Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph Fanai/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

BrooklynGravity is editing box office sections to film articles (I was notified to such edits on Doctor Strange (film)), of which Joseph did/is currently still doing, despite being blocked (for more on that, see here).

Additionally, both edit from the mobile app (an edit by Joseph, an edit by Brooklyn) and both usernames end in three numbers (that one my just be coincidence).

If this is indeed a sock of Joseph, this is clear WP:BLOCKEVASION on their part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also per the October 2016 discussion on Joseph's talk (the first link added above), another user noticed they had been operated and making these box office edits on the 115.250.* IP. I have added one above, but there are undoubtedly more out there that I personally have not come across to add to the report. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

This edit explicitly restores a box office section written by 115.250.* IPs and removed as block evasion, and continues the edit summary style ("biggest film of Spain", "biggest local film in Spain now). Other edits seem identical in focus to Josephlalrinhlua786's earlier edits - how box office returns for a film compare to other countries, or other films out that week within those countries, or other films involving the same people. --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ + . Blocked and tagged puppets and tagged master. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This user began editing on November 8, after the previous sock puppet investigation was opened/closed. User is also editing film box office sections, and with mobile edits. (An example edit here). If this is true, it is once again clear WP:BLOCKEVASION. Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2016 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Account was created just a few hours after past sock User:TheGoodLion was blocked, and picked up right where TheGoodLion left off at Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film). Edits are always mobile, and the edit summaries usually begin with "box office - ..." Sro23 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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

. Phil  roc My contribs 14:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can already tell this is going to be an issue with this user. As soon as one account will get tagged, they'll hop over and create a new one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I think we should all be a little more vigilant to try to interrupt the disruption sooner. I've added some of the articles to my watchlist. Thanks for the good work and communication, everybody. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * Intersections at: Monster Hunt, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) and Moana (2016 film)
 * Monster Hunt hasn't had much editing since early October, so the proximity of DancingMarvel's edits to Joseph's is suspicious.
 * Last sock FernandoDC was blocked on November 28, 2016, Dancing Marvel was created about 9 hours later.
 * Second edit, he's formatting references like a pro.
 * This pissy edit summary is bizarre, but telling. "see now I'm confused of how I wrote the box office section. don't come in at 12:00 midnight and do whatever u want. did u do all the hardwork of collecting data and researching? no then shut it" How they wrote the box office section? This account has only been open for a few days. Highly suggestive of prior editing. Also FernandoDC made numerous edits to the box office section.
 * Similar vague edit summaries. FernandoDC: "(box office)" DancingMarvel: "(box office)".
 * DC / Marvel?

I may wind up semi-protecting these articles. seems to believe the user's behavior is just to create a new account after the last one gets blocked, but I wonder if a CU might be helpful just in case he's mixing things up. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit: CU might also be beneficial in spotting potential IP ranges to block. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * First, . And going off of what Cyphoid stated, based on the recent archive history at this SPI, it seems Joseph isn't getting it, and intends to continue editing on Wikipedia, despite the master account being blocked for copyright violations. If this account gets block, I foresee a brand new one being started shortly after so they can continue editing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, blocked and tagged. The range is too large and busy to block, so semi-protection of the main targets and early detection of new socks will be helpful.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

intersections at Your Name: ; Edits are always mobile edits and contain similar vague summaries like "box office"   "Added links" , and "box office - China"   Sro23 (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2016 (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

 * - New account, created a day after the last block. Sudden interest in film articles, significant changes here. Seems ducky. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * Joseph / Joe - not a smoking gun, and this hasn't been the sock naming pattern Joseph has typically used, but it's still curious.
 * Word+Word name formatting (i.e. BrandonJoe) similar to other sock names BrooklynGravity123, DancingMarvel, TheGoodLion.
 * Brandon is focused on films, particularly American ones, with emphasis on box office details and analysis. This is what Joseph was into.
 * Brand new user's first edit was to include fully-fleshed out citation. Odd that he'd know how to do that without prior knowledge.
 * BrandonJoe, a 2-day-old account with 37 edits across 7 articles, has 3 article intersections with Josephlalrinhlua, and 4 article intersections with BrooklynGravity.
 * BrandonJoe has almost all mobile edits, like BrooklynGravity and Joseph
 * Some of Brandon's edit summaries are shaped like the other socks' comments. For instance here note "box office - this section is outdated..." the "box office - ____" formatting (especially with lower-case) is found here by BrooklynGravity123, "box office - best IMAX November worldwide opening." and here by FernandoDC, "box office - more to come".
 * In this edit and this edit, BrandonJoe uses the phrasing "release pattern" in his edit summaries. Odd phrasing, and I don't think I've encountered it before in the context of film articles. Josephlalrinhlua has used similar phrasing "Zootopia received a scattered release pattern", "Dory continues swimming through a staggered release pattern", "Added links; release pattern", "I've laid release pattern similar to Mockingjay Part 1"
 * Brandon's English is decent, but a little off. "males were dominate", if you read Joseph's talk page comments, you'll finds stuff like "I wish that you rebuke the block".
 * In this edit summary, Brandon writes, "I believe Zootopia, Finding Dory, The Secret Life of Pets were all written in this similar fashion." Joseph has edited Zootopia, Finding Dory and The Secret Life of Pets. Not surprising he'd model his edits on himself.

Suspected sock has already been blocked as a duck, but I'd appreciate if a CU could spot check for other accounts, including newly-created ones, since Joseph keeps obnoxiously cranking them out. The one new behavior here (assuming that a CU links Brandon to Joseph) is that the suspected sock has denied being a sockpuppet. Joseph has typically just moved on to new accounts rather than engaging in debate. However, since the account has denied it, I think it's wise to double-check, just in case the above is a lot of coincidences and bias confirmation on my part--you know, me seeing what I want to see. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2016 (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 don't see any basis for running a CU. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that they appealed the block so I ran a check. They're ✅ and I've updated the sock tag accordingly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

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

So if I understand this correctly, you want this SPI page to be moved because you believe there is an older account involved (based on email evidence linking them to Josephlalrinhlua786)? In that case, shouldn't Joseph Fanai be blocked? What if they return to editing? I'm no clerk, but I'm pretty sure that once an SPI is closed, all that happens is it gets archived. You should re-open it. Sro23 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was unsure as to whether the case should be marked as open or closed pending clerk action, but the administrator instructions on tagging a case as close say "The tagging will alert the SPI clerks and CheckUsers, who will do a final review before archiving the case", and that seemed to me to be exactly what I wanted: to alert a clerk, who would do a final review, which would presumably include reading my comment below and taking appropriate action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
At present this SPI page is filed under Josephlalrinhlua786 as the master account, but I have discovered that Joseph Fanai is an earlier account of the same editor (created on 25 July 2012, whereas Josephlalrinhlua786 was created on 17 May 2014) and so the case should be refiled under Joseph Fanai as master. There is no doubt whatever about this being the same person: there is the similarity of the user name to the CU confirmed sock Josephfanai123, there are considerable editing overlaps, as seen for example in this editor interaction report, there are similar activities such as persistent copyright infringements, and finally there is the fact that Joseph Fanai sent me an email in response to an email I had sent to Josephlalrinhlua786. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Should the archive at Sockpuppet investigations/Josephlalrinhlua786/Archive be moved as well? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, done now. I was sure I clicked "move subpages" when moving the page. My mistake.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just wanted to double check. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Mostly mobile edits, updating box office grosses, same vague edit summaries as always like "box office-added link"  and "box office- China" , semi-intersection here and here. Sro23 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I don't why I'm being accused of such thing. I'm exclusively new to wiki and the only reason why I robustly edited Logan's box office content was because after watching the movie, I was inspired to write something about it. But since almost every section – plot, cast, production, reception – were already filled, I took the arbitrary task to edit the box office content. And I'm also interested in Beauty and the Beast and Kong: Skull Island because I'm anticipated for these films. I'm not adding contents to Get Out or A Dogs Purpose etc. Besides, if there's any sort of evidence that Joseph Fania and my edit is similar then what can I do. Besides this is just the starting month, I'm also expanding my edit to other arenas and subjects. Please. User:DarrenSavio 9:01 6 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Very much so by their contributions history. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked. I was already keeping an eye on this account. I agree it's basically a duck case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I came here via the unblock request on this account's talk. They're ✅ along with . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Note the timing; the account was created one day after the last sock was blocked. Similar edits (always mobile) and edit summaries (i.e. "Box office- something")       Sro23 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2017 (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 was just thinking of blocking this account as a duck, actually. Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Saw these changes from a brand new user and it got me curious. Poked around, found data to link user to Joseph Fanai. Reported to Ponyo here. Broadstrokes: Ponyo did a CU, user was confirmed. Closing SPI report. Just wanted to add it so that there is a linear record. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exasperated edit summaries
 * Full mastery of citations despite being a six-day-old account.
 * Lots of mobile edits.
 * Lots of "box office" summaries.
 * Mix of Indian and US films.

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

 * See Cyphoidbomb's comment above. Archiving. Mkdw  talk 06:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Began editing on April 26, right after previous account was blocked. All the Joseph traits are there - editing box office sections of recently released films, mobile editing, full mastery of citing sources for a new user, and an exasperated edit summary to boot. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Courtesy ping for who have been involved with this editor's case a great deal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. It seems obvious enough to me – don't think we don't have to wait for further input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The edit summaries of Joseph Fanai socks kinda look like Padmalakshmisx's as they tend to be short and lowercase. Like "box office", "release" but Fanai tends to be just a bit more verbose, like "box office - trivia". Hard to explain, but it's like Padma, but a liiittle different. Sometimes you get pissy summaries and snark. Anyway, the big difference is Fanai's breadth of interest. He's all over the film map if I remember correctly. He's definitely into Indian films and writes on western films, and I think he even does East Asian films as well. So, enough biography...
 * Edit summaries fit the format in my estimation. See this confirmed sock and this guy.
 * Note also in the above the proliferation of mobile app and mobile app edit tags.
 * AaronLyngdoh's first edit contains well-formatted citations, which is dubious for a new user.
 * More importantly, while editing as Josephlalrinhlua786, he became a serial copyright violator as is evident from his talk page warnings. He had a pretty cavalier attitude about it, kind of brushing it off as something he did because he was "too busy" editing to create his own words. Anyway, this edit (same as above) contains the phrasing "Twister cemented early May as a launching pad for summer films" is lifted from here. Even the general tone of that block of crap is problematic. Thankfully reverted it.
 * The Fate of the Furious is a very attractive target for these socks.
 * A number of the socks in the archive seem to follow the FirstLast name format. BillyYanger, RikkiSharma, DarrenSavio, BrandonJoe, etc.

Fairly ducky, but I'd like to get a second (CU) opinion just to establish more comparison points. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Additionally, another comparison further reveals that there are even more articles that the two users have similarly edited. Most of their edits on some of the accounts appear to be mobile edits, to stack more evidence (update: I believe that was already mentioned by the mobile app edit tags)...I'd say it's a possible likely, although we need to wait for CheckUser evidence to get a bigger picture of the situation. Cosmic Clone (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

. Same MO as Joseph - mobile editing to the box office sections of recently released films. Editor also began editing on May 8, which is immediately after the blocking of the last sock. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2017 (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
. He'll be back in a day or two, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2017 (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 agree. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

TropicAces (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2017 (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
. Pretty obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Edits on War for the Planet of the Apes seem awfully specific and detailed (and familiar) for a new member with 9 career edits... TropicAces (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2017 (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
. Thanks for spotting this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Indian username (Famai is from India and his previous Puppets had some Indian names) and he's editing "big films" bkx office sections with similar buzz wording TropicAces (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2017 (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

 * . Yes, it looks very much like him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Like I've noted in the archive, Joseph Fanai and Padmalakshmisx tend to use similar edit summaries, but Joseph's are a bit different in a way that only experience can really discern. Joseph also tends to edit western films, where Padma does not usually do so. Hmingthanzuala has intersections at Monster Hunt 2 with RockabyeBaby444, a Joseph Fanai sock. Monster Hunt films were typical articles for Fanai socks to edit.

Not sure if there's anything to check CU-wise, but I thought I'd float that as an option. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:39, 31 March 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
The case is. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -, note similar edit summaries ("added links" ) ("box office"  ), mobile edits, etc. Please block sock. Sro23 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)