Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paparazzixox/Archive

Report date March 27 2009, 20:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This is partially to create an official record, and partially to sweep for additional socks. This all ties back to BatterBean, who had an unusual obsession with Jake Gyllenhaal, and liked to create hoax articles about him. This has continued, resulting in multiple ANI reports.. In one ANI report, Luna Santin revealed most of these users as the result of a checkuser. Paparazzixox popped up this month, and did it again, resulting in him being blocked. We need to scan for additional socks, and see if we can block an underlying IP.
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

For reference - the apparent parent account for all this:
 * Comments by other users

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Created suspected sockpuppets category and tagged all the above accounts, assumed parent for the swarm is BatterBean. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Endorsing. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

✅ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are related: Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is likely that the following account is related to those above:
 * Conclusions



-- Avi (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any word on the underlying IP? Is there any block we can reasonably perform that will help prevent repetition?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked excepting the stale ones. I too would like confirmation that the underlaying IP is blocked, or rangeblocked or whatever. ——  nix eagle email me 03:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts accounts tagged (except the stale ones). Waiting for word on the underlying IP before closing and archiving.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  04:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Underlying IPs are too dynamic and the range to wide for a rangeblock to be useful now, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * nothing left to do obviously ;) ——  nix eagle email me 05:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 4 2009, 15:08 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Created his signature article on his user page: a modified Madonna article corrupted to appear to be an imaginary tour by Jake Gyllenhaal. This is a prolific sockpuppeteer, so I'm filing this as a checkuser to request a sweep, and to check one more time if there is anything that can be done at the IP level to put a stop to this crap.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kww


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

a recent CU run has already identified that the IP is too dynamic to allow for a rangeblock here. Mayalld (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Account blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)