Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Firstly- behaviour of socks themselves are all similar (namely bunch of random edits, create a page in one go, blue link talk pages, user page and user talk). Secondly, Mar11 is linked to all of this due to page curation reviews happening literally one minute afterwards. COIN thread here: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, and pinging here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:32, 6 June 2018 (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
. There are a lot of accounts to check, and it's getting late in the day (for me), so I will probably post my findings tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All the listed puppets are ✅ to each other and ❌ to the master with the following exceptions:
 * Txariffaz, who is
 * Toe Truck Beep, who is ❌
 * the confirmed socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given those findings, it's impossible that Mar11 isn't involved maliciously so I will be blocking them as well. SmartSE (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Identical repost of Payment21, which was originally created by blocked sock User:Shudinashbe. MER-C 18:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an additional aspect to this SPI which I do not want to explain on wiki. I am willing to email any interested CU the details. MER-C 14:16, 16 June 2018 (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 user appears to be ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange. The behavioral evidence is condemning, so I've blocked for meatpuppetry and undisclosed native advertising. MER-C 15:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is likely a WP:PROXYING violation, so I think the block justified on behavior. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Non-identical recreation of 6 River Systems (see Special:Undelete/Draft:6 River Systems and User:Pasthour789) by ACPERM gaming user. Greenhe is clearly not this user's first account. MER-C 10:55, 1 July 2018 (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

 * - TNT 💖 17:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * - no sleepers immediately visible - TNT 💖 17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, user blocked and spam deleted. MER-C 09:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Closed per the above. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Possible connection between an older editor and two likely SPAs. Groovy12 was an infrequent but longtime editor until July 2017. Their last series of major edits was to create Fortanix and then later to defend the article at Articles for deletion/Fortanix. The AfD resulted in a delete vote, but the article was recreated (via AfC) sometime later by User:Threv.Buddhist, who has made a total of 7 edits. I came across the article when it was revealed that User:Mar11 (who had accepted the article through AfC) had been engaging in a pay-for-afc/review scheme; this resulted in me moving Fortanix into the draftspace, where Threv.Buddhist requested that it be deleted. The article was quiet for awhile until the article was recreated on 3 July by a new editor (who joined the project on 3 July), NewsGrey. As the article has been deleted I cant provide diffs, but I was immediately suspicious of the article as NewsGrey (an ostensibly new editor) was able to use categories, an infobox, and WikiProjects correctly. I also noted that when NewsGrey left a note on my talk page contesting a speedy deletion (I flagged the article first for G11 and A7, then later G4 when I found an AfD had already taken place), they used the same arguments as Groovy12 had in the AfD, and that both editors had a similar writing style. It should also be pointed out that both Groovy12's and NewsGrey's version of Fortanix were created almost exactly one year apart, with the first being created on 2 July 2017 and the recent article being created on 3 July 2018. I have requested checkuser for this case, as the articles in question have been deleted (thus diffs are lacking) and in case this matter is tied in some way to Mar11. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2018 (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

 * (though noting one account in this check is stale) - TNT 💖 18:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the two non-stale accounts above are immediately technically ❌ to each other and I cannot check against.
 * However, is ✅ to  (who is   per SPI)
 * is to
 * I have CU blocked
 * Closing admin/clerk - please evaluate the behavioural evidence and consider blocking . This SPI may need to be moved? - TNT 💖 18:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I blocked the last account and moved the case. Closing. GABgab 20:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edits are similar to previous socks, claiming that Fortanix is a "Leading vendor" when it is actually a startup. (it might become big some day -- it was runner-up in the RSA Innovation Sandbox -- but it isn't there yet. See Articles for deletion/Fortanix.) Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

...and he just added more material promoting Fortanix. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2019 (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

 * Both socks indeffed and tagged. CLosing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I believe that ToT89 is a sockpuppet of Mar11, an user who was blocked due to UPE. I also believe that Mar11 was likely a sockpuppet of Arr4, an user who was blocked due to being a sockpuppet of Orangemoody. For evidence that ToT99 is a sockpuppet of Mar11, the Editor Interaction Analyser: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Mar11&users=ToT89&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki&allusers=on shows that they share an interest in Chittagong Model School and College, List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia (yes, that's an actual article), and [|Channa gachua], an obscure article about a species of fish. Additionally, they both have a habit of having a "-" before their signature, here's an example for ToT89: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToT89&diff=prev&oldid=865040979 and for Mar11: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar11&diff=prev&oldid=844638495. Both editors have patrolled new pages, Mar11 did it before his block and ToT89 was doing it as well, with a highly suspicious interaction occurring with an obvious UPE - Ludwig repense created a draft on a company after just 10 edits, moved it into mainspace, where it was moved back into a draft after another user noticed it and ToT89 moved it into mainspace, while the problems with the article in question should have been obvious, in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:IBEX_Global&diff=890322914&oldid=890019164. All of this together makes me suspect there is something afoot that should be looked into, hence my request for CheckUser. 92.30.178.135 (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2019 (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
✅. No other accounts seen. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)