Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kliff93/Archive

24 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User appears to be using the same type of edit summaries as the other user, as well as removing the same information.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergei_Ivanovich_Vasiliev&diff=602686445&oldid=602686251
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergei_Ivanovich_Vasiliev&diff=next&oldid=602686445

Quadrat1414:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergei_Ivanovich_Vasiliev&diff=605619330&oldid=605613625

Gdv777 was a confirmed sockpuppeter, but has now been unblocked (and I won't advocate for wheel warring.) due to some reason an admin saw appropriate. This page in general has been attracting a lot of sockpuppets, and I will request page protection for it. Thanks. Edit: Also see the old sockpuppet investigation; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gdv777/Archive Edit2: Just been informed that I claimed Gdv777 as the sockpuppeter, yet Quadrat1414 as well. If this could be moved to Gdv777's, that would be preferred. (Sorry I didn't notice it until now) Tutelary (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Caught wind of this from ANI, but if this is a claim that Gdv777 is the one controlling Quadrat1414, you should have opened a new case on Gdv777 instead.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just saw that after I did this. I don't tend to keep details of socks so that must be my mistake. Anyway to move this from here to there? Tutelary (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The evidence seems quite solid that this is the same person, the only reason i'm not blocking now is because of the previous CU result at Gdv777. I would like to have another CU comment about the connection, and I still might block after anyway. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quadrat1414 is a ✅ match to . It is that Gdv777 and the Bugor1401 sock group are related (they both edit from the same geographical area but that's about it). But I would caution a technical link between the two as both groups are editing from a major city. Elockid   ( Talk ) 18:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any behavioral evidence above that Gdv777 is connected in any way to these other sockpuppets. The behavioral evidence is showing a connection between Bugor1401 and Quadrat1414, which was confirmed by CU results. I will also point out that Bugor1401 was previously blocked by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry as a CheckUser block, and Kliff93 was identified as the sockmaster. Kliff93 is indeed older than either Bugor1401 (by a day) and Quadrat1414 (by almost a month). So I'm going to block Quadrat1414 as another (CU-confirmed) sockpuppet of Kliff93, and I've modified this SPI to be under the Kliff93 username. I'm asking a clerk to archive this case under Kliff93, and marking it for closure. --  At am a  頭 18:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

17 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Like Kliff93 and the other sock, is focus seems to be solely on removing information on Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev. Contribs are few enough and all apply. Don't think a CU is needed, but I will let a clerk make that call. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  19:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as linking behavior, both want to delete Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev, strongly, this sock has never edited before, his first edit WAS to nominate for AFD, which alone is very unusual. Perhaps the socks along with Gdv777 are getting into meat territory, but the last AFD was just a few days after the previous closed, so there is a determination to get it deleted at any cost, it seems. Could it be coincidence?  I suppose, but his first edit being to delete the article makes me question that.  I gave a procedural vote in this last AFD, for the record.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:34, 21 June 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 don't think there is enough to block without a CU. The behavioral evidence isn't strong. The user admits to having edited before as an IP with the same first two addresses, and there was indeed an IP like that who edited in previous nominations. Their English is much better than the confirmed socks. Still, I don't want to decline the report because behavioral evidence isn't the end-all of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 213.87.xxx.xx is in the same city as the socks in the archive, but their technical details are different. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This one is on a webhost, but it locates in the same country as previous socks, which is very rare for this country. Take from that what you wish, but I can't confirm this one. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No action. Close.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ to the socks in the archive. Did a small bit of extra digging after I hit submit. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed and tagged VolgaCamper. Dennis, do you want to do some more "digging"? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * DQ is pretty thorough, I trust his judgement on depth of search here. At least some good came of this exercise.  I strongly suspect some meatpuppetry going on in this and related articles, but it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in these cases. Thanks to all. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like we're done again. Nothing prevents meritorious blocks of accounts independent of a finding of sock puppetry. Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)