Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sleeping is fun/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Repeat WP:BLP violations on the Jimmy Page article.

User:Sleeping is fun

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Page&diff=744281658&oldid=744281200

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Page&diff=744282323&oldid=744282189

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Page&diff=744890240&oldid=744456955

User:Isaidnoway

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Page&diff=747719454&oldid=747710710

User:107.184.127.172

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Page&diff=prev&oldid=739366073

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Page&diff=739366073&oldid=739311784

User:104.175.117.222

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Page&diff=prev&oldid=734660787

User:50.0.136.56

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Page&diff=747761370&oldid=747719454

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Page&diff=747764305&oldid=747761370 McCool Finn (talk) 10:01, 4 November 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
The evidence connecting to the two named accounts is very thin.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing for lack of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Similar areas of interest. Particularly in the case of reinstating challenged material on Palantir Technologies which was originally placed by User:Sleeping is fun.


 * Sleeping is fun inserts material
 * Sleeping is fun reinserts material
 * Material is removed after Sleeping is fun has been blocked
 * IP in question appears to reinsert material
 * IP repeatedly reinserts material

Similar edit summaries, e.g. "per wp:overlink".
 * Sleeping is fun: ,
 * 67.10.167.124:, Konigcorvus (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I am adding User:Healingpatient to this report. A brand new account which made its first edit 10 minutes after the IP's most recent edit and also reinstated the challenged material on Palantir Technologies. Konigcorvus (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm no expert, but I don't think you can connect a registered user to an anonymous IP address. Is this true? UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The user in question has already been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, this is just reporting another (likely) sockpuppet account. I suppose it's possible that a random IP editor would dredge through the history of a relatively obscure article to reinstate material previously added by a user who has a record of using sockpuppets, but "the likelihood that this result occurred according to chance is approximately one in a billion." Konigcorvus (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've opened an edit-warring investigation against IP, as well as an application for permanent extended-confirmed protection on the page Palantir Technologies. Edit warring should never go as far as it is going on this page, so we have to end it once and for all. It's kind of funny that the biggest edit wars occur on the smallest and most trivial articles. Either way, this is going to end before it gets any worse than it already is. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 13:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , sorry to bother you, but can you look through this? I put a semi-protection on a page frequented by the users in question, and it runs out in about a week. Normally these things take a while, so I'd like the results before it runs out. Should there be sockpuppers, they shouldn't continue to vandalize. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 22:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ + . Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Asian Americans, removing supposed overlinking ( , and returning to sort of obscure pages such as these:       ). All the hallmarks are there. Sro23 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

There is a mob of Palantir employees registered here at Wikipedia, who have a clear WP:conflict of interest and continuously try to remove & hide any hint of Palantir's racial discrimination lawsuit. How is it sockpuppetry to combat this disgusting censorship and collusion among employees working for the same company? The smell of perfume (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * as you blocked Sleeping is fun for block evasion 5 albert square (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Created a day after the last sock was blocked. Reinstated edits made by sockpuppets on Palantir Technologies and Peter Thiel:    Sro23 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2017 (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
❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - I am convinced that this is a sock (compare also to ), but would like a second opinion. Thanks, GABgab 19:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The timing of it all looks very suspicious. But I'm sure there's a reason you performed the CU; would you conclude they are a sock based on behavior even against a negative CU result? King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, there was enough evidence to justify a check but obviously not duck-type evidence, in which case a check would have only been necessary to look for other accounts. Also, Sro23 is one of the better SPI filers, which means I rely more on what they say. That said, the technical evidence here was very strong against the account being a sock (there's unrelated and there's unrelated), so I would not favor a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Closing with no action taken. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (case opened under this name)


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

User:RetiredVet1946 created his account on July and his 2nd edit was to revert me. Within his first few edits, he was discussing Fringe views, Undue weight and the article lede and longterm consensus. This makes me consider that this is not a new user. In addition to the articles that these users overlap on, User:STSC is a member of Wikiproject China, while has made several edits to articles related to Chinese issues. This usually could be considered coincidence, but when you see that RetiredVet1946 has a grand total of 50 edits, it seems more suspicious.

http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=RetiredVet1946&users=STSC&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manny_Pacquiao&diff=prev&oldid=794518298 STSC restoring content

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manny_Pacquiao&diff=prev&oldid=794657460 RetiredVet1946 restoring the exact same content a day later

They both have multiple edits on Chinese massacre of 1871 within an hour or each other

It seems highly likely that I was followed from the Chinese massacre of 1871 article to the Manny_Pacquiao article, as User:RetiredVet1946 had zero edits on either article, before he reverted me there.

It should be noted that both of these editors have similar topics to the confirmed/blocked sock Ohio Girl - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ohio_girl - while Ohio Girl has no edits on the Manny_Pacquiao article, she has edits (again reverting me) on article related to Manny_Pacquiao's recent fight and Manny_Pacquiao's recent opponent. She also reverted me on Chinese massacre of 1871 prior to be blocked for being a sock account. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2017 (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

 * Note to clerks this needs to be shifted over to Sockpuppet investigations/Sleeping is fun
 * Both and are ✅ sockpuppets of Sleeping is fun. STSC is ❌. Yunshui 雲 水  09:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved the casename to Sleeping is fun and note that tags and blocks are already in place. Closing.

Suspected sockpuppets



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

the latest sock account of the above master account was blocked on the 14th August. On the 17th August an IP that hadn't edited for over a year, became active and made the same revert that two of the blocked sock accounts have been making.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_massacre_of_1871&diff=prev&oldid=790547954 - indef blocked sock edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_massacre_of_1871&diff=prev&oldid=790057719 - (a different) indef blocked sock edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_massacre_of_1871&diff=prev&oldid=795883971 - IP edit Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2017 (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 was good when reported, but no need to block these IPs now. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This IP had not made any edits for over six months. Suddenly it sprang back to life and made three edits.

1st edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_massacre_of_1871&diff=prev&oldid=798069566 - to make the same edits as other blocked socks of the master account and to revert me.

2nd edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxing_career_of_Manny_Pacquiao&diff=prev&oldid=798070838 to make the same edits on another unrelated article as other blocked socks of the master account and to revert me.

3rd edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manny_Pacquiao&diff=prev&oldid=798072356 to participate in the talk page of the above article and make accusations of racism against me.

WHOIS considers the above IP to have a similar geographical location to previous sock IPs.

This is pretty much as blatant as it needs to be for a sock IP. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2017 (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 added Safehorns per WP:DUCK, see . Could Talk:Manny Pacquiao also be semi'd for a few days? Sro23 (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 15:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This account was created less than 24 hours after the last sock of Sleeping is fun was indef blocked. The first few edits were blank edits, changing one character or putting citation tags on articles. Basically, worthless edits designed to autoconfirm the account. They then proceeded to involved themselves in the discussions regarding the Manny Pacquiao article on the talk page, on ANI and on the BLP noticeboard, bringing up BLP policy etc. Obviously an account with ten edits isn't aware of BLP policy and this account came straight back to the article that the previous socks were operating on before they got indef blocked.

This account quacks like a duck, obviously has prior experience and knowledge of Wikipedia and blatantly isn't here to improve Wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Actual diffs showing more than on the order of "the person made some small edits on other pages, made a single edit on a BLP talk page, and is therefore a sock" where the complainant made the same sock allegation on multiple pages rather than stick to SPI as poly dictates. Rarely is a single talk page edit deemed evidence of being a horrid sock. "Duck" does not always work unless a significant number of edits exist to compare, and accusing everyone of being a sock is not a great idea. Collect (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the above editor is currently involved in a content dispute with me, with the accused sock account supporting their claims. It is in their best interests for this sock account to not be blocked, which might indicate a little bias in their comments on this SPI. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above personal attack has less than nothing whatsoever to do with my comments here, and is indicative of a battleground view of the world from that editor.  I have no "dog in this race" at all, and my comments here are precisely in line with comments I have made a number of times at SPI, including the "bad sock accusations" used with regard to ScienceApologist in the past.  In fact, one ought to note that I did an actual statistical study of those accusations showing that a large percentage were ill-founded.  I am only doing the same here.  And I do not give a (fill in the blank) about SC420 whatsoever. Though I fear I might in future if he tries this sort of accusation again. SC420 also fails to note that a half-dozen other editors have declined to support his edits on Manny Pacquiao.   Collect (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh! You're right. Lots of editors have declined to support my edits on that article.
 * Such as - Safehorns (indef blocked sock) RetiredVet1946 (indef blocked sock) Ohio girl (indef blocked sock) User:172.56.14.2 (blocked IP) User:208.54.83.172 (blocked IP) - that's the reason for it quacking like a duck. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that your list includes those whom you filed sock reports on and used "DUCK" as your sole argument, even where their overlap with you was a single talk page edit. Has it occurred to you that attacking a poster here who made a single comment is not actually of interest to any clerk on SPI? This page is for cogent information, not personal attacks on others, last I checked. Collect (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This page is to put information about potential sock puppets, not make personal attacks against the person making those accusations. You're adding nothing constructive, your disruptive influence is not required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

is not blocked yet.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh damn. Good call, thanks. User is now blocked :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are ✅ to  from the archive.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * - Please block those socks. Sro23 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sro23 - ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The two accounts have appeared on the same articles just hours apart. Both were created last month and both also seem to have an interest in obscure South Korean articles.

There was a content/BLP violation dispute at the article Morrissey. User:Forsink made the edits, then a few hours later User:Inevitaaaron reinstated most of Forsink's edits. I looked at Inevitaaaron's contributions and saw they had recently edited the article Palantir Technologies, to revert an 8-month-old edit regarding a discrimination lawsuit. Forsink had also edited Palantir Technologies hours earlier, to add "Racial" to the title of the discrimination lawsuit, an edit that I also found was undone 8 months ago (The user who made the edit that was undone was later blocked as a sockpuppet). Additionally, Forsink edited Roh Moo-hyun, a somewhat obscure South Korean article (Inevitaaaron also seems to edit obscure South Korean articles, see Yun Seung-hyun, Kim Seung-gyu, etc.,). Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As User:LibertyDash was itself suspected to be a sockpuppet of User;Sleeping is fun by User:Sro23 (see Sockpuppet investigations/LibertyDash/Archive), could you check these accounts against it? It has been found to be using sockpuppets around the same time the accounts I linked above made their first edits (see Sockpuppet investigations/Sleeping is fun/Archive).

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

 * We might want to move this to Sockpuppet investigations/LibertyDash. GABgab 00:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * These two accounts are highly bordering on ✅ to each other and  to LibertyDash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please compare these accounts to recent Sleeping is fun sockpuppets? I noticed more than one intersection as well as some behavioral tells. Sro23 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * bordering on is the best I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * - Given these edits in addition to other behavioral tells I mentioned above, I am convinced these accounts are User:Sleeping is fun returning to the same topic areas and articles. Please indef both sockpuppets and merge this case to Sockpuppet investigations/Sleeping is fun. Sro23 (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked both indefinitely. Could an admin clerk please merge as suggested above? ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, merged.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

IP addresses with no other edits have collectively re-added material that sockpuppet Lesjusfi originally added to. The IPs addresses are geographically unrelated so I presume they are web hosts. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See the material added by the sockpuppet that was removed here.
 * See 118.92.177.167 here. Note the re-additions, particularly " " and "ref name=motherjones".
 * See 78.57.249.141 here. Note the re-additions, particularly " ".
 * See 217.99.250.119 here. Note the re-addition of material about "$400" and other identical re-additions, particularly the citing of "motherjones" and "scheer".

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

 * Page protected, consider filing at WP:RFPP if this continues. With such diverse IPs, blocks won't do much. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:32, 8 March 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
✅, . — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)