Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mario96/Archive

Evidence submitted by Kww
The common obsession with an imaginary show named iFri3ndz (see search results) makes the connection obvious. This has been going on for a while: let's see if a checkuser can find an underlying IP to block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC) , it's quite ducky, but just in case this is a bunch of friends, CU confirmation would be nice. Also sleeper check and possible IP block. Tim Song (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ that ==  ==  ==  ==
 * I didn't see any other obvious accounts. Unfortunately the range is dynamic and very noisy, so an IP block is not really feasible. -- Luk  talk 14:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Tags updated, everyone already blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Kww
Harold2010 is a duck case, and already blocked: he was creating more of the "iFri3ndz" crap that is the signature of Mario96. Mr. Prez is not blocked at this time: clear overlap of areas of interest, reverting other peoples reverts of Harold2010, but not restoring all of Harold2010's edits (most notably not restoring the stuff about hybrid Disney shows, another of Mario96's tells). I'm very suspicious of Mr. Prez, but would like a checkuser to confirm.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question, as I glance through the article histories. Would you think that is possibly involved with this? I see where that account and Mr. Prez are involved in a slow edit-war on an article.  TN X Man  19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Night Fight has been reverting against both Harold2010 and Mr. Prez, and is the user that questioned me about Mr. Prez in the first place. Most of Harold2010's edits count as vandalism and certainly as sockpuppet reverts, so reverting them doesn't count against 3RR for Night Fight, although he does seem to be skating close to the edge.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike 06:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

was added by an anon, but I concurred when I looked over the contributions. Blocked per WP:DUCK.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Shiverting101 and Harold2010 are ✅ as being related to Mario96. Mr. Prez appears to be related. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Kww
I'm just requesting a sweep. I've been blocked numerous socks of this editor, and, given the fascination with iCarly, I'm confident that if you sweep iCarly articles for Mario96 socks, you'll turn some up. I'd also like to have the possibility of an IP block reinvestigated: this is getting tiresome. &mdash;Kww(talk) 16:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ the following are the same

and it's that are related to that group.
 * Before this acted upon, however, I would like another CU to review these results, just to be sure. TN X Man  17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - Deskana rechecked the case, and I've updated the results as a result. A rangeblock doesn't appear possible at this point, as it's a very active range. TN X Man  17:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Behaviourally, Damanatowa looks extremely unlikely, and Kyoshi7 doesn't look particularly likely.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged all the confirmed. Behaviourally, none of the possibles seemed likely enough for me to block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by DeltaQuad
CU MuZemike requested case opening with results. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Per MuZemike, might not even need to do this. XD -- DQ  (t)  (e)  22:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

✅:



–MuZemike 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All done -- DQ  (t)  (e)  22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061
Creation of wild, bizarre hoaxes regarding non-existent juvenile television programs. Typical MO of this user and where one sock is, more are likely to be. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I have to say that I doubt that ChocolateRibbons960 and GoodEvilWar77 are Mario96: they seem to be similar vandal accounts, may well be the same editor, but just don't feel like Mario96 to me. KK26995 most likely is Mario96. I've added two very recently blocked blatantly obvious Mario96 socks (fascinated with the imaginary show "iFri3ndz") to help the checkuser process have things to match on.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

✅:



Various underlying IPs hardblocked. –MuZemike 03:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

All accounts already blocked. Accounts tagged.  E lockid (Alternate)  ( Talk )  15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

06 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Typical Mario96 behavior and naming convention. A rangeblock is warranted at this point IMO. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (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
✅, but there isn't a feasible range to block. TN X Man 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with PMDrive1061 here. I know his range is active, but we can accept some collateral damage to make this kid go away.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's active, it's that it's too large. Let me poke around the archive some, see if there's anything that can be done. TN X Man  23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't look like it. I checked with the socks MuZemike found last time and nothing feasible came up. :( TN X Man  00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling it here, then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

20 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked per WP:DUCK. Requesting a sleeper check. I originally discovered two accounts, however, since one of the accounts appears to be a minor's full name, I have not listed the second account. For the CU/Clerk handling this case, please see the RevDel'ed edit in the history. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:04, 20 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
✅ plus:



All user and talk pages should be deleted. Another IP range hardblocked. –MuZemike 07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

14 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked per WP:DUCK. Requesting sleeper check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:51, 14 July 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

 * - There's been sleepers in the past, so I think it might be prudent to check if there are any this time around. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  05:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Highly, tho' using a wireless ISP. No sleepers that I can see - A l is o n  ❤ 09:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

15 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Matches pattern on previous names, as seen here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Mario96/Archive MikeWazowski (talk) 04:13, 15 July 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
Blocked and tagged. All edits from this user also deleted so as to prevent future reuse. –MuZemike 04:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, talk page has been revoked from each and every one of his known socks. Moreover, all socks' user and user talk contributions pertaining to said spamming have been deleted. –MuZemike 04:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

19 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked per WP:DUCK. Requesting sleeper check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:03, 19 July 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

 * - It's been a whole three days - let's have a look. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No sleepers. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

20 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another day, another sock blocked per WP:DUCK. Requesting sleeper check, though the last couple of checks have resulted in nothing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:50, 20 July 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
Couple of sleepers this time: All accounts blocked by DeltaQuad and tagged. I reblocked the two above accounts with talk page access revoked since sock normally uses their talk page for their junk edits. Funny, I saw the SixteenBoi account editing, but I passed it over since it looked okay. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

22 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another quacking duck blocked. Requesting sleeper check. I don't suppose a block of the underlying IP is viable, is it? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 22 July 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
✅, but an IP block doesn't seem feasible. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

24 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another day, another sock per WP:DUCK. Can we block the IPs this guy is using? MikeWazowski (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The results from the last CU showed that an IP block was not feasible. Apparently he is using a very active ISP. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:26, 24 July 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

 * Blocked, tagged, user/user talk deleted. Requesting a sleeper check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - Sure, let's see. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All other obvious socks on range are already blocked. Unfortunately, the underlying IP range is highly used and I fear there would be too much collateral damage in hardblocking, or even long-term softblocking. Vigilance and whack-a-troll are the best options, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what the last CU resulted in. Thank you.  Luckily, he is fairly easy to identify. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this investigation, all socks are blocked and we can't block the IP range due to potential collateral damage so there are no other admin actions to take here. --  At am a  頭 23:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All other obvious socks on range are already blocked. Unfortunately, the underlying IP range is highly used and I fear there would be too much collateral damage in hardblocking, or even long-term softblocking. Vigilance and whack-a-troll are the best options, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what the last CU resulted in. Thank you.  Luckily, he is fairly easy to identify. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this investigation, all socks are blocked and we can't block the IP range due to potential collateral damage so there are no other admin actions to take here. --  At am a  頭 23:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

26 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another day, another sock. Requesting usual sleeper check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:47, 26 July 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
✅, no sleepers. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * – Sock already blocked, marking as closed. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 18:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added ICT!101 - identical crap about Mario and Jesus. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged it. Probably no need to re-open case for a sleeper check as the admin who blocked it is a CU. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And just added User:High School, Forever - this kid just won't quit! MikeWazowski (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Reopening case for sleeper check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No other sleepers. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

11 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets






 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked per duck. Picked up by edit filter. Requesting sleeper check. The listed IP is a returning IP that was CU blocked. The block has expired and editing has resumed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

(To Enforcer Ninety Eighty Six and The Ultimate Smasher Revived): Quack. An admin can see their deleted contributions. -- Σ  talk <sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex"> contribs  06:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The autoblock has kicked in for the IP, so I'll endorse for sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, I've merged the case from Sockpuppet investigations/Enforcer Ninety Eighty Six to here, as Bongwarrior had blocked The Ultimate Smasher Revived as a sock of this master. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No unblocked accounts found, blocked some IPs. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. User and talk pages deleted and accounts tagged. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

25 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked duck. Requesting sleeper check and re-block of underlying IPs. Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:25, 25 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

 * - Maybe? I'm not sure I see the connection to the others, but the account is blocked already, so we can take a look for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

✅, . No obvious sleepers. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 04:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks to be all wrapped up. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

15 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Accounts blocked per WP:DUCK. Requesting sleeper check and another check on feasibility of range block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:48, 15 October 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
✅ for both accounts. One sleeper found:. Also,. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 17:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sleeper blocked and tagged. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

25 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked per WP:DUCK. Requesting sleeper and range block checks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:19, 25 October 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

 * - Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) The account is ✅, didn't see anything else, range block isn't realistic. WilliamH (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

04 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Two most recent socks blocked. Requesting a sleeper check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:03, 4 November 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 CU about two weeks ago found the sock drawer empty. Let's see if there's any in there now. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  07:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No sleepers. . <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

14 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Latest two accounts picked up by edit filter and blocked. Requesting usual sleeper check and underlying IP block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:18, 14 November 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
–MuZemike 02:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

29 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked per WP:DUCK. Edit filter adjusted. Requesting usual sleeper check and underlying IP block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The account, User:Bleh1234 ! has been created just days ago (Created on November 28, 2011 at 22:18) when this user was just block today. I have redirected to his user talk-page when an admin deleted nonsense and a admin evokes the sock's talk page access. --Katarighe (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. . Courcelles 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

31 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked per WP:DUCK picked up by edit filter. Requesting usual sleeper check and underlying IP block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:13, 31 December 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

 * - Sure, let's take a look. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look like it. to be Mario96. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well anyway, Gogo Dodo blocked the sock anyway so we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

19 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked ducks picked up by edit filter. Requesting sleeper check and underlying IP block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:23, 19 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

 * - Sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No sleepers, . TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

15 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked duck. Requesting sleeper check and block of underlying IP. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:48, 15 March 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

 * I also found who I have since blocked.  Tiptoety  talk 06:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I tagged the sock. Is a block of the underlying IP not feasible? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is feasible, but these are the only 2 accounts on it. It looks like they hop IPs rather quickly, so I do not think blocking this one would do any good. Tiptoety  talk 23:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks. The edit filter is pretty effective on detecting him. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

21 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked duck picked up by edit filter. Requesting sleeper check and a recheck for possible block of underlying IP. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:52, 21 March 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

 * Blocked, nothing else to report. WilliamH (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)