Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light current/Archive

Report date August 8 2009, 19:44 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Blatant Ref desk trolling and restoration of trolling by sockpuppets. Matches Lc's previous MO (see numerous previous cases) - IP resolves to the same ISP as previously used by Lc. Requesting checkuser to find sleepers. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kurt Shaped Box (talk)

See also Wikipedia talk:Reference desk for further details. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

}}   Requested by Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Per LC's history, sleepers seem quite likely. Let's see what we get. NW ( Talk ) 21:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

✅ all of the following: Still poking around for a bit, will report anything of interest. – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One note, if blocking IPs from 79.75.0.0/16 for issues relating to this SPI, please do not block anon-only. – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the cluster at related? --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that'd be a new one, for me, but looking at that IP there is something fishy going on. The following are ✅ for each other, but admins will have to use behavioral cues to determine if they're related to the LC sockfarm.
 * IP block is possible for this bunch, if it looks to be needed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP block is possible for this bunch, if it looks to be needed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP block is possible for this bunch, if it looks to be needed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP block is possible for this bunch, if it looks to be needed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP block is possible for this bunch, if it looks to be needed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP block is possible for this bunch, if it looks to be needed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP block is possible for this bunch, if it looks to be needed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * The first 13 blocked and tagged. Please hold off on closing for another...24 hours while we wait for Luna to get back to us. NW ( Talk ) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on behaviour, I would say the two sockfarms are related to each other. Blocked and tagged the new set. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Archiving. NW ( Talk ) 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 15 2009, 23:47 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Account's first contribution is complaining about the blocking of other sockpuppets.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my original comment you will see that I acknowledge that this account is linked to the other I discuss. Sweet Kettle Music (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * But, not that I guess it matters, it is not a sock of Light Current. Sweet Kettle Music (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Looking back at the latest SPI, the named accounts linked to User:Bury me in a Y shaped coffin do not appear to me (based upon my far-from-comprehensive knowledge of LC's full M.O.) to be obvious LC sockpuppets. I'm curious as to why the person behind these felt the need to edit the RefDesk (mainly) using multiple accounts - however, I don't see any particular evidence of abusive editing or attempts to avoid scrutiny for controversial actions here. User:PeterSymonds called it and blocked on behavioral evidence - so there may indeed be a pattern here that I'm not aware of. It's probably best to wait on his response before we do anything else here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree that SKM is not me! I am me. Accept no substitute! 8-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.56.109 (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All accounts blocked and tagged. — Jake   Wartenberg
 * Conclusions

Report date August 16 2009, 23:35 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

New user shows up to screw with this sockpuppet case.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

CU is required as another IP recently popped up, and, since this user is continuously evading blocks, we need to see if a rangeblock is possible.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * to check for the rangeblock. NW ( Talk ) 00:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

is
 * Conclusions

✅ =

All users blocked indefinitely; for two weeks. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Abecedare
First two edits suggest a sock-account + he is essentially trolling the ref. desks with pseudo-physics questions and question like this one. This looks like classic Light current behavior. request CU for confirmation, and to locate other sleeper acounts. Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Given that the first two edits from this account were to bluelink his user and talk pages, and further given that his posts (solely to the Reference Desk) border on trolling, and given that he seems to have no trouble with markup, it seems obvious that this is a reincarnation or alternate account of someone. I do have doubts that it's Light current as there are certain signature traits missing &mdash; but it's definitely someone playing silly buggers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * ❌. Brandon (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by hydnjo (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC) The listed user has been blocked already. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * - Account has been blocked, no checkuser necessary. Icestorm815  •  Talk  22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by 1234r00t
Following post at WP:AIV.  Mr. R00t   Talk  18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Roux
Also reported as vandalism/UAA. Almost certainly Light current, CU needed to fish out sleepers. → ROUX  ₪  18:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Comment - We're not the same user. Also, it's just a proxy, block away my friend 77.102.151.95 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Juicy is a euphemism for one of LC's fixations, and Weekly is a variation on similar ID's used by LC. More to the point is that they were created months ago and lay dormant until today. Might be time to bring out the Electrolux. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
on technical evidence (doesn't mean said block was not warranted, and this is only from technical evidence):

as each other; will not go into detail per WP:BEANS - very recent developments:

✅:

Underlying IP range behind most said confirmed accounts blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked and I see no reason to tag them all. I'll mark for close. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  12:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

More ✅ socks:



–MuZemike 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

11 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Sock of banned user Light Current. Self admitted, as well as shown by the continous disruptive behaviour Saddhiyama (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2011 (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

 * ANI request for unblock


 * IP is ✅ - surprise! Also, is  -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The following accounts are also ✅ Light current socks;




 * ... and various other IPs, editing the reference desks.


 * These accounts are on behaviour - both being the same editor, BTW, but both editing behind a proxy IP;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 06:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone's blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

18 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The most recent edit] by this trolling-only account was done to restore a post that's very recognizably Light current. Red Act (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2011 (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

 * ✅ - yep. No other accounts that I can see (yet). There's the possibility of a hard rangeblock with just one or two IPBEs here if things get really bad - A l is o n  ❤ 06:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

21 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Typical Light current trolling, coming from his known IP range. The IP will change soon, so it's not worth blocking, but BusterGonad should be indef blocked. Red Act (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2011 (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
✅ the following are the same (and I went ahead and blocked them):
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

30 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Typical LC behavior (troll questions at Reference desks). LC usually edits from IP addresses but is known to create accounts from time-to-time as well. Known IP address ranges WHOIS to either Tiscali UK Ltd or Opal Telecom DSL out of northern England (Milton Keynes or Manchester, sometimes Isle of Mann). Need checkuser to see if this is possibly him; behavior makes it likely that it is. Jayron  32  18:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This may have been moot. Since I have filed this request, this IP showed up:, confirming that LC ran the above account.  A clerk can feel free to close this one down, I don't think we need a CU anymore.  Looks like he checkusered himself. -- Jayron  32  19:17, 30 September 2011 (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
Right on. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

12 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I'm not up on my current refdesk troll list, but it is transparently obvious that these two users, who are obviously not new, are, in fact, after a 3 month hiatus (after being noted as the recurrent refdesk troll), Bred Ivy shows up to defend themselves. Hipocrite (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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

It's certainly worth a look. I've often been hassled for using the term "Drive By" to describe trolling behavior. "Bred Ivy", whose activities have totally consisted of trolling, is an anagram of "Drive By", and he also seems to be very aware of when anything happens with "DriveByWire" (who is currently indef'd). "Wire" as a hint for "Current" is pretty obvious. Of course, it could all be an unhappy coincidence or copycatting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have strong suspicions that these accounts belong to. I can present some evidence later tonight. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't manage to put anything together that night. See below. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

of Norway claims on Elen's page that he is DriveByWire. I think there was something said on ANI speculating that it might be a troublesome Norwegian account. So we might indeed have the wrong sockmaster. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact it was Elen who said it: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

After CU Comment. This is a policy allowed alternate account. My main account can be tied back to my RL identity, and has no overlap areas. So yes, I know my way around WP and No, this is not a sockpuppet account disallowed by policy.
 * The fools above, have no clue.
 * Hipocrite cannot string together a comprehensible sentence(see above).
 * Bugs account is a massive net-negative to WP (for example: look at any of his main space attempts to add a ref. to an article).
 * Steve Summit is full of himself.

There was no good faith reason to tie me to DBW. Hell, anyone worth their salt knows that DBW (who is in fact a sock) has no relation to LC. The actual Sockmaster is obvious, and Elen alluded to it(C3). As I commented on the Admin/Clerks talk page, nothing in Policy justified an endorsement. Timotheus, instead of following policy, decides it's more fun to go on the bug hunt (Tim, after nap time is over, see Dennis for a little advice on how to follow the policy on Clerking SPI ). No wonder good editors are leaving the encyclopedia. Shit like the circus act above are the busywork of assholes that are either unable to, or unwilling to, use their time to add worthwhile content to the encyclopedia. Bred Ivy (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to explain how an edit like this one elevates wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Get a mirror, Bugs. I don't know who these accounts are, but you really shouldn't be surprised to be called a net-negative. You are a negative. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bred Ivy" should be blocked indefinitely as a stalking/harassment-only account and obvious sock. First edit - trolling Bugs. Edits for the rest of the day, then comes back over a month later - to troll Bugs. Then the March 22nd trolling diff listed above. Then, after another lengthy break, back on July 1st - to troll Bugs. Using sock accounts to harass long-standing users: now that just sucks. Don't it? The repeated and intentional misspelling as "Bugss" should be a "tell".  Doc   talk  08:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another negative. a) you're trolling me, b) you want to be Bugs. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to be Bugs? Bizarre. People sometimes defend each other around here, don't you know? How about that trolling account, though? You support what they're doing, trolling editors? Do you think it's not a sock account? Meh. Doc   talk  10:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't really arrived at wikipedia until you've been hit by a Jack Attack. As regards Bred Ivy, he admits to being a sock (or a bad-hand account), of a different, unnamed user. For all his prickliness, Jack / Rabbit is at least man enough to own up to his past. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be that Ivy is indeed using his 2 accounts within the rules, but I'm not so sure about that. So y'all can close up this SPI if you want, and I'll see if I can get a ruling at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was any evidence tying either Bred Ivy or DriveByWire to Light Current. The evidence tying DriveByWire to another indef-blocked editor is compelling, but it's a nuisance to collate, and since DriveByWire is now blocked also, I'm not going to bother.  The evidence against Bred Ivy was, admittedly, mostly circumstantial.  Given the results of the checkuser below, and Bred Ivy's reasoned and civil defense of himself in this thread, I'll offer him my apology for the unjust accusation and drop the matter. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Steve Summit. When I mentioned in this thread Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 91 an editor with 'good knowledge of how things work in Norway', I meant Cuddlyable3 who was known for a grammar/spelling crusade on the RD and also appeared to have a good knowledge of Norway. (I'm not sure if they have ever directly commented on where they live on either account.) I didn't mention the name partially to avoid feeding but primarily because I wanted to see if others knew what I was talking about (since if they didn't this suggested perhaps I was reading too much in to it), although I admit with the grammar/spelling thing it probably wasn't hard to draw the connection. When Bred Ivy was mentioned, I looked in to their history and noticed I didn't see any evidence of even a comment on poor grammar/spelling or any other real similarity of edits or comments (although their contrib history is small) other then perhaps the fact both were fairly combative at times. However given the fact they obviously weren't a new editor and the cryptic comment by them on disguising themselves with anagrams combined with the fact that Bred Ivy was a partial anagram of DriveByWire, I felt it couldn't be ruled out either. But given the weak evidence combined with the CU results and explaination, it seems clear whoever Bred Ivy is, they aren't DriveByWire and I too apologise for any confusion my comments may have caused. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Let's get a check to clarify things a little. T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DriveByWire and Bred Ivy are technically ❌. WilliamH (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I mean that they are unrelated to each other. WilliamH (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser aside, this comment strongly supports the accusation that Bred Ivy is an anagram of another account, and DriveBy fits the bill. Checkuser evidence isn't magic, people: if someone checkusered me today, they would have a hard time connecting me to me. Business trips to foreign locales do things like that. I've blocked Bred Ivy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

27 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Name is almost identical to blocked user Light current, account has only one edit, following blocked user's modus operandi of asking fecal questions at the ref desk, diff μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 27 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 agree with your assessment and have blocked the account. Mike V  •  Talk  05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)