Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Funnyjunk666/Archive

26 May 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All disruptive accounts, all created with the same 2 hour period, none is responding to warnings. Fæ (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Fæ (talk)

Please also consider who created the "BLP" article Funnyjunk after this SPI was raised. Fæ (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Self-endorsing for CU attention per. I'll try and block any similar ones in there, but I think a CU needs to be able to sort out which ones were created. –MuZemike 22:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please additionally check the following, which were just created:



I have blocked the following also as a clear sock:



There are also a couple others in that Special:ListUsers list but are stale. –MuZemike 22:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

...and check the following, as these were all involved in the repeated recreation of the Funnyjunk article:



I will note, however, that this could also very well be some coordinated attack as opposed to all of them being the same person. Again, that's why we have CU :) –MuZemike 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

...and more from Funnyjunk.com:



I will probably likely take some further actions here to prevent the widespread spamming here. –MuZemike 01:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and checked these accounts to see if there any of them have created sleepers, but these are all ❌. http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/458449/A+preposition/, which user:Killiondude pointed out to me last night, is the origin of this attack. There's not much I can do here. J.delanoy gabs adds  17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A coordinated attack is basically massive meatpuppetry. On this ground, I have blocked all the accounts involved here. Leaving open for other admins to review and take any additional actions they may deem necessary. Tim Song (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that all the attack accounts regarding Justin Bieber (i.e. "User:JustinBieberIsGay and stuff like that) are also involved here. It was probably this attack that led to the article's current full-protection. –MuZemike 14:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)