Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darkness2005/Archive

15 December 2010

 * 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 " ~ "''

Darkness2005 had a history of unproductive editing on film articles: Special:Contributions/Darkness2005. His MO was mainly making changes to sourced content which was inconsistent with the source. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that he would never engage in discussion over edits which caused concern to many editors:. He was reported at ANI and indefinitely banned until he agreed to engage in discussion on November 3, 2010:.

Adultnature1989 edits the film articles, and has exactly the same MO, making alterations to sourced content so they are inconsistent with the sources: Special:Contributions/Adultnature1989 Despite numerous concerns from editors he refuses to engage in discussion, making it impossible to address problems with his edits:. This account was created November 7, 2010, just three days after Darkness2005 was blocked.

The similarity in editing styles has also been noticed by another editor: Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Adultnature1989's editing pattern is highly stereotypical and in exactly the same systematic manner on the same narrow range of articles as was Darkness2005's. It seemed obvious within 20 or so edits by Adultnature1989 that he was Darkness2005. I asked the original blocking admin for guidance regarding sockpuppetry but could not get any advice, so I'm relieved that after attempting to communicate, Betty Logan has taken this step. I don't believe Darkness2005's immediate intention is to be disruptive, but the high volume of his edits coupled with a complete and sustained refusal to engage with the community means his impact on articles and the morale of other editors is very significant. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that this user may be yet another sock of banned user as his edit history also fits Cody's patterns of behavior. I had posted an informal request on Alison's talk page for her to look into this possibility.

Here were my concerns:
 * He makes numerous, rapid edits w/o edit summaries
 * changes established facts with unsupported information
 * He works on articles concerning media, including movies, television shows (he loves game shows, Supermarket Sweep is one of his favorites and was edited by Adultnature1989) and media outlets such as TV and radio stations.
 * He never responds to posts on his talk page, despite numerous warnings.

I have also noted that this behavior is also very similar to Mascotguy's pattern of long term disruption of the project, and I saw in one post to one of Cody's socks that someone had mentioned the possibility that Cody might be MG. Either way this is a definite case of sock puppetry. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if this is a sock of Cody we may want to look into reporting him to WP:LTA. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - It does seem possible. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The two accounts listed are a match to each other. No other named accounts popped up on the IPs I checked.  TN X Man  17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems that all the data on Codyfinke is exceedingly stale. Oh well. Blocked and tagged the sock here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:11, 15 December 2010 (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 " ~ "''

It seams as though its the same person. He targets media articles. I may be wrong but thought I would bring it to your attention. Recently has been disruptive of the challenge tv channel article. His edits seam very similar. Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:30, 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

 * Per behavioral evidence, I've blocked Darknessthecurse as a sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

16 March 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 " ~ "''

Suspect this user BigAl2k6 2005 may be a sock. I could be wrong but this user is targeting media articles. Changing a 100% true-full edit on the challenge tv article, does not provide edit summaries as other users have noted on previous socks. Editing style seams similar to me. Thought I would bring it up for you to look into. Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 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
It's this account is the same as, who was blocked as a sock based on behavior. TN X Man 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * for blocking. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

21 March 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 " ~ "''

Another suspected sock. This user registered the day after the previous sock was banned. Same as before targeting media articles. Same disruptive false edits to challenge tv article. May be wrong but the editing style appears to be the same. Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:54, 21 March 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

 * Adding a CU for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ as being the same as . TN X Man  02:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

24 March 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 " ~ "''

It looks like he is back same bad and disruptive edits to challenge tv article. User registered today and as always targeting media articles. Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Is it worth considering an IP block, or a range block? Blocking the accounts doesn't seem to be very effective. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a rangeblock is not possible at this time. TN X Man  18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would there be any scope in not blocking his account then, and just getting a bot to track his changes and revert them? Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
A match to previous accounts. TN X Man 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Elockid  ( Talk ) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

27 March 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 " ~ "''

Suspect he is back again. Targeting media articles as usual, does not issue edit summaries in there edits. Newly registered yesterday. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

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

Certainly very like Darkness2005's very distinctive style on all the usual articles. I'd love to broker peace somehow, but he won't respond to messages. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ match to. TN X Man 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 22:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

01 April 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 " ~ "''

Hes back. Targeting media articles. Same disruptive edits to challenge tv article. He has even removed my edits from a talk page this time. Ruth-2013 (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Is there no way to do a more permeant block this time to stop him re registering. Can you not block his ip address?? (Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ match to. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 11:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

05 April 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 " ~ "''

Back yet again same disruptive edits to the challenge tv article he also has found it funny to place a blocked user template on my userpage what admin puts on a user page when check user confirms a sockpuppet I have left it there for the time been so you can see what he done please revert the edit once you have saw it. Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 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 and tagged per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

10 April 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 " ~ "''

May be wrong here but thought it worth mentioning, newly registered user and this time they vandalized the bravo UK tv channel article. No edit descriptions left appears to be a very similar style to his previous accounts. Ruth-2013 (talk) 14:23, 10 April 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

 * Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs of the behaviour in question. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Darknessthecurse, Adultnature1989 and Darkness2005 - all socks of Darkness2005 (except himself) - were active on Bravo (UK TV channel). The editor seemed to have an interest in the start and end dates of the channel (e.g. this edit), and the new editor also seems to have that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * . JoshCool776 is on a different ISP to the five or so confirmed sockpuppets of Darkness2005 that I checked. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

11 April 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 " ~ "''

This one [Thespoonyexperiment] is 100% him, same disruptive edits to challenge tv article and he is now claiming I am a sockpuppet of someone called Wiki-11233 which is not the case this is my first and only account here. Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Challnge tv article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge_(TV_channel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth-2013 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 April 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
Adding Wecantdoanythingaboutit and requesting checkuser. He is already blocked because I believed he was Wiki-11233. In the unblock request, Wecantdoanythingaboutit implicated Ruth-2013, but the checkuser vs. Ruth-2013 came up ambiguous. I've left him blocked because of the apparent false unblock request, but it seems likely that it was Darkness2005 trying to sling mud. A checkuser would allow us to tie this case up a bit more neatly, archive the reports properly, and exonerate Ruth-2013 (who seems to be under some unwarranted stress).&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - It's pretty likely, and I'm considering blocking anyway on behavioral evidence. But I'll endorse it anyway. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Technical evidence (in parts redundant with archive):
 * ✅ that the following two are the same:
 * ✅ that the following two are the same:
 * (stronger than the one WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233, there is a significantly stronger tie here -- borderline likely) that the following three are the same:
 * ✅ that the following two are the same:
 * (stronger than the one WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233, there is a significantly stronger tie here -- borderline likely) that the following three are the same:
 * (stronger than the one WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233, there is a significantly stronger tie here -- borderline likely) that the following three are the same:
 * (stronger than the one WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233, there is a significantly stronger tie here -- borderline likely) that the following three are the same:

Behavior (in parts mentioned above): Amalthea 11:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong similarity in edit summary of and
 * by Wecantdoanythingaboutit trying to implicate Ruth-2013, I am convinced falsely (taking both technical evidence, edit timings, and behavior into account)
 * I've blocked and reverted Thespoonyexperiment. No real clue as to precisely how to tag him: it's clear that he is an abusive alternate for someone, but I'm not sure from that checkuser result if we feel really comfortable that he is Darkness2005.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All of these accounts have been blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

28 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Asdfsfs (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My assumption is based on the fact that Darkness2005 started an edit war on my talk page yesterday, based on a dispute over the article List of PSone Classics N–Z, for which he was blocked for 3 days. Today I'm doing an edit on said page and the suspected sockpuppet reverts it right away, the edit being a first time one for him on the article (or topic in general). Additional evidence may be that Darkness2005 already had several sock puppets and his suspected sock puppet account is relatively new (first edit on July 1, 2011). Asdfsfs (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I looked further into it and the fact that both accounts have edits on the same time and date make it rather improbable. Case may be closed, I assume. Asdfsfs (talk) 23:54, 28 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
Do you have any evidence (diffs, etc.) to support this? TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - --  DQ  (t)   (e)  15:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP said we can close, so close we shall. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

24 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Troubling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Basicallyleveled 86.185.97.239 (talk) 14:11, 24 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

 * is a match to .  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

30 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Socreamy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Basicallyleveled 86.185.97.239 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Yep, looks as if there is definitely a sockpuppet here.  Rcsprinter  (talkin' to me?)  17:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Socreamy is a ✅ match to. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

05 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Socreamy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Waitingforlife 86.186.236.96 (talk) 01:05, 5 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
Very obvious block evasion and hence blocked. --MuZemike 01:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

11 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adultnature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Waitingforlife http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Socreamy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adultnature1989 86.161.234.28 (talk) 03:08, 11 March 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
Indefinitely blocked. --MuZemike 17:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

18 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both IPs are editing articles created by the sockmaster and are exhibiting the same MO as normal: minor edits to video games and UK game shows, edit warring in attempts to drive off other editors from his articles, and in several instances making general comments via edit summaries in null edits, such as, , and. If blocks are not going to be effective, then I think semi-protection on Fun House (UK game show) and other such articles may be necessary. --MuZemike 00:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --MuZemike 00:06, 18 October 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 sock is obvious. What is even more obvious is how ineffective a block would be.  I've semi-protected for 30 days.  Feel free to drop a dime on my talk page, pointing to this, for any others you think are necessary.  Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

07 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

he basically admits it in todays edit to Fun_House_(UK_game_show). it is also obvious from his other edits. it might be advisible to protect some of these pages that he edits regularly. R at W eazle  19:28, 7 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

 * How does the edit admit to it? Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He refers to an earlier bout of edits to the same article that lead to its protection. Also geolocates to the same city as the previous IP used by this sockmaster. I've rolled back all his edits under the assumption of bad faith and blocked the IP. It's been stable for at least several days, so hopefully that counts for something. I have also renewed the protection on Fun House (UK game show). Other articles may need to be protected, or a clever abuse filter created, if this continues. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IP doesn't seem blocked. Rschen7754 07:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I accidentally reblocked a previous and very similar IP used by the same sockmaster. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)