Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starship9000/Archive

13 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

IP regularly edits Starship9000's user page, making first person statements. (,,,,etc). Both have advanced identical !votes with poor reasoning at Articles_for_deletion/Dazi_Bridge and Articles_for_deletion/God_Temple. Both have considerable histories with hidden edit summaries (which I can't see, but may be relevant here). They are the only substantive editors on Shake (ride) and Central Park Carousel. Both have edited Yukon Yahoo, Apple Turnover (Kings Dominion), Looping Starship, Luna Park Sydney and numerous other rollar coasters and amusement park articles. They are also the only substantial contributors to Ikitsuki Bridge (a bridge in Japan). Sum mer PhD (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I don't see how one IP makes him a sockpuppeter - it could literally be as simple as him forgetting to log in or not wishing to log in on a different computer. If it was several IPs and multiple users, then I might suspect him more. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that they have signed with "Starship9000" while leaving a comment from the IP address .-- Astros4477 ( talk ) 16:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. More seriously, I think Starship9000 is just a completely newbie. On one of those AFDs he also double voted from the same account. I don't think he is maliciously editing from two identities; rather, he just hasn't quite grasped that you're only allowed to !vote once, amongst other things. Neither Starship nor his IP have tried to edit since the block. At the moment, I don't think any further action is required. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no malice here, though there is an overwhelming mass of incompetence, for which the editor's youth is a partial explanation. Summer, if it turns out that both IP and account are editing on the same kinds of thing after the block expires, then we'll talk again. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree completely, but for the apparent attempts to look like two editors: a question from one to the other, forgetting self love should be for "private time", it was my invisible friend not me. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the first one is a question to that other editor, Dom497. The second--well, look right above, where the registered account responds to DGG's comment to the IP, without a hint of paranoia, simply following the Master's orders. But doubt is cast on that by the third one, I'll grant you that. Listen, Summer, if you take the time to leave a (nice!) note on Starship's page explaining a. that the game is up and b. that this is not OK, then I'll block them next time the account edits overlap, or that they're gaming the system in any other way. How's that? Drmies (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any malicious attempts to sockpuppet. However, I do see some competency issues and this would probably be better handled in their talk page (perhaps a mentor?) or if the same behavior continues, then on ANI/AN. There's nothing more SPI can do at this point. Marking for close. Elockid  ( Talk ) 17:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

10 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See admission here and here. Also, see here. Requesting a check for a possible world of sleepers; the fact that the socks are giving one another away suggests strongly that they're expendable, and that there are a lot more where they came from. GABHello! 20:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just added another suspected sock based on the helpful confession given by one of them, just for the record; they're already blocked. There was a reference made to a sock named "London Thortvedt is stupid," but I'm not sure which account this would be. GABHello! 15:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * There are more than this:



--Tekkenismyworld, you are cool (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
DwayneGratz27 blocked as vandalism-only account. This edit suggests he is Starship9000, who was globally locked in March 2013 for cross-wiki abuse. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Tekkenismyworld, you are cool indeff blocked as vandalism-only account. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - To look for sleepers.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. This may also require a range block. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the listed accounts are ✅ to each other, as well as:
 * A rangeblock is not possible here. We might have to play a bit of whack-a-mole with these accounts. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A rangeblock is not possible here. We might have to play a bit of whack-a-mole with these accounts. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A rangeblock is not possible here. We might have to play a bit of whack-a-mole with these accounts. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A rangeblock is not possible here. We might have to play a bit of whack-a-mole with these accounts. Mike V • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

25 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Only edit is to amend the sock notice on User:I love Aaron Rodgers - another Starship9000 sock. Nthep (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would also endorse a sleeper check because of the ridiculous number of socks this guy is creating. Two more just showed up on my page -- "forgive me, father, for I am a sock." Is there any way we could deal with this proactively, as Starship seems intent on just creating accounts in order to get them blocked and locked? GABHello! 01:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Already blocked by MaxSem. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm adding two self-admitting socks, and . Endorsing a CU check to look for sleepers.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  01:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The three listed accounts are ✅ plus:
 * I've blocked the two unblocked accounts. I'll leave the tagging to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tagged all the confirmed accounts, closing case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the two unblocked accounts. I'll leave the tagging to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tagged all the confirmed accounts, closing case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

28 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self identified here and here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   01:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * and here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   01:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I kind of appreciate that they're all flocking to my userpage :) GABHello! 04:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Not sure if the SPI needs to go on, but the admission plus the conduct clearly warranted an indefinite block. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare User:Wellcome R5 with this sock (see, very suspicious).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  02:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I undestnd why a range block is not possible, but perhaps I don't need to know. Nevrtheless, any IPs connected to all these accounts should be blocked for significantly longer than the default autoblock. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Tracy Porter, why did you intercept Aaron Rodgers? is ✅.
 * Wellcome R5 is ❌ to the master.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to :
 * I blocked and tagged the Evlekis socks, although a clerk might want to copy them over to the Evlekis SPI for the record.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, copied. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked and tagged the Evlekis socks, although a clerk might want to copy them over to the Evlekis SPI for the record.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, copied. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked and tagged the Evlekis socks, although a clerk might want to copy them over to the Evlekis SPI for the record.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, copied. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked and tagged the Evlekis socks, although a clerk might want to copy them over to the Evlekis SPI for the record.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, copied. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked and tagged the Evlekis socks, although a clerk might want to copy them over to the Evlekis SPI for the record.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, copied. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

31 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Behavioural evidence purely based on editing history. The name sounds like its designed to taunt, the behaviour is an odd start to editing. Regan Cox has self admitted but not sure if its proof that they are this individuals masters socks or not.

Starship9000 sock hunter   

Regan Cos is my bff  

Behavioural evidence seems reasonable to me but a CU might be useful for sleepers. Amortias (T)(C) 18:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Also see. GABHello! 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * They were all blocked by a checkuser, so I guess the sleepers were also blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

05 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All self-declared socks in edits to User_talk:General_Ization Check user requested for yet more sleepers. Meters (talk) 20:55, 5 January 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

 * Everything is blocked, but they're using a busy mobile provider, so if they want another IP address, they won't have any trouble getting one. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

13 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self-proclaimed. See User:Tyrann Mathieu thinks he can stop me. Hermionedidallthework (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

If I had known the account was about to be blocked for vandalism, I wouldn't have wasted everyone's time posting this. Sorry about that. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

21 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self-identifies in edit summaries and user page vandalism. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   03:50, 21 January 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

 * Already blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

17 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

self confessed. Already blocked Nthep (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Well, it has been a while, I guess... I think that creating all these SPIs and giving Starship9000 all this attention is just an incentive for him/her, and at this point, I don't know what to do about it except just RBI. GABHello! 01:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at some of Starship9000's socks' contributions, you'll notice that a lot of them are all eagerly chanting, "block and tag" or "open an SPI": . If it's not too much to ask, do you think we should remove the tag from this sock (and any others currently tagged) and refrain from tagging in the future? I think it is just an incentive to continue socking, and there's precedent to avoid tagging socks in some cases (like our buddy MascotGuy). GABHello! 20:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

24 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

These guys keep popping up. I would greatly appreciate a sleeper check, since Starship9000 is known for squirreling them away (see previous SPIs). It's been quite a while since the last one, too. GABHello! 20:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Added more socks. As for the last one, Oddly-shaped individual, see this: . It may not be Starship9000, but it is a sports-related article, which the master is known to frequent. The phrase "on tyres" is also extremely distinctive and used frequently by Starship9000, judging by the names of previous socks. As per my proposal and diffs from the last SPI, I suggest not tagging this batch. GABHello! 21:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As per the comment below, no need for CU if it is deemed unnecessary. Sorry. GABHello! 21:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I must say, I'm so proud. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   17:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm starship90000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark butt fumble chicken tender Sanchez (talk • contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And now you're blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:45, 27 February 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

 * I'm neither a CU nor a clerk so I'll leave this for one of them to consider, but if you have a bit of time on your hands it's not difficult to create huge farms of sleeper socks that are undetectable to checkuser. I won't write the manual but somebody with this many accounts has clearly mastered the art and old-fashioned revert/block/ignore is probably going to be the most effective method of dealing with it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , The only way to find out if a sleeper check is worthwhile is often to run said sleeper check. And even turning up nothing is not a waste of time  This one wasn't of the most use, only turning up the already globally locked, but I'd absolutely run one again each time a drawer of these socks appears.  Courcelles (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Add to the pile.  Courcelles (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

17 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The usual nonsense in both articles and on users talk pages. Also admits to it here. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I note that the user has been blocked as a sock of User:Catcreekcitycouncil. I was unaware of this connection when I made this report. If it should be moved there please let me know. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I believe that this case, along with the and  cases, perhaps ought to be merged. For example, note how this new sock made edits on the usual CCCC areas (lion hoaxes), identified as Starship9000, and impersonated a former Sheds sock while giving a phony block notice -- all very distinctive characteristics. This is either imitation or a major breakthrough. Also, please see my notes in the CCCC archive on the uncanny similarities between the Sheds and the CCCC cases. As I recall, Mike V told me on his talkpage that the CCCC and Sheds cases were "likely" the same operator, and I believe this is worth looking into. I would really appreciate a CU to compare these three cases and assess whether the merge is justified. GABHello! 01:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a number of possibilities here, as listed below:
 * These are all the same people. This is supported by the CU linking Sheds to CCCC, as well as this sock and the aforementioned similarities.
 * These are separate operators who know one another. This would be supported by the common behaviors, and because Sheds' writing style is varied while Starship9000's has been pretty steady. Sheds wears many different masks and has a number of personas, but their writing style is not too similar.
 * These are separate people who are learning from one another's tactics.
 * It is important to note that CCCC was blocked before Starship9000 was blocked in 2013. Sheds came about in later 2015, though there may have been some undetected Sheds socks earlier. Since I am on the fence, I am pinging and  for their expert opinions. GABHello! 16:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I received this yesterday. Probably an attempt to obfuscate things but I thought you should know about it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it's confirmation that they know about the SPI. I am not sure if they are deliberately misleading here. What would they have to gain by going to the trouble of creating an account and denying the connection? All of their accounts are indeffed already. GABHello! 22:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so I don't misinterpret the results, were you saying that the sock is to all three cases, or that all three cases are  to one person? Thanks, GABHello! 17:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just compared it to this case. I can revisit this tomorrow, when I have time to give you a more nuanced answer. NativeForeigner Talk 20:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Magic background stuff done. in terms of technical relation, but behavioral evidence here is strong. NativeForeigner Talk 17:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Tagging as suspected sock and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

19 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self-admitted sock per and. Account blocked by C.Fred, just listing here for complete archive. Drm310 (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note that they are denying any connection between the cases. Interesting. GABHello! 17:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Self-admitting, and already blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Technical evidence is somewhat mixed. I'd say it's probably a between this user, and the user which was just blocked in the above case. Sorry CU wasn't of more help here. NativeForeigner Talk 20:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say this is just weird. The account should stay blocked, but this is probably somebody who knows, but is not the sockmaster. (That's somewhat intuitive, but is my best guess.) It's also possible it's the same individual, and there is a small chance that they're unrelated, but given the behavioral evidence I think there is some sort of connection. NativeForeigner Talk 20:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

19 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

As usual. GABHello! 20:35, 19 March 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

 * Already blocked. CLosing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

29 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Reviewing the edit made at Template:Starship9000, makes this perfectly clear. Like a duck quacking into a megaphone into a speaker. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * They are already blocked, and I strongly recommend that we don't tag them (they love the attention). GABHello! 15:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the heads up GAB, in the future how do you want this handled? WP:DENY and a report at AIV or just let the admins take care of it? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that came off wrong. It's up to you, really, I don't own this particular case. GABHello! 15:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, you made a valid point, was just checking to see if there was a better way to handle in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Already blocked and tagged. CLosing.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  10:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

05 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

. ''Update: Has been blocked by Widr. -- TJH2018  talk  18:51, 5 April 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

 * Already blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

06 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

TJH2018  talk  15:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Self confessed by this edit on my talk page. Blocked per duck. Nthep (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Self confessed by this edit on my talk page. Blocked per duck. Nthep (talk) 19:41, 6 April 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

 * Closing; sock blocked and master locked. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

11 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck quacking into a megaphone here. (See: username, userpage, edits to User talk:Nthep.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:21, 11 April 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

 * Already blocked. Tagged and closing. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

16 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * User has been blocked. GABHello! 23:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Nothing more to do. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

19 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Obvious from edit RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added User:Gogo Poop Dick, who made edit on first page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Already blocked. See also &mdash;now also blocked and &mdash;listed at AIV. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT:Ah, looks like we posted the Gogo sock at the same time. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Formally added Sergio Brown, and it looks like great minds think like! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now also blocked. And aye, looks that way. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bottom two locked, top one inconclusive. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * WP:RBI, rinse, and repeat. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

21 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Yet another sock based on this edit: RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Adding. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both are blocked, I suggest using AIV instead since the master loves the attention of SPI. GABHello! 16:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added MomBucks106. Lather, rinse, repeat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

03 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

editing history - confessed sock. CU requested for sleepers as it has been a couple of weeks since the last rash of socks Nthep (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding:

Tagged user page as a doppelgänger with disruptive edit summary. Katietalk 16:32, 4 May 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
Definitely endorse CU request, if I can do such a thing. There's a rash of these lately. Katietalk 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ . <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

04 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Not a sockmaster I was aware of or I would have logged it here earlier, but their creation of User:GeneralizationsAreTedThompson and User talk:GeneralizationsAreTedThompson suggests the connection. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I don't really know, this does not really sound like S9k. Although, I did not see the deleted userpage, so I don't know if there's something important there. GABHello! 23:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a different pattern to me as well. The user and talk pages aren't consistent with Starship either, though it is strange for them to be created. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This though isn't a new user magically finding an obscure page. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like they went to that page as part of an abusefilter message, considering these two abuselog entries. None of this is matching Starship's pattern of blatantly vandalizing and admitting his own identity. Most likely just a new user figuring out how things work (though potentially not a productive contributor for unrelated reasons). Ajraddatz (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The CU block makes it clear who this account belongs to. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

07 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self-declared, and only edit is to start an article requesting his own banning. Petition:Ban Starship9000 from the English Wikipedia. Really wants attention... Crow Caw  21:13, 7 May 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

 * ✅. . <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 18:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

16 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Creation of obscene attack pages with overly long titles. Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Never mind, already blocked. Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Self-admitted sockpuppet. I tagged the userpage because I thought he was already blocked, but it turns out he isn't, and posted a personal attack on my user talk page. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

you should change it to sockpuppet|bertrand101|blocked Passengerpigeon. --Starship9000 is done socking (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I can't, because you're not blocked yet. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Were the accounts and  confirmed by Checkuser as socks of Starship9000? Their usernames and edits seem to identify them as obvious socks of  - if they were in fact confirmed as S9000 by Checkuser, it would be a strange case of vandals copying other vandals' modus operandi. Passengerpigeon (talk)  02:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Already blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Holding. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The accounts are ✅ socks of Starship9000. (As noted by the username.) I've moved the case over to the correct master. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The accounts are ✅ socks of Starship9000. (As noted by the username.) I've moved the case over to the correct master. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The accounts are ✅ socks of Starship9000. (As noted by the username.) I've moved the case over to the correct master. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The accounts are ✅ socks of Starship9000. (As noted by the username.) I've moved the case over to the correct master. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The accounts are ✅ socks of Starship9000. (As noted by the username.) I've moved the case over to the correct master. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The accounts are ✅ socks of Starship9000. (As noted by the username.) I've moved the case over to the correct master. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The accounts are ✅ socks of Starship9000. (As noted by the username.) I've moved the case over to the correct master. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Account name similar to many used by this one. Diacritic to get around blacklist. Crow Caw  18:39, 12 June 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

 * Account is already blocked - nothing more to do here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Creating (vandalism) articles with similar (hateful) names; old articles have been oversighted. I will not mention the names here in case the new names are oversighted as well, and the usernames (such as and ) are also very similar. <span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t) Josve05a  (c) 19:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Requesting CU to find sleepers. <span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t) Josve05a  (c) 19:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It's this idiot again. GABgab 22:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC) It is indeed Njoidjer. I get my trolls mixed up. GABgab 22:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * for sleepers. Accounts are already blocked. I see no reason to tag. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Following a conversation I had with Vituzzu on IRC, a local CheckUser may want to take a look whether the underlying IP range can be blocked. Huon (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I locked about 30 accounts, roughly 10 of them sleepers. From a global perspective there's a /24 which can be blocked, though I expect most of side effects being at en.wiki. So any block should be evaluated here. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've moved a couple comments up to this active SPI from below. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless Ss9000 has switched his country of residence, on a different continent, none of the suspected socks I've looked at in the past few weeks are him. I'm not exactly sure who it is, but my thoughts are to just block on sight without bothering to file a case or tagging the accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it's .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

As on 24 February 2016 he used a "User X on tyres" <span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t) Josve05a  (c) 19:45, 15 June 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

 * Already blocked. I see no reason to tag, see also above. Closing. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Created Wikipedia admins wished they had been killed in a suicide bombing by vandals shortly after User:Widr on Tyrés was blocked. Both accounts have created articles with inappropriate titles and limited content (a single character).  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is clearly . GABgab 21:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC) It's Njoidjer, as Bbb23 pointed out. GABgab 22:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This is clearly Starship9000. Widr on Tyrés has been locked and Inss9k has been indef'd. Copying to that investigation and closing. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Behavioural as per the last raft of them. No idea if this will help pick any more sleepers but requesting a CU in case it can. Unable to provide diffs as pages deleted Amortias (T)(C) 21:59, 15 June 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

 * No unblocked accounts for the moment, a range has been blocked, and locks are being done. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Previously blocked as an IP sock, but back again after 24 hours editing his usual articles. A longer block is in order.

For future reference, one stream of socks which I've been tagging as Starship9000 are the ones with usernames such as and. These accounts create attack pages with very long, offensive titles, but containing no content or content that looks like a test edit, and also move people's userpages to "Username on Tyres". General consensus seems to have been that these accounts were S9000, and Checkuser seemed to confirm this at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive17, but now I hear that these are actually. So which sockmaster is actually creating the "on tyres" accounts? Passengerpigeon (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Note: He also said that he'll no longer create sock accounts and he'll using IP socks, which is mentioned at this diff. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It could be either master. Either the whole "on tyres" thing is a stupid internet meme, or one of the perps somehow learned it from the other. Annoying. GABgab 00:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for my guess only, if not wrong Starship9000 maybe trying to learn like Vote (X) for Change using IP socks just for vandalizing purpose only. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My read, from his comment about making sure to apply the Proven tag, is that he's trophy collecting. I.e. inflate the "socks of" category for bragging purposes. So why don't we just WP:RBI and don't tag. At this point the behaviour is telling enough that we may not need a category to refer to, especially with IPs. Just a thought. Crow  Caw  17:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right, just WP:DENY. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It doesn't matter who is creating the accounts as long as they're blocked and cleaned up behind. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)