Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rouoetyjsjabdb/Archive

30 June 2012

 * Suspected blocked sockpuppets


 * Suspected unblocked sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

recreation of previous deleted hoax article - Moses the coach NtheP (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Based on this edit to my talk page (he told me to convince the "wiki supreme evil SI dictators", presumably a reference to the admins, that Moses the Coach was real) by User:Enchiladaland it is possible that he is also involved. If so, it is very likely to be the same person as User:Tacolands and User:Tacoshack based on the same username and edit pattern. Additionally, judging by his username, he is possibly the same sock as User:Larfers and User:Cowback23451 who are both already blocked, I think. Smartyllama (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Another note: There was previously a sock investigation into cowback, which can be found at Sockpuppet_investigations/Cowback23451/Archive Also User:Weinventedmoses is tagged as a sock but was not previously included in this originally. Same with User:Bargerson whose original userpage rather suggests he has more accounts. I found these by sorting through the history for Ray Reid and a couple other UConn coaches. I recall that Cowback vandalized them frequently before he was blocked. Smartyllama (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added these socks to the list, including the socks involved in Cowback23451's investigations prevously. Smartyllama (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Another update: note this edit and the one right before it that Bargerson (who has multiple accounts, he seemingly admits on his talk page) made on User:Theopolisme's talk page.

He said "How dare you delete my pages again? You deleted Moses the coach. You deleted st Eldwards and now you're deleting it again. You are A Jerk wagon. Love cowback cowbert and larfers. Bargerson (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Ps johnnyjorringer says you are a jerk wagon too. He is posskblu not me"

Cowback and larfers were already suspected socks due to the similar name (as was johnnyjorringer, due to his suspected sock connection to those two), although I'm not sure who the master is now. User:Cowbert appears to be a respected editor who just has a similar name to cowback23451, but I'm adding him to the suspected socks to be sure. 00:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

One more note: I was looking through the user creation log for around the time Tacoshack, et al were created and another user called User:Burritohut was created at the same time. The account has no contributions, but given the similar username format to tacoshack, tacolands, and enchiladalands, I've added it. Smartyllama (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * the whole lot. I've sorted the list, and every possible person who recreated that article is blocked. There is no evidence except maybe a username similiarity, which is not close, between the unblocked socks. With no supposed evidence, i'm not digging through contribs to draw up this case. Also the deleted article is now Semi'd. Please state a good reason for us to look at this case. If no activity in a few days, we can close this. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bargerson seemed to admit he was Cowbert and JohnnyJorringer, neither of whom are blocked. Additionally, burritohut, tacolands, and tacoshack, all of whom have a similar username format of "mexican food + location" were all created within a few minutes of eachother and burrito hut is not blocked. Should I recreate this to look into Bargerson, Johnny Jorringer, and Cowbert specifically since the latter two or not blocked? They may not be the same person as Rouoetyjsjabdb, but there is evidence that they may be socks, namely Bargerson's statements. Smartyllama (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * - There now is enough evidence for us to take a look. I'm only requesting a sleeper check/confirmation of socks check on, because of the comment about using multiple accounts, and vandalizing, making it abusing multiple accounts. If someone wants to investigate everything else further, before I have another chance, feel free, but the sleeper check/confirmation of socks check is all I'm asking for right now till I have time to look at the connections more. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * , most of the blocked socks come from all over dynamic ranges almost certainly assigned to the residences of a major university, and those ranges have plenty of legitimate traffic as well. Some of the suspected socks also come from those ranges, but there is no strong evidence that those are not bystanders that have similar interests due to simply being other students at the same institution. Nothing here I'd hang a confirmed on; looks like semiprotection and whack-a-mole will have to do.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that these are all socks. The rest of the unblocked socks except and  are . Issuing  taken for the other two as one has no contribs, the other seems productive. Rereport as needed. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

20 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Self explanary diffs really - and  Mdann52 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Just spotted another one - *, posting. Mdann52 (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All accounts have been blocked by an admin (as of now). Mdann52 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Already blocked--v/r - TP 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also see User:Jorringerandlarfers and User:Larfersandcowback. --Bsadowski1 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This should be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rouoetyjsjabdb. --Bsadowski1 16:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

All accounts are ✅, nothing else of interest. --MuZemike 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reopened to make sure that this case is renamed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rouoetyjsjabdb per Bsadowski1. Agree that is the master.


 * ✅. Marking for close. Elockid  ( Talk ) 14:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

22 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All VOAs with similar agendas, involving the creation of hoax articles on nonexistent Kardashians, vandalism of Ray Reid and related pages, and merry admissions of sockpuppetry on their userpages. Pretty clearly Rouoetyjsjabdb - hence the request for checkuser, both to confirm the master and to pick up any sleepers. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Three of the user's previously suspected socks (which are now archived) contained the word "Larf" and one contained the word "Lirf". So there's some evidence of similar names. Smartyllama (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe these people are innocent and you are all liars. So stop hating me and get your own life. Iliketoseeaboutcows (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This guy too, obviously. Indeffed. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was blocked for socks about six years ago. I have matured since then and would not do such a thing anymore. I follow a lot of UConn-related pages in my watchlist, many of which were vandalized by this person/people - that's how I was aware of this issue. There are over 18,000 undergrads at this school, plus about 5,000 graduate students I believe. And given that many of the articles vandalized were UConn-related, that's not really much of a connection. So you're just reading too much into this. Smartyllama (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I have a beef with this sockmaster because one of his socks harassed me before on my talk page when I reverted his vandalism to the UConn-related articles. It was a few months ago, but now that he apparently resurfaced I had reason to want him blocked once and for all. Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The mass VoAs is reason enough for a check. -- DQ on the road   (ʞlɐʇ)  13:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is and  is . The rest, including the one blocked by Writ Keeper, are ✅. I am also concerned by the appearance of Smartyllama here. Smartyllama has been blocked for creating vandal accounts in the past, and has been afforded a lot of AGF, but the fact that they attend the same university and made a comment here makes me think that they are somehow connected to the vandal. I think that an explanation is needed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Note: On further review of the case archive, I may be reading too much into the situation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way I dropped a notice at his talk. -- DQ on the road   (ʞlɐʇ)  14:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Smartyllama, for the explanation. As I didn't see a technical connection to the vandal, I consider the matter closed. I apologize if my AGF didn't extend far enough this morning. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tags updated, everyone was already blocked. Jafeluv (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

28 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

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

Thrice = Three times. Three times, four times, five times. They're all the same username minus the number, I doubt we even need Checkuser for this one. This SPI takes Rouoetyjsjabdb's SockPuppet count up to over 30 of the damn things. I think it's about time we take this guy to AN, ANI, RFC whichever it is and see to at that he is de facto community banned. This is one of the biggest SPI's i've seen in my 7 months running around Wikipedia, almost as big as The Tailsman67 I ever so despise, quite possibly bigger. Someone point me in the right direction to propose the de facto. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 10:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have this page in my watchlist due to previous interactions with the guy, and unfortunately he appears to be back. On a suspicion, I checked for other similar account names. There's also a User:YouOnlyLarfOnce and a User:YouOnlyLarfTwice. No other numbers exist, except YouOnlyLarfSixTimes, which was created to prevent it from being created by the sockmaster. Seven and above do not exist. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added those two to the list. Regular users can do that right? Or is it CU's only? I'll revert if needed. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Filing for the record, for the benefit of the SRCU request on Meta. Confirmed by User:DoRD. Rschen7754 08:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

01 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Left on master's talkpage saying admitting he was a sock, and also  on Cowbert's page. also on his userpage, admitting he is the same person as User:Lirfers, User:JohnnyJorringer and the larf accounts, which are all confirmed or suspected socks of the master. Also left on the talk page of a user who reverted their vandalism, listing the above accounts and CommunistPaqqq, which is a suspected sock from a previous investigation. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 1 May 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

 * I've already blocked the reported sockpuppet, and the other "sock" seems to be getting trolled by the actual socks of this guy. In other words, Cowbert is almost certainly unrelated. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

11 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Newly created account matches names of YouOnlyLarfSevenTimes, whose user page says they are a sock. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:02, 11 September 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

 * - - Blocked, need CU to check for sleepers. Rschen7754 22:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything is already blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

02 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Username too similar to banned vandal to be coincidence Drm310 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (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

 * These are (SPI). . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Both blocked and tagged, closing. This section moved here from Sockpuppet investigations/Rabid Goat 32. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)