Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swamilive/Archive

Report date July 21 2009, 13:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

1. User's admission  -shirulashem (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  -shirulashem (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 00:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
The Enchanting Wizard of Rhythm is already blocked and is evidently a sock of and by extension, Swamilive. The very first edit was to vandalize User:Delicious carbuncle's userpage, a favorite of Swamilive. All the 216's are him and DC's had to protected a couple times because of it.

The second edit was to Jpgordon's talk page, who was the blocking admin that blocked several of Swami's socks recently

Under a Million Sunfish, already blocked pops up out of nowhere, like Anthony J. Postwar, and comments on the discussion about Swamilive.

Scottish Coke added. Same as above. Also self-admitted.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
If memory serves, the ISP most consistently used by Swamilive live actually has three ranges assigned to them. It may be worth noting this edit by Scottish Coke, though, which mentions the use of another ISP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  E lockid  ( Talk ) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting CU attention to see an IP block is possible. Note the most recent socks that were tagged as socks of Swamilive are, , and. It's a bit puzzling to me because two of their primary ranges which they've been editing for quite some time are currently blocked: 216.26.192.0/19 and 216.211.0.0/17. They could have move to new ranges.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - T. Canens (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Not that easy. Based on technical evidence:

The four accounts are the same.

The account is unrelated to the above. From a different continent, timing makes a physical move there impossible. Dynamic IP. He locates to the same country as the next group, but not the same metropolitan area.

are the same. Dynamic IP, again.

Then there is the large group which are all the same. Underlying static IP already blocked. This one might be a closed proxy, locates to the same country as the above two groups, FWIW.

Make of that what you will. All accounts were already blocked, no additional IPs should be blocked here. Amalthea 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tagged/updated tags for the Swamilive socks. Looking at the rest, it looks like we have two options. We can split out the two other groups into their own SPI subheadings (since, if I read Amalthea's comments correctly, they are unrelated to Swamilive) or simply mark this as closed. As Amalthea indicates, everyone is already blocked. TN X Man  13:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

28 May 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 " ~ "''

Same nonsense vandalism in the past. I just reblock one of ranges that expired (216.211.0.0/17). After the range expired a couple of weeks ago, the same socks and IP vandalism started up again. Need CU to find out if there are sleepers running around during the time the block expired. Elockid  ( Talk ) 23:10, 28 May 2011 (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

 * looks like a possible sock as the master vandalizaed RfAs and this is clearly not a new account. and also I enacted 216.26.192.0/19 per other intel I recieved. Request confirmation/sleepers. (I know I asked for Him to be checked ealier, but i'm not sure how conclusive the result was.) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ technically and behaviorally:
 * ✅ technically and behaviorally:
 * ✅ technically and behaviorally to one another, and with strong behavioral and technical evidence to the above group:
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ✅ technically and behaviorally to one another, and with strong behavioral and technical evidence to the above group:
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ✅ technically and behaviorally to one another, and with strong behavioral and technical evidence to the above group:
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ✅ technically and behaviorally to one another, and with strong behavioral and technical evidence to the above group:
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)
 * ❌ (wrong continent)

I believe all confirmed accounts are blocked (I blocked two just now) but a double-check would be good. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All listed accounts have been blocked. Since this user has long-term abuse issues with their talk page, I have hardened the blocks of the accounts that didn't have their talk page access revoked already. Elockid  ( Talk ) 11:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

14 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See this edit summary where he confirms it. His adding "Garrison James" to articles has been something he does from time to time (see ). I'm requesting checkuser to check for sleepers, which he usually has. Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  02:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Both users now blocked, but he admitted to sleepers. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  02:45, 14 December 2011 (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

 * - Not sure what sort of data is on hand from the LTA part of this, but I'll endorse for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. WilliamH (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

10 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Here, the user reinserted nonsense mentioning User:The James Garrison and User:Jamesbreadth, both of whom are banned sockpuppets of the banned User:Swamilive. And here, the user hits the topic of lesser-known songs by the band Live, a common topic of Swamilive's. I'm here because of comments directed at Brews Clues by User:Pdfpdf, who accused Brews Clues of being a sockpuppet of a user who keeps inserting variations on the text "Garrison James" per Apparition11's comments here. And I'm requesting CU per that same comment from Apparition11, who accurately claimed that Swamilive often has sleeper accounts that CU might uncover.  City O f  Silver  23:31, 10 March 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
✅ plus:



--MuZemike 23:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)