Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/La goutte de pluie/Archive

15 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Following up from a discussion at AN/I. Off2riorob was involved in a dispute with the suspected sockmaster here back in May. The suspected sock appeared out of nowhere to attack Off2riorob by filing a frivolous wikiquette alert. The suspected sock stopped editing shortly thereafter. Further research indicates that the RfA for La goutte de pluie was submitted by  User:Karmafist, who later ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism. The RfA also appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. I suspect a connection between La goutte de pluie and Ougro, and also possible a connection with the other banned sockmasters. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC) - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I believe Burpelson's observations are very plausable. Toddst1 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it that someone (User:Izehar) who hasn't edited in almost 4 1/2 years, and had only 7000 edits in the 2+ years before that still has the sysop bit? Shouldn't admin deadwood like this be automatically cleaned up after some set period of non-participation? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
From what I can see, the two accounts (La goutte de pluie and Ougro) appear ❌. I have no information about the other accounts, as they are and I was not involved in SPI then (so I have no recollections which to draw upon). I would note, for what its worth, Izehar appears to have the sysop bit. TN X Man 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't have been here in the first place. The notice at the top of SPI states clearly that "if it involves sock puppetry by an administrator, seek advice by email from a Checkuser or the Arbitration Committee first". In any event, no action taken, per CU results. T. Canens (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (non-clerk response) Off2riorob said he was directed to go to SPI with it back in May but he let it go. When concerns resurfaced, I just took the step in filing the SPI. I'm asuming that if he was told to take it to SPI then that's what he was supposed to do (and what I eventually did). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Archiving case as per the result of the checkuser. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  05:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

08 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same style of tenacious bad faith editing as indefinitely blocked User:La goutte de pluie. These IPs edited articles which were previously edited by the user referred to:,. Same style of POV pushing/UNDUE, ,. This is a little late but worth investigating. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  18:39, 8 February 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'm sorry, but checkuser does not generally disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TN X Man 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Updating status per discussion elsewhere. TN X Man  19:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)



-- Avi (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Accounts are already blocked, but the IPs are a few weeks stale, so I'm going to let them go. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (Before this gets archived) Doesn't DeRanged Resources qualify as a WP:CLEANSTART account? It has had minimal overlap with La goutte de pluie's contribs, and has not made controversial edits on the scale of LGDP. Furthermore, it's not as though LGDP has attempted to deceive anyone by editing the articles she used to edit under a different name. Her new efforts seem scholarly in nature (though not necessarily encyclopedic); with no intent to wade into the political controversies which got her into trouble previously. — Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 09:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong, but WP:CLEANSTART states that A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account. That is not to say that indefblocked users cannot come back under such provisions, but it is generally seen as block evasion.  I believe the advice we've given in the past is work for X months on another wiki and then request unblock. Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A blocked user who creates a new account so they can go on editing is a SOCK, not a cleanstart. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

21 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar editing style, expanding controversy and criticism sections on Singapore politics related articles –,. One of the user's socks was recently blocked, and they were suspected of using a couple of other IPs for evading a ban. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  05:05, 21 February 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
Qkhuang1 is ❌ to the accounts Avi found last time. TN X Man 14:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Behavoir not really matching, especially with School and university projects/NTU HG252 Language, Technology and the Internet/2012. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)