Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HowardStrong/Archive

01 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User's contribs indicate edits solely to BitCoin and related items for all accounts. The socls started editing when HowardStrong was blocked for 48 hours. The user Bitcoin has subsequently been username blocked after "retiring," and Another John S has supposedly "retired" as well. I would also note Anonymous68th made 10 edits to the sandbox in a minute (to get autoconfirm) and then immediately went to Bitcoin thereafter (a protected article). Barry McGuinness is either a sleeper or a hijacked account, as after 12 prior edits and a 2 month absence, he went right to Bitcoin. MSJapan (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also added Sarah Nordic, as I am becoming increasingly skeptical of new users coming in and somehow instinctively knowing to go do stuff with Bitcoin-related citations. MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sarah Nordic account picked up editing the same article as the 74.196 IP address above, making the same edit as the IP. The account was also created a few minutes after the IP commented here. - SudoGhost 19:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Comment - The User:Another John S account was created the day HowardStrong was told to stop edit warring over a symbol on the Bitcoin article. User:Another John S's first actions on Wikipedia were to create their account, wait the required number of days and then to edit their userpage 10 times with pointless edits, and then immediately continue HowardStrong's edit war over the symbol (Bitcoin was semi-protected at the time). Aside from one other edit, User:Another John S did not edit Wikipedia again until HowardStrong was blocked for 48 hours, and then resumed editing. - SudoGhost 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment — For reference purposes, I would also like to point out the following noticeboard discussions about the users in question, including this active one, with regard to User:Bitcoin, and these 3RR discussions about HowardStrong: first one and second one. – Zntrip 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever the relationship between these various users, some of them are clearly not "new users". For example, in the first 24 hours of User:Bitcoin's editing career, he's altered a long-closed Afd ; closed another AfD, implemented it , created a new article with perfectly formatted refs , and edited a DAB page . Ditto User:Another John S who redirects an article in response to a merge tag , moves a page , creates a new page with perfectly formatted refs , and creates a new category . Voceditenore (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment — I'm adding to the list, as the IP is exhibiting similar behavior to the user accounts. The IP's first edit was today to the AfD discussion for Room 77 to keep the article. The article was created yesterday by User:Bitcoin. Less than five minutes later, the IP voted for renaming at the CfD section for Category:Bitcoin companies and organizations, a category created two days ago by User:Another John S. Aside from editing the two deletion discussions, the only other edit done by the IP thus far has been Bitcoin-related. – Zntrip 05:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment* -- We're roommates and we're done. We share a computer and we edit on Wikipedia when we wait on Howard to get us material. We all work on Bitcoin stuff. -Another John S (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is Barry though. -74.192.137.215 (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol Howard leaves for a few days and you guys screw him on Wikipedia. Please don't bn him. It's our fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.203 (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah howard is going to be pissed when he gets back next month don't ban him we will stop editing we just wanted to help66.87.121.134 (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added the IPs for the above messages to the list. So, this lot claims they are all roommates holed up in the same apartment (somewhere in Texas, presumably?) with only one computer between them and have spontaneously decided to edit war on behalf of User:HowardStrong who just happens to be "away for a few days", an absence which unsurprisingly coincides with his 48 hour block. I'd suggest a checkuser here in case any more of the apartment's "residents" are lurking around on WP. For what it's worth, User:Barry McGuiness, may well have been simply caught in the cross-fire. His addition to the article was quite different and involved adding background on the precursors of Bitcoin. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The shared IP story is well frankly, bullshit. You don't edit from one device, you edit from three, and you even cross them between accoutns. ✅ the following:

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * to each other and to the above:, ,.
 * ❌ to all.
 * . -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffing socks with tags, giving master 1 week and 72 hours for all IPs involved. Closing.

05 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Just a heads up before anything else, many of the diffs by the IPs, in particular, contain images that are NSFW. HowardStrong was blocked on 4 November for using ~10 sockpuppets. Immediately afterwards, the talk page Talk:Bitcoin came under frequent vandalism from IP contributors, most of them appearing to be web proxies (the article is currently full-protected). The talk page was semi-protected for 24 hours, and today after the talk page's semi-protection expired, the vandalism immediately resumed. The article's talk page had not been subject to any vandalism until HowardStrong's block. The last IP address listed,, was unrelated to the talk page vandalism, but was used to remove the PROD from an article HowardStrong created, since his account was blocked. HowardStrong has not outright identified as an IP address, but has used IP addresses to claim to be his "roommates", which were identified as sockpuppets. The only IP addresses that don't appear to be proxies, the 66.187 addresses, are all from the same range and ISP that HowardStrong previously used to comment as "roommates" of HowardStrong. All of these IP addresses and the single account appear to be used for block evasion and vandalism in retaliation for being blocked. - SudoGhost 15:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

please ban howard he doesnt care about wikipedia only bitCoins. thanks198.105.216.188 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Oh, jolly dee. Here we go again.

Ain't we got fun (as Peter van Buskirk) would say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 198.105.216.188 is a webhost, so blocked for a year.
 * 206.214.93.226 is a webhost, with a barracuda blacklist to boot, so sidelined this for a year as well
 * The 66s belong to Sprint, a mobile phone provider. By coincidence, your one named editor edits via his iphone. I get the impression it's a fast rotating range, so probably no value in lenghty blocks. I#ll have a look at a rangeblock, see how many of the late Mr Jobs customers it would inconvenience.
 * 50.97.101.196 belongs to a company operating out of Houston Texas. Blocked that for six months. (Materialscientist blocked it 3yrs as a proxy)

08 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Adding user, due to the timing of the account creation and their actions (PRODing any pages Another John S created, and only pages created by that user), a behavior consistent with the IP's "please ban me" rationale below. - SudoGhost 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the recent large number of new editors suddenly editing the talk page trying to achieve consensus on something, making personal attacks against other editors, I would also ask that a checkuser check for other accounts as well, seeing as how the last two SPIs have shown that HowardStrong does not edit with just one account at a time, but several. - SudoGhost 15:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for checkuser to compare to because, if this is him, I'll up his block to indefinite. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The two named accounts are a match.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffing master and sock with tags and closing.

24 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * "It is not against policy to build Wikipedia even if an evader is doing it to. (WP:IAR)" -- 66.87.120.191.
 * "The consensus was clearly keep. (WP:IAR) -- User:Bitcoin.

Both users come from Texas, do not understand when to stop, and do not understand whta WP:IAR means. Basically, they are the same. Although checkuser is impossible, a block is needed. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  05:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

25 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Editor's first two edits were to create their user page and talk page, and then to start removing maintenance templates at Bitcoin Foundation, an article that a sockpuppet of HowardStrong,, created. Their next edit was a talk page request related to the expiration of the full protection of Bitcoin, an article that is currently protected because of HowardStrong's sockpuppetry (Bitcoin's talk page was semi-protected until a couple of days ago due to HowardStrong's vandalism of the talk page). Previous sockpuppets of HowardStrong have shared a tendency to go back and edit only articles that HowardStrong has edited. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 07:03, 25 November 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

 * Easy match, blocked the mobile IP for 26 hours, indef for the sock. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

27 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Pretty standard MO by now. The first IP is editing via a proxy, vandalizing the talk page, while the two Sprint IPs are from the same area, same mobile IP, and editing the same articles in the same manner as HowardStrong, with the same exact edit summaries (Suspected IP diff, Confirmed sockpuppet diff). The 199 ip claims that the reason they editing so many editors' comments was that they are on some old adware-filled computer in the backroom of my boss's shitty office sounds similar to excuses previously used. - SudoGhost 09:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The 199 IP address was blocked as a proxy. The Sprint IPs change too often, so I don't know if this should just be closed, or if some kind of rangeblock is possible. - SudoGhost 09:22, 27 November 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

 * The collateral is far, far too immense to block that range. I've semiprotected the targeted pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

04 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Bitcoin-related SPAs, matching the range of prior Bitcoin SPAs MSJapan (talk) 00:58, 4 December 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

 * I've semiprotected the page. The range is just too large (it's a /16) to block. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

07 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

IP is in the same range previously blocked, making the same Bitcoin SPA edits to the same articles. The account is listed because it is also Bitcoin-focused, and started editing between CUs. I am borderline as to whether the account is disruptive, but the timing of account creation and article focus are too convenient to ignore. A look at the contribs alone should suffice for evidence. MSJapan (talk) 17:43, 7 December 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

 * All blocked and tagged, AfD vote struck and tagged as well. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

07 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Another IP, one edit, same focus areas. MSJapan (talk) 20:41, 7 December 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

 * Page protected. I'm looking into a rangeblock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

26 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The Bitcoin article had been full-protected due to HowardStrong and his sockpuppets. After the full-protection was tentatively downgraded to semi-protection, comes along and without explanation begins removing content in a matter consistent with HowardStrong's editing pattern, which involves an interest in Bitcoin, but criticism and removal of content related to those "officially" associated with Bitcoin. The username itself is consistent with HowardStrong's editing pattern of referring to it as "play money". I'd also ask for a checkuser, because as the previous SPIs have shown, HowardStrong always edits with multiple sockpuppets at a time. - SudoGhost 23:39, 26 December 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

 * Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked, tagged, templated, closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)