Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Manning954 began Feb 7, 2012, and has ~100 edits with their very first edit made to David Carr (American football). Account recently resumed significant editing levels in August and with focus on this same article via a serires of edits made today regarding (negative) "draft bust" content. These edits resulted in a 72 hour block explicitly for 3RR, but with multiple users tagging their Talk for WP:DE which also clearly could have been filed, today. ,, ,.

User:Edday1051 began Oct 7, 2011 and has ~4k edits. They were blocked (at least) twice in 2011 for 3RR editting the same article with the same type of "draft bust" and negative language. Editor appears to have (had?) animus to article subject (vandalized article name in lead) and made numerous similar, tendentious edits about "draft bust" and directly-related negative content resulting in their 2011 blocks. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , with a combative tone in edit summaries directed towards other editors who reverted these edits.

tools.wmflabs.org shows light interactions on other NFL player articles, but heavy overlap with the David Carr article. I'm open to the possiblity that both editors disliked the player and made similar editing (consensus) mistakes early in their editing history.

Special:Contributions/Edday1051 recently stopped editing on 23:04, 29 August 2016 and Special:Contributions/Manning954 resumed from an absence mere hours later on 09:19, 30 August 2016, giving the appearance of Edday1051 being kept clean and Manning954 being used for POV.

It is very odd for (at least) three blocks to involve two different editors over the same very minor issue of "draft bust" language about a now retired player. All rounds of these edits and blocks have been extremely disruptive for those involved and WikiProject National Football League in particular, so would like clarity. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC) UW Dawgs (talk) 20:38, 31 August 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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I filed the original SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051/Archive re Manning954 after his 3RR block this week, which was confirmed and resulted in indef blocks for their three accounts which focussed on American football and associated player pages:
 * User:Manning954 began Feb 7, 2012, and has ~100 edits
 * User:Edday1051 began Oct 7, 2011 and has ~4k edits
 * User:Bassman1010 begam Apr 1, 2012 and has ~100 edits

An unblock appeal was denied at 03:50, 1 September 2016‎ by SQL

User:Budden30 began the next day at 07:39, 2 September 2016 with edits to to my Talk page "I'm not even sure I'm even allowed to have another account. My accounts were banned, but IP wasn't, so before they ban this one...", then an edit in the main space to an American football player, and then on the Talk of an editor who was also involved in escalating the 3RR content dispute.

It seems clear this new account is associated with the three blocked accounts, please clarify. Based on the editor's history of using semi-dormant accounts, and the above comment about his block evasion method, please review Budden30 for other editors focussed on American football articles and likely with account creation dates from 2012 onward (Edday1051 was initally block at end of 2011 and the other two accounts surfaced in early 2012). UW Dawgs (talk) 13:32, 2 September 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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Edday1051 was blocked for two weeks on 00:08, 2 November 2011. They created multiple now-known new accounts in the aftermath of the block. The hallmark of the four now-blocked accounts is editing on NFL articles and on David Carr (American football) in particular:
 * User:Manning954 began Feb 7, 2012, and has ~100 edits
 * User:Bassman1010 began Apr 1, 2012 and has ~100 edits
 * User:Budden30 began Sep 2, 2016 and has ~20 edits

User:Diddykong1130 began on Dec 29, 2011 and has ~9k edits with no known blocks or warnings, just as Edday1051 managed to keep that account clean from 2012 onward. Diddykong1130 has an unremarkable edit on David Carr, as well.

tools.wmflabs.org shows much interaction on NFL articles, which clearly might be coincidence for active NFL editors.

Given the editor's history, hidden accounts, immediate unblock requests, and creation of new accounts used to edit mainspace while blocked, I'm avoiding mention of other clear signals to preserve them for use on other accounts if/as necessary. My presumption is the above will be sufficient given the history. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC) UW Dawgs (talk) 18:49, 5 September 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
❌. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Edday1051 was a prolific NFL editor, with multiple accounts, and after an indef block created another account used to edit main space. Editing history ends with denial of an unblock request at 15:24, 4 September 2016 (Special:Contributions/Edday1051), upon which Special:Contributions/50.29.199.144 returns from a one-month absence hours later at 23:48, 4 September 2016 and goes on a tear editing NFL articles. 50.29.199.144 has 2 blocks for WP:DE, the same activity which flagged the sockmaster, and multiple Talk warnings from users.

tools.wmflabs.org shows lots of NFL article overlap -as you might expect from two editors with shared interest in NFL and/or just seasonality (return of NFL games), but also interactions on specific non-NFL articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding 3 sets of supporting diffs:

Shawn Oakman is an obscure NFL free agent.
 * Edday updated at 20:26, 13 May 2016 without edit summary.
 * 50.29.199.144 made the article's very next update at 18:45, 16 May 2016 on zero news (player not in the midst of a news event/cycle).

Jasper Brinkley is an obscure NFL free agent.
 * Edday updated at 23:38, 18 April 2016
 * 50.29.199.144 made the article's very next update at 14:22, 20 May 2016 on zero news (player not in the midst of a news event/cycle).

Kyle Love shows the identical pattern consecutive edits by Edday followed immediately by 50.29.199.144

Sorry on the slow response to the diff request. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:47, 19 September 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

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - Sadly, you appear to be right. The diffs are convincing.
 * On block length: Based on the consistent editing history in the same area for months, I conclude that the IP is static. Please block 50.29.199.144 for one month to begin. If the same focal area of editing reemerges after a month, please file another report here and a summary block will be requested. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done Neil N  talk to me 13:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Edday1051 was a prolific NFL editor. They created multiple accounts after prior temporary blocks, presumably to ensure ongoing ability to edit in spite of anticipated future blocks, and used each of these to update NFL player articles. All are currently blocked as socks, see block history including Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051/Archive.

User:N987 is a sporadic NFL editor with only 120 edits, an edit count very similar to those of the blocked socks, and has recently resumed editing NFL player articles after an absence.

User:Edday1051 and User:N987 share a strong pattern of temporal editing, including of the same player articles:
 * Asa Jackson: Consecutive edits by both accounts, 20 minutes apart
 * Chris Greenwood: Consecutive edits by both accounts, day and a half apart
 * Stevie Brown: Multiple edits of same article within 5 hours
 * Brandon Bostick: Editing same article within 7 hours

User:N987 also created two fully-baked player articles DeAndre Carter and Jeremy Butler including sections, infoboxes, and categories which imply a degree of technical and content sophistication not usually seen in new users.

I presume the above behavioral evidence is sufficient to initiate a review, but am withholding other evidence based on the ensuing month plus of Special:Contributions/Edday1051 behavior. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I'd note that of N987's 118 edits, almost exactly half are to pages that Edday1051 also edited. See this report. I don't know enough about the subject area to say how likely or unlikely that is simply due to chance, but figure the observation may be useful in evaluating this report. JohnInDC (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know the user behind the IP personally, and he is a separate user who likes sports and NFL, hence the articles he is editing. There are sometimes coincidence, and the block could have been based on the coincidental similarity in the editing patterns based on the article subject. However, the user I know personally never uses the usernames Edday1051 and N987 anywhere online. There's a difference between editing the same popular NFL articles as well as being interested in NFL therefore having similarity in editing patterns and being the same blocked user interested in the same subject, and evading a block. I don't think CheckUser has ever been used for this specific investigation, probably just coincidental editing patterns between the previously blocked user and the anon IP user. EDIT: Yeah, I believe a CheckUser has finished the check, but we don't have any results yet.  Ev il La ir ( ✉  |  c ) 17:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * doubtful. Furthermore the request is erroneous: N987 is not a new user (has been editing infrequently but consistently since late 2014) and did not just recently return after an absence of any significant note (barely a month, but that's their pattern). The topic of American football is a pretty frequently edited topic area, it's unlikely that every user who has overlaps with this set of articles is going to be a sock. I'm convinced this user is not a sock, but I expect that if more evidence is available it will not be withheld from future reports. Closed with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)