Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique/Archive

25 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Per CU results below ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * That 's contributions show he/she created the user pages of the following new users suggests, per WP:DUCK, that they are also socks:


 * 1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daisydimarzo&action=history
 * 2)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dongjun1002&action=history
 * 3)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Groszek970&action=history
 * 4)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jasonwun&action=history
 * 5)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jgrendon911&action=history
 * 6)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JJjoinut99&action=history
 * 7)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omanpage&action=history
 * 8)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vw209&action=history
 * 9)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yourstrulyme&action=history
 * JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ditto for new user pages created by :
 * 1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:H.G.Muller&action=history
 * 2)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swingman6&action=history
 * 3)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phx611&action=history
 * 4)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randhir3792&action=history
 * 5)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65fun54&action=history
 * 6)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yokzigzag&action=history
 * 7)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hyunseung0002&action=history
 * JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I suspect that these welcome messages were just these accounts trying to fly under the radar and gaining autoconfirmed without being too obvious about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * See these recent edits to this report from  impersonating  JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Per http://ping.eu/proxy/ is a proxy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Open Proxy block requested: of  JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ and blocked:
 * They have also edited from these open and suspected open proxies:
 * Multiple IPs and 183.219.0.0/16 have been blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , but due to the use of open proxies, I am unable to determine if these are linked to any older accounts. If any connection is to be made, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, is  the same as the above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another one: . RGloucester  — ☎ 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty certain about this one too: . RGloucester  — ☎ 16:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I might also request that Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine is semi-protected, as these sockpuppets are making an RM there difficult. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take your request to WP:RFPP and mention this SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple IPs and 183.219.0.0/16 have been blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , but due to the use of open proxies, I am unable to determine if these are linked to any older accounts. If any connection is to be made, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, is  the same as the above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another one: . RGloucester  — ☎ 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty certain about this one too: . RGloucester  — ☎ 16:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I might also request that Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine is semi-protected, as these sockpuppets are making an RM there difficult. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take your request to WP:RFPP and mention this SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple IPs and 183.219.0.0/16 have been blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , but due to the use of open proxies, I am unable to determine if these are linked to any older accounts. If any connection is to be made, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, is  the same as the above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another one: . RGloucester  — ☎ 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty certain about this one too: . RGloucester  — ☎ 16:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I might also request that Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine is semi-protected, as these sockpuppets are making an RM there difficult. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take your request to WP:RFPP and mention this SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take your request to WP:RFPP and mention this SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ some more:
 * Web hosting range blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also and . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything already blocked and tagged. Talk page has been semi'd. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Web hosting range blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also and . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything already blocked and tagged. Talk page has been semi'd. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Web hosting range blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also and . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything already blocked and tagged. Talk page has been semi'd. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

04 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Follows the usual SOP. User page displaying their innocence along with creation of talk page. Files a remarkably retaliatory SPI. Whitespace edit. The icing on the cake is this little gem. Quack quack.  Ish dar  ian  07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry that I'm being accused of bad faith this early on. Per this, I hope this SP case will be over quickly and that the admins will see that there has been no wrongdoing on my part. If I can be of any more assistance in helping to conclude this investigation, please ask me. Thank you. BenjaminHenkel1980 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

05 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same edits to Template:Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants as previous socks. SPFan is more telling with the whitespace edits. I'm requesting a CU sweep to see if it's possible to dig up any other socks seeing as how L'Aquotique likes sowing the sockfarm.  Ish dar  ian  09:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Also OcultZone.  Ish dar  ian  09:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Not sure if this important, but I'd like to note that User:L'Aquotique made a brief message on his/her talk page yesterday. It said that he is blocked user BjeliRabac. Has anyone investigated this potential link? RGloucester  — ☎ 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That claim is not is not supported by the technical details. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is one other claim, if one is not aware of it, made at ANI: WP:ANI. Someone mentioned User:Don't Feed the Zords. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, but the technical evidence doesn't support that, either. Then again, was working SPI long before I came along. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

10 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppet




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


 * Same script of account creation as usual, these accounts are also editing in the same area as a long discussion held between many prior L'Aquotique sockpuppets. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I've added AndroidChuck31 to the list. I got suspicious since they followed their typical pattern of whitespace and welcome, but phttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=616500263 this edit] seals the deal for me.  Ish dar  ian  09:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that the discussion RGloucester linked to was only concerning the infobox, not the rest of the article. He specifically states here that he would not have a problem with restoring this information in the article's body, so I find his remarks above rather ironic. All I did was restore information that seemed relevant. It doesn't seem like Russian propaganda to me since it explicitly states that the claims were denied by the US; thus the info does represent both sides of the story. You may proceed with the investigation, but I have nothing to hide from the Wikipedia community and am not a sock. Hopefully this can get settled soon. AndroidChuck31 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Several open proxies and ranges blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now all tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Several open proxies and ranges blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now all tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Several open proxies and ranges blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now all tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now all tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

12 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Account that is impersonating me, and trying to make a bit of a mess. Once again, about the same matter about the CIA and FBI in Ukraine. I'd like it if his/her comments were removed (or, at least marked), as they appear to be an attempt to damage my reputation. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added an IP in. Seems to be following the exact same patterns. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologise for what I assume is an unorthodox request, but doesn't seem to understand that I'm not the person who made the very offensive comments on his talk page. Could you please explain that to him, perhaps?  RGloucester  — ☎ 03:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is out-of-control now. We've got trolling Hilltrot, an impersonation of . Please give this a check, on the quick, if possible. It is sad to see this degenerate sockpuppetry.  RGloucester  — ☎ 04:10, 13 July 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

 * ✅ and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked . Tiptoety  talk 04:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

13 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Same exact script, once again, trying to add the same information, once again. I've also requested semi-protection for the page that these socks keep editing. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:37, 13 July 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

 * is ✅ along with, , and .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and blocked and tagged the accounts. Closing.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

30 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

More Survivor nonsense. First edit matches previous M.O. Quackity quack.  Ish dar  ian  08:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)  Ish  dar  ian  08:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

God dammit. I'm being accused of wrongdoing for removing a non-free logo that doesn't even belong in the article. I explained everything in the edit summary. Why does everyone keep restoring it? Revolutie van vandaag (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked as well as a few other accounts. Elockid  ( Talk ) 13:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

10 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I'm pretty sure there's a different, higher, sock master here, as well as a few more sock puppets, which I might add if I have time to look around. Anyway, Constance Lahaye (nice name) and Airplanegirl394 are obviously the same user. Constance started the AfD for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (here). Airplanegirl394 voted in support. Note that Airplanegirl was created on August 5th, shortly after the AfD nomination was made. The Constance account itself was created on August 3rd. One account is nominating pages for deletion right after creation, the other account supports this deletion request, right after it was created. Not new users. Strike that, not a new user.

Constance has edited articles on Saudi Arabia (for example here), Airplanegirl has edited articles on Saudi Arabia, like here. Note that Constance has about 45 edits, Airplane girl has about 18 edits (as I type this). So it's a strange coincidence.

More strange coincidences. Constance has edited the article on the Nordic model, here. Airplanegirl has edited the article on the Nordic model, here. Again, it's not like this is a highly edited article and both accounts have very few edits.

Both accounts tend to mess around a lot with external links.

Like I said, both these accounts are sock puppets of some other sock master though at the moment without further investigation I won't say for sure who. Note that the article under question, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, has seen at least four recent Merge proposals,, , , , as well as at least two Rename proposals which sought to achieve the same thing, ,. Constance's AfD is another attempt just in a different venue, i.e. WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Note that at least some of the Merge !votes were characterized by users attempting to push through their preferred option by double voting with sock puppets:. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Another possible sock is User:Electricitydrive. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' For the record, I support the merge proposal for the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine page, but Volunteer Marek's sleuthing raises some pretty serious questions about whether the editor who created the proposal is on the level. We have seen a lot of sockpuppetry and tendentious editing behavior on articles related to Russia, and I think a high degree of scrutiny is appropriate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quickly looking, I believe there could be more accounts involved. There are many "through-away" "sleeper" SPA who recently resumed activity and edit in this area. Each of them is a possible meatpuppet or sockpuppet account. Creating an AfD discussion by an undisclosed alternative account qualifies as a voting fraud. This is serious. I think a checkuser should look at this.My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that the "master", if there is one, might be User:L'Aquotique, with whom I've previously had run-ins. I'm not saying this in a definitive manner, mind you, but I do note the similarity in the types of usernames selected, and also the creation of user pages in the same manner. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would fit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek With all due respect - im not a puppet nor am i a sock. I didn't use this account much but i did edit some articles before registering on wikipedia anonymously. I'm also using similar account names on skyrim wiki, uesp wiki, numerous gamepedia sites like minecraft wiki or divinity wiki. I did vote on that article deletion because i've just noticed it today. This isn't a reason to try and ban me for political and personal reasons. --Electricitydrive (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, my apologies. I was not trying to ban you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User:1-Constance Lahaye is not registered. Typo, perhaps? Ansh666 19:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another case of frantic accusation of Volunteer Marek towards eliminating an alternative POV and squashing other users by titling them as sock puppets or sleepers: User:Lifeontech_reported_by_User:Volunteer_Marek_.28Result:_Decline Generally, a simple but effective approach of such opressors like Volunteer Marek perhaps played in team with others is to cause novice users to revert the revertion of edits proposed by other users nontheless unedited page versions before edits bear violation of WP:POV Lifeontech (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Okay, we have proxies making a mess of this, so CU is about as useful as looking through frosted glass. Lets see what I can determine.

First, I can match these four accounts.



Two of those have no edits, Zwoc has edits that seem related, though.


 * is also possible to be related, though not as clear-cut as the above four.


 * Technical evidence is hardly conclusive, but User:L'Aquotique is not a bad guess from the CU screen.


 * Also, User:Electricitydrive is ❌ to any of the above. Courcelles 16:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

VM made a good behavioral case that Contance and Airplanegirl are the same. So, then, following up on Courcelles's educated guess, I did a comparison of L'Aquotique's and Constance's edits: (1) similarity in interests; (2) welcomes other users; (3) ends a talk page comment with a question (trying to appear well-meaning and reasonable; (4) well-written comments, good prose; and (5) using italic emphasis. Constance didn't have many edits, and I looked at most of them. L'Aquotique had quite a few, and I got tired reviewing them. (It's also clear that Constance is hardly a new editor (e.g., knowing to ping users).) Based on all of this I've merged this report into l'Aquotique's as the master (VM rightly suspected there was an earlier master). I've indeffed and tagged all of the accounts (except Electricitydrive). This not, of course, science, but I'm comfortable with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, typo. The  template calls for 1=username, I put 1-username.  Oops! Courcelles 19:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

28 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Obvious sockpuppet, exactly matches prior behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 28 August 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
Blocked indefinitely, since 's confirmed it is not theirs, it is overly similar and can be viewed as impersonation. Superm401 - Talk 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. by someone else. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)