Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SweetBabyGirl06/Archive

04 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Both of these accounts are interested in adding information concerning actors and musicians. They have either added or supported the additions of unverifiable and/or false information concerning the respective people's personal lives. One formula for the personal details that these accounts add goes like this: person a was married to person b (born on "month day, year") on "month day, year". They have x children together, with child name being born on "month day, year". Here is an example of such editing. He/she has used some of the same dates in multiple articles as well; for instance, there have been multiple instances where the spouse of the article's namesake was born on either January 4, 1984 or January 4, 1987. They also may split time between two or more locations. Two examples of articles that SweetBabyGirl06 and #173 accounts edited are Ernie Reyes, Jr. (SweetBabyGirl06, in one instance, edited the article nine minutes after the IP was done, making edits supportive of the questionable information; see history) and Michael Raymond-James (this was especially heavily edited by SweetBabyGiri06, and a person establishing himself as Michael Raymond-James edited the article, stating that the information was untrue and that he didn't know any of the people mentioned in that information; see history). Also, while making this report, I found another IP, 74.195.36.128, which has similar edit patterns on some of the same pages or groups of pages. The #74 account was temporarily blocked in March 2010, with last edits taking place on March 8, 2010; that IP started activity on August 11, 2009 UTC time with this and several other edits on the Jon Abrahams page. The #173 account had its first edit on April 9, 2010 UTC time, but didn't start doing the aforementioned formulaic editing until the next edit on the Scott Adkins page (see history). Also, it is definitely worth mentioning that looking at the badly-formatted userpage of SweetBabyGirl06, as there is a list of such false and unverifiable information about the respective people's personal lives, accompanied by respective infoboxes. And, by the way, the additions that are made on the articles are almost never sourced. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:30, 4 December 2010 (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

 * First, the 74 IP hasn't been used in eight months, so there's not much to act on. I'm not getting a sense of full malicious intent here, as there's not a lot of overlap in edits. Still, I left a note on both the IP and editor's talk pages about logging in. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

09 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The account and the first IP have been working in tandem the past week to post false familial information about actors and the like. The behavior of SweetBabyGirl06, utilizing IPs and the main account in question, has been long-term and is not showing signs of stopping. Common pages edited by both SweetBabyGirl06 and the #173 IPs include Andrew McNair (actor) (history; this page has been hit hard), Nick Moran (history), Will Patton (history) Cam Gigandet (history), User:SweetBabyGirl06 (history etc.

This is an example of an edit by SweetBabyGirl06 that adds fictional personal information to the articles. Here is a similar edit by a #173 IP.

SweetBabyGirl06 has been performing this destructive type of editing since August 2010. But, even with a December 2010 sockpuppet investigation, the account has never once been blocked (although 173.217.151.98 was blocked for 31 hours recently). While some of the listed IPs have not been active for a while, I feel it's appropriate to post even the inactive ones, to display how long this person has sockpuppeted. Also, it's not even worth debating that this person doesn't know better, as seen by the large list of warnings at his/her talk page. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

An actress I follow on Twitter publicly complained that a Wikipedia article contained false information that she was married (false) and had kids (false) with an actor she'd never met. I looked into it and found the information on Andrew McNair (actor). I removed the content, tagged the article as BLP unsourced, and watchlisted. User:SweetBabyGirl06 and various 173.217.* IP address users returned to add the content back. I started watchlisting, reverting, and issuing warnings for adding unsourced WP:BLP content and vandalism from these accounts. Persistent vandal I assumed, nothing I hadn't seen before.

In the last week User:173.217.151.98 was issued a block which made me look further into the relationship between these accounts. Several IP 173.217.* had also edited SweetBabyGirl06's user page, so it seemed to me that these IP address accounts were being used to avoid scrutiny of the SweetBabyGirl06 account and persist in vandalism, injecting false information into articles. I began documenting the accounts to bring it to an administrator's attention and noticed that the same issues had been raised on SweetBabyGirl06's talk page years ago, suggesting that this is a long term case of vandalism, and a seemingly long term attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. I feel CheckUser should be used to verify this suspected relationship between the accounts and a block on editing from the 173.217.* range should be considered. dissolve talk  02:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * None of this editing is recent, but given the seriousness of the BLP violations here, and the extensive warnings given on the master's talk page, I've indeffed the account and given 3 month blocks to all the IPs, which are static. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 13:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the IPs are static? Clerks, please hold off on archiving this for a bit. --Rschen7754 05:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reverse DNS on it is 173-217-151-98-pnvl.mid.dyn.suddenlink.net. and they don't offer cell service, but are a standard ISP. Looking at the patterns of edits and durations, I would get next month's lunch money these are all dynamic IPs. I changed the status to "hold". The site whatismyipaddress.com is pretty handy, but they frequently get these types of things wrong.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 11:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * With hostnames like 173-217-151-98-pnvl.mid..suddenlink.net, these are certainly dynamic IP addresses, regardless what the WHOIS link says. Blocking individual IPs in a dynamic range will prove ineffective, so if the BLP violations are still occurring, perhaps semi-protection of the affected articles is a better route to take. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone should probably unblock the IPs. The chances of the sockpuppeteer returning to one of the same address again is minimal, but there is some risk of collateral currently. This user so far seems to have stuck to the range, which is not ridiculously wide... Either a rangeblock, edit filter (might be a bit complex, but perhaps most effective) or page protection (probably not effective unless we protect all BLPs) is the solution. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked the IPs. I apologise for the trouble I've caused here; quite simply, a lack of technical knowhow has caused this. I will be more mindful of these limitations in the future. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 19:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, and thanks for taking a look back. --Rschen7754 20:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't need the hold anymore, closing. Rschen7754 20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

17 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

It looks like this sockmaster has returned (or never left): User:SweetBabyGirl06 with the same pattern of unsourced WP:BLP violations, inserting false information about spouses and children into little-watched articles:,,  Here's the manager of the subject of an article complaining: If you look at the previous sockpuppet investigation, this is a long term (multi-year) pattern of abuse. dissolve talk  01:08, 17 December 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

 * The account on the last case has gone . I recommend applying the duck test instead. - Mailer Diablo 23:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - Nothing fresh on record to work with. NativeForeigner Talk 03:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * IP blocked one month for block evasion per duck test. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

21 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Another IP from the same range which this editor used, albeit very stale. Including it for the sake of the pattern.
 * Possibly a different editor, but added similar unsourced content to one of the favorite target articles.
 * Another IP from the same range which this editor used, albeit very stale. Including it for the sake of the pattern.
 * Possibly a different editor, but added similar unsourced content to one of the favorite target articles.
 * Possibly a different editor, but added similar unsourced content to one of the favorite target articles.


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

Repeatedly adds bogus family data, usually the same spouse and children's names, to multiple biography articles. Often these changes are immediately retracted, but not always.

Recently, while an IP address this editor was using was on a three-day block, the StarlightRose account was used to continue the disruptive editing.
 * 173.217.154.181's addition of bogus info to the Rory McCann article
 * StarlightRose repetition of same

This might seem like a mere unsourced edit, but on the same day as the original edit, 173.217.154.181 added the same supposed spouse and kids to the Will Patton article. 

It appears that this has been going on for months. Currently blocked account Jackson&NikkiRathbone05 made a similar edit back in August 2013. 

And an IP address from the same IP block made a similar edit to Will Patton in November 2013 (different spouse, but same kids). 

The most recent activity was yesterday. As near as I can tell, Sonny Barger's second wife's name was Sharon, not Krista or Jennifer. Also, Krista Jenkins is one of the recurring names in previous edits. 

I can see that this user has already been blocked for a month once due to block evasion. Please take appropriate action.


 * Update: Did I say months? I should have said this has been going on for years! This appears to be a block evasion by indefinitely blocked user SweetBabyGirl06. Note that the daughter's name is Carys, as before.

Thank you, GentlemanGhost   (converse)  22:08, 21 March 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

 * Accounts all blocked, IPs stale. Rschen7754 08:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I was going to archive this, but then I realized that one of the listed puppets, User:SweetBabyGirl06, had her own SPI page, so I'm not not sure where this report belongs.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This and the archives should be merged into the other one. --Rschen7754 00:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've merged the two; can you please double-check it for me? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I double-checked myself, and I did not do it right. I had to manually merge (copy/paste) the StarlightRose archive into the new archive. There's gotta be a better way. If you know the steps I should be doing (these more complex actions are not explained on the SPI clerk procedure page), I would be grateful. And, regardless, please double-check my double-check.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When you're merging cases with an archive, that is all that you can do usually. --Rschen7754 04:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)