Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lauriejackpot1/Archive

05 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Bunch of throwaway WP:REFSPAM accounts with very similar, often misleading edit summaries:. Please look at a rangeblock, I've got a feeling there are more of these. MER-C 09:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added Johnathanboy89, same domain as HybridGirl: . MER-C 11:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Alextownhall (talk • contribs) is probably another one (see ).&mdash;J. M. (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep (the domain spammed is listed below); I found another nine new socks. MER-C 07:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - flush out sleepers, possible rangeblock, possible global block if crosswiki stuff found. Rschen7754 11:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * MER-C, your hunch is correct. It'll take a few minutes to compile the list... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two ranges have also been blocked.
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although these accounts are technical matches to one another, and a spot check of their contributions found nothing but linkspam, a clerk or patrolling admin will need to verify that there are no false positives. There are probably a number of reverts to be done as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good lord...that's a LOT of spam socks. I'm currently going through and checking these accounts to see if any aren't blatant linkspam. I'll put a check by the last one I've done, so effort won't be duplicated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm currently building a list of links to add to the spam blacklist:

\bafreechat\.com\b \ballaboutsavings\.co\.uk\b \batwellandco\.com\.au\b \bbail\.com\b \bbestmanspeechessentials\.com\b \bbringthepress\.com\b \bbuytwitterfollower\.info\b \bcaliforniaduiguide\.com\b \bcomo-adelgazar-rapido\.net\b \bframeusa\.com\b \bitsupportforcharities\.co\.uk\b \bjfleece\.net\b \bkitchensolutionskent\.co\.uk\b \blovequoteslibrary\.com\b \bmumford-and-sons-tour\.com\b \bnutritional-supplement-truths\.com\b \bphotomeedibleart\.co\.uk\b \bpuregarciniacambogiainfo\.com\b \bsatchel\.co\b \bstatnames\.com\b \btetrabyte\.com\b \bthelegalstop\.co\.uk\b \btipsforteethwhitening\.com\b \btop10homeremedies\.com\b \btraveloka\.com\b \bvalueconcrete\.com\b \bwatch-movies--online\.org\b \bwildmushroompizza\.info\b \bwondershare\.com\b \bbizvideoprofiles\.com\b \blimes-inferior\.pl\b \bmycarmats\.co\.uk\b \bcaliforniadrivereducation\.us\b \bessenza-nobile\.de\b \bukfamilyholidayparks\.com\b \bmybootmat\.co\.uk\b \bmirahairoilfacts\.com\b \bcasinouk\.com\b \bpandanger\.com\b \bhomefloorcleaner\.com\b \bpromazon\.com\b \bweddingingreece\.com\b \btopcasino\.it\b \bforsaleforlease\.com\.au\b \bvehiclebuyingandleasing\.co\.uk\b \bphysiciandesigns\.com\b \binternationallovescout\.com\b \bquickwaytogetabs\.com\b \bwebhostingreviews\.com\.au\b \bcancerfactsmd\.com\b \bguestbloggingempire\.com\b \bstainlesscablerailing\.com\b \bfuelonline\.co\b \blifequotescollection\.com\b \bbestcreditreports\.com\b \bshopaduck\.co\.uk\b \bpuregreencoffeeinfo\.com\b \bpacificplayinc\.com\b \bmobiles2money\.co\.uk\b \bdieharddevil\.com\b \bproduct-investigation\.com\b \bgalavantier\.com\b \bbest-auto-detail\.com\b \bchillifundamentals\.co\.uk\b \barizonadetoxcenters\.org\b \basoberwayhome\.org\b \behardhat\.com\b \brealhealthy\.net\b \bdogarthritisaspirin\.com\b \bagentmate\.com\.au\b \bwebfullcircle\.com\b \bsmokingobsession\.com\b \bcheapnps\.com\b \bbacklinkempire\.com\b \bledstop\.co\.uk\b \bcarinsurance\.org\.uk\b \babloodpressure\.com\b \bmommyedition\.com\b \bseojob\.net\b \bbanffhotelsltd\.com\b \bcontenderbicycles\.com\b \bhearinglosspill\.com\b
 * If you find any more, please add them here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately doing a spotcheck, I saw some edits on simple.wikipedia and a whole bunch of zero-edit accounts on other wikis, so we may have to get a lock too. --Rschen7754 18:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All spam on simple.wikipedia reverted (which was the only other wiki with edits). --Rschen7754 18:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I sent a message with the details for simple (and other) CUs to check. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have checked from the bottom of the list to tailwillson. All of them spammed, it seems like all of them are covered by the above regexes. If I have more time I'll go through more of them. NativeForeigner Talk 23:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added one that hit one of my watchlisted pages. DMacks (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done up to and including T so far on en.wp. MER-C 02:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While poking around, I found an intersection between these sockpuppets and Sockpuppet investigations/ExtraBart: . Edit summaries seem similar: . MER-C 03:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More ExtraBart overlap: . MER-C 04:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All done, with zero false positives. The good news is I found no spam on other wikis apart from en.wp and simple.wp. The bad news is that the ExtraBart sock farm probably needs to be checked again, due to the two common domains. MER-C 05:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the ExtraBart sockfarm was using ISPs in a different country, the other technical details match, so along with the behavioral evidence, it is definitely that they are related. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)







Here we go again! ,,. MER-C 07:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * - on all listed accounts as of this time. Rschen7754 09:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added Facultydude55, Scissorbreaker, Personalcheck. MER-C 08:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note, I have blacklisted all the domains on meta (since it is spammed both on en and on simple, hence cross-wiki). Please inform admins on meta if there any more domains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added Suckingdevice, Wingersfever (fiammaworld.co.uk); Amazingsammy3 (non-blacklistable). MER-C 03:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Several more webhost ranges blocked along with the following:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

One last sock:



. Nothing for the last two days, as far as I can tell... MER-C 03:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Account and webhost blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * New domains blacklisted. I think we're done here, though I have a feeling we'll see these spammers again. Thanks to those involved in the cleanup. MER-C 02:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously not tagging all the socks. Closing as nothing else to report to simple CUs. Rschen7754 04:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)