Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Profile101/Archive

29 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Appears to be hailing from Singapore, as mentioned on puppet's talk page. Also appears to be producing undiscussed moves and talking about being an admin when he's not. Also seeing similar word patterns between the two accounts Nordic   Dragon  13:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Some curious overlap with another sockpuppeteer here - having previously confined themselves to rail-related articles, GTX1975 moved the Zootopia article to "Disney's Zootopia (2016 Film)" out of the blue this morning, a week after a sockpuppet of Diamese moved it to "Zootopia (2016 film)" (as part of long-term vandalism targetted largely at that one article). Diamese-sock User:King93994949 adopted the "Disney's Zootopia" title phrasing used by GTX1975, an hour later, and the earlier sock User:Noah39944949 had edits whose times interlaced with GTX1975, each apparently pausing while the other edited. Diamese socks also frequently claim to be admins. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked GTX1975 and tagged/retagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked GTX1975 and tagged/retagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked GTX1975 and tagged/retagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked GTX1975 and tagged/retagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

07 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Has vandalised my talkpage referring to sockpuppeteer, similar language used in instance Nordic   Dragon  12:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit: 12:40 07/03: I have been also made aware that WorldTrainSpotter may also be a sock. Can I request checkuser on the account. Thanks Nordic   Dragon  12:42, 7 March 2016 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked and tagged. The IP hasn't edited in a few days, so I see no point in blocking. If they recommence their disruption, you may reopen the SPI or contact me on my Talk page.
 * In the future, please present some evidence of socking. All you said about WorldTrainSpotter is that you have been "made aware" that the account "may" be a sock. Made aware by whom? Why are they a sock? I'm familiar with this master, so it wasn't hard for me to look at the account's contributions and see the behavioral connection, but someone else evaluating your request might have denied it for lack of evidence. Thanks.
 * Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the future, please present some evidence of socking. All you said about WorldTrainSpotter is that you have been "made aware" that the account "may" be a sock. Made aware by whom? Why are they a sock? I'm familiar with this master, so it wasn't hard for me to look at the account's contributions and see the behavioral connection, but someone else evaluating your request might have denied it for lack of evidence. Thanks.
 * Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

19 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Asked for unblock, stating that they were "no longer creating accounts" on the talk pages of several administrators and at least one regular user. Not requesting CU because I know that IPs aren't connected to accounts here, but I knew not to send this report to AIV. I am therefore requesting that this IP be blocked for block evasion. Ches (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * as IP has already been blocked. Please archive. Regards, --Ches (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

20 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This is a request to "clear the air" about an IP who I have no reason to believe is a sock (I will notify them accordingly).

However some admin(s) have already decided that they are a sock, and are reverting constructive and accurate edits by them, so as to re-introduce obvious errors (to the detriment of WP article quality). I believe that such action should not be done without some serious degree of confirmation or at least a real suspicion that they're related.

An IP from HK is not the same thing as an IP from Singapore! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, throwing accusations of racism around gets far too close to Godwin's Law for comfort, but the reply of the reverting admin here was "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own", as an excuse for equating IPs from Hong Kong as being implicitly linked to IPs from Singapore. That is just NEVER acceptable here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably related, innocently, to the HK above - but I still see the claim that these are Profile101 as unproven. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we have the reverting admin rolling back the Singapore IP (who we think is the blocked Profile101) in order to restore an edit by the HK editor here, who they're otherwise bulk-reverting under WP:DENY. Now that's either some subtle "argue with myself for lulz and a smokescreen" or else it's a pretty big hint that these accounts are not connected, and that we owe this editor an apology. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here the previous socking admits his identity. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a comment by, and is probably the rightly blocked Profile101.
 * What relation does it have to the 112.118.236.132 or 112.120.223.163 accounts? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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


 * Thank you for my promotion Andy, but I am not an admin. If you go a little further back in the edit history of the IP, they are restoring material previously inserted by a sock of Profile 101. See here: User Talk:Boing! said Zebedee. You should really have let me know you were referencing me here: I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about when you mention'out of state Chinese' on my TP. You misunderstood my use of the Latin tag. It did not refer to people, or even socks- as I said, it was used metaphorically, in this case referring to the fact that in the course of mass-reverting sock edits, some useful edits are bound to be caught up in it. Pinging a the blocking admin. Cheers, Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  11:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: also, your remarks about 'LOLZ and smoke screen' are impenetrable to me; but not so much they I don't realise you are being offensive. Please strike them through. I also suggest that the two IPs are sufficiently close (112.~ / 115.~) And editing such obscure material, and making the same edits, that WP:QUACK is probably the case. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * " If you go a little further back in the edit history of the IP, they are restoring material previously inserted by a sock of Profile 101."
 * No, they are not. Show the diffs for this, if you have them. If anything, they are reverting ''each others edits: '
 * "the two IPs are sufficiently close (112.~ / 115.~)"  You clearly have no competence whatsoever when it comes to IP addressing. Thankyou for making that so plain.
 * "but not so much they I don't realise you are being offensive." What is that clause even supposed to mean? As to my meaning, then I was merely pointing out that some socks are subtle and are capable of fighting between their two accounts to produce a smokescreen as if they were unrelated. A l33t sock with an international VPN certainly can pop up from around the world's IP space (Russavia @ Commons being an infamous example). I cannot imagine how you could feel offended about such a comment, but now that I recall you from past encounters at BeerXML, your speciality (it clearly isn't IP networking) is in inventing imagined slights against you. Yet when it comes to others, you happily practice the Prince Philip school of racial stereotyping. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm declining CU and closing this nonsense. You should report accounts to SPI when you suspect they are sockpuppets, not when you "have no reason to believe is a sock".   Vanjagenije   (talk)  00:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

21 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self-confessed sock https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Profile101&diff=prev&oldid=704766495 Nordic   Dragon  08:09, 21 March 2016 (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

 * This one is already blocked, so I'm closing the case. Why did you block this IP today? The last edit was more than a month ago?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  09:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Vanjagenije. I'm sorry. It was a drive-by block in the middle of six other things and I didn't notice the date. My humblest apologies. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Although this user claims to hail from Johor Bahru, on the border between Singapore and Malaysia,however this user has exactly the same editing styles as Profile101, such as making self sections on his talk page and also edits the same pages as Profile101. The editing style of Profile101 is easy to distinguish. However, I saw something today (an edit summary by this user which looks EXACTLY like one of Profile101's or his first IP address which made me smell a rat with this guy and Profile101. A diff can be found here and here . The edit summary by AgentSuperGuy looks exactly the same as one used by Profile101's IP Address.Class455fan1 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2016 (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
How about some diffs to support your statements?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See above. I have added the one which makes me strongly suspect that this user is a sock. Class455fan1 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sock indeffed nad tagged.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See AN/I discussion here; similar edits to Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951. Muffled Pocketed  18:01, 8 July 2016 (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 the technical evidence that has not gone stale in this case, I would call this a very weak .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly intimately acquainted with Profile101's usual style (to my chagrin) and from style and behaviour, Lee480 doesn't sound anything like him. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Adding recent edit: this is the authentic voice of Profile101. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Based on the weak technical evidence and Bishonen's comments, I'm closing this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Obvious duck, I noticed that the IP had not been blocked since leaving a message on another user's talk page. Zero talk 13:48, 20 August 2016 (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 48 hours. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Edits the same kind of pages as Profile101 and I see a similarity in behaviour to Profile101, for example making new sections on their own talk page, as you can see in the page's history. Requesting CU to determine whether this is Profile101 or not, but behavorial evidence means that I'm pretty sure it is him. Class455 (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

As a semi-involved third party I can say that the behaviour is very similar, if not the same as Profile 101. Pinging and  who may be interested. Nordic  Nightfury  14:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Considering this edit by Timothyhouse1 (blocked in November for adding unsourced content) and this edit by Timothyhouse2 (newly created account) I don't think the naming similarity is coincidental. There is also this edit to an article previously edited by TH1. bonadea contributions talk 13:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Am I missing something here? How can Timothyhouse1 be a sock when the account is several years older than Profile101? I'm pretty sure the Timothyhouse2 account was just Profile101 trolling, and it has nothing to do with Timothyhouse1. Sro23 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the two are unrelated but TH2 is definitely Profile101. Is the block based on CU evidence? Nördic   Nightfury  21:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Profile101 has impersonated others before, as one of his socks also asked to unblock the indeffed Supdiop as well as himself if i remember correctly. Don't know why this guy won't just stay away from Wikipedia and do something else in life...  Class 455 ( talk  | stand clear of the doors!)''' 23:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging per below - if interested  Nördic   Nightfury  08:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Following more checks based on contributions, I definitely don't think the two are related. Timothyhouse1 has been around for quite some time before Profile101, and was recently indeffed for adding unsourced content. Profile101's editing styles are recognisable and the edits of Timothyhouse1 don't have the hallmarks of Profile101. Profile101 is also notorious for impersonating people with his socks.. He has previously attempted to impersonate me (thinking I am an administrator when I'm not, as he has said in his many sock messages),,  and . My point is that Timothyhouse2 is a sock of Profile101 but is unrelated to Timothyhouse1. It's just Profile101 impersonating again.  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!) 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that Timothyhouse1 is not Profile101 - their styles are very different. As for geolocation and ISP matches, Singapore is a very small place and there aren't many ISPs there, and it's not that surprising if Profile101 chose to impersonate someone from their own country. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As a result of the CU results, I have removed the sock puppetry tag on Timothyhouse1's user page. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!) 17:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * based on geolocation and behavior. Blocked, tagged, closed. Katietalk 13:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After Timothyhouse2 vandalized Sockpuppet investigations/Profile101/Archive, I rechecked and ✅ the account to proven socks of Profile101. Please merge this into Profile101 and retag them accordingly. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 13:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ (merged from Sockpuppet investigations/Timothyhouse1). Retagged, closing. GABgab 16:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If Profile101 has a history of impersonation, and I admit I'm not terribly familiar with him, it's possible that TH1 isn't Profile101. The user agents were slightly different, though that may not mean much. However, the geolocation and ISP are pretty big coincidences, and I don't like coincidences. One of the CUs more familiar with Profile101 should maybe take a second look. Katietalk 03:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For a CU more familiar with Profile101, I'm pinging Ponyo, who I think has seen a lot of their notorious IP posting. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Timothyhouse1 and Timothyhouse2 are ❌. Timothyhouse2 is very Profile101., if you want details, please e-mail me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Timothyhouse1 was previously indef blocked for a different reason, so I've removed the sock block and reinstated the original one - it doesn't make much difference, but it sets the record straight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks, everybody, for helping me learn. :-) Katietalk 17:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User recently created a new sock, and included a few references to their other socks on their user page. --JustBerry (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC) JustBerry (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Blanking attempt here and here of existing SPI case. --JustBerry (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (blocked by DMacks) --JustBerry (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (blocked by DMacks and tagged as blocked suspected sock) --JustBerry (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing. GABgab 15:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I believe this is who in the last SPI was found to be likely to be Profile101, They edit everything related to Singapore transport and IMHO the name is more than just a big coincidence, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 15:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Hmm, I think applies here... although the language they're using seems to be a little more sophisticated, and not too dissimilar to Timothyhouse1's (who was found not to be Profile101). Perhaps the CU should check Timothyhouse1 too. Patient Zerotalk 13:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Both Timothyhouse2 and Profile101 have very few edits between them so I fail to see how I can do a comparison, Well I don't think we're dealing with a new user but as I cannot provide said diffs this may aswell be closed. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Please provide a couple of diffs to show the similarities. Thanks! --Deskana (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing at filer's request.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)