Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghytu/Archive

07 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Ghytu and IP 14.192.247.236 had been posting incorrect edits on Gundam Build Fighters, as displayed on the links below:


 * 14.192.247.236
 * Ghytu

Both had been warned about their edits. However, a third account under the name "Dark Exia Matter" deleted an episode entry and posted this under his User page:


 * "Hi wiki i love editing pages but a username called Areaseven edits my edits"

A fourth account named "Kampfer amazing" posted a personal attack on the article.

Because Dark Exia Matter and Kampfer amazing had no other edits at this time, there is reason to believe they are socks of Ghytu. - Areaseven (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Areaseven (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2014 (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
This is a total duck case, with the editor effectively announcing that he or she is using sockpuppets. I have blocked the master account and the IP address for 48 hours, and the sockpuppets indefinitely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

21 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Astray1218 previously vandalized Gundam Build Fighters, but there was no evidence to point him as a sockpuppet of Ghytu. However, much like Kampfer amazing, he's been spending too much time with The Wikipedia Adventure, as evidenced in his Contributions page.

Just today, on the Gundam Wiki, Kampfer amazing claimed on his wall that Astray1218 is his brother. Areaseven (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2014 (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 see enough evidence to endorse a CU but not enough to block based on duck. Perhaps my threshold is too high. There's some linkage between the master and the puppet with respect to the article (not blatant as the edits are different), but the linkage of Wikipedia Adventure is a bit thin. Plus, I'm reluctant to rely on what happens off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, we're a bit light on diffs here... --Rschen7754 07:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'm missing part of the picture here. From what I can see Ghytu has made two edits total, the last being on March 5th, and then abandoned the account. The Astray1218 account was created on March 6th and has made 2 mainspace edits and has dabbled with the Wikipedia Adventure. On March 8th, three days after their last edit, blocked the abandoned Ghytu account for 48 hours for "Personal attacks or harassment: & abusing multiple accounts" and at that time  tagged them as a checkuser confirmed sockmaster. This all seems incredibly bitey to me, however if there are diffs of actual willful disruption (as opposed to newbie mistakes) please add them to the case and resubmit for CU.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bitey? Posting a personal attack on another editor in an article is a "newbie mistake", and not "willful disruption"? And the block wasn't three days after the editor's last edit: it was three days after that account's last edit. Are you suggesting that I should have blocked only the account that had been used for personal attacking, and because the editor had more than one account, one of which had not been used for three days, he/she should have been allowed to go on editing through the block? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have removed the CU tag from the alleged master. My apologies for not doing that., maybe I'm missing something, but I'm having trouble finding a personal attack in an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The personal attack was committed by the sock "Kampfer amazing", but that edit record was deleted at the time the sock was blocked. For further details on this issue, read the Archive. - Areaseven (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that this would be regarded as a personal attack. Sorry, I would have provided a diff earlier, but since there were altogether only 5 article edits by the accounts and IP address listed in the archived SPI case, I assumed that any admin checking the case would read them all anyway, so I didn't think I needed to give a diff. (There would be no point in giving a diff for on-admins, since can't see the edit anyway, as it's rev-deleted.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
 * I thought you were referring to the puppet in this report or perhaps even the master, not a user in the archive. I'm about to give up on this one because I'm struggling to understand the exchange between you and Ponyo. It almost seems as if you're talking about two different things, but if the two of you understand each other, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason I wrote "I think I'm missing part of the picture here" is because the report as laid out didn't make any sense to me and was relying on archived material to prove its points. This type of misunderstanding is what the inclusion of clear diffs in the request for CU is supposed to help avoid. Given the additional info provided above linking the accounts I will take another look. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have taken 's hint early on, but I wasn't sure if he meant that the report was light on diffs or my endorsement of the CU was light on diffs. Sounds like the latter now.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure he meant the report was light on diffs (which would call for too much conjecture on behalf of the clerks and CU...which ended up being prescient in this case!).--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of the severe shortage of available CUs, they really need things spelled out, and looking at the report it was not very clear. Also, it is not the responsibility of the clerks to build the case for the filer, either. My availability's gone down with my added steward responsibilities, so I no longer have the time to look at cases in depth, at least for the near future. --Rschen7754 18:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * is ✅ from, as are and  duck blocked in the archives.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I indeffed and tagged the latest puppet. The other already-blocked puppets were tagged before. I was on the fence about whether to indef the master, but decided based on the disruption, the denial, and the attack, an indef was warranted, although they haven't edited in a few weeks with that account.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)