Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrse/Archive

Report date January 20 2009, 22:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Basie (talk)

This user tends to choose account names which are similar to existing active editors on the Nurse practitioner article. Activity is primarily to remove large chunks of content from this article which don't fit with the user's POV on the subject, repeatedly and without consensus.

Here's a series of extremely similar edits from all these accounts:
 * ChilllyMD:
 * User:DoctorDianeM:
 * User:FetktNPP:
 * User:FetktNP:, ,

My first time submitting one of these, forgive me if I missed anything.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged all. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety talk 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following as Nrse:
 * Changed tag to SPIclose ââ  nix eagle email me 14:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive - FT2 (Talk 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date January 21 2009, 21:42 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Basie (talk)

This user is being very persistent! Further evidence:
 * Ewalsh842477:
 * 71.218.68.162: Also making the same changes from the above IP.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Ewalsh842477 is ✅. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Report date January 21 2009, 21:47 (UTC)


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Ewalsh842477 (talk)

I found out about the sock's abuse from an ANI thread and watchlisted the article. I've reverted one of the sock's edits, since the abuse has not stopped, and now they've reported me as being a sock. these counter accusations are just to waste CU's time. i hope that an admin/cu might watchlist the article now, as this sock doesn't appear to be going away. (by the way, this page used to show the other socks that were blocked, but it's been removed for some reason Theserialcomma (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I created the "More Nrse socks" section using the link above on the archived case. Sorry if that was the wrong thing to do, I'm still somewhat unfamiliar with the process. As Theserialcomma notes, the accused user is attempting to waste time and cause extra work by claiming that we are sockpuppets (of which user, I'm not sure)! The user appears to be dedicated to causing as much difficulty as possible, and for this reason I would love it if there was an admin keeping an eye on things. Basie (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We have two users accusing each other of being alternate accounts. You guys please do not create additional sections, it only screws up the bot. ââ  nix eagle email me 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Test edits... ââ  nix eagle email me 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another test for the bot, sorry guys. ââ  nix eagle email me 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CheckUser requests

There is clearly some socking going on, and the alleged master has already been caught out using socks before. Given the FUD generated by the counter accusations above, in addition to the block evasion, a checkuser is warranted. Mayalld (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Tiptoety talk 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Case submitted by Nrse sock, no CheckUser run on Theserialcomma or Basie. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 30 2009, 04:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Jclemens (talk)

Per repeat of the disruptive editing on Physician assistant (see recent history for details) that had previously been discussed at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive517, I blocked User:SgtAvestrand1956 today for 48h. Almost immediately, he begins making similar edits with brand new account User:TheMedicated, which I blocked as an obvious sock and extended his block to a week. Now, 149.68.105.84 shows up as a single-purpose IP account to make the same edits. I'm inclined to indefinitely block User:SgtAvestrand1956, but it's quite possible someone decided to have a go at getting him blocked by mimicing his edits. Assuming good faith, I'd like to see if there's any chance a CU will exonerate this guy. Note that I've also notified ANI of my block of this account, but there have been no unblock requests and no comment about the situation at ANI. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

have faith in your ability to spot a duck! Mayalld (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

already blocked, and CU not required. Mayalld (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date June 11 2009, 16:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Dawn Bard

It's the exact same belligerent editing of Physician as all the previous puppets. Plus his name, obviously. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding Tariq Nayfeh MD,PhD, because, well, obviously, right? Dawn Bard (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding Tariq A NayfehMD, because, ditto. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

to check for sleepers and/or the possibility of a rangeblock. As soon as one sock is blocked another comes along. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

IP blocked. Expanded Peter's range to 149.68.96.0/20. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * The sockmaster appears to be . The following are ✅:

Thank you. All tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 02:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 16 2009, 18:30 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

New account with same pattern of editing Physician. Account already tagged and blocked due to duck test. CU requested to check for sleepers and/or the possibility of an expanded rangeblock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Gogo Dodo


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * ✅ the following match each other:
 * ✅ that the following match each other:
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ that the following match each other:
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those are repeats from past cases; I was trying to be somewhat exhaustive. Some new IP blocks, but nothing major. Behavioral cues may link the two groups, which my gut tells me is likely, but I didn't find any direct technical overlap. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All blocked and tagged.  Sy  n 21:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

 Sy  n 21:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Report date September 30 2009, 07:26 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

New accounts with same pattern of editing Physician. Accounts already tagged and blocked due to duck test. CU requested to check for sleepers and/or the possibility of an expanded rangeblock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Gogo Dodo


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

To check for more sleepers and additional IP/range check. MuZemike 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

✅ Also:
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments



All blocked. His primary range is unfortunately a rather busy university, so I don't know if I can get away with a rangeblock at this point. The other IPs vary far too widely to even consider a rangeblock. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * All are tagged and blocked. NW ( Talk ) 11:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Report date October 2 2009, 03:00 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

A new account has just arrived. I'm sure there are yet more sleeper accounts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Gogo Dodo


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * NW ( Talk ) 03:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

✅, obviously. Picked up  too. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions


 * Both are blocked and tagged. NW ( Talk ) 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Before we close this, guess what? Another account appeared:
 * I blocked the account since it was obviously the same person, but if another CU can be done to look for sleepers, that would be great. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked the account since it was obviously the same person, but if another CU can be done to look for sleepers, that would be great. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)