lets see who it is first. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  08:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, really? Daniel Barth has socked, as of this writing, 75 times - and you want to take him at his word and give him another chance? Oh boy.. I think this would need to go to ANI before any unblocking is done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Please provide diffs to support your argument, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - Based on similarity between the accounts' edits (WilliamH, email me if you need clarification) I'm endorsing to see if this is widespread meatpuppetry or actual socking. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual that pages on current news events attract several new editors who do not know the intricacies of wikicode and do not use preview. In my opinion most of the diffs presented are either rather superficial, or do not show intent to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or vote-stack -- or was there an additional edit war in the article that would give e.g. Raw Pepperss and Colgate-2333 motive to use multiple accounts? YummyDonutsmmm admitting to prior socking and effectively block evasion prompted me to look into that account though. ✅ that
 * are the same and thus socks of . I acknowledge that he voiced an intention to "turn into a good Wikipedian" and thus implicitly to follow policy and community norms. As far as I can tell there were no edits in November and December, which is a start after a history of abusive socking, but way less than what WP:OFFER recommends. Seeing that Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel L. Barth lists 75 known socks and that he already created a new account "just in case", I personally am not ready to tutor the user at this time, but any editor is of course welcome to enter into a dialog with them. No comment on the IPs. Amalthea  13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * are the same and thus socks of . I acknowledge that he voiced an intention to "turn into a good Wikipedian" and thus implicitly to follow policy and community norms. As far as I can tell there were no edits in November and December, which is a start after a history of abusive socking, but way less than what WP:OFFER recommends. Seeing that Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel L. Barth lists 75 known socks and that he already created a new account "just in case", I personally am not ready to tutor the user at this time, but any editor is of course welcome to enter into a dialog with them. No comment on the IPs. Amalthea  13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * are the same and thus socks of . I acknowledge that he voiced an intention to "turn into a good Wikipedian" and thus implicitly to follow policy and community norms. As far as I can tell there were no edits in November and December, which is a start after a history of abusive socking, but way less than what WP:OFFER recommends. Seeing that Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel L. Barth lists 75 known socks and that he already created a new account "just in case", I personally am not ready to tutor the user at this time, but any editor is of course welcome to enter into a dialog with them. No comment on the IPs. Amalthea  13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * are the same and thus socks of . I acknowledge that he voiced an intention to "turn into a good Wikipedian" and thus implicitly to follow policy and community norms. As far as I can tell there were no edits in November and December, which is a start after a history of abusive socking, but way less than what WP:OFFER recommends. Seeing that Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel L. Barth lists 75 known socks and that he already created a new account "just in case", I personally am not ready to tutor the user at this time, but any editor is of course welcome to enter into a dialog with them. No comment on the IPs. Amalthea  13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The IPs given here appear to be in the same ranges as ones listed in . Should this report be merged with that one? DMacks (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done so since I believe this to be the only actual abusive socking going on here. As described above I see no reason for checks of the other named accounts since I don't see indication of multiple account abuse. I note in particular that running a check to see whether accounts are meatpuppets or sockpuppets is not in line with checkuser policy: no check would be necessary if it were already established that inappropriate use of multiple accounts was going on. Amalthea  17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't multiple AFD !votes count as "inappropriate use of multiple accounts"? Given this guy's history, I think checking the named accounts is realistic, if only to see if the deck has been stacked. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, let me clarify: I am confident that I would have noticed any further socks of Daniel L. Barth during the investigation. What I have not done is investigate Grwzrbzezin, NMexTex, or 75.34.* directly because I'm not allowed to per my interpretation of checkuser policy/privacy policy: A certain amount of new users are expected to show up on an AfD of an article about a current event, the number of such users opining here is in my experience not unreasonable, and judging by their edits there is no indication that those three specific accounts are abusing multiple accounts. I add that the three comments in question were highlighted with spa, and that if the closing admin follows policy he will not just count votes in the AfD but judge rough consensus where the pure number of votes do not count (much) anyway, so I do not expect damage to the encyclopedia or the community. Checking them "just in case" would be fishing. Amalthea  20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

27 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The usual edits on First Flight High School. I've blocked the account, but am self endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:11, 27 January 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
The following are extremely matches to previous socks: WilliamH (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged both socks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

4 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The usual edits on First Flight High School. I'd also point out that the account edited the sandbox enough times to get around the semiprotection on the article. Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK, but self endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:28, 4 February 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
I found eight sleepers, see the blocks I made just now for the accounts. Courcelles 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To note, these accounts are:
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

09 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The usual. IP may be shared, but obviously involved. Do some rangeblocks need to be refreshed? DMacks (talk) 14:02, 9 January 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 following accounts are indistinguishable based on technical evidence: Technical evidence makes it appear possible that they match previous socks, together with contributions I'd say it's conclusive. That last of the above is curious, made close to 1000 nonsense edits to sandboxes. See also Articles for deletion/Backtract undo series. And what the hell is an ‎OBXProjectXParty? May warrant a closer look, the edits certainly leave me confused.

FTR, DMacks, please don't just write 'the usual' as evidence, my memory isn't good enough to remember what was presented at a particular SPI case one year ago. If you already want to the archive to make the connection, or if it's still fresh in your memory, please spell it out -- else you force me to go through the archive and through sock contributions to try and follow your conclusions, which certainly takes more time. Amalthea 17:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagging an closing per above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

13 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

TheGoodTimesRoll made this edit, which expands on this edit made by User:25August2009EventfulMemories, a confirmed sock of Daniel L. Barth. He also signed his work here with the last entry in the edit.

B2E5K11 also signed his work here by adding the middle name. B2E5K11 and the IP also started adding a non-notable person to Trumbull High School (B2E5K11:, IP:), which was carried on by TheGoodTimesRoll.

I'm not extremely familiar with this sock master, but it appears that there are generally several sleepers. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 01:17, 13 January 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

 * - Sleeper check, noting that CU will not connect accounts to IP addresses. Rschen7754 05:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * and are ✅ identical to each other and  related to the accounts in the archive.
 * is ✅ identical to the accounts in the archive.
 * is based on geographic location.
 * . T. Canens (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . T. Canens (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

were confirmed by DoRD. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 16:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record I got distracted while running this check and agree with TC's conclusions. I would also like to note that B2E seems like a home-to-work account. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked, IP blocked for a week, another IP blocked for a week, article in question semiprotected. Rschen7754 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added after archive, but

30 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See this diff and this diff. Not going to ask for CU due to privacy policy, so I don't have the technical evidence. But the edits would seem to strongly support the IP is either the User:Daniel L. Barth or not here for any valid reason. Singularity42 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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



Repeatedly creating yet another page about the same sock-master (this time at Daniel Luke Barth, target to which latest IP kept inserting links) and associated meat-puppetry. DMacks (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The listed IP's sandbox spam also ties it to one of the older forms of this LTA's abuse. Sleeper check for accounts by the IP or socks of this new named account (who admits to puppetry) and/or geo-match for the previous geo evidence in the SPI? DMacks (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I concur. School IP, not a single useful edit either before or after the recent week-long block. One month timeout now. Amalthea  21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

03 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Another round of block evasion at the usual location. This is the latest from a dynamically changing IP that he's been using over the last day or so. (Also going to request page protection.) Singularity42 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest ones also include:

I see several other 75.139.* in the archive, including some that apparently involve CU-confirmed accounts. Did a rangeblock expire? DMacks (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see the April 30 2013 edits of 150.216.134.251 at Talk:First Flight High School. Shearonink (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That one was caught in the April 30th SPI report. It was blocked for one month (which just expired). There's been no edits from that IP since the block expired. Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Is there any concern that the continued creation and recreation of the problematic material is somehow running afoul of WP:BLP policies & guidelines? Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone thing CU might be helpful? I understand that the CU cannot connect the IPs to the sockmaster. But everytime this user becomes active, we almost always find a number of new sleepers. Perhaps its time to look again? Singularity42 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 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

 * - - Agree with sleeper check. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * blocked indefinitely. Frank  &#124;  talk  14:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

17 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The usual page-creation or insertion of comments about the sock-master and/or "apple tart" games (every edit by each of these two editors). I indef'ed the username and gave the IP a 1-year block, but this sockdrawer has a history of creating multiple accounts and leaving sleepers laying around for later. IP is in the same range as some previous in this SPI--I think there have been CU rangeblocks before, maybe time to renew them? DMacks (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)



I just found this one (above) from a few months ago, already indef'd. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)



Above IP's only edits involve one of the articles involved with User:DLBOBXmoveA4 (see Amalthea's CU report at 07:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)). DMacks (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I did notice those anon edits in the page history yesterday though so it's not a new lead. Amalthea  08:20, 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 same per technical and behavioral evidence are The first has some contributions that need to be looked at. Amalthea 07:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All edits checked, editors blocked and tagged. DMacks (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * All blocked except stale IP so closing. Rschen7754 19:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * Firefightingfoam, and 15h15h both created Daniel Barth (activist) articles.
 * and (both already indef blocked) created Daniel L. Barth articles, which shows an MO.
 * Incidentally in turn may be a sock of ; this dif shows they have the same IP address.

—teb728 t c 08:43, 21 November 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

 * These accounts are ✅ to each other technically and, although CU is stale, they are behaviorally and technically to Daniel L. Barth based on the archival evidence:


 * All blocked and tagged. Katietalk 15:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing. GABgab 19:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Usual creation of vanity pages (User:Frogsareamphibianstoo/sandbox and Daniel Barth (politician)), and creation/addition of non-notable topics in US politics. Usual RBI outcome. In the past, we've had CU find sleepers and this is a looong-term problem so I'm requesting a check here, and to look at the possibility/collateral of (re)blocking some underlying IPs. I could block some by on-wiki evidence, but CU obviously could make a stronger case/etc. DMacks (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2017 (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

 * - For sleepers. Thanks, GABgab 03:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 14:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I don't see sleepers. Tagged and closed. Katietalk 14:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Last night, I blocked as a sock of the named master in this case pursuant to this ANI thread where I laid out my evidence. After examining the second range this morning, I have found where the above sock made this edit which was later reinstated by the second named sock above who has their own SPI case. Requesting checkuser to 1.) confirm whether they are one in the same which will give us guidance on whether to merge those cases. I think the case is compelling but meat is also a possibility. 2.) Evaluate ranges and apply hard or soft blocks as may be appropriate. And 3.) please flush out any sleepers that you may find. He will most likely have them and as has been pointed out by multiple editors, he is quite disruptive. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:14, 23 May 2017 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm on day 4 and SixMillionStrong are ❌. Based on the CU logs in this case's archive, I'm on day 4 is very likely Daniel L. Barth (the accounts in the archive are ).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I tagged as a sock. SixMillionStrong have their own case (Sockpuppet investigations/SixMillionStrong). This case is now closed.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account who jumped directly into controversial areas, warranting a check. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I had a strong feeling from this account's first edits that the person behind it was both experienced and not here to contribute seriously. Jonathunder (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ match to I'm on day 4, along with . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing.