Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PenPaper45/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Superficially, these seem like the same user.
 * You have two two-word names BlueBerrry and PenPaper with 45 and 54 appended to each. ShowAll is similar, only with a different numeral.
 * I believe that they are editing in bad-faith, since newbie PenPaper45 created an article about a likely non-notable person Abuzar Akhtar (somebody who's apparently had three jobs), that an anonymous IP and then BlueBerrry54 started editing. This has the aroma of undisclosed paid editing.
 * Further, ShowAll191 started fluffing up an article about Digangana Suryavanshi with a bunch of non-notable awards like the Star Parivaar (an in-house award where the Star television network lavishes praise on its employees and network shows) among others.
 * These edits were followed by edits by BlueBerrry54, who also loaded the article with some bullshit awards, like the "Dada Saheb Phalke International Film Festival", which is an award mill that's trying to take advantage of the prestige of a real Dadasaheb Phalke lifetime achievement award. See WP:DADASAHEB if you're interested, but you could just take my word that it's advertising fluff.
 * Some of these edits were correctly reverted by, but then PenPaper45 restored some of it, which again is bad-faith editing, since this appears to be a concerted advertising effort.

While these three are potentially very ducky, it's odd that someone would take this much effort to try to make their edits clandestine, so I'd appreciate if we could look for other unknown socks. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2020 (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

 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bug you, is there a clear sockmaster? Of these options so far, PenPaper45 looks to be the oldest with a 24 March 2020 user creation date. I'm hoping to find something earlier than this so we can burn Abuzar Akhtar to the ground. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, how do we not have a speedy delete for undisclosed paid editing? Shouldn't that be a thing? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by clear sockmaster. What I found is all the accounts I could find through CU. I'm also not going to get into the UPE debate here, as changing CSD is a job for WT:CSD. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my query sounded like a debate challenge. I was just hoping for commiseration that UPE should be a speedy criterion. And I guess I was asking if there was a super fast CU way of determining which of these is the oldest account, since I didn't know about all of them when I filed the report. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (non-cu/admin/clerk comment) CU logs only go back 90 days, so you can't get anything from them today before March 3rd. That is, if there are no edits/logged actions/password resets within 90 days, there is no CU data for that account. When there is no CU data on an account, it is called "stale". User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/cuStaleness.js shows me the day each listed account was created, and checks edit dates and logged actions to help with determining this. It also bolds the oldest listed account. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bug you, is there a clear sockmaster? Of these options so far, PenPaper45 looks to be the oldest with a 24 March 2020 user creation date. I'm hoping to find something earlier than this so we can burn Abuzar Akhtar to the ground. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, how do we not have a speedy delete for undisclosed paid editing? Shouldn't that be a thing? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by clear sockmaster. What I found is all the accounts I could find through CU. I'm also not going to get into the UPE debate here, as changing CSD is a job for WT:CSD. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my query sounded like a debate challenge. I was just hoping for commiseration that UPE should be a speedy criterion. And I guess I was asking if there was a super fast CU way of determining which of these is the oldest account, since I didn't know about all of them when I filed the report. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (non-cu/admin/clerk comment) CU logs only go back 90 days, so you can't get anything from them today before March 3rd. That is, if there are no edits/logged actions/password resets within 90 days, there is no CU data for that account. When there is no CU data on an account, it is called "stale". User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/cuStaleness.js shows me the day each listed account was created, and checks edit dates and logged actions to help with determining this. It also bolds the oldest listed account. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (non-cu/admin/clerk comment) CU logs only go back 90 days, so you can't get anything from them today before March 3rd. That is, if there are no edits/logged actions/password resets within 90 days, there is no CU data for that account. When there is no CU data on an account, it is called "stale". User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/cuStaleness.js shows me the day each listed account was created, and checks edit dates and logged actions to help with determining this. It also bolds the oldest listed account. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Case moved to the oldest account. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * . Nothing left to do. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See below. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:13, 17 June 2020 (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
Based on behavioural evidence, seems to be a waterfowl which likes to quack. . Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The last time we did a CU on PenPaper45, we uncovered far more accounts than we suspected.

GearFt5 isn't as ducky as I would hope.
 * They are a brand new account, created 16 July 2020
 * Among some initial innocuous changes like adding wikilink brackets here and there, BOOM, they dumped a wall of non-notable awards at Digangana Suryavanshi, with fully-formed citations. This is an article that has been plagued with the recurring addition of these non-notable awards dating back to at least 2017, and it stinks of UPE/marketing to me.
 * CandidClick, one of the previously identified batches of PenPaper45 socks added some of these awards, but GearFt5 has used (mostly) different references and a different order, perhaps to throw off the scent.
 * Unfortunately, with not many edits under their belt, I don't see any significant overlaps with PenPaper45 other than the award fluff at the Digangana Suryavanshi article.

I'm hoping a CU could compare this user to the PenPaper45 details and see if they're active again. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (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 IKeyPlayer55, RossM85Q. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey  just came out of semi-retirement to request that a wall of awards be added at Digangana Suryavanshi, which recently blocked socks were also injecting into the article. Any chance they're related? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd call it based solely on geolocation.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus is ✅ to the accounts listed by Amanda above.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All accounts involved appear to have been blocked - nothing more to do, closing. Mz7 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)