Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phrasia/Archive

19 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Report relates to this thread at BLPN here - likely hoax attempt. appears to be the same person as is on User:Phrasia userpage. User:Centerfold Sally is the most recent uploader of the picture and after the BLPN investigation removed the pic and prodded the article last night after a period of dormant activity from Phrasia has made one edit at 06'42 last night and this was followed at 07'16 by Pleasantview replacing the picture. Activity suggests they could be the same users or acting together as meatpuppets.- as hoaxing is extremely serious for wikipedia I request checkuser to confirm or repudiate this situation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Wow, that was quick TNXman. Many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Only three days? For deliberately hoaxing his picture into an article, I would prefer Indefinite? Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - I object to the disruptive hoaxer only being blocked for three days. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All three are ✅ as being the same. TN X Man 17:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the two socks, and blocked the master for three days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've upped it to two weeks, as this editor has been blocked for puppeting before. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

29 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 " ~ "''

Both accounts have been editing similar (and some obscure) articles. This was brought to my attention when WisdomToothless has also chimed in on an AfD for Makoto (Street Fighter) with the viewpoint matching the user who filed the AfD in the first place: Phrasia. He had previously undone an edit that had turned an article that Phrasia wanted into a redirect. Also, when Phrasia's previous block ended, another account also began to edit again. That would be WisdomToothless. However, the account seems to be rarely used. Still, I am worried. I need not mention Phrasia past history with sock puppets.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 16:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I suspected the same thing, but didn't feel like bringing it up. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - User:Phrasia diff should of been indefinitely blocked last time - user is a disruptive vandal - block indefinitely and checkuser and block any other accounts they have created. The last time they were adding their own picture to a BLP and adding the same false picture to IMBD to support their false vandalism, on and off wiki. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see two blocks for using multiple accounts and two blocks for edit warring. The longest of these blocks was two weeks. I agree with Off2riorob's suggestion for an indefinite block and more.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 19:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't defend myself last time, but this time I am. That user is my roomate, so it is only natural for us to have the same isp. Believe me or not. If I am banned from wikipedia, then obviously I'm not wanted here. We both religiously use wikipeida, but I don't think that we are anymore. It's just a damn encyclopedia site. It's not a freaking cult religion. You guys take things way too proportional. I created an article, with more than enough sources and references. I created it, because I saw Makoto had an article. I don't see what makes her so special. For whatever reason, you feel Makoto has enough notability for an article, and I'll accept that. I asked my roomate to add his comment on the Afd. That's all he did. He tend to like the same type of articles. I don't vandalize, I don't add unsourced material. All I did was create an article of a Street Fighter character that you guys didn't care for. Whatever decision comes out of this, whether I'm banned, or otherwise, my outlook on wikipedia has dramatically changed. ♥Phrasia (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * These were your sources: An article from another wiki (Other wikis are unreliable sources because anyone can edit them. It may seem hypocritical, but they cannot be used), a source from Capcom (which is okay, I guess), and a YouTube video (YouTube is usually not a good place for getting sources. Plus, the goal of that video was not to be informative.) In the reception, you talk about a cameo appearance, a similar-looking character, and original research on how, apparently, Elena got cut because of a Capcom poll. That's our problem with the article. That and you refusing to learn why, instead continuously using the same reason over and over, despite us refuting it. Also, you admitted to meat puppetry. That's still not good.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ matches. TN X Man 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WisdomToothless blocked indef and tagged. Phrasia blocked 3 months for once again socking. Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

16 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I was looking at a non-related suspicious user, when I saw this Articles for deletion/Monet Stunson. My attention went to these two editors, who apparently has the same interests, and a similar writing style. They basically edit the same articles and the same edits. It's a clear DUCK. Secret account 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Secret account 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed, as the user was blocked several times for abusive sockpuppetry before, including a three month block, I think an indef is in order. Secret account 05:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Obviously you guys don't want me on this website for reasons unknown. Opening another sockpuppet case on me, really?

I have done lots of good to the community. I have produced good articles and I have settles ties with members I have had mixed feelings/edit wars with. I'm tired of being the only person on here being punished for sockpuppets. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ the following are related:


 * I will leave any blocking to a reviewing administrator. Tiptoety  talk 07:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * B/T. T. Canens (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

04 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User is engaging in the exact same combative behavior, as well as editing the exact same articles (pop music, Big Brother, and Street Fighter), as the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer in question.

More specifically, compare to, which he has been persistently edit-warring to get those two genres in for the past two years, now. --MuZemike 15:19, 4 July 2013 (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

 * CheckUser is not especially helpful, but geographically it seems very . Bearing that in mind, and the behaviour, and the fact that the account was created shortly after the last SPI case in the archive, I'd mark this one as . WilliamH (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Had to do some deep digging into contribs/demeanor/goals, but it does seem that this is indeed the same person. CU data just shores up that evidence.  Blocked and tagged.  Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

17 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

While Boaxy was blocked for 1 week, I noticed that he had logged out and used an IP to mask an edit he made at Where Are You? (Imaani song), in which he added an unsourced genre. The user in question, who is known to be tendentious in his editing, had also logged out and masked his edits on Unfinished Business (2015 film),, which is how I'm able to put two and two together here. He recently claimed in this report on the admins' board that he edits on his mobile phone and the app doesn't recognize his username...but in this situation, I digress. The user, in question, was blocked for repeated edit warring and making personal attacks (on and off wiki) against myself and other users, calling them "homophobic" and "bullies" because we disagree with his edits. His edits involved adding unsourced genres/categories to certain music, television program, film and anime articles because he believes that his edits are not "original research," when technically, they do constitute as such. When he does cite his additions, however, the sources he provides are not verifiable (i.e., fansites, personal blogs, etc.), which is why his edits are reverted in the first place. Although he wasn't blocked for the Unfinished Business situation, however, it clearly indicates that Boaxy purposefully logged out to edit while he was blocked, and is unwilling to accept that his conduct is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Boaxy is a relative of mine. 71.116.235.134 (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not buying it. WP:MEAT --Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Chris

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP blocked for 3 months. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Aforementioned account shown above has shown a constant pattern of adding unsourced genres/categories and other sorts of information to articles without adding sufficient sources.   A closer look at this user revealed his user page is identical to his previous account, Boaxy, which was previously blocked indefinitely for making similar disruptive edits, as well as personal attacks against editors who reverted his edits and/or disagreed with him on talk pages. Nevertheless, I bring this matter to your attention under the stipulation of WP:SOCK.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2018 (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

 * Blocked and tagged. Sro23 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
User has shown a history of adding unsourced or poorly sourced genres/categories to some music articles, insisting that users who disagree should go and listen to them instead. Further examination (according to these links, ) revealed that this user is, yet again, another sock account of Boaxy, aka Phrasia, who was previously blocked for similar edits, persistent block-evading, as well as personal attacking those who disagreed with his edits. He seemed to have created his current account shortly after his previous sock, 22Headlights, was blocked in 2018, but this new sock has only come to attention just now. Loyalmoonie (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Due to failure to come up with WP:CONS on this matter for over a month, and being that I don't have any (and haven't had any ever) active issues or complaints, being an active editor for several years, I feel these accusations should be disregarded and they are also quite old, inconclusive, haphazard, and not indicative of much, other than confusing hearsay and gossip on edit warring/brigades etc. Nevertheless, sockpuppeting by Wikipedia's standard, is creating alternate accounts for malicious/vandalizing purposes, and creating issues with alt accounts. Aside from a few editing disagreements on pop culture articles, person making accusations has very little to stand on, on their claims I'm being disruptive on the Wiki, as that is just not true. I feel this should be closed, especially given the fact I'm not causing any issues, which I could understand wholeheartedly if I were; and person making accusations (whom mind you is also personally degrading me to other Wikipedians who are admins and have rollback rights, who are not chiding in, and want nothing to do with this etc.) is the lone, sole person to be bothered/concerned with this for some reason. I don't get involved with the party accusing me of being malicious to this site, which I'm not, and so I wish they would respectfully leave this alone. So this was my defense, and take it as you will, as I feel I'm a great editor on this site, and I feel again due to incomplete consensus on this situation, this should be closed. Thank you. Bronoton (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Sro23 (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)