Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gsnguy/Archive

09 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same disruptive edits as previous sock puppets on Let's Make a Deal. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

It's pretty clear these are related. The second I blocked the sock and went to check the IP's edits, I noticed it was appearing blocked without a direct block in place. Its the mediawiki bug that indicates the autoblock has been triggered. Syrthiss (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

16 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * 
 * 

I ran across WP:ANI request to block the user, at first I thought it might just be someone that new that needed to be informed of the policies. But this edit made me suspicious that we are dealing with a sockpuppet of User:Gsnguy. This is a very old account that was banned and created multiple sockpuppets to hide (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gsnguy). Most of the edits were minor vandalism related to tv stations including adding bogus slogans. The above account added a bogus slogan in this edit and has been missing with the TV stations related to Nickelodeon and MTV2 in what appears to be blatant vandalism (although mostly small changes). The account seems disruptive enough that it might warrant a block without a checkuser.

--Obsidi (talk ) 00:32, 17 October 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'm more inclined to match this account to, the subject matter and general geolocation match, and I've blocked the account. In the past at least one of their IPs has been blocked for making these same type of edits while logged-out, so there is a history of disruption here.  -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  00:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:ACMEWikiNet made several unsourced edits to Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) regarding the audio_format field within the television infobox. When the changes were reverted, two IP users (one of which—73.79.228.246—had not edited any article prior to User:ACMEWikiNet's edits to Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)) began making similar edits to the same field within the infobox. User:ACMEWikiNet has been twice blocked in the past for edit warring. IP user edits show similar evidence of pattern behavior. AldezD (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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


 * Stereo TV was not introduced until 1984! The show was in mono from 1975 to 1984! Why would I need a valid source? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment—See edit history for this page, with IP user 73.79.231.191 modifying the comment left by User:ACMEWikiNet, as well as additional edits to Talk:Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) by the IP and registered users . AldezD (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This user edited out the swear. I apologize for the swear. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment—Please also see these edits . Based upon editing activity as well as reaction to this SPI, perhaps this user is not yet ready to contribute. AldezD (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. I've been contributing to WP for years. So my edit was right! I need some time off. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional comments at Talk:Jeopardy! by user and myself.
 * The main argument, however, is related to your edits and WP:IDHT and WP:DE/WP:SOCK. In, you refer to the program as "Fleming Version" and "Trebek Version", terms that are not used elsewhere in the infobox nor article (instead, dates are used). The edit also did not include a source. The edit was undone, after which you made the same edit , which was undone a second time with the edit summary no source, and nothing else in infobox is referred to as "Fleming"/"Trebek" Version. You then engaged in WP:DE within the article and also engaged in WP:DE and WP:SOCK with the IPs listed above on my talk page and the articles linked within this discussion. AldezD (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, can we please REVISE the infobox to those two shows and make sure they are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% sourced? There are NO SOURCES say that Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! are in stereo. NO SOURCES! 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment—See above edit from user, and additional edits which relate to earlier comments re: WP:CIR. AldezD (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment—The user has been twice blocked for edit warring. You confirm that the user is likely edit warring again but you recommend no action? Clearly not a "first offense" based upon the prior blocks. How long must this disruptive behavior continue? AldezD (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , again, please confirm so I fully understand your actions as an administrator. You have reviewed the evidenced pattern of behavior—which dates back six years based upon earlier blocks—in numerous recent examples above taking place between 28 October and 1 November, but since no additional actions have taken place in seven days by the user, you recommend to take no action in stopping an evidenced pattern of behavior. Please let me know if I have misunderstood your position. AldezD (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * from the evidence and the page history I find it very likely that ACMEWikiNet logged out to continue an edit war as the two 73.79 IPs (less sure about the 162.223.18.54) and I would have suggested blocking, but I would have requested 1 week for a first offence and this was more than 1 week ago. So, I think I can close this with no further action, because you've been sufficiently warned not to edit while logged out to avoid scrutiny, and you've stopped doing it. Trust that you'll be blocked for much longer than a week next time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * my analysis is only with regard to sockpuppetry, which has stopped. Edit warring is to be reported at the edit warring noticeboard if it is continuing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * please do not place comments in this section, this is reserved for clerks and administrators. In response to your latest comment, I am not an administrator. You asked for a review of ACMEWikiNet's behaviour with regard to sockpuppetry, and I have given it. It is apparent to me that the user abused multiple accounts but has stopped after being warned; blocks are not punitive but meant to stop ongoing disruption, and since there is no presently occurring sockpuppetry I cannot recommend a block here. I'll reply further on your talk page; this case is closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Even though TheCopyrightMachine has already been blocked this should be looked at. Csworldwide2 created the article IUP-TV. I tagged it for speedy deletion since it was copy and pasted from the tv station's website. A couple days later a new account TheCopyrightMachine shows up and leaves a message on my talk page about the deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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

That's not all they left, and I hope you did not see what I revdel'd.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two accounts are ✅ to each other and to.
 * is a partial technical match, meaning they use some of the same UAs but not others. . My feeling is it's a different person as the similarities are at best tenuous.
 * Blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts. Please move to ACMEDeputy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Page moved. As for TMK1989, behavioural evaluation leads me to a similar conclusion as the CU evidence. A connection is possible, but unlikely. Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

has been confirmed by a CU. I've gone ahead and blocked on behavioral evidence, but this would be the master account if it is related. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Behavioral evidence: There is enough overlap in edits that Csworldwide1 had to have been aware of Csworldwide2, including WOWK-TV, WEYI-TV, WXBU, Lilly Broadcasting, Armstrong Williams, Comet (TV network), WTAE-TV, WITI (TV), WLUK-TV, and WBAY-TV. Cunningham Broadcasting, Template:SBGI, and WWL-TV actually shows the accounts editing side by side.  There are also enough gaps in the overlap (such as TBD (TV network), KDKA-FM, Steve (talk show)...) to show that Csworldwide2 wasn't just following Csworldwide1 around.
 * That doesn't help ACMEDeputy's claim out of nowhere that Csworldwide2 was imitating Csworldwide1 (funny how he only brings up Csworldwide1 after that account was blocked). If 2 was just imitating 1, 1 would have said something at some point (if not reported 2).
 * Also, Csworldwide1's user talk page edits, Wikipedia space edits, and Wikipedia talk space edits show no drama whatsoever. Why is this important?  Because it establishes that Csworldwide1 had no enemies.  If Csworldwide1 is innocent, there would be no reason whatsoever for someone to imitate him.  Further more, he's an extreme WP:gnome, so a troll would never notice him.
 * Now, if we look at ACMEDeputy's Wikipedia space and user talk space edits, there's plenty of drama, but he significantly avoids getting Csworldwide1. If ACMEDeputy was trying to discredit an innocent Csworldwide1, he would have at least posted something on Csworldwide1's page at some point, if not started an ANI thread.
 * The likelihood that a troll would have noticed the five-year old account Csworldwide1 and decided to discredit him is ridiculously finite, and the amount of effort that troll would have put forth as ACMEDeputy is unbelievably insane in both its stature and waste. Think like a troll.  Why would you work for several years all while deliberately avoiding the target before creating an account to imitate the target, then working with that for months before creating a third account to pull the all three accounts into a kamikaze attack on the target?  It's too much effort and risk for something you have no emotional or intellectual investment in.  The brilliance required for the execution could not be found in an individual stupid enough to invest any quanta of effort into such a plan.  A troll would have targeted a more prominent user, someone with a vendetta would have targeted a user with more drama attached to them.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your assessment. Joe jobs happen to innocent drama-free users too. Note that ACMEDeputy didn't create the Csworldwide2 account until this year. That was probably just a spur of the moment decision, not some seven-year scheme. Sro23 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm unblocking because you disagree, though I'm still suspicious about why never commented on an imposter account that was editing right beside him.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This account appears to be technically very .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that we have that settled (sort of), closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Thought it was strange that an account that has been blocked for over a decade would respond to a talk page comment. Realizing that one of Gsnguy's sockpuppets was ACMEMan and it involves the same topic area, I think its all related. You probably should cut off his talk page access, but being that all the known accounts are already blocked, I'm filing this more so everything can be merged together for future reference. Rusf10 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2018 (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
✅. Please merge Sockpuppet investigations/ACMEDeputy into this case and retag.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ and re-tagged. CLosing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I think someone needs to take a second look since we now know ACMEDeputy is part of a larger sock farm. There seems to be a lot of overlap between Csworldwide1 and the original account GSNguy too. Most notably both edit tv article and in particular, a large amount of them are from the Johnstown, PA market. Rusf10 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * As I explained at Sockpuppet investigations/ACMEDeputy, Csworldwide1 had to be aware of Gsnguy/ACMEDeputy's sock Csworldwide2, but he never said anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The choice of the username Csworldwide1 fits in with rest too. Many of these accounts are name after things related to Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? (ACME, Eartha Brute), cs stands for Carmen Sandiego.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This has already been reviewed. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edits the same subject area (tv stations and in particular those in Pittsburgh/Johnstown, PA). The evidence to look at is the editor interaction between Mvcg66Br3 and the already confirmed sock ACMEDeputy Besides editing an extensive list of the same articles, there are some strange patterns. For example ACMEDeputy posted heavily on WP:AIAV until March 2017, when all of a sudden stops posting there and then Mvcg66Br3 starts. Around the same time exact thing happens with the postings at ANI and WP:RPP  Rusf10 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

First of all, I only have this one account. Second, I don't even know who ACMEDeputy is. I think Rusf10 is making a bad-faith accusation. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of overlap in your editing, I think you would have at least heard of ACMEDeputy. Regardless, I think that these edits that popped up shortly after you posted here proves otherwise --Rusf10 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not make those two edits. I'm always logged in at Wikipedia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
You haven't presented sufficient evidence to justify a CU. Article intersection is not enough, particularly for a long-standing editor with over 10K edits who has never been blocked. You'll have to come up with specific diffs showing similar points of view in articles or similar styles. As for pointing out the IP's obnoxious edits, you're putting the cart before the horse. You have nothing to indicate that the IP is operated by Mvcg66b3r.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No response. Insufficient evidence. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)