Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shoot for the Stars/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The Youcancallmejimmy account was created a little over a day after The Ultimate Boss (then DarklyShadows) returned from a self-requested indefinite block and announced he "won't be that active anymore". A while before the other account was created, DarklyShadows registered the name change. The second account was being used to obsessively edit Billie Eilish articles between 06:00 and 19:32 on on 14th July. Notably, TUA made no edits during this time. This is unusual for a user who had recently come back from an indefinite block. The behavioral evidence is there simply by looking at their interactions. These accounts, if proved to be the same person, are also not WP:SOCK as they're editing the same pages pretending to be different people, also reverting some edits by each other to be deceptive. NØ 03:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So an account gets their own self blocked indefinitely to avoid scrutiny for their canvassing. Then they come back declaring the intention to quit and register a name change. One day later, an account created to act like a "newbie" starts having an obsession with the same pop singer, creating an overlap of 14 pages within a day, immediately citing sources like a pro. And this isn't enough reasonable suspicion? Pinging Mz7 because I have to disagree with GeneralNotability's take.--NØ 01:08, 17 July 2020 (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

 * - Insufficient behavioral evidence provided to justify a checkuser. From my own review, I do not see convincing behavioral overlap, and in fact the two have genre-warred - based on behavior I do not believe these are the same person. I'm not clear how not editing within a certain time is "unusual" when the user usually does not edit in that time window. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, in this case I am sympathetic to both views. I think GeneralNotability's skepticism is reasonable here. The two accounts do have some behavioral dissimilarities that suggest they may be two different people who both happen to like Billie Eilish. For instance, on a few occasions, The Ultimate Boss reverted Youcancallmejimmy: . With that being said, I understand the source of MaranoFan's suspicion, and the observation about adding well-formed citations despite being brand new and editing from mobile is a valid point, and The Ultimate Boss has also done some suspicious things to make me question their good faith, e.g. . To allay these concerns, I ran a check, and the results indicate that The Ultimate Boss and Youcancallmejimmy are indeed ❌. However, I discovered in the course of my check that The Ultimate Boss has been socking with another account: is ✅ to The Ultimate Boss. : Nirvanaisbae indefinitely, The Ultimate Boss 1 week. No action with respect to Youcancallmejimmy. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is about one editor wanting to add mugshots to biographies of hip hop artists, all BLPs. Shoot for the Stars uploaded a bunch of mugshots; the list of uploads is here. All of the mugshots were deleted on Wikipedia. Beatlesfan210 picked up the task and uploaded the same photos to Commons: See list of uploads. Beatlesfan210 went around to the same biographies and re-added the photos. Utah IP 98.33.227.117 joined the restoration. After I reverted this series of actions, Shoot for the Stars came back to restore the photo.

Checkuser requested to check for other accounts. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Binksternet Yes I admit what I did was wrong. I was about to mention that my Beatles account was mine but did not do it. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is ✅ to with no other accounts immediately visible.  - TheresNoTime 😺 13:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have blocked for one month,  indef & tagged - TheresNoTime 😺 13:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Noting the existence of Sockpuppet investigations/The Ultimate Boss/Archive and the master's rename; I'll leave the IP alone with the understanding that further logged-out socking will very likely lead to an indef. Closing. Blablubbs (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Possible block evasion by Shoot for the Stars who have a history of adding images of poor quality and mugshots. It appears that the editor hasn't learned anything and keep doing the same thing as before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2021 (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 IP for one week. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I noticed that this IP has been editing heavily in the same areas as TUB since TUB was community banned in August 2021 and their other socks were detected. The IP like TUB focuses on Pop Smoke related articles. The IP nominated two Pop Smoke-related pages for WP:GOCE/REQ. TUB is a major contributor to both these articles. Knowing about the GOCE/REQ page is not typical of an IP. I'm not all that familiar with TUB but this does look suspicious to me. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * states "100% a TUB sock, given the interest in "Blurred Lines", "Get Lucky", Pop Smoke pages, Billie Eilish." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:54, 26 December 2021 (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 is the same IP that was blocked back in October - it's clearly them, and it seems like it's fairly stable, so blocking for 6 months. Can this section be moved over to Sockpuppet investigations/Shoot for the Stars please, or indeed perhaps the whole case should be merged? (The Ultimate Boss changed their username to Shoot for the Stars in May 2021).  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Block evasion by Shoot for the Stars who keep adding images of poor quality     and edit mostly Pop Smoke-related articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I don't think that IP blocks work well on dynamic IPs like these ones. Maybe it's better to semiprotect the articles that are the favorite target of TUB socking in order to WP:DENY? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * These are a bunch of IPv6es on a single /64, so very easy to deal with; it's essentially the same thing as a single IPv4 address. In the future, if all the IPs in an SPI have the same first octets  you can just do   rather than list the individual IPs; this is much easier for clerks and admins to deal with. I've done that for you in this case. I will review the substance of this in a moment, but just wanted to note that technical detail.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Characteristic behavior, matching what's described at . Similar geolocation, vs. past sock . Same topic area. Yep. Active on this /64 since... wow... 6 October. Alrighty then.  .  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , threw in two months for free. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)