Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Television Radio/Archive

Report date February 19 2009, 15:21 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

IP user is vandalizing the same articles, in the same manner, as blocked user:Television Radio Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * appears to be yet another address used by this user, more identical edits. Thanks to User:Lost on belmont for bring this to my attention Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * IP user 216.124.113.30 is vandalizing the same articles relating to the Chicago 'L' (such as Chicago 'L' rolling stock, Green Line (Chicago Transit Authority), Red Line (Chicago Transit Authority), etc.) in the same method as blocked user Television Radio (repeated instances of improper capitalization of "the" to "The" and the switching of "were" to "was"). Edits were identified as vandalism, the user was blocked, and the IP user began making the same edits not long after. IP user 69.209.202.165 has made identical edits not long ago and is almost certainly the same person. Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * there has just been yet another wave of "bad grammar" vandalism on the same articles, by . Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

missed by bot Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

, two IP addresses (76.237.187.59 and 69.209.202.165) geolocate to the same area (Chicago, Illinois) and are registered to the same provider and the other (216.124.113.30) is also located in Illinois. This combined with the behavioral evidence present (all the accounts edit the same pages), suggests that they are all socks. All accounts are already blocked. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Block extended by MBisanz.  Syn  ergy 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy Pounce! 23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 8 2009, 16:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

user:Television Radio, blocked for abusive editing and sockpuppetry [] has continued to his strange string of "bad grammar" vandalism, after his indef blocking, making almost identical edits to the same articles from each of these IP addresses.
 * Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat (talk)

Example articles vandalised include:



All IPs geolocate to the Chicago area, and are from the same provider. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

}}   Requested by Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * - Tiptoety  talk 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * The IPs look plenty related, based on behavioral evidence; I did go digging and found, who also appears to be related. Semi-prot would probably work better than rangeblocking, here. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  07:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 9 2009, 14:55 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)
 * (users school IP?? Has been blocked 3 times previously for abuse of editing privileges, with CTA related edits preceding each block)

same as the previous two investigations, user continues to inject bad grammar in to articles relating to the Chicago Transit Authority, and various "decade" articles. His most recent 2 targets have been 1990s and Chicago 'L' rolling stock Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC) . -- Kanonkas : Talk  23:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Confirmed accounts blocked indefinitely. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 20:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Named users:
 * ✅ that the following users are the same
 * to be sleeper socks:
 * that these are sleeper socks:
 * to be sleeper socks:
 * that these are sleeper socks:
 * that these are sleeper socks:

As for the IPs, I'm finding a pattern of other users that don't match on most of the ranges, meaning collateral damage would occur. Block specific IPs on behavior, I think, as I'm not seeing any good range blocks at present... From the archived cases:"Semi-prot would probably work better than rangeblocking, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)" ... I think I agree... try semiprot.

Please advise of any questions. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 3 2009, 20:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Again, with the same type of edits as his IPs. See this IP, for example, as well as his past socks. —  Σ xplicit  20:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by —  Σ xplicit 


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Added 2 more IP adddress to the long list of those previously used by this long term problem, Edits by Staskiworski and the 2 IPs all fit the same pattern of articles, previously established by Television Radio. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yet another IP sock added. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * another IP, and another sock/account added. Per Einstein's quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.", I doubt this users sanity. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yet another IP added. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and another, he's been busy this morning. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and another IP, same edits as previous. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

——  nix eagle email me 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks ——  nix eagle email me 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I need collateral checks on the following ranges (chosen based on archives and current IP list above).
 * 69.209.224.0/20 << especially this one
 * 76.192.0.0/10 -- obviously not intending to block all of it, but see if this socker is operating on a subrange of that.
 * 99.132.136.0/22, the broader range is 99.128.0.0/10 and there are socks on that too. I suspect open proxies more then actual access to the range, but there is a bunch of socks off of this range.
 *  Syn  ergy 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

✅ the accounts and IPs. 99.132.136.0/22 has very little traffic and can safely be blocked (and the IPs here don't appear to have been proxies). 69.209.224.0/20 has a moderate amount of traffic, but an anon-only block is not out of the question. The other range appears to be at least 76.237.128.0/17, which is probably not something we should be anon-blocking for more than a few days at a time. Dominic·t 05:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Icestorm815 •  Talk  05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Accounts blocked.
 * 99.132.136.0/22 - blocked one month
 * 69.209.224.0/20 - blocked two weeks
 * 76.237.128.0/17 - blocked three days

Report date May 17 2009, 18:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

sockpuppet investigation # 5 for this user. same edits as before, with most of the IPs also begging for mercy on User talk:Kuru or openly admitting they are socks of this user Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * CU not necessary here. Admission is sufficient. Nathan  T 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Named account indef blocked and tagged. IPs blocked with the exception of 69.209.226.53 as it has not edited since the 11th. Tiptoety  talk 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 23 2009, 21:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

This user's very first edit was a formatted but totally NN subject, namely, that of defunct Chicago Transit Authority routes. Typical target of Television Radio, but user is protesting the block. I want to AGF, but the coincidence is just too strong, so I brought it here


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

This really shouldn't be an spi case. I recommend you just allow another admin to review this, by asking one on their talk page, or just waiting until someone responds to an unblock template.  Sy  n 01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments.
 * Agreed. Icestorm815  •  Talk  01:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 25 2009, 20:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

same as the first four investigations, he never learns, does the same edits over and over again Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Obvious. Blueboy96 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 *  Sy  n 21:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)