Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Fresh Beat Band/Archive

27 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

It's obvious that it's the same person, because the same pages are being redirected to and such. Lucasoutloud (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Behavioral evidence at The Fresh Beat Band and similar username. Requesting CU for sleeper check. Logan Talk Contributions 03:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Likely; both editing disruptively related to The Fresh Beat Band. Calabe1992 03:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Added other accounts.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 03:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Added one more. Calabe1992 03:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of the background here, but I have encountered/blocked several vandals like this one in the last few days adding the  spamlink (which should really be blacklisted, but that's outside of my technical capacities). There are likely more socks than just these two... again, sorry if this is obvious, I'm not aware of the background, if any.  CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 03:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm thinking there's some sleepers around here somewhere. Calabe1992 03:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * VictoriousVNick and the others are the sockpuppet of User:The Fresh Beat Band. --Il223334234 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Evidence is spamming to the rugby equipment shop website on The Fresh Beat Band or vandalizing Nickelodeon-related articles. --Il223334234 (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . I've compiled all the comments from the two different cases. Clearly these accounts are affecting a lot of pages and editors, so I'm endorsing for confirmation, sleepers, and a possible IP block. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 08:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ is also ✅ and  is very ., who has submitted evidence at this SPI, is  - which is really very odd. Ranges are far too big to block at this point, but for the individual addresses - .  AGK   [• ]  15:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tags updated. I'm highly suspicious of Il223334234 but am going to leave it alone for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

29 December 2011
Also:
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar name in some cases, similar edits to redirects The Jump Arounds and The JumpArounds. WP:DUCK. I'll probably add more names to this as the evening progresses. NellieBly (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Including creating a hoax football team article (Nickelodeon Fresh Beats) and spam worldrugbyshop. Most sock usernames will have this structure: . --Il223334234 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may blacklist the word "FreshBeat", "Fresh Beat" (account creation only) if possible --Il223334234 (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts listed above. I'm also adding a CU onto here to see if we can get another IP block, or if maybe a rangeblock is possible. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * , but this looks like a dynamic range, sorry :(. -- Luk  talk 11:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

30 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Username structure that I given in the last archive:  Il223334234 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just the username structure, they are also vandalize Nickelodeon-related articles too.

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
Il223334234, please explain your relation to all of the above accounts. --MuZemike 07:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will ask one more time, and that is it – please explain your relation to all of the above accounts. --MuZemike 07:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I will let this go as a warning for now. I know that the filer is related somehow to the socks above. Don't pull stuff like this again. --MuZemike 07:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

31 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

And all the other recent accounts starting with "FreshBeat". All blocked, but is there an underlying IP or range we can block? Thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 31 January 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
I threw out a rangeblock, but there's a lot of hopping going on, so its effectiveness may be limited. TN X Man 15:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DENY I've only tagged a few, just so we have continuity. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

23 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I'm not familiar with this particular sock, but the pattern seems to fit: account name, targeted articles, link spamming, etc. The claims of User:เรไทศง not being a sock tipped me off as to who this is. Looking at past SPI requests, there was a range block put in at one time, so I'm filing this report to see if another needs to be placed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:58, 23 April 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
No unblocked accounts found and a range block has already been placed. TN X Man 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Users already blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

25 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another account blocked per WP:DUCK. The range block in place does not appear to be effective. Perhaps another one? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a second account that just popped up and an IP that had the spammed web page on their talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 25 April 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

 * - I highly doubt even if we can find one, that we will be able to place an effective one, but we'll give it another try. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Range blocks don't appear to be a realistic option I'm afraid. WilliamH (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN X Man  13:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

22 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same modus operandi: sports retailer spam. See: Special:Contributions/RugratsRNick Shirt58 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC) As above: Special:Contributions/DoraExplorerDNick Shirt58 (talk) 05:06, 22 May 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

 * Two cases from the same date merged. It is unnecessary to add a new case when you already have one open. Simply add additional suspects below the existing one(s) and any new evidence below. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both accounts already blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)