Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prophaniti/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets






Evidence submitted by Fezmar9
I would first like to say that this is my first SPI, and if I have filled out this form incorrectly, please let me know. There seems to be a new 86.XXX.XXX.XXX IP heavily editing 2010 in heavy metal music, 2009 in heavy metal music (sometimes Heavy metal subgenres and Breaking Benjamin too) every week since earlier this year. The ones listed are just the more recent IPs not tagged as socks. (EDIT: Tedder requested that the list be expanded to generate an IP range.) Despite some perfectly valid edits to these articles, the puppermaster seems to have his own views about simple Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V among others. The various IPs have been informed of these policies by myself or other editors, yet continues to edit war and fix the articles how he sees fit while ignoring any sort of discussion. The list of suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Prophaniti features a large number of 86.XXX.XXX.XXX IP addresses whose editing behavior is similar to the aforementioned IPs. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Hoping the sockpuppet wizards can analyze behavior and bag/tag. If you can link more IPs or figure out an IP range to block, that would be even better. tedder (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A rangeblock would not work here. The IPs are too spread apart, and many of the /16 ranges are busy as far as anon-editing is concerned. MuZemike 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was afraid of. In any case, having this SPI to explain page protection and rapid blocks of IPs is helpful. Anything that can be done on the CHU/SPI side to explain behavior and deal with the socked IPs is a bonus. tedder (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
2010 in heavy metal music and 2009 in heavy metal music both semi-protected for 2 weeks. I'm going to leave the other pages unprotected at this time, as the disruption is nowhere as heavy as it is on the two now-protected pages. If it starts to pick up, though, let me know. MuZemike 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fezmar9
The result of the last SPI against Prophaniti resulted in 2010 in heavy metal music and 2009 in heavy metal music becoming semi-protected. It seemed very suspicious that a brand new user, BeRhino, would perform exactly ten minor edits and wait a week before contributing to the protected pages. It also seemed suspicious that a brand new user would know wiki-terms like weasel words and non-reliable sources and that BeRhino entered a debate with a stance that one of Prophaniti's IPs also had.

I felt that it was a shame to ban an editor that would make numerous perfectly valid edits, but just had issues with edit warring and following guidelines. I figured maybe I could reason with the banned editor and maybe give him a second chance. Despite my better judgment, I was planning on letting him continue to edit, and upon his first incident I would open up an SPI. BeRhino decided to argue with me instead of taking up my offer. The conversation takes place here on my talk page. It would seem that he forgot to sign in for his second comment, and signed with his IP (86.143.241.144) which is consistent with previous sock IPs. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser request
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention, as the BeRhino account suggests that sleeper socks are around. MuZemike 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
User:BeRhino has been indefinitely blocked and tagged; the autoblock should take care of the IP. MuZemike 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IP is him, no other accounts. Brandon (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fezmar9
Based on the user's name, just-give-me-the-damn-account, and that his first edits include opening an AFD, it is fairly obvious that this account is a sock of someone. Based on the account's recent edits to 2010 in heavy metal music and 2009 in heavy metal music, it's very likely that this is a sock of User:Prophaniti, who loves to create socks and edit these two articles.

In the previously mentioned AFD, Justgimmethedamnaccount commented that he tried to speedy delete and PROD the article before trying AFD. Both of those were performed by an IP (86.138.89.88) within the range of Prophaniti. It would also seem that another user in the AFD thought that the account was a sock of Prophaniti.

The account predates my involvements in SPI with Prophaniti, so it's likely that there are still other sleeper accounts out there. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Conclusions
Registered account blocked and tagged. No purpose in blocking the IP. MuZemike 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 2 2010, 23:08 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Likely the same person per duck test and reasons above. Editor 410 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Editor 410 (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Eh, what reasons above?

Seriously: http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=Prophaniti&user2=Sumbuddi&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10= No overlap at all.

Speedy close, just stupid, block the submitter, who is a sockpuppet himself: []Sumbuddi (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Then what's all this behavior about? --Editor 410 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * No idea, why don't you ask any other random person? I see a 'Kingoomieiii' and a 'Prophprotect' there. Connection with me is what? Sumbuddi (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why is this 86.x.x.x IP address used by you? --Editor 410 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with that diff above?
 * 86.x.x.x is BT Group. BT has one third of the entire UK internet market. So if you pick three UK Wikipedia users completely at random, one will match. And you already know that I use those IPs. So you are just responding to being reported as a sockpuppet with a nonsensical smear. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than beat around the bush, let's ask the obvious questions. Sambuddi, are you saying you are not a sock of Prophaniti or any other users here? Editor 410, are you a sockpuppet of Wiki_libs or any other user here? It's probably easiest for you both to reply in this section, to keep the discussion threaded. tedder (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I ain't no sockpuppet of Wiki libs that's for sure. --Editor 410 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The suggestion is absurd. This seems to be some sort of crackpotted response to this: . Wiki libs mentions this Prophaniti guy here: and whaddya know, within a couple of hours this nonsense is started up. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note wikistalk gives different results when "all namespaces" is checked. tedder (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So it does. There's me posting on Wiki libs' talk page, due to his sockpuppetry, and me tagging Peter Fleet as an indef blocked sockpuppet. And a few common WP:space pages. One user + his puppet in common among thousands of edits. Do we have to prolong this nonsense? Sumbuddi (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The huge advantage of prolonging the nonsense is to let a checkuser play out, which will confirm both of you aren't sockpuppets. tedder (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well no not really. There has to be a credible accusation of sockpuppetry for checkuser to go ahead. You can't just randomly say that this: user is the same as this user, just because you know they are on the same ISP. There's no similarity whatsoever. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I really have no desire to throw my hat into the much larger Sumbuddi / Wiki libs SPI discussion but this specific report and the above "evidence" makes about as much sense as saying "XXXXX is a sockpuppet because I had a pastrami sandwich for lunch". Nefariousski (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User has admitted being a sockpuppet of Prophaniti. --Editor 410 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I forgot to eat my Wheaties this morning but I'm pretty sure he didn't admit being a sockpuppet but instead was just stating that you are making an accusation of sockpuppetry. Nefariousski (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw requested since there is no way that checkuser will be able to find the results. Therefore this case is officially closed as stale report. --Editor 410 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not 'officially closed' as anything. It is however a lot of nonsense. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested by Editor 410 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Any diffs? I'm not going to go through the several thousand edits hunting for evidence. Tim Song (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) . No evidence provided = no action taken. Closing as such. Tim Song (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions