Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nowaaaaay/Archive

07 July 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Nowaaaaay has just been blocked for several repeated vandalisms, and now this @#$ turns up getting himself involved in disturbances of high frequency. Qwrk (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Qwrk (talk)


 * Please check this | diff by Nowaaaaay and this | diff by 91.110.158.70. Same type of graphic intrusion, right after Nowaaaaay was blocked.  Pretty obvious this is the same user logging in under a variety of credentials [ID vs. IP].  Qwrk (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * | Here we go again... Qwrk (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And he's getting personal in his attacks; . Qwrk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Chances are good that this AN/I tidbit is related. All IP users are from Birmingham. Juvenile vandalism is similar too. Dawnseeker2000  20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

account already blocked, IPs also blocked, and some admins seem to have an eye on the situation. SpitfireTally-ho! 20:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Evidence submitted by HJ Mitchell
All are obviously the same person, but I'd appreciate a sleeper check and a rangeblock if possible, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If possible, I need a sleeper check and rangeblock- accounts are blatantly the same person and vandalising in quick succession. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the sleepers are already blocked, I hard blocked the primary IP for 2weeks, it had been blocked before for vandalism. -- Versa geek  23:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Said accused parties wish to clarify their dismay at the blocks placed upon the primary IP address - being as it has no relation to the long series of similar IP addresses used to vandalise the page Solihull College in the past. Furthermore, accused parties would like to stress their disagreement with the page Abuse response/91.110.236.9. Said page relates the aforemention parties to being involved with a most horrendous crime attributed to 91.110.236.9. The intellectual composition of the edits shows a clear differentiation in persona to that of 91.110.236.9. It seems that those in power have "assumed" the links between said accused parties and 91.110.236.9 due to the vague similarity in IP addresses. Said accused parties deem this a ridiculous act of assumption.

Dawnseeker2000 has created what they describe as a "list of ip[sic] addresses used by the person". Said defendants do not see the relevance of this, as the IP addresses on the list bear no relation to those of the said defendants. Again, said defendants would like to reiterate their dismay at being linked to previous unrelated crimes.

It is also stressed that the unfair prevention of ability to edit the IP address' talk page means no sort of appeal may be made to the blocks forcing the usage of multiple "sockpuppet" accounts, including those owned by a different user. Therefore we ask with the greatest respect that the case in question be reviewed once again with more regard to the possibility of multiple users with a similar motive or wish to fight for the right to edit wikipedia. We also wish you check some of the recent edits on Solihull College - as some were constructive yet no checks were made to clarify it was vandalism showing a clear disregard to the rights of editing. It is due to this we now wish to consider legal action against Wikipedia in the hope to retain said rights of editing. Yours sincerely - controllers of:
 * Nowaaaaay
 * Nowaaaaay2
 * Nowaaaaay3
 * Nowaaaaay4
 * Nowaaaaay5
 * Nowaaaaay6
 * Nowaaaaay7
 * Nowaaaaay8
 * Nowaaaaay9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.174.156 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Dawnseeker2000  22:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a pattern of long-term abuse here. I've compiled a list of ip addresses used by the person. User:Dawnseeker2000/Misc
 * There was at least one AN/I report made. Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive624
 * And there was an abuse respone report filed that was not acted on. Abuse_response/91.110.236.9
 * Oh, there was also a sockpuppet investigation previously made by Qwrk. Sockpuppet_investigations/Nowaaaaay/Archive

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
– Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention on the possibility of blocking an underlying IP range or any sleeper socks that doesn't match the pattern above. Note that per I have two more socks, already blocked/tagged:



–MuZemike 01:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's quite possible that there's two different people at work here; there are edits from two different ISPs that geolocate to a similar area. That said, the second person is hardly innocent since they've been involved from the get-go and have been creating lookalike vandal accounts. I've semi-protected the Solihull College article, and I'm afraid that that's all I really have to offer you. --Deskana (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

08 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Qwrk (talk) 20:15, 8 October 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

 * What's going on here? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've been after this so bear with me. Plz check Sockpuppet investigations/Nowaaaaay/Archive .... at last I found what I was looking for.  Qwrk (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've merged the cases, and I've blocked and tagged the sock per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)