Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Md 11 air wales/Archive

03 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

All the three accounts are SPAs involved in only including false information in airport articles of which Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport is the most targeted. , and. Please have a look at the article talk page and the users' contribs. They are heavily involved in adding wrong info to airport articles. I believe there are some other users as well, hence requesting a check user to confirm and probably pull out sleepers &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 09:21, 3 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

 * Both accounts are ✅ and have been blocked and tagged.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

10 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Adding false info just like the other user ids. , (PS: I have verified these edits and found no such things that this user has added to exist) &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 15:29, 10 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

 * Technically speaking it's certainly that  is another sock. I'm not sure if there's enough behavioural evidence to conclusively tie the accounts to each other, though if they are inserting false information then that's blockable in its own right. I will leave this open for another clerk or admin to review. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  18:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found a source confirming Emirates codesharing with Jet Airways. It's likely that the user is just not familiar with our sourcing standards. In regards to the claims of sockpuppetry, I personally don't think the behavior evidence is strong enough to block. I'd keep an eye on the account and see how things progress. Mike V  •  Talk  01:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

12 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

(reverted by an IP; IP was correct), (no flight to lucknow and Air India Still flies from here to London – AI 115) &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Request to the CU: Could you also do a sleeper check? I suspect there is a sock farm out here. Thanks, &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 16:27, 12 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

 * at best, but I wouldn't rely on the technical information for this sockmaster. Sleeper checks are practically impossible. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've searched through the behavioral evidence myself and feel confident that the account is more than likely a sock. The user has a interest in adding Lucknow airport to articles. (Master: 1, 2 3 4 ) (Sock: 1,2 3 45) Also, both of the accounts seem to include future instances (Master: 1, 2, 3, 4 ; Sock: 4, 5)  Mike V  •  Talk  20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

17 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Biased edits towards Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport. Currently blocked for username violation. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 05:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' The latest accounts seems to have caught on to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT policy in removing direct (not nonstop) destinations that go through hubs. Maybe we shouldn't blankly revert those latest edits. HkCaGu (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is extremely  and ✅ to . Both accounts are blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also per 's additional check.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

22 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same interest on Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport as with the master and other socks &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 14:25, 22 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

 * ✅, blocked and tagged. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

28 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same interest as all the other accounts: Adding some false info to articles like Indira Gandhi International Airport and Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport. Could these two pages and Gaya Airport as well be protected for a long duration as blocking doesn't really seem to stop this user from getting back to these pages &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 14:38, 28 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

 * The account is ✅, blocked and tagged. I've semi-protected Gaya Airport; the other two mentioned are already semi-protected, however DD (Devil Dev) was able to edit them as the account is autoconfirmed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

04 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another account mainly focusing on Lucknow and Delhi airports. Can a sleeper check and range block be done? &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 14:44, 4 November 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

 * Checkuser says to . Adding behavior too and I'd say block as a sock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the account per . Closing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

07 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

An obvious sock. Comes right after the previous account Indian Aviation was blocked &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 14:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A block doesn't seem to stop them and since there are accounts created right after a block, can we have a range block for this user? &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 14:15, 7 November 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

 * Blocked along with & . --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

18 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same interests as the master. This user doesn't seem to learn, each time an account is blocked, a new sock is created in no time &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 12:57, 18 November 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

 * Yep, that's them. The rang here is, IMO, not blockable. Courcelles 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, closing. Mike V  •  Talk  16:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

01 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another obvious sock that comes right after the block of the previous one. Once again, I hope a range block can be made &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 15:55, 1 December 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

 * ✅ and blocked. As noted in previous SPIs for this master, a rangeblock is not at all feasible due to extensive collateral.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged/closing/archiving. Courcelles 14:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

07 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Phew! Another one!! &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 11:44, 7 December 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

 * Mike V •  Talk  16:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Courcelles 17:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  17:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)