Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Staafros1/Archive

22 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Recently Staafros1 has created an article Average home attendances of football clubs that by now is deleted. (Articles for deletion/Average home attendances of football clubs) Remarkable about that article was that it was tagged for no footnotes in September 2013, 9 months before the article was launched. Today I came across Football clubs average attendances, created by Calcionova. Strange enough, this article is also tagged for no footnotes in September 2013.

I have the feeling that even Staafros1 is not the sockmaster, but my present suspicion is, for CU-purposes, nothing more than a wild guess. So I mention no names here. The Banner talk 12:31, 22 July 2014 (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

 * ✅ Though a fair amount of logged out editing. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User warned, sock blocked. Accidentally archived before I did so, so noting this here. NativeForeigner Talk 01:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

08 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

In 2014, User:Staafros1 created a sock puppet to recreate an article that had been deleted following an AfD. The sock was blocked and Staafros1 warned. The Staafros1 account has been idle since April 2015.

Staafros1’s edits were characterized by an emphasis on Asian and Indian soccer teams and soccer stadiums, along with similar articles about teams from the lower leagues in the U.S. and Canada. Staafros1 also created several “list” articles, several of which were obvious listcruft, and deleted as such. (E.g., Average_attendances_of_sports_clubs, Non-association football average attendances, and Average home attendances of football clubs. Few if any edits were accompanied by edit summaries.

User:Stadiumhopper was created in May 2015. Like Staafros1, Stadiumhopper focuses on Asian and Indian soccer and stadiums, lesser U.S. soccer leagues, and creates idiosyncratic “list” items, e.g., The 100 professional sports teams having the most fans on the social networks and List of association football clubs by revenue. Few if any edits were accompanied by summaries. Stadiumhopper edited several articles in common with Staafros1, including Average attendances of European football clubs, Persepolis F.C. and Minnesota United FC Reserves.

Stadiumhopper has been idle since August 25. On August 28, the account User:Margegriffin was created. This user’s emphasis has been more on Australian and middle-eastern soccer clubs and stadiums, but some Asian and smaller U.S. edits have crept in as well. Margegriffin has created one article – very much in keeping with the other editors’ efforts – the since-deleted Average attendances of non-football clubs.

My research into these puppets also turned up the account, User:Groundhopping, which in addition to reflecting an obvious similarity to the name “Stadiumhopper”, displays the same editing interests and tendencies. Groundhopping was active during April and May 2015, i.e., between Staafros1 and Stadiumhopper. I note that Electric City Shock SC was created by Staafros, deleted, then recreated by Groundhopping; also that List of sports attendance figures‎ has been edited in common by Staafros1, Groundhopping and Margegriffin. Groundhopping didn’t create any “list” articles.

Finally I note the account, User:Whappah, active between August 6 and August 27. This account also focuses on obscure soccer teams and stadiums, and has edited at least a couple of articles in common with these others (e.g., College football attendance with Staafros1 and Margegriffin, and New York Cosmos (2010) with Stadiumhopper and Groundhopping. This user has not / did not create any articles, so I lack that bit of dispositive evidence for this user.

Summing up, the sequential nature of these accounts, the high degree of overlap in (fairly idiosyncratic) editing interests, articles created, and articles edited in common make it clear that these are all accounts belonging to the same person. While Staafros1 was never blocked – and so these are not block evasion puppets – Staafros1 was warned about sockpuppetry and knows better; and the editor is plainly using the multiple accounts to game the system to recreate articles that have been deleted for one reason or another. (E.g., Average attendances of sports clubs created by both Staafros1 and Stadiumhopper; and Electric City Shock SC created by Staafros1 and recreated by Groundhopping.) The account-hopping also makes it hard to track this editor's tendency toward the creation of articles that are, for one reason or another, subject to deletion - the problem is not limited to "list" articles.

While the behavioral evidence is clear, given the user’s proclivity toward creating multiple accounts, I am requesting CU to check for sleepers. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 8 September 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

 * The master and Groundhopping are . There are no previous non-stale socks to compare against.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts. Blocked and tagged the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears everything looks wrapped up here. Mkdw talk 15:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts. Blocked and tagged the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears everything looks wrapped up here. Mkdw talk 15:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts. Blocked and tagged the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears everything looks wrapped up here. Mkdw talk 15:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears everything looks wrapped up here. Mkdw talk 15:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

15 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This user has recreated articles on both Yanick van Osch and Laros Duarte, both of which were originally created by Staafros sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I set out to report this user as a likely sock only to find this existing report. He's actively editing. Shouldn't there be a block in place by now? JohnInDC (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - can he be connected to the previous socks using old CU data?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a possibility of a connection. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * CU inconclusive.  Mini  apolis  00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

04 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Both of these editors were previously reported as potential socks of Staafros. I first reported Farmnation last December. The CU evidence in that report found a possibility of a connection, but was ultimately inconclusive. Similar, behaviours were not meaningfully evaluated, and the case was closed two and a half months later, I think due to lack of interest.

Groundhopping was first reported by User:JohnInDC last September along with three other accounts. Since Groundhopping was the only stale account in that report, CU evidence was not considered. With the Groundhopping inactive, and all other accounts in the report confirmed as socks, that case was closed with no action taken against Groundhopping.

In the case of Groundhopping, the strongest evidence is the connection to. We have two editors with similar usernames, an overlapping interest in football stadiums, and suspicious timing of edits, as Stadiumhopper's first edit was only two days after Groundhopping's last.

In the case of Farmnation, it's the overlapping interests in football stadiums and PSV Eindhoven that is suspect. Like Staafros and previous socks, Farmnation has created a plethora of stub articles on football stadiums and clubs, particularly on ones located in China. (Compare Farmnation's creations from 31 January to 2 February 2016, to Staafros1's from 1 April 2015). Particularly telling is Staafros' creation of Puer Wanhao F.C. and Farmnation's creation of Pu'er Stadium. All articles created by Farmnation that are not football clubs or stadiums are people related to PSV Eindhoven, the sole subject of interest to. These creations include recreations of Yanick van Osch and Laros Duarte, both of which were previously created by Hittentit. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

I echo these concerns and concur in the assessment that these are socks of Staafros1. Farmnation continues to actively edit and should be blocked if this is a case of simple evasion. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to User:Bbb23's comment below, if memory serves, I originally planned to connect Farmnation to Staafros via Groundhopping, but that line of investigation got away from me as I was writing up the report. If you feel no action is necessary, by all means ignore it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read me comment above as: ignore Groundhopping if you think no action against them is necessary since they are inactive, but do please take a closer look at Farmnation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Farmnation recreated no fewer than 14 articles that were speedy deleted per WP:G5 due to creation by Staafros socks:


 * Laros Duarte
 * Yanick van Osch
 * Mulna Stadium
 * Mela Ground
 * Sumant Moolgaokar Stadium
 * Indira Gandhi Stadium, Solapur
 * Lajwanti Stadium
 * Sports Stadium, Jalalabad
 * Gandhi Ground
 * NTR Stadium
 * Malkangiri Stadium
 * Jorethang Ground
 * Dr. Rajendra Prasad Football Stadium
 * Bahir Dar University Stadium

Most of these are structurally similar to articles written by Groundhopping (see Guru Gobind Singh Stadium, Nanded for example), which I assume in turn are similar to the original versions of these articles by Stadiumhopper. (A bit of self-trouting is in order here. I only just noticed that most of these were recreations, and probably could have saved everyone some hassle had I noticed this 6 months ago). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I don't know why you brought back Groundhopping given that the account hasn't been used in a year. It's a waste of time to evaluate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I haven't looked into this behaviorally but it looks like you two agreed to close this. Is that what you want? (If I don't hear anything back within a few days, I'll close this.) Thanks for both your work, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Only not to bother with Groundhopping. That still leaves the other account.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - CU is useless here because there are no recent socks to check Farmnation against (AFAIK). I'd like to request more behavioural evidence, because at the time being, I don't see anything that doesn't tell me these are "two random football fans, possibly Chinese and/or Dutch". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest closing this case with no action. People agree that Groundhopping should be left out of the analysis. There is a possibility that User:Farmnation is a reincarnation of User:Staafros1, and I gather than there isn't any checkuser data which can help answer that one way or the other. If we go by behavior, there's not much wrong with Farmnation. They create a lot of articles on stadiums, though I suppose there could occasionally be a question about their notability. Since there isn't any active disruption I don't see the need for action here. Looking to see if Farmnation might be edit-warring to recreate marginal articles, I checked his deleted contributions but saw nothing amiss there. Farmnation has created 177 articles of which about 9 have been deleted. This seems normal. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing based on Ed's behavioral analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

First of all, these two have admitted a link to each other. This is of course not a problem since Houndground only started editing after Fussbolfan stopped. This editor shares Staafros' interest in football stadiums (or sports stadiums more generally). Since Fussbolfan's first edit was to create an article on Stanley-Jensen Stadium (it's since been redirected), and most of their creations are stadiums, I think it's safe to say that this account was registered for that purpose. Additionally, most of these creation's are structurally very similar to Staafros', consisting consisting of two to three sentences, an infobox, and one or two references/external links. I should also point out that this is a particularly obscure interest. In almost nine years at the WikiProject Football, I've encountered exactly one editor with a particular interest in stadiums, Staafros1.

This editor also shares Staafros' interest in youth football in the Netherlands. Note their recent edits to Sven Blummel, Cody Gakpo, Michal Sadílek, and Jong PSV. Perhaps most telling is their recreation of Mike van de Meulenhof, which was previously created by another Staafros sock.

Finally, I should point out that overlap of these two particular interests is what identified the last two socks: Farmnation and Fcqpr. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Additional evidence - This editor also shares Staafros' interest in football attendance statistics. (See this and this.) Particularly telling is Fussbolfan's creation of Domestic average home attendances of football clubs, which Staafros' has previously created under different titles at Average home attendances of football clubs and Football clubs average attendances, because using multiple accounts to recreate this article is what got Staafros' blocked in the first place. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * More additional evidence - These editors have also taken to adding links to worldofstadiums.com (see diff 1, diff 2 for example.) Most links to this site were added to the 'pedia by Staafros' socks. Of a randomly chosen sample of 20 of the currently 1456 links to the site the two examples cited earlier were added by Fussbolfan and Houndground, two others by a dutch IP that I now also suspect to be Staafros, and the other 16 by previous Staafros-socks. (I've saved the sample to my sandbox for reference.) It's also worth noting that there are some reliability concerns about this source. (See this RSN discussion) Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * GiantSnowman 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The strongest piece of evidence here is this IP's use of worldofstadiums.com, an unreliable source, in articles (diff 1, diff). Not only have previous socks used this reference (diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6), but previous socks have gotten themselves in trouble over misuse of this website as a source before they were identified as socks (User talk:Houndground, User talk:Farmnation, User talk:88.159.127.4). Perhaps most importantly, a vast majority of references to WoS were added by previous Staafros-socks (I'm not really sure how back this statement up with evidence efficiently given the shear number of refs involved, about 1400 before I removed them a few months ago).

Finally, the IP blocked two years ago bears additionally mentioning. It's in the same range as the one currently active, further supporting my supposition that this is Staafros. More relevantly this case though, is the fact that Staafros edited from that IP for over two months, showing that while their internet connection is dynamic, their actual IP address doesn't change all often (also born out by the fact that this IP has been active for about a month), meaning that blocking this IP may actually accomplish something. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:10, 2 October 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

 * It seems obvious that the IP editor is restoring edits made by previous socks. Looking through the range contribs, the IP addresses do stick for a while.  I'll block for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Like previous IP's used by Staafros, this range geolocates to the Netherlands. IP's in this range have continued Staafros' hallmark behaviour of citing worldofstadiums.com. (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:31, 21 April 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

 * - Staafros has been in the only editor on this range since the start of February. Please block the range for three months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)