Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rt665j4/Archive

15 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Many attempts to promote ErisDB & add inappropriate external links to erisindustries.com, mostly on the Block chain (database) article:        -- intgr [talk] 17:55, 15 December 2015 (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

 * - Please, compare two registered accounts.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both indeffed and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

17 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This new account created today after Rt665j4 was blocked has made no edits outside of the master's area of interest and is continuing the ErisDB promotion on the article's talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Similar edits at block chain (database):
 * removes "permissionless" from description:
 * insists on referring to ErisDB with an external link:
 * None of the confirmed accounts have edited any other article, nor has Singleissuevoter. Rt665j4's most recent edit was an unblock request struggling to argue the same issue they'd been arguing at the block chain article; Singleissuevoter appeared five hours later to continue the same dispute. I suggest it would be a good idea to semiprotect that page if this report is confirmed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added the IP, who signs their edits as Singleissuevoter:

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

 * for the named account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked and tagged. Closing, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

10 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * The account started its activity on 7 March 2016, after the previous accounts of were blocked.
 * The account made no edit outside of the 's area of interest.
 * Removes "permissionless" and "based on the bitcoin protocol" from description, and claims that the concept of "permissionless" should not be used
 * Immediately reverts the reinstatement of the WP:STATUSQUO
 * Proposes to introduce primary sources referring to private designs to the article Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for detecting also the account. While the behavioral evidence is tiny, the main goal of seems to always have been to advertise the ErisDB product, which  also did in his only edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:29, 11 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

 * Editor has a history of creating socks and showcases a narrow interest in bitcoins. Timeline also supports the appearance of the editor but the behavioral evidence alone is not strong enough to warrant a block without the check. Mkdw talk 18:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The filer implies that the previous blocks of this master’s two puppets were recent. They were not.  All edits go back to mid-December 2015, which is about as far back as you can go before they become.
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * The two accounts are either or  to the master. The key is location. They are editing from opposite ends of the country, which would normally make it unlikely. However, if you assume the master is on vacation, a reasonable inference based on one of the IPs belonging to a hotel, then the technical match is stood on its head and becomes likely. The fact that another account was created at roughly the same time as Satoshlong does not argue in the master's favor. However, this just a tagging issue as I'm blocking both accounts. The clerk(s) can determine the tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to tag Satoshlong as proven and Zaboshor as altmaster-status proven . I went back and looked at the discussion Talk:Block chain (database)/Archive_1 and Talk:Block chain (database). Both Satoshlong and Rt665j4 (using Singleissuevoter) engaged in discussions regarding, specifically "permissionless". This makes the behavioural evidence much stronger. Additionally, the creation of multiple accounts in itself is a behavioural MO. The fact that the suspected sock had another account, only adds to the evidence because the master is a well documented sock puppeteer. Mkdw talk 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interrupt the trainee discussion, but if I understand properly what you're saying, I disagree. You should assume at the outset of your analysis that Satashlong and Zaboshor are the same person. Therefore, however you tag one, the other should be tagged the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is part of the trainee so I appreciate the feedback. I was recommending that be tagged with   because the behavioural evidence was strong enough to tie it to . I was then recommending that  be tagged with  . I realize I could have been a bit more clear about this. The reason for Zaboshor to have this tag would be because there was no behavioural evidence to tie the account to Rt665j4, but it was connected to a proven sock through a CU. A very similar situation happened at Sockpuppet investigations/Alechkoist/Archive whereby  recommended these tags; one sock was confirmed by CU to another sock, but only to the master by behavioural evidence. If you're saying you disagree with these proposed tags and that both Satoshlong and Zaboshor should be tagged with the "same"   tag, then would it be possible to clarify wherein the difference lies between this two seemingly similar situation? The circumstances seem almost identical. Thanks,  Mkdw talk 06:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged Satoshlong as a sockpuppet of Rt with "proven" and Zaboshor as a sockpuppet of Satoshlong as "confirmed". Although, there's no evidence to connect Zaboshor with the main sockmaster, since behaviour-wise Satoshlong and Rt are socks, I've put the altmaster-status as proven. (Again, I had some free time, I'll be away as usual, so feel free to undo if I messed up). --QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 09:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is part of the trainee so I appreciate the feedback. I was recommending that be tagged with   because the behavioural evidence was strong enough to tie it to . I was then recommending that  be tagged with  . I realize I could have been a bit more clear about this. The reason for Zaboshor to have this tag would be because there was no behavioural evidence to tie the account to Rt665j4, but it was connected to a proven sock through a CU. A very similar situation happened at Sockpuppet investigations/Alechkoist/Archive whereby  recommended these tags; one sock was confirmed by CU to another sock, but only to the master by behavioural evidence. If you're saying you disagree with these proposed tags and that both Satoshlong and Zaboshor should be tagged with the "same"   tag, then would it be possible to clarify wherein the difference lies between this two seemingly similar situation? The circumstances seem almost identical. Thanks,  Mkdw talk 06:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged Satoshlong as a sockpuppet of Rt with "proven" and Zaboshor as a sockpuppet of Satoshlong as "confirmed". Although, there's no evidence to connect Zaboshor with the main sockmaster, since behaviour-wise Satoshlong and Rt are socks, I've put the altmaster-status as proven. (Again, I had some free time, I'll be away as usual, so feel free to undo if I messed up). --QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 09:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling it out. Thanks for implementing what Mkdw spelled out. I've added a sockmaster tag to Satashlong to make the two accounts "equal". From my persepctive, we are now done, but do you folk understand/agree?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've gone back and updated the tag for as well on the other SPI. Closing this case.  Mkdw talk 18:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

21 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:DUCK: created today; first/only edits are continuing a POV discussion at Talk:Block chain (database) which a previous sock started. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Changing to CheckUser requested (not a clerk action/not self-endorsing). This editor is known to create sleepers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 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

 * I'd definitely have liked to put this as duck case and close but the information is not enough to determine whose exact sock it is. This account was also created on 21 March, not the date when Satoshlong was blocked. For all we know, he could be a coincidental SPA or a meatpuppet. Alpha does seem to know Satoshlong, though he refers to him as a third-party (which could be a ruse). The edits are definitely suspicious and the jumping into the same topic, furthers that. Also, we need to check for sleepers, since we have 2 puppets already connected indirectly/directly to him. --QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 13:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The account is technically as they used a separate open proxy (all now blocked) for nearly every edit they made. That in itself is damning evidence as they were purposefully attempting to obsfucate their technical data. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given their obvious familiarity with Wikipedia policies and behavioural overlaps with previous socks, as well as the extensive use of proxies to avoid detection, I have blocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)