Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NaSTATV/Archive

20 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

All of these accounts edited the now-deleted article Sam Darcy, and are clearly a gigantic sockfarm. These are the 20 oldest accounts, there are about 9-10 more which are availible to see for admins if they view the history of the deleted article. None of these accounts has ever edited anything else; though the behavior is peculiar and I am not wondering if this entire farm isn't part of something bigger, such as a group of sleeper socks in waiting, or what. But the behavior is peculiar enough to seek explanation. At the very least, this is not an approved use of secondary accounts, and needs to be dealt with. Jayron  32  17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment by Redrose64 I was the editor who first noticed this. I was fixing up mistagged stubs; having begin at entry 571, in due course I came to no. 609 Sam Darcy, where I replaced the stub category with the relevant stub template. On previewing the page, I saw that this got sucked into the table of awards (a dead giveaway for an unclosed table), so decided to fix up that table before saving (noticing that it was also a BLP with only external links, I also added ). As is my habit when layout fixups are required, I checked the page history to see if the bad layout was due to vandalism (in case other pages may require similar fixes) - and immediately noticed the large number of edits by users whose user: and user talk: pages were redlinks. Curious, I tried some of the contribs links - and soon noticed that the majority of these redlinked users had edited no pages apart from this one, many of them with just a single edit. I then raised a thread at help desk. This SPI is a direct consequence of that helpdesk query. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
A lot of these are, but the ones that are not seem to follow the same pattern- create account, immediately edit Sam Darcy. The accounts seem to be abandoned right afterwards. The ones that are not stale and matches are:
 * No comment on the IP. However, I should note these accounts edit from a public place and I have not listed other accounts that I would normally call matches - only the ones that fit the editing pattern. TN X Man  17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any other accounts that match the pattern, but just not on the article Sam Darcy, such as apparently throwaway accounts which edit only one (or a few) articles, or which may have a clear connection to the Sam Darcy article in such a way as to put these in some sort of sock drawer? Or is this group of socks, behaviorally speaking, truly isolated from others that have edited from the same IP range?  Perhaps a second opinion on the likelyhood of being connected go a greater pattern of abuse?  -- Jayron  32  17:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are not. This editing pattern really stood out among the other edits from the IP range. As for connections to larger patterns, this doesn't ring any bells, although others may have more info. TN X Man  17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits started last March, when Darcy won a student award. The IP is Loughborough University, where he was at college. I think it's fairly clearly him, constantly tweaking his autobio, using a new throwaway account each time. It will be interesting to see what he does now. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So I've gone ahead and blocked all the confirmed accounts as sockpuppets of, and I blocked Radiolinker as well. The connection to the listed master here is likely, but I was hesitant to use that as the master without explicit confirmation. If there's a problem with my actions, let me know and I'll fix them. As JohnCD said, though, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm also considering salting Sam Darcy, but perhaps it's too early for that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought of salting, but decided it was better just to watchlist it - there are too many alternatives like "Sam Darcy (radio presenter)" he might use instead. If he reappears, it will most likely be to complain on my talk page as deleter, or possibly at WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IP. However, I should note these accounts edit from a public place and I have not listed other accounts that I would normally call matches - only the ones that fit the editing pattern. TN X Man  17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any other accounts that match the pattern, but just not on the article Sam Darcy, such as apparently throwaway accounts which edit only one (or a few) articles, or which may have a clear connection to the Sam Darcy article in such a way as to put these in some sort of sock drawer? Or is this group of socks, behaviorally speaking, truly isolated from others that have edited from the same IP range?  Perhaps a second opinion on the likelyhood of being connected go a greater pattern of abuse?  -- Jayron  32  17:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are not. This editing pattern really stood out among the other edits from the IP range. As for connections to larger patterns, this doesn't ring any bells, although others may have more info. TN X Man  17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits started last March, when Darcy won a student award. The IP is Loughborough University, where he was at college. I think it's fairly clearly him, constantly tweaking his autobio, using a new throwaway account each time. It will be interesting to see what he does now. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So I've gone ahead and blocked all the confirmed accounts as sockpuppets of, and I blocked Radiolinker as well. The connection to the listed master here is likely, but I was hesitant to use that as the master without explicit confirmation. If there's a problem with my actions, let me know and I'll fix them. As JohnCD said, though, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm also considering salting Sam Darcy, but perhaps it's too early for that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought of salting, but decided it was better just to watchlist it - there are too many alternatives like "Sam Darcy (radio presenter)" he might use instead. If he reappears, it will most likely be to complain on my talk page as deleter, or possibly at WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So I've gone ahead and blocked all the confirmed accounts as sockpuppets of, and I blocked Radiolinker as well. The connection to the listed master here is likely, but I was hesitant to use that as the master without explicit confirmation. If there's a problem with my actions, let me know and I'll fix them. As JohnCD said, though, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm also considering salting Sam Darcy, but perhaps it's too early for that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought of salting, but decided it was better just to watchlist it - there are too many alternatives like "Sam Darcy (radio presenter)" he might use instead. If he reappears, it will most likely be to complain on my talk page as deleter, or possibly at WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)