Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lustralaustral/Archive

18 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I don't know if this is actually Johnnythevandal or not (I know fat&happy isn't so it might be that getreddy78 is his sockpuppet instead), this is a followup from Sockpuppet_investigations/Idontknow/Archive a few days ago (I think it's because my talk page and userpage were protected after being trolled before, I didn't add all the accounts in before so I have added them this time - seems like they are making accounts to stalk my contributions — another vandalism-only account with a deceptive edit summary removing UK money from Oxford English Dictionary article then revertwarring:  Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  22:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * For the record, this is what Selina was advised to do about Getreddy78. Acalamari 23:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Unsure of the sockmaster, but the following are ✅ as each other and as such have been indefinitely blocked:



Vegan Witch and Fat&Happy are ❌ to each other and to the above list. --MuZemike 00:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I found Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (3rd nomination) from the one's edits, then  replied to it just 15 minutes later — I looked at that ones' recent edits and it all seems to be related to gloating over the list of banned users page or user pages in some way, hmm. nice finding so many at once by the way O_O -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  00:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Rabbit:Farmer:Gun:Run... is the oldest account, so I've moved this case to show them as the master. I've updated the tags for all these accounts. Given that Fat&Happy and Vegan are unrelated to this, I've moved that case to show Vegan Witch as the master. Selina, going forward, please pick _actual_ usernames for your cases. This is the second time you've used a generic username that doesn't exist for a case. If you have questions, post on the SPI talk page first and we can help you there. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The first time I thought it was better to say I didn't know who the owner was cos i thought that would be better than giving misleading info from guessing, sorry -- if it's always the oldest account and just let you worry about who the original owner is I'll try remember that for future sorry, it make sense - I didn't know there was the talk page was actively used maybe you should add a mention of that to the header on the main page? I'll post there next time, thanks


 * this time I was going from what I was told on the last one if you look that I was told it was "johnnythevandal", I thought that was a real acccount, I was just going from that, sorry


 * Did you see my comment above abotu the "night ranger" account showing up to the afd the sock made and being the only one that voted delete with the sockpuppet (and only 15min later too)? Also if you look in the contirbutions nearly all of the recent stuff is editing the baned users page or editing user pages, I think that should probably be checked too I think that might be the "real" account — I would have added that one in before if I had known about it, but I only found out that from looking at the contributions of that "Rabbit" account that the checkuser found linked with these (I didn't report that originally)


 * or are you supposed to file a new one than reply when there's new information it seems a bit of a weird system for it to be automatically closed when the person reporting can give more clues when they find out who the other ones are like here? -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  11:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual evidence to back up the claim on that Night Ranger account? I don't see anything that concretely connects him to this case, and responding to one AFD is not nearly enough to go on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to have some sort of vendetta againt Mbz1 who also posts on WR if you look in the contributions but no messages between them ever that I can see - pretty much all his edits seem to be editing the banned users page, seems fishy - I have no way of knowing for sure but seems like it could be a link worth checking since the real account wasn't found ("Rabbit:Farmer:Gun:Run..."'s contributions are really obviously not of a new user)? -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ ) 
 * 'Well, now, I wouldn't say that!'--Clinicalupset (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is more akin to lifting a rock up and seeing all the slimey creeps crawling around underneath. :p -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

After consultation with other CUs, I was able to track all this back to, indefinitely blocked back in 2010. --MuZemike 01:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty cool find, it looks like another sock though: wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lustralaustral?dir=prev&limit=15 marked by Risker blocking as "User:Greatodour and others" but looks like a sock designed to harass  who has done a lot of good work defending Wikipedia against paid advocacy (and recently created wp:PAIDWATCH)


 * wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fat%26Happy?dir=prev&limit=15 ( who is a very heavily pro-corporate editor it seems) definitely looks like a sock if you look at the early stuff, and both the "Getreddy78" and" Clinicalupset" socks were revert-warring alongside the "Fat&Happy" account on completely unrelated topics before this investigation started: wikipedia.org/wiki/Bette_Midler?action=history and wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary?action=history - the latter being where I originally saw the "Getreddy78" account (also "Fat&Happy"'s second edit is "This user: Just doesn't like to see their username in red.")


 * i'm not sure of the etiquette here I know you aren't meant to reply to archives usually but I thought it might be appreciated better to keep it all in one thread than creating a new one, I dunno? tell me to screw off if you want, just trying to help not leave loose ends -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

20 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Brand new account makes a few edits and then re-adds YouTube link to blocked sockmaster's page. I'm not too familiar with this particular sock, but the editing pattern is likely a new sock, so I blocked the account. Requesting confirmation and a sleeper check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:25, 20 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
✅ and rangeblocked. --MuZemike 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Add to the list.  TN X Man  20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)