Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noob saibot red/Archive

02 February 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 " ~ "''

Since Sub-Zero Blue was blocked as a duck of Noob saibot red, Zero Red Blue Green and the IP have begun editing in the same maner - cut-n-paste moves, mass fan plot dumps, creating inappropriate redirects - and targetingt the same general topics - Rambo, Mortal Kombat, the Brave and the Bold TV series minor characters, Batgirl. Right now it looks like another duck, however, "Sub-Zero Blue" has been badgering to get unblocked and stated that their IP seemd to have been blocked preventing them from edit just using it. At this point it looks like a CU is needed and if the IP is common to the socks, a strong block of it as well. J Greb (talk) 00:26, 2 February 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
I blocked Zero Red Blue Green per duck and the IP is autoblocked. So it's probably them. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * CUs don't link accounts to IPs. Is there any other reason why you need a CU? Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, no. - J Greb (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * K then. Marking for close. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

19 February 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 " ~ "''

The users first edit was to create an "outing" article at Justin Massera which included a cut-n-paste from the original SPI for Noob saibot red.

Since then they have engaged in similar editing of creating uneeded/unlikely redirects and creating non-notable or supportable articles.

A CU looks to be needed since Noob saibot red has been churning through new socks about every other day, including IPs. J Greb (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And it looks like also needs to be checked. They started "consolidating" the talk pages for the Noob saibot red socks and "retiured" the master right after the confirmation here. Also popped up creating an unlikely redirect. - J Greb (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And Mr. BonesX2 and TMITB have been blocked, but has popped up doing the same thing. And interestingly it looks like the account created just after  was blocked as a Noob saibot red sock but has been unused until today. It's also a little disturbing that they seem to have c-n-p the top of my user page to their own, which efectivly has them caliming to be an admin. - J Greb (talk) 19:53, 19 February 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
✅ TN X Man  16:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TMITB is also confirmed. TN X Man  18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

24 February 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 " ~ "''

Mr.STYII started up 2 days after Noob saibot red's last set of socks were blocked. The new account is mattiching Nsr's stlye of editing and subject matter. Megatronman2 and thhe IP popped up a day latter again with an intersection of Nsr's method an interest. Given the multiple socks that popped last time and that we've got multiples running at the moment, a CU seems prudent at this point. J Greb (talk) 02:59, 24 February 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
Both named accounts are ✅ matches. No comment on the IP. TN X Man 03:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Accounts blocked and tagged. IP blocked for 3 months. It's a Comcast address, so we could probably block for a longer time or possibly hardblock the IP. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And there is a collection of Verizon IPs that they have collected under the suspected socks as well. I'm not sure a hard block, or a range block, would help. - J Greb (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

18 March 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 " ~ "''

Creation of improper redirects, improper articles, and kicking off on items favored by Noob saibot red. NSR has had a very bad habit of creating multiple socks, some of them kept in reserve. Flushing out any sleepers here would be a good idea. J Greb (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IP added. While it has a longer history than the two users, it is "helping" on their edits and Geolocates to NSRs local. - J Greb (talk) 22:22, 18 March 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

 * - Can't say which ones for sure...lets hit any in hibernation to pls. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  00:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IP, but the two named accounts are ✅ matches. TN X Man  12:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

31 March 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 " ~ "''

Working in conjunction with a IP from NSR's local to recreate one of NSR's usual targets. J Greb (talk) 03:27, 31 March 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:



–MuZemike 07:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

29 May 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 " ~ "''

While there is evidence of two people known to one another IRL with "issues" - there was an outing incident at the end of April. There is a nagging similarity between the choice of topics; insistence on creating, and leaving, plot only comic book and animation character articles; not bothering to discuss edits that are contested; almost total lack of use of edit summaries; and creating unnecessary content forks. - J Greb (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC) J Greb (talk) 21:55, 29 May 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, it's possible - let's see what's going on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This is actually . ✅ the following:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've merged the cases together, and all the socks are blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've merged the cases together, and all the socks are blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've merged the cases together, and all the socks are blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've merged the cases together, and all the socks are blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

26 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Dennis IE has the same pattern of disruptive, fan orient editing with no comments along with edit waring to keep "their" version over the same general topics as NSR. - J Greb (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC) J Greb (talk) 17:05, 26 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
The IPs where WP:DUCKed but it looks like a review would be helpful. - J Greb (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This case was created closed. Reopening with assumption that this was for a request for CU. Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The following comments were caused by a clerk edit conflict. The clerks involved then got together to discuss their findings. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * - It's been a month - let's see what's going on here. Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 11:34 am, Today (UTC−7)
 * - I'm seeing too much conflicting information between User:Dennis IE and archived socks for me to endorse a request for CU right now. Could you explain in more detail what connection you see? I don't even see edit warring here, just a lot of edits. I make no comment with regards to the IPs. Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 11:36 am, Today (UTC−7)
 * - On hold pending clerk discussion Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After discussion of our findings between User:HelloAnnyong and myself, we're both satisfied there is sufficient evidence to warrant a checkuser. I did see one minor similarity, HA saw another, and combined we're both convinced that a check is prudent. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This looked familiar, so I ran with it. ✅ the following are the same:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 18:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there we go. Both blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 18:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there we go. Both blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

28 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same editing pattern, content, and focus. CU requested as this editor is currently indefinably blocked and tends to have multiple IPs and socks running at any given time to evade the block. J Greb (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to the clerk's endorse: It may also be wort looking at and . Both were blocked as socks Aug 11, 2011 by MuZemike noting a CU but not an SPI. - J Greb (talk) 18:38, 28 August 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 for confirmation and sleepers. should be usable for the CU. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

✅ and blocked with talk page revoked. Several IP ranges blocked. –MuZemike 19:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)