Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DragoLink08/Archive

26 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 " ~ "''

DragoLink08 is an account that has been focusing on unilaterally changing sports teams' templates' color schemes for about three years now. Literally >95% of his edits are to United States college teams' templates, ranging from championship seasons and football bowl games to coaches' tenures navboxes. He has been warned – repeatedly, and over the course of years (first warning: Nov. 23 '08 up through the present ) – about these changes.


 * Primary concerns:
 * By changing the color scheme on, say, Oklahoma State Cowboys basketball coach navbox, it creates inconsistency with all other sports templates for that school. Sticking to that A&M example, look at what the basketball coach navbox looks like after an edit by Dranzer13 (aka DragoLink08): . Now, look at what the same school's football coach navbox looks like: . The latter is the established scheme, and whomever this editor is refuses to accept it, for whatever asinine reasons.
 * An important sub-point of above is that he is disruptively undoing hundreds of hours of collective work by WikiProject College basketball and WikiProject College football, who collaborate on Wikipedia-wide standardization for color schemes and formatting issues.


 * A second concern is that DragoLink08's silence on the issue ironically speaks volumes. He's received myriad notices, and he's been on Wikipedia for long enough to know the deal. Yet, not once ever has he written on a talk page or responded on his own to acknowledge anything. By refusing to participate in community discussion regarding his changes, he's showing complete contempt for the entire tenet of Wikipedia – consensus.
 * Lastly, for now anyway, is the all-too-convenient timing of User:Dranzier13's account creation. Please note that User:DragoLink08 was blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing on March 21st. On March 24th, Dranzier13's account was created. While DragoLink08 hasn't made a single edit since the block was lifted, Dranzier13 has had no problems picking right up where he left off. Additionally, the usernames are a little too similar, no?


 * Request by Jrcla2
 * This has gone on long enough. This "editor" (and I use the term loosely) is doing much more harm than good, refuses to acknowledge it, and never looks to gain consensus before disrupting a school's standardized navbox schemes. It's also quite evident that he has no intention to engage in discourse about it, and so I would like to request an IP range block to avoid Drago/Dranzier from making yet more accounts in the future to simply side step the blocks. He's already trying to game the system by creating a new account so as to not link up his previous history from the Drago account, so let's cut the problem off at its head and block the entire IP range. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Jrcla2 (talk) 05:18, 26 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

 * ✅. There are a few other possible accounts, but the IP they are all editing from is a University IP so it is highly likely they are not related to the above two. Tiptoety  talk 07:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question What accounts? I ask because if it's Auburn University's IP address, my requests for consensus to those IPs have all fallen on deaf ears, too. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's technically no overlap in these two accounts' edits: DragoLink08 stopped editing on Mar 21, and Dranzer13 started editing on March 24. I'm inclined to block DragoLink just to eliminate temptation and leave the other open. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment When DragoLink08 was blocked, he was told by the blocking admin, "If you are able to actively participate in discussion about your edits, you may use your user talk page to do so until your block expires. I sincerely hope that this short block will clarify things for you and ensure that you discuss your edits in the future, especially when requested to do so. If you come back and continue to proceed as before your block, the level of block can escalate, and that's not something we want to see. Take a day or two off and come back with a productive attitude. Thanks." Drago/Dranzier, regardless of overlap or not, has not made any attempts at consensus despite being warned many times and blocked for it. I highly disagree with the thought of allowing Dranzier to continue to edit on these grounds, otherwise, what was the point in this even being brought to a sockpuppet investigation? Jrcla2 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I somehow missed that Dragolink was blocked. This is evading scrutiny, then, and as such I've blocked and tagged the confirmed sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

11 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

DragoLink08 was blocked for disruptive editing and refusal to discuss his edits on his Talk page. Similar edits (largely unappealing or unreadable color changes to templates relating to athletics) began in earnest from this IP a few days after DragoLink08 was blocked. This user has employed sock puppets before and this has all the trappings of a duck. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * As of the moment I'm writing this comment, the IP in question has made 247 total edits. Between DragoLink08 and this IP, they have 135 total combined edits on 34 shared pages edited. That is a staggering proportion considering how few total edits the IP has made. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP blocked 2 weeks per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

03 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

DragoLink08 specializes in trivial but often disruptive color changes to navbox templates (or is it template navboxes?). He employed a sockpuppet once in March 2011 during a temporary block and when he was indef blocked in August, moved to another IP and continued. (See archive.) In the past couple of days another IP has emerged, making the same sorts of high-volume, meaningless edits. My own manual sampling suggests that about half the pages edited by this IP are to pages already edited by DragoLink08 or his prior IP sockpuppet, in some cases making the identical trivial color changes (the LSU pages are the best examples). The area and types of edits are identical to the blocked users and it looks pretty ducky to me. The only contrary fact is that this IP does not appear to be from the same part of the country as the prior IP sock. JohnInDC (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) JohnInDC (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment regarding the final sentence in JohnInDC's case. Initially, I thought the same thing about the IP, but then I realized that this is most likely a college student who has finally headed back to school (and therefore the IP range might be very different). Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DragoLink08, and note that there are multiple 131.xxx -type IPs, so this is clearly not new territory. I'm pretty sure DragoLink08 / these IPs are in the Southeastern Conference, and may even be from Auburn University. In any case, it's WP:DUCK, and the IP needs to be blocked for a very long time per block evasion. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - well, my only reservation was the IP location but if we've suspected puppetry from similar IPs in the past then I'd say this is him for sure. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked the IP for a month per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, interesting to note the history on also. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  05:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

05 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Account was created on on August 24th and has conspicuously similar editing patterns as User:DragoLink08. In other words, trivial navbox color-tweaking that Drago had been permanently blocked for doing, and had already been found guilty of sockpuppeting earlier this year. Every time an account or IP address suspected of Drago's block evasion gets blocked, a new one appears. This whack-a-mole method is tiring. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DragoLink08 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DragoLink08. In addition to the color-tweaking, another tell-tale sign is that Power Rangers and comic-book related articles gets edited. So, who is this guy, a jock or a geek? Jrcla2 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment - I concur in the assessment. JohnInDC (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Any sleepers we should know about? I have this strange feeling they are lurking, and a confirmation is not need per duck, but if you want, you can add it. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing else that I could find. J.delanoy gabs adds 05:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

27 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edits are of the usual DragoLink08 variety, primarily idiosyncratic and unattractive color changes to college athletic articles and Templates. This editor has edited several of the same pages as prior socks. Also the IP appears (to my amateur eyes) to be in the same range as prior blocked sock. JohnInDC (talk) 18:55, 27 September 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 2 weeks. Elockid  ( Talk ) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

03 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This sock master has been quiet for a few months (or maybe I haven't noticed him) but the edits are characteristically his, namely, "idiosyncratic and unattractive color changes to college athletic articles and Templates". The behavioral evidence is clear and the IP seems to be in the same range as prior puppets. JohnInDC (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The adjacent IP has continued the changes, undoing several of the rollbacks I just performed. I've added it to this SPI report.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:39, 4 May 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

 * IPs given one week each. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

25 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This puppetmaster's MO is high-volume, arbitrary and unattractive changes to college athletic articles and templates; he appears to have shifted his focus to manga and other fictional Japanese characters, which is an area in which the prior socks at least dabbled, e.g. here. Requesting CU to confirm puppetry and to check for sleepers (though this one editor has been active for several months now.) JohnInDC (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, if I'd bothered to look past the first couple of pages of contributions I'd have found college examples too. Sample.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I support JohnInDC's request for a checkuser. I've had many run-ins with DragoLink08 and all of his IP/SPA accounts. This editor is most definitely the same as Drago, I 100% back that claim, and he's been told literally over a dozen times over the years to knock it off. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Everything in the archive is . Use behavior. T. Canens (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Behavior is strongly linked. Indef blocked, tagged both appropriately.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

28 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old socks of Bt8257 stricken out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is based on evidence arranged by Dirtlawyer1 on my talkpage here. Each of these accounts shows some editing similarities to the Bt8257 account and to each other. Each has a history of editing articles on college football, particularly rivalries; some common targets include Auburn–Florida football rivalry, Florida–Florida State football rivalry, Florida–Georgia football rivalry, and Florida State Seminoles football. Timtebow4he15man2007, 108.227.117.39, and NyteLyfe14 edited Auburn–Florida football rivalry in rapid succession ; Timtebow4he15man2007 and Ufbcschamps960608 both edited the obscure Florida Cup article in a similar fashion (compare and ). I'll ask Dirtlayer1 to provide some additional diffs. If these accounts are Bt8257, this is a clear violation of the terms of their unblock that they not use any other accounts. Cúchullain t/ c 19:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * In the limited scope of UF-related article on my watchlist, I've seen the same pattern as Dirtlawyer: a swarm of new users and a few anonymous IPs making swarms of very similar edits on related articles. I think we can add User:Gators1906 to the list, as this "new" editor created an account today and immediately made a string of the same edits that the previously mentioned users had also made recently. And the problem isn't just sockpuppetry; these user/s have consistently made unhelpful and/or inappropriate changes and then either ignored or did not fully respond to repeated requests for discussion before changing the article text once again. Zeng8r (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While the accounts appear to be connected, I don't see a similarity between their edits and the edits made by Bt8257 under his multiple accounts. If the above accounts belong to Bt8257, he has 1) completely changed his editing style, and 2) moved completely across the country. Bt8257's IP addresses indicate he is a resident of the West Coast of the US (specifically Geolocating to the Seattle area) whereas the above IP traces to Florida. I'm not saying there isn't sockpuppetry going on, but I'd be surprised if the above accounts belong to Bt8257. I do note that he has violated the terms of his unblock, editing a few weeks ago using the IP . -- auburn pilot  talk  06:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I should remind everyone that BT8257 immediately upon being unblocked attempted to have a page moved without discussion, a blatant violation of the unblock terms. He also removed the terms of the unblock from his page, another violation of the term of his unblock. And now he's back to editing as an IP. What is the point of these terms if they aren't going to be enforced? I too don't feel that these latest edits were done by BT8257, but nonetheless BT8257 has repeatedly shown that he won't follow the rules. Why has he never been reprimanded? Just curious. ChakaKongtalk 13:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked Dirtlawyer1 to weigh in here with some more evidence. If these accounts are indeed distinct Bt8257 we may have to split this off into a separate SPI, since the accounts are clearly connected to each other and are disruptive. At the same time we should investigate Bt's other violations further.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I tend to doubt that Gators1906 is connected to these accounts, though Gators1906 appears to be the same as Skn95 and 99.22.65.123 who've edited the Florida Gators football article in the same fashion over the last few days.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at the editing patterns. I am waiting on the bot to update the user compare report for User:71.217.20.208 vis-a-vis User:bt8257 and the other alleged sock puppets identified so far. I am also compiling a more specific list of similar edits by and among the various users identified so far. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) . There is a very high overlap of articles edited by User:Ufbcschamps960608 and User:Timtebow4he15man2007.  Rather than linked to individual diffs, a simple review of the automatically generated "user compare report" linked on this page will readily demonstrate the remarkable similarities in the editing of articles, article sections, content, and other editing behavior.  Ufbcschamps960608 began editing two days after Timtebow4he15man2007's after last edit on November 16, 2012.  It would be surprising if they were not the same person.  Given the similarity in user names and editing history, it also seems apparent that this same person was also User:Johnbrantley4he12man who was active editing from October 2010 to July 2011.
 * 2) . User:NyteLyfe14 and User:Bt8257 edited nine of the same articles, all of which were college football articles including several obscure CFB rivalry articles.  NyteLyfe14 began editing after Bt8257 was sanctioned for sock-puppetry in September 2012.
 * 3) . User:Gr8ass and User:Bt8257 edited ten of the same articles, all of which were college football articles including several obscure CFB rivalry articles.  Gr8ass began editing after Bt8257 was sanctioned for sock-puppetry in September 2012.
 * 4) . User:Timtebow4he15man2007 and User:Bt8257 edited seven of the same articles, all of which were college football related.  Timtebow4he15man2007 made his first edit in May 2012, but began editing frequently after User:Bt8257 was sanctioned in September 2012.
 * 5) . User:108.227.117.39 and User:Bt8257 edited seven of the same articles, all of which were college football related.  User:108.227.117.39 began editing in June 2012.
 * The fact that two accounts edit a number of the same articles is only relevant if the edits are of the same type. As an example, you (Dirtlawyer1) have  122  articles in common with Bt8257 (see Pietrodn's tool for comparison). That's a shit ton more than any of the above noted accounts but I'm not betting my next paycheck that you are the original owner of any alleged sock accounts. So we're clear, I'm not attempting to defend anybody's actions here. I'm just pointing out the fact that the evidence thus far doesn't point to much. Anything is possible but I'm not seeing the connection. -- auburn pilot  talk  00:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it, AP. It is quite possible that we have two different OCD puppet-masters obsessed with college football rivalries and similar articles from other sports, but the timing of these accounts that only began editing frequently after Bt8257 was sanctioned in September 2012 does raise the eyebrow of suspicion.  As for my personal editing overlap with Bt8257, that's not a coincidence: why do you think I noticed these characters in the first place?  They were all making odd edits to CFB articles which I have watch-listed, edits which newbies normally don't make to rivalry articles that newbies usually don't find.  Or, maybe, I AM Bt8257, and I just don't know it.  In the SPI business, it doesn't pay to trust anyone.  LOL


 * Kidding aside, it seems clear to me that Ufbcschamps960608, Timtebow4he15man2007 and Johnbrantley4he12man are the same person. (Just look at the naming patterns.)  Question is, are they also the same person as Bt8257?  We shall see.  If it should prove that we have sock-puppetry, but it's unrelated to Bt8257 as you believe, how do handle that procedurally?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * With my 58 articles in common, ChakaKong's 100, Cúchullain's 47, and your 122 articles in common...gasp! :P Kidding aside, indeed, I agree with you that there are obviously related accounts here (Ufbcschamps960608, Timtebow4he15man2007, and Johnbrantley4he12man among potentially others). Checkuser seems to be the only real option to clarify the issue as some are obvious enough to block now, but others aren't quite as clear. While I have the joyous ability to block, I sadly don't have access to the thrills checkuser powers provide. We'll have to wait for the case to be clerked and a checkuser to give a verdict. Any further evidence you can provide (such as similar edits) would help. For now, I don't believe there's a need to create a new case page (clerks are welcome to correct me should I be talking out of my ass). -- auburn pilot  talk  01:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All of the following are ✅ to be each other but ❌ to Bt8257:
 * While Johnbrantley4he12man is but quacks loudly.  As usual, .  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While Johnbrantley4he12man is but quacks loudly.  As usual, .  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While Johnbrantley4he12man is but quacks loudly.  As usual, .  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While Johnbrantley4he12man is but quacks loudly.  As usual, .  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While Johnbrantley4he12man is but quacks loudly.  As usual, .  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While Johnbrantley4he12man is but quacks loudly.  As usual, .  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Coren, thank you for running checkuser in this case. Notwithstanding the fact that we have caught six sockfish in the net, User:Bt8257 is not one of them. Given that he has been wrongly accused of being a repeat offender, shouldn't we move the results to another SPI page name that appropriately names one of the others as the leader of the sock farm? Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
 * Probably. I'll leave that in the capable hands of the clerks.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As is already blocked as a sock of  and is the oldest linked account, I've blocked all the above as socks of DragoLink08. -- auburn pilot   talk  00:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've refiled under DragoLink08. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

14 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:DragoLink08 is an indefinitely blocked account. DragoLink and his multiple sock puppets have a long history of quick, serial edits to the hex color schemes of sports teams in related articles. These topics include, without limitation, college football, college basketball, professional American football (NFL), professional basketball, football/soccer. His sock puppetry among editors of the college football and college basketball WikiProjects is notorious. His history shows a pattern of prolonged and robust sockpuppetry, often running multiple socks at the same time. DragoLink is doggedly determined to continue editing sports team color schemes, and has continually manipulated the hex colors of team-related navboxes, other templates, and tables within articles. He often edits from IP addresses assigned to the University of South Florida, as well as a variety of private addresses within the Tampa and greater central Florida area.

The color schemes of college sports teams are designed to be uniform across hundreds of articles about American universities and those associated with thousands of associated college sports articles. This touches articles, navboxes, infoboxes, and other templates. DragoLink's manipulation of these team color schemes creates massive amounts of work for other editors, cleaning up the messes he creates.

The last checkuser on DragoLink accounts was run on November 30, 2012, when five separate registered accounts, all relatively new, were indefinitely blocked. Since then, six more have been indefinitely blocked. Clearly, he actively continues his sockpuppetry and obsessive editing of team color schemes. Strong circumstantial evidence leads one to conclude that User:CompDude13 is yet another sock puppet in DragoLink's ever-growing sock farm.

1. User:CompDude was a newly created account (December 18, 2012). The creation of the CompDude account followed the indefinitely blocking of DragoLink sock puppets on December 6, 7, 9 and 14, 2012 by administrators Cuchullain and AuburnPilot. Additional sock puppets were blocked on December 14, 19 and 22, 2012, as well as January 2, 2013. This is consistent with DragoLink's immediate creation of new accounts when old ones are blocked, as well as operating multiple socks at the same time.

2. CompDude's first edit was to change the hex colors of a college football article:. This is highly unusual behavior for a genuinely new account, and the knowledge to manipulate hex colors is specialized.

3. CompDude's second edit was to change the hex colors of a college basketball article:.

4. Since then, CompDude has made 360 edits. The overwhelming majority of them involve college sports topics, and a simple majority of them have involved hex color schemes:. The pattern of editing by CompDude13 and previous DragoLink socks is overwhelmingly similar.

Based on the clear patterns of editing and continued disruptive behavior, I request an immediate checkuser for User:CompDude13. I suspect you will find more than one additional sock puppet in doing so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I support this request. This is classic DragoLink08 behavior. In addition, CompDude13 and DragoLink08 share an interest in martial arts and superheroes, see DragoLink08 and CompDude - martial arts and DragoLink and CompDude - superheroes. Those are just two examples. JohnInDC (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, and thank you for the comprehensive SPI report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

30 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New user who focuses almost exclusively on sports' templates' color schemes. He is altering them by the dozens (hundreds, by the time this report gets checked) without any community consensus. DragoLink08 was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppeting, and the entire IP range of the University of South Florida was blocked to prevent widescale re-emergence of Drago sockpuppets/IP socks. User:NetRoot7 also has edited martial arts articles, which are eerily consistent with DragoLink08's socks. I am requesting a Checkuser on NetRoot7 and not an immediate block per WP:DUCK because his editing patterns are just different enough where it might be coincidental. However, if NetRoot7 is DragoLink08's sock, please indefinitely ban that user. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Strong Support. I have been very active in tracking DragoLink08 and his sockpuppets and abused IP addresses over the past eight months, and see very strong behavioral similarities between Drago's recent socks and NetRoot7.  I also note, however, that Drago's favorite subject areas seem to be evolving, and has continued to use more edit summaries.  This latter point is consistent with his more recently blocked sock.  I believe that he realizes that we are tracking him through various methods, and is consciously trying to avoid certain topic areas.  Nevertheless the OCD-like core behavior of editing template hex colors en masse remains.  I strongly support Jrcla's SPI request, and specifically request that checkuser be used to see if NetRoot7 is editing from the same IP addresses as DragoLink08 and his flock of sockpuppets.


 * Please note: If the admin/clerk who evaluates this SPI is unfamiliar with DragoLink's history, I urge you to review the prior investigations and other blocked accounts and IP addresses. If requested, we can provide even more detailed evidence of similarities between this new NetRoot7 account and other previously blocked DragoLink08 sockpuppets and IP addresses previously identified.  This guy is a serial pain in the back side, has caused massive disruptions over the past three years, and his activities have led to the range-blocking of the University of South Florida and spawned a currently pending internal investigation within USF to identify what everyone suspects is a person affiliated with the university.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is unquestionably another DragoLink sock. The User Compare utility above turns up at least 3 non-sports articles that both this editor and the original DragoLink08 have edited in common - Ryu (Street Fighter), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (film), and Tommy Oliver, all in keeping with DragoLink's secondary fondness for martial arts articles.  And a casual eyeballing of this sock's contribution history turns up yet another page, The Ultimate Fighter 5, which has been edited by at least 2 prior confirmed, blocked socks (Newlife512 and CompDude13.)  This duck quacks loud enough to knock over a house of bricks.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * User:NetRoot7's response to my notification about this SPI: "I assure you, I am not related to the other accounts that you speak of. If there is anything that I am doing that is reminiscent of this user, please tell me and I will adjust my ways. Thank you." Two things - One, DragoLink08 (or one of his puppets, I forget) said almost the exact same thing before; and two, I interpret that as "tell me how I got caught so that I can be even more crafty next time I create a sockpuppet without being detected as easily." Jrcla2 (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have heard about these allegations and I want to make it clear that I am not related to this "DragoLink08" or whatever he or she may have been doing. I sincerely apologize for whatever I may have done that resembled this individual's behavior and I know that it is easy to accuse someone based off of this criteria.  But please, I plead myself that I am innocent and if any of my behavior has done something to disrupt Wikipedia, please let me know of it and I will do what I can to fix it.  Thank you.  NetRoot7 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To further show my sincerity, I will not make any Wikipedia edits, until I am cleared. Thank you.  NetRoot7 (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remarkably similar claims of innocence from a prior sock: User_talk:Bullz-Eye13. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there ought to be a check for lurking accounts we haven't discovered yet as well. It wouldn't surprise me if NetRoot7 is "graciously" not editing until this manner is cleared because he knows it's inevitable he'll be caught and blocked, therefore has already made a new sock and is on to the next round of disruptive editing. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ - beyond a doubt. Some logging out to edit on one particular range, which is now rangeblocked. No other socks that I can see right now - A l is o n  ❤ 06:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Rschen7754 07:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

05 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New account created only days after block of User:NetRoot7. Username similar to other confirmed socks here: two simple words followed by a one or two digit number. User contributions demonstrate continued disruption of sports' templates' colors. I edit Cleveland/Northeast Ohio area articles, so this came to my attention in the Cleveland Indians navbox w/ edits here and here, each w/o an edit summary or discussion on template talk page. Request Checkuser on ItGurl90, and if sock of DragoLink08, please ban indefinitely for persistent disruption.  Levdr1 lostpassword  /  talk  13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Support I came here to say just about the same thing. He's been editing Northeast Ohio articles and changing template colors just like his socks.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 13:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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

DragoLink08 and his socks are the subject of a community ban. See User_talk:DragoLink08. That means that any edit he or his sock makes may be reverted, on sight, whether it is a good one or a bad one. See Ban; Ban. You don't have to revert - but you can. I suggest that the editors who routinely come across this fellow consider simply going down his list of edits and reverting them all. There is no reason on earth that responsible editors should spend more than a moment repairing the damage that this chronic disruptive editor occasions for the project. Perhaps too when he realizes that responsible editors are taking but two minutes to undo perhaps hours of his efforts, he'll grow frustrated and finally leave. JohnInDC (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked, tagged, closing. All edits have been reverted. NativeForeigner Talk 19:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

12 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:DragoLink08 is an indefinitely blocked account. DragoLink, his sock puppets and associated IP addresses have a long history of serial edits to the hex color schemes of sports teams in related articles. These topics have included college football, college basketball, professional American football (NFL), professional basketball, and association football/soccer. His sock puppetry among editors of the college football and college basketball WikiProjects is notorious. His history shows a pattern of sustained and elaborate sockpuppetry, often using multiple sock puppet accounts at the same time. DragoLink has continue editing sports team color schemes, and has continually manipulated the hex colors of team-related infoboxes, navboxes, and tables within articles. He usually edits from IP addresses associated with the University of South Florida, in addition to several private addresses within the Tampa, Florida area.

The color schemes of college sports teams are designed to be uniform across hundreds of articles about American universities and those associated with thousands of associated college sports articles. This touches articles, navboxes, infoboxes, and other templates. DragoLink's manipulation of these team color schemes creates massive amounts of work for other editors, cleaning up the messes he creates.

User:Planeflyer was a newly created account (March 18, 2012). The pattern of editing by Planeflyer and previous DragoLink socks is significantly similar. Based on the clear patterns of editing hex colors of sports teams, I request an immediate checkuser for User:Planeflyer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - also the following;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 06:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Planeflyer blocked and tagged. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed. Sockpuppets are already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

16 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Two accounts created within a few days of each other, editing in the same manner and on the same articles banned editor has always focused on (hex color schemes of sports teams in related articles and table formatting). I've been working with the network admins at USF in an attempt to stop this user's years of disruption following the 3 month block placed on their IP range (131.247.0.0/16). Checkuser confirmation would be helpful as I pass along new information at their request. -- auburn pilot  talk  17:13, 16 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

 * - Example diffs of unusual HTML color changes:, , . This may be a case where linking the account to the IP may be appropriate, perhaps in a private disclosure to AuburnPilot, but of course the decision is up to the CUs. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * is ✅.
 * is based on behaviour, but difficult to say by CU as it's almost exclusively mobile IPs -  A l is o n  ❤ 22:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The combination of technical and behavioral evidence is sufficient for a block IMO. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

11 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I am lifting this first paragraph of intro directly from a prior report, which lays out the DragoLink08 M.O. nicely:


 * User:DragoLink08 is an indefinitely blocked account. DragoLink and his multiple sock puppets have a long history of quick, serial edits to the hex color schemes of sports teams in related articles. These topics include, without limitation, college football, college basketball, professional American football (NFL), professional basketball, football/soccer. His sock puppetry among editors of the college football and college basketball WikiProjects is notorious. His history shows a pattern of prolonged and robust sockpuppetry, often running multiple socks at the same time. DragoLink is doggedly determined to continue editing sports team color schemes, and has continually manipulated the hex colors of team-related navboxes, other templates, and tables within articles. He often edits from IP addresses assigned to the University of South Florida, as well as a variety of private addresses within the Tampa and greater central Florida area.
 * The color schemes of college sports teams are designed to be uniform across hundreds of articles about American universities and those associated with thousands of associated college sports articles. This touches articles, navboxes, infoboxes, and other templates. DragoLink's manipulation of these team color schemes creates massive amounts of work for other editors, cleaning up the messes he creates.

Here we have a brand new editor on a college color-changing tear, with more than 75 edits in his first day and a half. They are exclusively of the same kind - a pretty obscure, and unlikely, pursuit for an editor who is genuinely new to the encyclopedia. This editor's work is typical of the socks - indeed a simple visual comparison of this editor's contribution history with prior socks - e.g. Special:Contributions/NetRoot7, Special:Contributions/CompDude13 - makes the connection quite clear. The odds are vanishingly small that a new editor, unrelated to DragoLink, would create an account and immediately pursue, with such obsessive fervor, the same arcane kinds of edits as the sock master. I am requesting a CU for sleepers - there are often several. JohnInDC (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Here's a sample diff of a DragoLink08 edit, compared to one of the 50+ edits from DarkStone06. Changing many colors, even slightly, across lots of sports-related articles without engaging in any sort of discussion. GRUcrule (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is BTW not uncommon for DragoLink's socks to stop editing as soon as the puppetry is detected, and that appears to have happened here. While this account may no longer be active, I would like to press forward with it so that 1) he can't return to it and 2) to spot sleepers.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to bet he's moved on to at least one (if not more than one) new account since he was informed about the SPI. A CheckUser is most definitely called for here. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked & tagged, no further sock accounts. Amalthea  14:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

25 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I was just thinking the other day that we hadn’t seen this puppetmaster in action for a while, and lo, he turns up on a couple of pages I have watchlisted.

DragoLink08 specializes in obscure changes to the colors on college sports pages. User:ArmandoBecker was created about three months after the most recent DragoLink08 sock was blocked, and his very first edit in April 2014 was to change the colors at South Florida–UCF football rivalry, which DragoLink08 sock DarkStone06 had edited several times up to the point at which he was blocked. Just eyeballing Armando’s edits, I’d say 50% or better of them are college color changes. Armando also favors the same edit summaries as DragoLink – often an uncommented link to one or another page that (ostensibly) supports the revisions. Compare Armando summary with confirmed puppet DarkStone06.

It is unlikely that a random brand-new editor who is not DragoLink08 would immediately begin an editing career by making the same kinds of idiosyncratic color changes to (usually) college sports team pages. But the similarities don’t end there – both Armando and prior DragoLink socks have evinced an interest in martial arts and comic book subjects. This has been mentioned and linked in prior (archived) cases, but I’ll offer up a couple of examples here too – Armando 1, 2, 3, 4; confirmed sock ItGurl90 – 1 (same article as #4 above); 2 (also recently edited by Armando); confirmed sock NetRoot7 1 (this too edited by Armando).

It’s him. I’m surprised he flew below the radar for more than a year, but this is plain block evasion and puppetry. Requesting CU because in the past he has often had a bunch of sleepers in the bullpen. JohnInDC (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2015 (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 unaware of any non-stale puppet to compare ArmandoBecker against. Therefore, the only thing a CU could accomplish would be to check the technical data of ArmandoBecker in isolation to see if there are any apparent sleepers. Is that what you're asking for? If so, please comment, and you can reinstate the CU request for consideration of that purpose. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * that request was from, not me. JohnCD (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I must have you on the brain, sorry. Thanks for the ping transfer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am asking for a CU not to establish the puppetry - which is abundantly established by his behavior - but to check for sleepers.  A review of the archive shows that he often has more than one sock active.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sock per behavioural evidence. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)