Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klbogart55/Archive

19 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (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
It's highly unusual (and not appreciated) for an SPI to be opened with zero evidence. Notwithstanding that obvious defect, with the exception of Bogger1, all of the accounts were blocked and tagged by. Looking at Bogger1 on my own, I was persuaded that they are probably a sock of the same master. They were already blocked for other reasons; I tagged the account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

04 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

, ACMEWikiNet (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2015 (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

 * Account blocked by C.Fred. Mike V • Talk 03:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

07 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

,, , , , , , ,    ACMEWikiNet (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2015 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will let the formatting slide for this time round, but please explain in words what is going on for future SPIs., , , and  are ✅ to belong to the same editor. They are highly  to belong to Klbogart55 too. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing.

14 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The name gives it away, not to mention that they keep editing the same information. Pinging and  as they have blocked this person's other accounts in the past.  Corky  |  Chat?  20:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This sock has only edited the Fox NASCAR article, which so did Klbogart55., and their other socks. Most of the edits are non-notable people or just unnecessary. Today's edits:       Corky  |  Chat?  21:00, 14 May 2015 (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

 * ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged. Mike V • Talk 20:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

21 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Appears to have basically made the same vandalism/unsourced edit(s) on List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings as another sock,, that I blocked earlier this week. Made another vandalism edit on Fox NFL Sunday, inserting ESPN personality Chris Berman on there. I want to make sure this may be the same person, and that he has moved away from similar "Klbogart" usernames. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ and blocked. Courcelles (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I came across this account while viewing the edit history of a particular article. It caught my attention because the user name also begins with "Klbogart", the name used in several of his other sockpuppets. Checking the user talk page, he has generated complaints of vandalism/unsourced edits, including related to sports articles (like Klbogart55 and the other socks). He was also blocked on 16-Dec for 48 hours for such vandalism.. Apologies for the lack of diffs from the main articlespace, but based on the user name, the complaints about vandalism/unsourced edits on the user talk page, and the block on 16-Dec, it appears to be a duck. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:36, 26 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

 * Sock indeffed and tagged. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

,, , , , , , , , , , ACMEWikiNet (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

What do the diffs mean, and how do they compare with Klbogart55's edits? We're not psychic. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The diffrences using the Gatorfan edits as an example of incorrect information. Using the evidence from KileBogart, this edit is an example. . ACMEWikiNet (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're still not making any sense. Here's how to present evidence in a sockpuppet investigation: you take a diff from the sockmaster and a diff from the sockpuppet that look incredibly similar and you pair them together.  For example, at Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali/Archive, I posted this and this to demonstrate how similar those two users edits were.  At Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive, I posted this and this.  Something broad like "I think the info both users posted is (wrong/unsourced)" is meaningless -- you have to show that the wrong or unsourced material is almost the same.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I don't disagree with your advice,, but Gatorsfan25 is ✅ to . Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bbb, we are doing this at the exact same time? Well now--and I agree on both counts. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

, and  ACMEDeputy (talk) 13:49, 8 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
Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I came across this account by accident while looking up the page histories of some particular articles. For this account, I seem to repeating what I reported about a similar sock back in December 2016. Exhibits the same behaviour of having a user name beginning with  or similar spelling. Based on its user contributions modifies mostly sports related articles without also adding relevant citations. And the user talk page has already generated four complaints of vandalism/unsourced edits:
 * Complaint 1 references
 * Complaint 2 references
 * Complaint 3 references, an unexplained blanking of content
 * Complaint 4 references

And some evidence of being reverted without being warned:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * reverted by
 * 

Obviously we cannot due a proper checkuser because it has been three year since the last case, and the tags on the user contributions indicate he is now using the mobile site. But my concern is that if this is the same person, and it appears to be a duck, he still does not appear to 'get it' about the verifiability policy. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2020 (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

 * Clear overlap in interest (football broadcasting, NASCAR), similar name, . GeneralNotability (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)