Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglas bond of doom/Archive

07 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

CheckUser completed by, see Special:Permalink/602948038. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 7 April 2014 (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

 * in the original SPI you mentioned User:Doug is Dean, however this account is unregistered? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 08:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've tagged the account. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

10 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Quack. See naming similarity to User:Juan monnsoon, another sock. Also, one of the accounts is using another tropical cyclone name, just like another one of his sockpuppets (not named here). Also, the user pretty much edits the same articles and has absolutely no intention of providing any positive contributions to Wikipedia whatsoever. Even if these aren't socks of this user, it's pretty obvious that there is some sockpuppetry going on with those 2 accounts. Requesting a sleeper check for more socks and a block of the underlying IP to prevent further abuse of accounts. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should his IP be blocked for a while to prevent the creation of more sock accounts? LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just worried that after the autoblock wears off, he would return to creating more sock accounts (like he did both in April and May this year). I certainly don't want to see that happen again. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2014 (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

 * ✅ socks, , , , , and  are now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  18:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * generally speaking, a separate IP block is not needed, because autoblock would take care of it. Closing case. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

24 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Quack quack. Still using well-known patterns of account names with "Typhoon" and "Doug" or variants of that sort. Also, he still edits TC articles, and the types of edits he makes pretty much gives him away. Requesting a Checkuser to indef block him and to run a sleeper check, as this sockmaster usually has a couple more socks lying around that we don't initially spot. Also, can a rangeblock please be implemented for this user, because he's being doing this since March 2014, and he doesn't seem to be giving up. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also suspect that the IP 75.139.136.82 is a sockpuppet of the user in question. Both of their edits are nearly identical in nature and in content, and the block log of the IP reveals that it has been blocked a couple of times before for sockpuppetry (probably due to being the underlying IP of Douglas Bond of Doom). Check the IP's last edit; it's identical to the edit that User:Dustin V. S. reverted just prior on 2012 Atlantic hurricane season. Can a Checkuser please reblock this IP for even longer, and maybe even implement a rangeblock for that IP? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2014 (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 ✅ socks:


 * The socks are all blocked. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the accounts and anon only blocked the IP for a few months. I scanned the IP range contributions and I don't think a range block is necessary. Mike V  •  Talk  18:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)