Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonderbro/Archive

Evidence submitted by Ronz
Appears to be a group of editors either working together or instructed to work in a manner to promote Bent Flyvbjerg's research. Discussed here. It's been a week since the spam report was started, and none have responded. Ronz (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I was hoping that we'd hear from one of the accounts before this time. I hope someone will respond at some point and we can work out a better resolution to the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)



We have another, Railrail2. I don't think there's anything wrong with his single edit, but if he's one of the editors listed here, then he may have created this new account to work around the blocks. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
There are many accounts here. However, the following are ✅ as being the same person:
 * TN X Man 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get an admin to block these socks pls. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Is there anything left to do on this case? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it seems likely that there will be new socks coming up, can the underlying IPs be .. poked .. to follow policy? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that revealing the IP at this time is not the best idea per privacy policy. (but I am not a CU) An IP block is usually meant to catch a persistant sock from creating new accounts after blocking doesn't hold. We only hit half the users listed above, and it looks not to hard for ducks to be pulled out. Atm, I would not ask a CU to look in for an IP Block. That's my two cents worth. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  12:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was covered by the 'can' which formed the first word of the question. We'll see if more come up, maybe the can-not-create-account does it already.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get an admin to block these socks pls. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Is there anything left to do on this case? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it seems likely that there will be new socks coming up, can the underlying IPs be .. poked .. to follow policy? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that revealing the IP at this time is not the best idea per privacy policy. (but I am not a CU) An IP block is usually meant to catch a persistant sock from creating new accounts after blocking doesn't hold. We only hit half the users listed above, and it looks not to hard for ducks to be pulled out. Atm, I would not ask a CU to look in for an IP Block. That's my two cents worth. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  12:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was covered by the 'can' which formed the first word of the question. We'll see if more come up, maybe the can-not-create-account does it already.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was covered by the 'can' which formed the first word of the question. We'll see if more come up, maybe the can-not-create-account does it already.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaving open since there is a new possible sock. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * is ✅ as well. This case is now . Tiptoety  talk 18:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

05 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Per listing on my talk page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' LeadSongDog come howl!  07:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please compare contribs by this known Gsaup sock
 * Please compare contribs by this known Gsaup sock
 * Please compare contribs by this known Gsaup sock

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * , the only thing that matches is that they geolocate fairly close. Tiptoety  talk 03:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Why isn't Gsaup blocked if we have several accounts being listed as its socks? T. Canens (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of this one; Regregex has been around for awhile (i.e. has AWB access). I don't really see any abuse here, so I'm closing with no action taken. And Tim, although I blocked all those accounts in the previous case, there was no definitive link to Gsaup at the time. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

06 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Contributions show consistent, seemingly self-promotional addition of the same links across numerous pages to articles such Bent Flyvbjerg, Flyvbjerg Debate, Rationality and Power, Making Social Science Matter, Megaprojects, Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition, which appear to have all been created by this editor. Several of these users were already discussed in spam previously, but it appears to be continuing, especially by User:Sonderbro.

See, as an example, regarding Megaprojects:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Or, regarding self-promotional material on a number of pages by each of these editors:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Thosjleep (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2012 (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)  12:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * - While some of the actions are more troublesome than otheres, there does appear to be a connection between the edits, and based off of the current case as well as the previous SPI history, I believe that there is a valid concern that there will be sleepers about.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gsaup & Sonderbro, all other accounts, . I suggest we look at a master block now. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffing sock and 1 week for the master. Tagging and closing.
 * Moved casename to Sonderbro as the oldest account for master.

10 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP edited BT Professor of Major Programme Management (now deleted as copyvio), one of Sonderbro's creations, after Sonderbro was blocked. IP blocked for quackingly obvious block evasion, Sonderbro's block restarted, but a CU check for sleepers given the history might be worthwhile. BencherliteTalk 20:49, 10 September 2012 (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)  03:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CheckUser . Per the Privacy Policy, with the exception of extreme cases, we are not allowed to publicly link a named account to an IP address. This will have to be dealt with via the regular channels. Tiptoety  talk 05:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, the IP was already blocked per the duck test. This was just a request for a sleeper check, I believe. Jafeluv (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But think, if I was to pop out a list of sleepers and block them as based upon this SPI case one could easily deduce that the IP is  and I would have violated the privacy policy. Sorry, no sleeper check this time.  Tiptoety  talk 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What's to stop you checking Sonderbro for sleepers, without revealing which IP or IPs he's been using, and saying that no comment is made about whether the IP was actually him? BencherliteTalk 11:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing.

30 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Return/ continuation of the Bent Flyvbjerg sock puppet promoter Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam Hu12 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Sonderbro and 4RugbyRd --Hu12 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 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 IPs 1 week, tagged, closing. Rschen7754 09:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

25 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Yet another sock, editing the same articles in the same manner. Ronz (talk) 17:32, 25 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 indef. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)