Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488/Archive

10 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets








 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The duck evidence seems to be sufficient to finger these (first) three and they have all been indef blocked as suspected socks. But it seems like Shannon1488 has been creating a lot of socks lately in a concerted attempt to attack people working on the Nair article, and I suspect he has more up his sleeve - so I'd like to request a CU check for sleepers (and confirmation of the above ones would be nice too, for the record, as this is likely to be an ongoing problem for some time). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is probably quite a tangled web of sockmasters, socks and meatpuppets here, and I've added a few more possibilities to the list above (not just fishing - they have all acted similarly and disruptively/abusively on related articles and talk pages) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only just see the SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Sumitkachroo/Archive - are there any connections between any of that group and the ones below? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added User:Prashantv79 - registered only today and immediately started personal attacks on the same editors -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment after CU result and subsequent relist: I had previously asked for Sockpuppet investigations/Chothy poorimol/Archive to be moved here as that has some relevance to the Shannon1488 socking (three socks were IDd there). However, I forgot about it and notice that had archived it at the same title. That CCI as well as Sockpuppet investigations/KondottySultan/Archive are also relevant to the findings in this one. One of the accounts was only linked as a possible sock --  so I didn't block it initially, but subsequent edits confirmed it as a sock.  and  are the same (even if technical evidence is only likely/possible), so the two groups around these two accounts are also possibly the same. I also expect there are a couple of good-hand accounts of these that we haven't unearthed so far. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: There are a few more accounts that appear to be related but the one that I checked hasn't edited since January, so we might have to recheck later. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I keep forgetting things today. was checked and confirmed by  per my request on his talk page when this matter was at ANI a couple of days back.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment after relist - shows all the signs of being one also. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added and, both of whom have displayed similar activity. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - This is definitely someone. Is Shannon1488 connected to ? Someone else? I have a feeling this is part of a larger sockfarm, but I'm not sure - so endorsing to find out. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ (I think):
 * There is a substantial bit of uncertainty about some of this, especially the third confirmed group. There are opera proxies being used all over the place here, which makes confirmation and finding socks a bit tricky. A second pair of eyes wouldn't hurt on this, so I've relisted this for Checkuser. Frank was looking earlier, so may have a head start. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marked case as relisted just to make it clearer at a glance that its state is correct. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And just to toss a bit more on, can you clarify the relationships between the groups? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First and second are likely the same (some of the ones in the second are blocked as a sock of Shannon1488), the third is likely something else. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was looking when I saw that Hersfold was also looking at the same time. While I wouldn't have put it the same way as above, this is always a judgment call and I can't really dispute these findings either. One thing I would say is that attaching each of these groups to each other is, at the moment, a challenge. I make no representation one way or the other. I think there's little doubt there's abuse going on here; what's less clear is that all are socks of a single master. I also don't know that I'd put so many in the second group, but again...it's a judgment call, and again - there's clearly deception here. Frank  &#124;  talk  01:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional note: User:Anuraj 2009 and User:Anuraj 2010 are highly to be the same user.  Frank  &#124;  talk  02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional additional note: User:KoyilandySultan ✅ as User:KondottySultan. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ (I think):
 * There is a substantial bit of uncertainty about some of this, especially the third confirmed group. There are opera proxies being used all over the place here, which makes confirmation and finding socks a bit tricky. A second pair of eyes wouldn't hurt on this, so I've relisted this for Checkuser. Frank was looking earlier, so may have a head start. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marked case as relisted just to make it clearer at a glance that its state is correct. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And just to toss a bit more on, can you clarify the relationships between the groups? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First and second are likely the same (some of the ones in the second are blocked as a sock of Shannon1488), the third is likely something else. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was looking when I saw that Hersfold was also looking at the same time. While I wouldn't have put it the same way as above, this is always a judgment call and I can't really dispute these findings either. One thing I would say is that attaching each of these groups to each other is, at the moment, a challenge. I make no representation one way or the other. I think there's little doubt there's abuse going on here; what's less clear is that all are socks of a single master. I also don't know that I'd put so many in the second group, but again...it's a judgment call, and again - there's clearly deception here. Frank  &#124;  talk  01:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional note: User:Anuraj 2009 and User:Anuraj 2010 are highly to be the same user.  Frank  &#124;  talk  02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional additional note: User:KoyilandySultan ✅ as User:KondottySultan. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ (I think):
 * There is a substantial bit of uncertainty about some of this, especially the third confirmed group. There are opera proxies being used all over the place here, which makes confirmation and finding socks a bit tricky. A second pair of eyes wouldn't hurt on this, so I've relisted this for Checkuser. Frank was looking earlier, so may have a head start. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marked case as relisted just to make it clearer at a glance that its state is correct. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And just to toss a bit more on, can you clarify the relationships between the groups? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First and second are likely the same (some of the ones in the second are blocked as a sock of Shannon1488), the third is likely something else. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was looking when I saw that Hersfold was also looking at the same time. While I wouldn't have put it the same way as above, this is always a judgment call and I can't really dispute these findings either. One thing I would say is that attaching each of these groups to each other is, at the moment, a challenge. I make no representation one way or the other. I think there's little doubt there's abuse going on here; what's less clear is that all are socks of a single master. I also don't know that I'd put so many in the second group, but again...it's a judgment call, and again - there's clearly deception here. Frank  &#124;  talk  01:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional note: User:Anuraj 2009 and User:Anuraj 2010 are highly to be the same user.  Frank  &#124;  talk  02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional additional note: User:KoyilandySultan ✅ as User:KondottySultan. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was looking when I saw that Hersfold was also looking at the same time. While I wouldn't have put it the same way as above, this is always a judgment call and I can't really dispute these findings either. One thing I would say is that attaching each of these groups to each other is, at the moment, a challenge. I make no representation one way or the other. I think there's little doubt there's abuse going on here; what's less clear is that all are socks of a single master. I also don't know that I'd put so many in the second group, but again...it's a judgment call, and again - there's clearly deception here. Frank  &#124;  talk  01:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional note: User:Anuraj 2009 and User:Anuraj 2010 are highly to be the same user.  Frank  &#124;  talk  02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional additional note: User:KoyilandySultan ✅ as User:KondottySultan. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Um.. alright. I've updated the tags on all the groups, blocked the latest one Frank found, and one of the ones in the note before that. I think we're good for _now_, but relist if/when there are new developments. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Terrific work folks, thanks for all your help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

24 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Only just registered, first edit is to make the same groundless accusation with the same blog link as made by User:Cinnamon123 - see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive711. That user turned out to be a sock of User:Shannon1488 - see Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488/Archive. There must be a possibility of sleepers too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusation by Cinamon123 aka Shannon1488 here
 * Accusation by DK.Bose7 here

PS: I've blocked DK.Bose7 on the duck evidence, but I think we do need a proper check. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2011 (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

 * - Last time we looked at this case, there was a mess with multiple masters. I'll endorse to figure out which one this is. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

✅ plus:



–MuZemike 02:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

01 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Has been propagating the same defamatory blog accusing some Wikipedia editors of being paid to defame Indian castes, this time using the Wikipedia email system. (Though it's also possible this is actually the recently-blocked User:Yogesh Khandke, as he has been propagating the same thing too.)

All in all, this is part of a serious harassment campaign (which appears to be coordinated to some degree) against two very productive Wikipedia editors.

I'm not sure what CheckUser can do with an editor who hasn't actually made edits - don't know if registration and/or use of email can be traced.

I've already indef blocked based on the email actions, but confirmation would be good, and I do think we could do with another sleeper check if possible. And if it's one of the same old gang again, would there be any possibility of a range block? (Can provide a copy of the email this one has been sending, together with a link to the block, if required - but off-wiki). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2011 (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
✅ as being Shannon1488. The IP in question is already hardblocked and I saw no other accounts. TN X Man 18:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked; I tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

10 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar behavior and POV. Along with the account various IPs have come in to chime on the same bits, quite like the behavior of the many socks before. We had three linked "groups" from the past SPI (July, August was more straightforward), don't know which of the groups this would go under, and also given the number of socks unearthed before, a sleeper check would be appreciated. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:46, 10 October 2011 (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

 * Cu-endorsed . In future, to request a sleeper check, please change SPI case status (at the top of the investigation form) to CU. Thanks, AGK  [&bull; ] 11:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, . The named sock does not have the same writing style as Shannon, and has not actually edited the article. I also cannot ascertain what the "similar POV" is, because I do not edit this article and am unfamiliar with the whole situation. Please spell the connection out more plainly, or a check cannot be run—and also, the patrolling administrator won't have much to go for. Thanks, AGK  [&bull; ] 11:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * per above. Kindly re-file if or when you can respond to the problem with this request, elucidated above. Thanks, AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Per that, closing for now. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)