Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2Shadow/Archive

16 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Diffs to Royal Australian Navy by 24.172.16.91 : When reverted by Saberwyn with reasons (non-free image etc.) the following reversion was made by UnbiasedVictory :

Diffs to Battle of Lundy's Lane by 24.172.16.91 When reverted with reasons (WP:V) the following edits were made by UnbiasedVictory:

This user and IP have been tag-teaming a number of articles related to the War of 1812 and others such as United States Navy and Canadian Army. In all cases I have found, their edits involve the addition of POV or unnecessary details to the info. boxes or the addition of sometimes dubious images; I have not found any properly cited edits to the main body of any article. Because of the number of edits they have made, some articles are being "churned" rather than improved in any way. HLGallon (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2013 (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 does look like the IP and the account are being controlled by the same individual. I've left a note on the account's talk page explaining that editing while logged out can be inappropriate in certain situations. I'm closing with no further action for now, but feel free to re-open this SPI if it seems like he's continuing this pattern. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

17 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Diffs 604155390, 604356751, 604388610. User UnbiasedVictory recently added three naval encounters, two in the South Atlantic and one in the Indian Ocean, to the Template:Campaignbox War of 1812:American South. This an absurd assumption. The entries were removed (by myself) and related edits (placing the campaign box in the pages for the naval battles) were removed by another editor. User UnbiasedVictory then proceeded to edit war, using several anon. IP sockpuppets, registered to the same provider in Germantown MD, to repeatedly reinstate the questioned edits.

I have previously complained about User UnbiasedVictory's use of scokpuppets. A warning was placed on the user's talk page. The user responded by blanking the page. User UnbiasedVictory has never, to my knowledge, supplied edit summaries for any of their disruptive edits, nor ever provided citations. HLGallon (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This editor is simply not here by way of dishonest and gaming behaviors with no interest in working collaboratively by way of not talking to anyone "ever" about concerns raised. The step taken here to block this editor is the right course of action clearly. -- Moxy (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Before I start digging into and comparing edit histories, and all the usual SPI stuff, I just wanted to make a few notes right off the bat. First of all, it should be self-evident that editing while logged out is itself not prohibited. So establishing that the IPs and UnbiasedVictory are the same person isn't enough for sanction. It needs to be shown that the use of anonymous editors was problematic. It is alleged that they were used in an edit war, which can be used to game the system by making it appear that 3RR was not breached, or that an IP supports UnbiasedVictory (or vice-versa). I'll look into that.

The other thing I want to point out, just looking at UnbiasedVictory's user talk page briefly, is that there are also alleged copyright violations and insertions of original research. If these complaints are valid, the disruption may be beyond what SPI is set up to handle, and this might be better handled at a public noticeboard. That doesn't necessarily mean dismissal of this case without action, but it may mean that if UnbiasedVictory is given a temporary block it should be followed up by a report at a more public location (like CCI or ANI) to evaluate whether an indefinite ban or block is warranted. With all that said, I'll look into whether or not I feel that IPs were abused by this editor, and act accordingly. --  At am a  頭 17:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I geolocated these IP addresses. All three above geolocate to the same general area (eastern Kansas). The IP address previously alleged to be UnbiasedVictory (24.172.16.91) geolocates to North Carolina, but it was also determined that UV and the IP were different people so that doesn't clear these IPs. I will also note that another editor, Wild Wolf, was shown to use IPs that geolocate to Kansas, and was engaged in similar topic areas. I'll look for a behavioral connection between these IPs, Wild Wolf, and UnbiasedVictory. --  At am a  頭 17:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking further, the connection between Wild Wolf and the IPs seems coincidental; WW was pretty single-minded and these IPs don't fit the pattern. On the other hand, I see these IPs being used repeatedly to support UnbiasedVictory's edits at multiple places. With this behavior in addition to the repeated insertion of original research I've decided to block UV indefinitely. I have taken no action against the IPs, it's obvious that this editor has no problem bouncing from one to the other (I see at this article that the editor has used no less than ten different IP addresses, at least, to edit-war) so any persistent sockpuppetry from this individual is best countered with a semi-protection request. --  At am a  頭 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

19 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Template:Campaignbox War of 1812: American South After a month's break, I reverted the tendentious edits inserted by 2001:5B0:25FF:2EF0:0:0:0:3C, one of the sockpuppets of UnbiasedVictory I had complained of earlier. Within hours, UnbiasedVictory had reinstated the edits in this edit. Rarely for this user, an edit summary was provided, but since it provided proof of original research, it was little help. I reverted in this edit, with reasons. Within hours again, the anon. IP had reverted, with no edit summary.

The IP has recently edited only articles or templates on which UnbiasedVictory has a history of edit-warring or being reverted for original research. User UnbiasedVictory was blocked for sockpuppetry on 22 April. User:DangerousPanda allowed the user some rope. User UnbiasedVictory immediately restarted a campaign of edit-warring, tendentious edits, inserting original research and "churning" several articles with the effect of producing multiple edits which result in little or no substantive change. HLGallon (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' User:2001:5B0:25FF:2EF0:0:0:0:3B appears to be in the same range, though its edits are older. Also, this editor was previously blocked for sock puppetry - or at least, for advantageous editing while logged out, see this older version of his Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (I suppose a look at the archive would've revealed the same point, sigh.) JohnInDC (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * UnbiasedVictory blocked 2 weeks, 2001:5B0:25FF:0:0:0:0:0/48 blocked 1 week. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

18 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Attempting to add "DC Cinematic Universe", a made up term, back into articles:
 * By Light2Shadow:, and  to show a few (see more of their recent edit history for more).
 * By IP:, , to show a few. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 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've left a warning for the user. The edits haven't crossed 3RR, but the behavior isn't constructive. If it resumes a block can be issued. Mike V  •  Talk  18:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

14 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I recently noticed some unusually nationalistic edits by a user just after creating their account, and started looking into it more. After doing some investigating, I've connected the accounts to User:UnbiasedVictory, based on highly similar behavior on the exact same article topics that UnbiasedVictory edits, and pushing the same POV. And after reading all the comments on the archived SPI page, this case is actually worse than I thought. I think a WP:Conflict of interest investigation might also need to be opened.


 * User:Apache107 starts promoting the US in the infoboxes of multiple wars, and edits the exact same articles as UnbiasedVictory immediately after creating his account, also providing no edit summary for any edits, characterics of UnbiasedVictory.


 * User:Lake4455: essentially the same thing as Apache107, doing the same thing immediately after creating his account, only he will editwar in an WP:OWN kind of way. Also see this edit for the example of POV he pushes.


 * User:AbelM7: In the edit history of this article during 6 March, AbelM7 gets into an editwar with User:DylanLacey, during which AbelM7 started to push his same POV that User:Lake4455 is on the same article. And in a previous archived investigation, User:Atama states that UnbiasedVictory has used no less than 10 different IP addresses, at the least, to edit-war on the same article. Both AbelM7 and UnbiasedVictory were also created at almost exactly the same time, and recently stopped editing at about exactly the same time on October 22. AbelM7 has also been blocked 4x for editwarring, a characteristic shared with UnbiasedVictory going on the previous archived investigations. Both accounts also do not provide any edit summaries for the majority of their edits.

UnbiasedVictory was already blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry until DangerousPanda unblocked him for some WP:ROPE, and then User:King of Hearts blocked him again for 2 weeks. WainAX47 (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why was he user originally unblokced? A long history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods has not changed. -- Moxy (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I just added 2 more pointed out by User:Natty10000 on HLGallon's talk page. I then found more later on. The last 3 IPs edit the exact same pages, the exact same way, even minutes apart, and that includes some already listed in the archives. Like Atama said, this user has no problem bouncing from one IP the other. WainAX47 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Add 5 More


 * @Bbb23, compare the end of this early edit by UnbiasedVictory to these two edits by Cm7 smcs. The IP 99.233.25.49 and UnbiasedVictory also has a high edit count on a number unknown obsure articles such as Republic of Canada, Upper Canada Rebellion, Fenian Raids, and a smaller number on Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and other obsure, small battles. Cm7 smcs, the IP, and UnbiasedVictory also repeatedly come under multiple conflicts with User:HLGallon and User:Natty10000. WainAX47 (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look back at the archives, HLGallon states the user edit warring on the same articles such as Royal Australian Navy and Canadian Army. And User:Atama mentions "a possible connection to another sock". User:DangerousPanda also pointed out that his user name suggested a clear conflict of interest and User:Nick-D also warned the user but UnbiasedVictory deletes it from his page. WainAX47 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * UnbiasedVictory claimed "I have not used "IP sockpuppets", nor do I know what that is. This was later proven to be false, and UnbiasedVictory even admitted it. WainAX47 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: UnbiasedVictory also has another case, Sockpuppet_investigations/72.49.95.188 reported by User:SummerPhD, connected to User:Favre1fan93's report of Light2Shadow, and was blocked by MusikAnimal, HJ Mitchill, and User:Mike V. Cm7 smcs's sock is restarting to edit the same obscure battles as UnbiasedVictory, and UnbiasedVictory has also restarted his campaign of sock puppetry. WainAX47 (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi User:Bbb23, Regarding your comment below I think what needs to be born in mind is the similarity in modus operandi and the relatively specialised scope of the articles that have drawn a very similar style and type of disruption. Agreed that it isn't impossible that two different individuals could be behaving in a similar fashion but it begs the question of how likely it is. Certainly I think this bears continued mindfulness. Natty10000 | Natter 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Comment by SummerPhD: The case I opened involved and  not hearing that their particular POV on the apparently horrible Batman and Robin {film) needed reliable sources. Non-productive discussion at Talk:Batman_%26_Robin_(film) followed, with the editor using, 72.49.95.188 and . Two of those were involved in heavily build-up of WP:OR at Versions of Blade Runner, along with other IPs which may or may not be related (, , , et. al). The edits I had followed were all film related: Batman films, Alien films, Blade Runner, etc. I have not specifically looked at the pattern here and have nothing substantual to add. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

, what true socking issue? Notice that I never used my accounts to edit-war or vandalize. Bbb23 is right, it doesn't make any sense why I would beg to get my own accounts blocked. Kirothereaper (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

, it still doesn't make any sense. Why would I argue with myself, and then beg myself to get blocked? What's the purpose of that? Kirothereaper (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. I think there's enough evidence presented on Apache107 and Lake4455. There's very little evidence presented on AbelM7 and none on Cm7 smcs. The CU, if they accept the endorsement, can choose which accounts to check.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for the diffs of the master and Cm7 smcs. However, because they are different articles, taken at face value, they demonstrate that both accounts disruptively edited each article by deleting swaths of material. Unfortunately, there are many such editors at Wikipedia. It doesn't necessarily establish a connection between the two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The following groups are unrelated to each other by technical evidence only:
 * Apache107 is bordering  with UnbiasedVictory, and has a alternate account without edits.
 * Cm7 smcs is ✅ with and some weird logged out editing.
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is going to require some work, and I'm about to go to bed. Hopefully, I'll get to it tomorrow, but tomorrow is a workday, so I'll have limited time. Several of the confirmed accounts are older than the "master". The oldest is Light2Shadow, who already has a recent, albeit brief, case, Sockpuppet investigations/Light2Shadow, in which the only alleged puppet was an IP (thus, no CU). So, a merger will be needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - More information coming. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd been studying this for quite some time prior to DQ's placing he case on hold, having been alerted by the ping above. I've come across some of these accounts during other routine admin work, and I'd previously considered indef'ing AbelM7 per NOTHERE. Given that, and that several of the accounts seem to be used exclusively for edit-warring on articles related to American military history, I've blocked all the socks marked as confirmed in DQ's post of 03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC). I'm not sure what, if anything, to do with Cm7 smcs/Srexaw0102 and Apache107. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * to the confirmed group above, the filer, is  to  who is already in hot water back in April for sockpuppetry and currently has the undisclosed account  ✅ to Supersaiyen312. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see if I can follow this before I take action. Are you saying that WainAX47 is possible to the confirmed group above and possible to Supersaiyen312 (created on 2/27/13)? Supersaiyen312 was initially CU-blocked by in March 2013 and then unblocked in April 2014 (second chance). Supersaiyen is confirmed to Kirothereaper (created on 6/27/10). If I understand Supersaiyen's history properly, he was blocked as a confirmed sock of User:Sai317 (created on 1/26/13). Of that line of three accounts (confirmed), the master would be Kirothereaper. How does WainAX47 fit into all this? Surely, whatever motive he has for filing this report, it wouldn't be part of the Light2Shadow line. Why would he want to lock his own related accounts? Also, is the line of the three editors linked to the Light2Shadow line? Please clarify. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have it all right with the questions you asked. Part of the reason we potentially thought Wain could be connected was to draw attention away from the true socking issue...but then again, I'm not sure that's even a valid theory, and I'm not sure I have one. They do geolocate rather closely, so that is my concern right now. For clarification, all these groups are possible to each other: The set of confirmed accounts, WainAX47 on it's own, Kirothereaper/Supersaiyen312. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as well, I'm afraid, and if Bbb and I are confused, somebody reviewing any admin actions made as a result (or filing a new case for any future socks) would have no hope. So, if I follow you, DQ:
 * AbelM7, ColdCee, GTH25, Lake4455, RikBak, Tunnel12, and UbiasedVicotry all belong to Light2Shadow (the behavioural evidence appears to bear that out).
 * Correct, except UnbiasedVicotry. UnbiasedVicotry exists half way across a large country, and is ❌ to the group. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've unblocked UnbiasedVictory. The rest are all blocked. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Srexaw0102 is the same person as Cm7 smcs and is responsible for "some weird logged out editing".
 * Yes, and to expand, it includes some removal of information in an article that was added by the user. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Srexaw0102 has only made five edits spread across two articles (one deleted under G7) and none of which give cause for more than a raised eyebrow. Cm7 smcs has made a couple of strange edits, but there could be a legitimate explanation. I'm inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt, but I wouldn't lose sleep if anybody else felt strongly enough to block. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apache107 and his unused alt account are is possibly, but unlikely, related to the Light2Shadow sockfarm (could you elaborate on the sort of technical information that led you to that conclusion, since it's not a straight ❌?).
 * Unused alt account??? Not sure what your talking about. Apache107 and UnbiasedVicotry live 1 hour and a bit apart, use the same OS, but different web browsers. That's what lead me to the border of . -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad on the alt account. Thanks for the elaboration. They seem to have similar interests, so putting everything together, it's quite possible that there is some sort of connection, but Apache107 doesn't appear to be being used abusively (their edits appear to be good faith and are about what I'd expect from a new editor), so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The filer, WainAX47, might be Supersaiyen312 (who appears to be a reincarnation of a blocked editor from last year with only a handful of edits), who in turn owns Kirothereaper.
 * Correct. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I've indef'd Kirothereaper and blocked Supersaiyen312 for a month for the betrayal of trust. Unless you're more confident in the connection to WainAX47 and/or Light2Shadow, I don't think there's enough evidence to merit further action. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As well as the two accounts above, WainAX47 might be related to the Light2Shadow sockfarm.
 * Correct. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever WainAX47 is, he's not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia and he's not who he says he is. Indef'd. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that about the sum of it? If so, would you be willing to elaborate any further to assist admins in making a decision? I'm well aware that there's a limit to what you can disclose, but 'X could possibly be Y' is in some ways worse than no information. For example, are we talking similar IP range/geographical area/useragent or something else entirely? Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't going to be a perfect resolution. That's not unusual in complex SPIs. After DQ's latest comment, I had a plan as to how to blog and tag, but I still wanted to do the merger and again came up against a problem (at least I think it is). Hence, I posted to DQ's talk page with follow-up questions on the merger. Poor DQ. Anyway, I intended to put this whole thing under Light2Shadow's SPI, regardless of the tenuous connection of some of the accounts. The explanations here will "cure" that problem. I then intended to block all unblocked accounts, but I would only tag those accounts that are confirmed to Light2Shadow. The rest would link to the Light2Shadow case in the block log but would have no tags. Unless someone else has a better idea, that's the way I'm going.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Inline comments added to HJ. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , first, the reference to getting one's own accounts blocked was only because of the possible connection between the accounts. Second, your account is confirmed to Supersaiyen. You don't deny that. Third, as DQ's link shows, you were given a second chance by Elockid, and at that point you blew it. Indeed, as you admit, you intentionally did not disclose the account at the time because you were "desperate to be unblocked." With this history, if you think I am going to go through all of your edits to determine whether you have been "abusive", you're wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the paperwork, Bbb. I've noted the actions I've taken inline with DQ's replies for the sake of simplicity. We're not going to get a pretty pink bow, but the loose ends seem as tied together as we're going to get them.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Light2Shadow and all confirmed socks tagged. I blocked (no tags) Cm7 smcs and Srexaw0102. Some accounts were blocked by HJ (not always indeffed) before I merged the SPIs (edit conflict with HJ's comment above). No action on Apache107. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

04 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Cm7_smcs and  99.233.25.49 have edited the same pages for the same reason.
 * e,g Revision as of 05:27, February 23, 2015 by 99.233.25.49 same edit Revision as of 18:33, October 29, 2014 Cm7 smcs
 * e.g 2 Revision as of 22:40, February 15, 2015 99.233.25.49 same edit Revision as of 23:06, October 21, 2014 Cm7 smcs
 * This pattern goes on and on..it passes the duck test with flying colours.  When looking at Sockpuppet investigations/Light2Shadow/Archive it looks like the IP in question (User:99.233.25.49) was over looked in the blocks ...it is mentioned but never action taken on this account. -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 18:08, 4 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
I previously blocked it for a week, but it looks static so blocked for six months. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)