Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011/Archive

31 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Massive tag-teaming related to Vivian Balakrishnan (and other Singaporean politicians) dating back to May, wondering if this is the same user trying to pass himself off as different users on a dynamic IP (220.255.1.* range includes 102, 111, 147, 158 and 168 among others; 202.156.13.* includes 10, 11, 246; 218.186.16.* ranger includes 226, 233 and 250) to POV push and add possibly copyrighted material into the article. There's also been a conduct issue with repeated attacks coming out of these ranges against. See revision history of the linked article above, as well as of my talk page and probably La goutte de pluie's talk page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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

This is User:la goutte de pluie but I'm using a new account so the users named above will not be alerted to this report. I am especially concerned that sockpuppetry is being used to conceal some very aggressive astroturfing -- see the "compare user report" on Vincent_Wijeysingha. Here some other IPs with connections to Singaporean politicians that are linked in behaviour:


 * 202.156.13.230
 * 160.96.200.34
 * 160.96.200.35
 * 160.96.200.36
 * 160.96.200.37

I am hesitant to include User:Alverya in this case because he/she seems like a different editor and amenable to learning about policy, but perhaps he/she should be checked because has been known to edit from 160.96.200.* addresses and may be editing in conjunction with less amiable colleagues for a common purpose.

I am especially concerned because the 160.96.200.* addresses belong to Ministry IP addresses; either the Singaporean government is hiring these sockpuppets or people are making these edits from work. There's also more evidence and shenanigans of conflict of interest account-switching at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (visible to administrators only because of unrelated copyright violations). Checkusers should take a look at deleted contributions that might not show up in a compare user report. There are many other IPs and users implicated not listed here. I have been meaning to compile a report of my own for a long while, but the scale of the shenanigans involved is so large that I have been rather daunted at the whole prospect.

Pluie lite (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - They sure do like inserting pictures into that article. Endorsing for confirmation. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me preface this by saying this is a very crowded range, and all of the accounts listed below should be doublechecked on behavior. ✅ the following are the same:
 * and are  matches. No comment on the IPs.  TN X Man  14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just checking. Are you saying they are likely matches of each other, or that they are likely sockpuppets of Geneva / Eggsauto? Pluie lite (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all three socks on behavioral evidence (except for Brownships; that's based on a similar name). I've also blocked the master for 31h. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment that Geneva2011 may not be the oldest account, just the oldest detectable account. After all, User:Alverya edited 2 months before Geneva's first edit. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all three socks on behavioral evidence (except for Brownships; that's based on a similar name). I've also blocked the master for 31h. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment that Geneva2011 may not be the oldest account, just the oldest detectable account. After all, User:Alverya edited 2 months before Geneva's first edit. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

07 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

There are possibly more socks, but the sockpuppet above has repeatedly stalked my contributions, but based on wikistalking behaviour from Searchertoo I suspect he is a carryover from Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011. Searchertoo starts his contributions 28 September 2011, and all of his edits are directed against me. The user begins stalking me here and my Singaporean contributions here, here, here and most recently here. The user refuses to deny that he or she is a sockpuppet, and simply blanks his user page. A Singaporean IP stalks my actions here -- note that Singaporean IPs have stalked me in the past in the Geneva2011 case. There are more possible IPs documented in that case. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 19:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)  elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 19:05, 7 January 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

 * - Searchertoo is pretty stale, so that really only leaves NoNatalinaa and the IPs. A CU won't be helpful, then, as CU won't connect IPs to an account. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Searchertoo isn't actually stale, and those edits combined with the referred Geneva2011 SPI case really made me suspicious, so I looked into it. First, I believe that this is actually the same person that was looked in with Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011. Geneva2011 however has just gone stale, so I can't say for certain. Second, like mentioned in that SPI, those are some rather difficult ranges, so contributions should be looked at before taking any actions. Based on technical evidence,
 * are ✅ to be the same (note the above caveat). Blocks can't really help that much here by themselves, if the disruption mentioned on the Geneva2011 SPI page persists then the respective pages would really need to be semi-protected as well. Amalthea  18:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * are ✅ to be the same (note the above caveat). Blocks can't really help that much here by themselves, if the disruption mentioned on the Geneva2011 SPI page persists then the respective pages would really need to be semi-protected as well. Amalthea  18:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * are ✅ to be the same (note the above caveat). Blocks can't really help that much here by themselves, if the disruption mentioned on the Geneva2011 SPI page persists then the respective pages would really need to be semi-protected as well. Amalthea  18:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * are ✅ to be the same (note the above caveat). Blocks can't really help that much here by themselves, if the disruption mentioned on the Geneva2011 SPI page persists then the respective pages would really need to be semi-protected as well. Amalthea  18:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * are ✅ to be the same (note the above caveat). Blocks can't really help that much here by themselves, if the disruption mentioned on the Geneva2011 SPI page persists then the respective pages would really need to be semi-protected as well. Amalthea  18:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * are ✅ to be the same (note the above caveat). Blocks can't really help that much here by themselves, if the disruption mentioned on the Geneva2011 SPI page persists then the respective pages would really need to be semi-protected as well. Amalthea  18:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've merged this case with Geneva2011, as the evidence does seem to indicate that. I've blocked and tagged all the socks except for Icewater, as there doesn't really seem to be enough evidence on that one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)