Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mw0001/Archive

23 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Accounts in question are creating many citations solely from one author: Haidar, Jamal Ibrahim (perhaps the puppet master?). In April 2012, Mw0001 created 10 citations on 10 pages, all from the same author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mw0001

In September of 2012, Chris97531 edited past citations and added even more citations, all from the same author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chris97531

In January and February of this year, WBWDII has been editing past citations and adding new citations, all from the same author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WBWDII

I only read read one of the cited papers and it was not relevant to the article it was cited in. I don't know how prevalent this is. I also imagine there are other puppets that I haven't identified. Higgyrun3 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I found another account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mjonathan234

And two more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Allisonc123 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MichaelW01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgyrun3 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I found an IP address with the same editing pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.157.21.3 The first edit by this IP address is on the article for Cass Business School, where Jamal Haidar got a master's degree: https://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/team/jamal-ibrahim-haidar This is more evidence that the puppet master is Haidar and that he is self-referencing. Higgyrun3 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still finding more. I can hardly believe that there's this many accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DoingBusinessWB Higgyrun3 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I found all of the usernames and IPs and I believe I've removed all of the citations he had added. It might still be necessary to block his IP. I don't know the correct way to notify/warn him of his policy violations. Higgyrun3 (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Adding (blocked via AIV report) per CU comment below. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have blocked Mw0001, WBWDII, & Chris97531. They are ducks as far as sockpuppetry is concerned, and even if there were no sockpuppetry issue, they would qualify for indefinite blocks as spam-only accounts. If the other accounts are anything like similar then they should be indef-blocked too, but I have no more time and have to go offline, so I am leaving it in the hope that someone else can look at them. In view of the large number of accounts involved, I am also requesting a CU for sleepers. JamesBWatson (talk)
 * All WP:DUCKs. I have indef-blocked and tagged all the other accounts, and blocked the IP for three months because it has been an SPA doing nothing but Haidar spam for the last year. Well done, Higgyrun3: I have had a look but found only one more spamlink and no more socks. Agree with CU request. JohnCD (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WBWDII and DoingBusinessWB are ✅, along with some logged out editing. Everything else is . Please do rereport if you see more and we'll start making some rangeblocks. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

04 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Fits the same pattern as previous sockpuppets. See sockpuppet report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mw0001

Sockpuppets all cite non-relevant articles all written by the same author. Attaboy (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It's not urgent that the account be blocked, so I'm not going to press it too much, but I'm completely sure that this is a duck. The only thing this account has done is to cite this author. The name of the account fits the pattern of most of the sockpuppets. He cites papers that seem to be only tangentially related to the wiki article. Do what you want. Like you said, if the abuse continues, the account can be blocked at that time. Attaboy (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The references being added have the same author as the other socks. But this new account hasn't edited any of the same pages, and the style of reference is slightly different. Whilst I can see the reason you brought this here, I'm not convinced enough that they are the same person to block, though if they make any more spam edits I'll block them. Attaboy do you have anything which help me see the connection? Also if anyone more experienced can see something I missed please action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Attaboy, I think I just needed it all laid out together so I could see all of the little bits together. Thank you. Sockpuppet blocked, ready for close. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)