Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeeheeYogen8/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

has had a history of making predominantly good faith but uncited and relatively small changes to airline/airport-related articles, and never, ever leaving an edit summary, nor ever engaging with multiple users who have raised concerns on their talk page. They are somewhat obsessive in nature and, after a long time watching this editor, and the complaints made against him from other users, I finally felt it necessary to give them a 1 week block on May 14th, explaining that the reason was their overall disruptive editing behaviour.

Within 24 hrs, this IP kicked into activity, and, like Heehee, has since made only airline-related edits, again with no edit summary. Their edits are identical in style to those made by Heehee. The only difference is that Heehee uses mobile view to edit, whereas this IP has chosen desktop view. These consecutive edits are just 18 minutes apart from one another; IP first then registered user. Another user has reported their concerns of sockpuppetry on my talk page, and, having looked into it myself, felt it appropriate to follow up with a request for an investigation.

Full interaction timeline here. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (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

 * The timing, overlap and nature of the edits is sufficiently convincing to me. The IP looks relatively static. – please block it for two weeks. I'd suggest extending the master's block by two weeks for evasion (though one could also consider blocking them indefinitely until they start communicating with others). --Blablubbs&#124;talk 16:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An afterthought: If I recall correctly, the iOS app does not display verbose block explanation or talk page messages to users, so that might be a partial explanation for the evasion. They have previously edited outside of the app though, so I'd still suggest blocking the IP and leaving an explanatory note there. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 16:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice . I've blocked the IP and extended the registered user block to 6 months, with a detailed explanation of how to get unblocked. A question for the future - would your prefer to leave the decision to me next time if its a registered user and an IP involved in possible socking, or is it still best to get the experts here to advise/offer a second opinion as as been most useful this time. Thanks a lot for your input. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's inherently a right and a wrong way to do it, we just can't connect IPs to accounts via CU – for IPs with edits over a short timespan (e.g. 24h or so), it's probably easiest to just block yourself, since there's a decent chance that by the time we get to the report, they have been reassigned. If you need a second opinion, can't use the tools yourself because you're involved or need help figuring out a block duration or a rangeblock (e.g. if there's a noticeable pattern of logged out socking on dynamic IPs that start with the same number groups), you're always welcome to file here. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The following addresses have all been blocked, but the problem of block evasion by this user seems to be ongoing and persistent.Nick Moyes (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2021 (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

 * Fixed the report. Thanks for the filing, might come in handy in the future. Is there anything left to do here or can I close this? Blablubbs&#124;talk 18:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to do, but I was unsure how best to add these subsequent socks that I have blocked - and I expect there will be more. I.e., is it OK for me to edit the archive when I've made further blocks? That seems to go against all my instincts about archives. Just to say, I am very interested in learning more about SPI work, and hope to have time later in the year to get up to speed on the basics. I'm still struggling with rangeblocks, and my /64 IPv6 blocks are obviously still being got around by this user, though they all geolocate to the same area. Sorry if I malformatted the page, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nick Moyes Thanks for helping out at SPI (seriously; we need all the help we can get). But, no, please don't edit the archives.  Only SPI clerks and CUs are supposed to do that.  If you block additional socks, the thing to do is file a new report, note that it's pro-forma, and mark it closed.  That'll get it onto the queue to eventually be archived once a clerk checks it over.  I'm going to close this now. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)