Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangthebigblackdog/Archive

Report date February 19 2009, 11:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:

A (quick) summary of (supposed/assumed) master and puppets activities
 * Evidence submitted by E Wing (talk)

User:Fangthebigblackdog first registered last Decemeber 11 '08, then went ahead to blank User:MBisanz's user page, then he created 2 attack (now deleted) pages: MBisanz: About him and The worst editor evar, which suggests that there has been something going on from these two before this user registered, and therefore a master puppet account other these accounts may exists. User:Oxymoron83 then blocked this account indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, but User:Fangthebigblackdog appealed for two times for an unblock and was denied (see User talk:Fangthebigblackdog).

About 5 hours later, User:Fang, wut iz dis registered and vandalized User:MBisanz? and User talk:MBisanz. This user is also blocked and an unblock appeal was denied.

User:Fangtakesaquickpissonmbisanz registered 3 days later, blanked, and vandalized User:MBisanz's userpage and talkpage and was blocked later.

The next day User:Boaringbigblackdawg registered and tagged a CSD A-7 variant template to the userpage, stating that User:MBisanz is not notable, "deleted" the page because it is "offensive", and vandalized it afterwards. User:J.delanoy then blocked this account.

About a day later, Fangwillripoffacertainuserstinywoodanddigestitinminutes registered and vandalized the talkpage and was blocked by his victim indefinitely.

User:Fangæ registered about 7 hours after the block and first placed an unblock tag on User talk:Bob Waller, stating that "he is kool" (this may suggest that this user and a sock of User:JarlaxleArtemis may be related to each other) then also placed an unblock tag on User:Fangwillripoffacertainuserstinywoodanddigestitinminutes, stating that he didn't do anything wrong. He then proceeded into vandalizing the user and usertalk pages. This account was later blocked by two users.

About a week later, User:Fangthebigblackdawg registered and (probably) made a few constructive edits and then thanked User:Master of Puppets for his unblock on this current account. A minute later, he vandalized the userpage again. User was blocked again indefinitely.

On Christmas Day, User:SantaFang registered and for the first (and only time), gave a WP:Wikilove template (with a censored 4-letter word in the underlying message) and was blocked later.

Last January 1, User:Barkbarkruff registered and vandalized again, and User:HexaChord's talkpage. The user is then blocked afterwards.

3 days later, User:Fangdoubleohseven registered and vandalized the userpage, also on User talk:Capricorn42. He was then blocked afterwards.

The next day, User:Fang9001 came and "did what he must do" and was blocked as usual.

4 days later, User:Toinfangityandbeyond registered and did his job faithfully and was blocked by two users 2 hours apart.

After 3 days, User:FangLuckyTriple777 registered, and again.... He was blocked later.

3 days before the end of the month, User:Fangisagreatbigdogandislovedbyall registered and CSD'd the userpage for spam. He was blocked and later unsuccesfully appealed for an unblock.

Just before the first day of this month is to end, User:Heydidyouknowthatrubeushadadog? registered and as usual,. He was blocked and again was denied for an unblock.

The next day, User:Fangdog came and vandalized again (note that based on the first edit's edit summary, it is hinted that there must be other individuals related/known to this one). User was blocked and again filed an (unanswered) unblock.

Half an hour later, User:Fangtehinterwebzsavior appeared and blanked/vandalized the userpage. He also created a userpage of his own. He was again blocked and also requested an (unsuccesful) unblock.

7 minutes later, User:Fangdidwhat? appeared and vandalized the userpage again. As with previous accounts, this too was blocked and requested a (denied) unblock.

4 hours later, User:Fang123 came and vandalized the userpage as usual. This too was blocked and requested for a (later declined) unblock.

6 days later, User:NewFANGled registered and vandalized again. This too was blocked but with no unblock request.

Last Valentine's Day, User:Fangh8smatt registered and vandalized for only one time before this too was blocked.

A day later, User:Rubeus's dawg registered and after a few vandalism edits to the userpage, he was blocked.

User:Fang111 registered immediately after the block, so did User:Fang222 after User:Fang111 appealed for an unblock.

3 hours later, User:Fangisagreatdog registered and within less than a day, User:Fang^9000 up to the last account registered and was blocked.

Conclusion and proposal by User:E Wing:

As per User:Dangerousblackdog's unblock appeal, he said that he is a (harmless) critic of Wikipedia and certain sysops. Also, given that all of these users have a common trait on each other (vandal edits on User:MBisanz and User talk:MBisanz, as well as the word "fang", or atleast something that pertains to Fang (Harry Potter)), I propose an immediate ban on all new users (who registered after this report has been made) if these two criteria has been meet:

1. the accounts registered on the same IP range as of the sockpuppets, and 2. the word "fang" or something that pertains to Fang (Harry Potter)

to (atleast) prevent or minimize vandalism done on these pages after the pages' protection has been lifted. ALso, since there are vandals IP and registered accounts) operating between a block and the registration of a new puppet, I also request a checkuser to be performed on these accounts, as well to determine the puppets' primary master account and other sockpuppets not listed here.

Thanks E Wing (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I'm sure you are requesting CheckUser attention, E Wing? -- Kanonkas : Talk  12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was just confused with the criteria. E Wing (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is most probably yet another sock of this user. I had reported him here [], without realizing quite how many legs this "Socktopus" had. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After going thru my own edit history, I find That I had warned the following about similar vandalism:, , , and . Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Further checking reveals, who vandalized Acroterions page shortly after the blocking of Fangfiftyfive. This user also had 2 suspected socks &.
 * Checking these users edit histories, and the histories of the pages they edited, revealed & . Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * add to the list, just vandalized MBisanz's talk page. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * also, same vandal, different name. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * yet another Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * and another . Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * another batch:   Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by E Wing (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC) While some are clear sock, it looks like someone is running a sock farm and has the potential of having sleeper accounts. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

(I'll try to complete it tonight). -- lucasbfr  talk 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC) No sleepers, he resets his IP each time he's blocked. The ranges (different ISPs, so it might be 2 people) look too busy to have a feasible range block. I kept my result at hand if an other CU wants to look over the ranges. -- lucasbfr  talk 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

-- Kanonkas : Talk  23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ✅ -- lucasbfr  talk 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * post case check



Report date February 9 2009, 22:12 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

both posted exact same profane vandalism text image "goatsex" Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

It would appear these usernames are part of the much larger sockpuppet problem listed here: Sockpuppet investigations/Fangthebigblackdog. As the person who started this (Fangisawesome) investigation, would it be possible to combine the 2 investigations?? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Both already blocked. Tiptoety talk 05:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * missed by the bot Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merged from Sockpuppet investigations/Fangisawesome (page history). Tiptoety  talk 05:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date February 26 2009, 04:57 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by  Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)

-- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

came on today and started vandalizing the pages related to Suspected_sock_puppets/Fangæ. Given this pattern, I'd say its safe to put this user in with the list of Fangæ sockpuppets, yet another attempt to get around the block. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * reformatted case, and switche d to correct title Mayalld (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah they're the same, see Sockpuppet investigations/Fangthebigblackdog. This could be merged with the main case, but I'll defer that decision to a clerk. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * merged Mayalld (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mayalld (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mayalld (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)