Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newestcastleman/Archive

12 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See a previous ANI, which I believe is connected. Liverpoolcityman showing the same behaviour as Manchesterunitedchampions1, making many nonsensical edits as is Newestcastleman nonsensical edits. I believe them to be vandalism only accounts, and are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. JMHamo (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2013 (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'm convinced that they are the same user (the history of their user page is also a pretty good example). I've also added the other two accounts I blocked. The case should probably be moved to Newestcastleman given the edit count and date of creation. If I get some time tonight or tomorrow I'll action this but any admin should feel free to jump in and do it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with the link between User:Newestcastleman and User:Manchesterunitedchampions1 because of the edit page and edit history of the user page. I've already blocked Manchesterunitedchampions1 (and sockpuppets: AdamleoHandsomeguy & Jamesbond088) for a different socking matter relating to abuse of an established user. The link between Newestcastleman and Liverpoolcityman is based on the similar username, the edit history of the user page and similar interest areas.
 * All sockpuppet accounts (including those previously blocked) have been blocked and tagged. Master blocked indef, though if they post an unblock in a few to six months I'd probably support an unblock. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

14 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I've blocked and tagged this account as a sockpuppet given the time the account was created and the editing area (see the archive for the last lot of evidence). Given the creation of a new account with 5 active autoblocks could a CU take a look and confirm that they are all the same (for the unblock if nothing else) and see if blocking the underlying IP might be possible? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 14 December 2013 (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
✅ as Newestcastleman:



AGK [•] 09:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 09:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

16 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Edit history is quite similar to the others, and follow the same patter of edits in the first few hours after account creation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 16 December 2013 (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've blocked and tagged. Could a CU please take a look and check for sleepers (see archive) and a block of the underlying IP if possible (given the abuse in the short period of time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Named user and are ✅. I don't think that a rangeblock is feasible at this time, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks DoRD. I've blocked and tagged Academicachiever and semi'd some of the regular targets. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

21 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The same meaningless editing behaviour as before and focusing a lot on soccer team season articles.. such as. You'll see and this new sock have edited this article.

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

User:ClubFootballFan1 is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Newestcastleman. As the nominator says, most of his edits are meaningless and trivial but they are not usually harmful or vandalism. For example, he and his puppets regularly edit the 2012–13 Southampton F.C. season article to add red & yellow cards. Nothing wrong with that, if it is done consistently rather than on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis. These are examples of edits by User:Newestcastleman, Manchesterunitedchampions1, SportsGamer1 (all of whom have been blocked) ⋅and ClubFootballFan1, which clearly shows the same style of editing. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is enough there that it looks very likely that they are the same. Blocked and tagged, closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

12 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I believe this to be another sock of. The editing behavious is identical; making several nonsensical edits to articles such as adding spaces and removing code that had no impact on the article. In the past he's had sleeper accounts too. JMHamo (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2015 (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've declined the CU request. I don't see a non-stale puppet in the archives. Ping me if there's one lying around somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this with no action taken for now. I don't see the connection to the accounts. While FCFanclub1 appears to have added spaces to articles, I don't see that after a skim of the contributions of past socks. In fact, they seem to add content to the articles. (ClubFootballFan1: 1, 2, 3 Liverpoolcityman: 4, 5, 6) Football is the most popular sport in the world, so it certainly draws interest from many individuals. If you note more similarities between the accounts as time goes on, please feel free to reopen the case with those diffs. Mike V • Talk 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

16 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This user has become more active over the last few days, so I am re-opening this SPI again AND including, which is a stale account but has the same exact editing behaviour (football season articles and game shows) .. I believe this is the same Singaporean user who's being making edits to articles such as Singapore Idol Diff and many, many football (soccer) season articles, with the exact same editing behaviour as blocked sock .. Both users seem to want to change the time format Diff (compare the two Diffs I've given) Also, when a comment was left on FCFanclub1's Talk page, a Singaporean IP address removed the comment. All accounts edit very early in the day. Pinging who looked at this case last. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Housekeeping: is another sock, which was never tagged. Could an Admin please tag. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I didn't request a CU initially, I think there my be sleeper accounts based on this Users past history. JMHamo (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is enough there to justify a check (just). While the account does come from the same broad part of the world as I think Newestcastleman does I don't think this is the same person (there is another account in the CU results which also makes me think it's ❌). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing.