Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theunknownnun/Archive

17 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * On 9 July 2011 I blocked Theunknownnun with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Creating copyright violations: uploading unlicenced photographs in spite of repeated requests and warning).
 * On 17 July, Coorslite created Xiola Gray, an article about a very  young  female child actress.
 * Xiola Gray is almost identical in  kind to  a long  series of articles - now deleted - by the Theunknownnun.
 * 85.211.124.151 removed the PROD from Sydney Wade -  one of Theunknownnun's creations.
 * Passes the duck test, but it  may  be an odd coincidence; hence CU request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Theunknownnun created the article Sylvia Hodgson, an article about  a very  young  female child actress. 17:54, 2 July 2011, deleted 07:05, 10 July 2011 Wikibabyxxx crereated the article Sylvia Hodgson 19:59, 17 July 2011. now deleted

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

 * . It's possible, I guess, but let's see what's going on. Also, I think we've seen edits like this from another sockfarm, but I'm blanking on the name now, so maybe that'll turn up. The checkuser won't comment on the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Two groups here, ❌ to each other though:
 * Group 1:
 * Group 2:
 * TN X Man 14:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In group 1, the editor seems to be using Coorslite now, so I've blocked and tagged the other two accounts to reflect that. In group 2, I've blocked and tagged Wikibaby, and reset Theunknownnun's month-long block. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Group 2:
 * TN X Man 14:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In group 1, the editor seems to be using Coorslite now, so I've blocked and tagged the other two accounts to reflect that. In group 2, I've blocked and tagged Wikibaby, and reset Theunknownnun's month-long block. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In group 1, the editor seems to be using Coorslite now, so I've blocked and tagged the other two accounts to reflect that. In group 2, I've blocked and tagged Wikibaby, and reset Theunknownnun's month-long block. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

31 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar username to Wikibabyxxx and has just recreated an article (Sydney Wade) that the Theunknownnun had deleted a while ago. JuneGloom   Talk  20:21, 31 July 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
I am in no doubt that the two accounts are the same as the user also re-created Lucy Hutchinson (actress) which was also created by Theunknownnun. I have indefinitely blocked the sock and also changed Theunknownnun's block to indefinite.--5 albert square (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5 albert already blocked, so we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

04 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I must admit it is only a couple of edits that are drawing me here but the couple of edits are both copyright violations and are identical which leads me to believe that these are the same person.

The two edits are to the pages Lorna Fitzgerald and Maisie Smith. If you look you will see that both editors uploaded the exact same images both times. Also, the images appear to have the exact same file name both times which is another reason that I believe these editors are the same. What would be the chances of two editors uploading the exact same files with the exact same file names to Wikipedia?

Evidence includes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorna_Fitzgerald&diff=prev&oldid=437553490&unhide=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorna_Fitzgerald&diff=prev&oldid=448202855

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maisie_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=437547631

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maisie_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=448203698

I do appreciate that Crystalnite is now blocked, however the block is only for 31 hours.

I am requesting CheckUser for a couple of reasons. Firstly just to confirm my suspicions that these are the same editors and secondly because I think (though I'm not 100% certain) sleepers have been found before for this user. 5 albert square (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would execute this request, in order to confirm the duckish suspicions and find potential sleepers. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In the first case, we found two sets of accounts. I'll endorse to see if this is part of either of them, and if there are any other sleepers/related accounts. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Crystalnite and Theunknownnun are straight matches. Two more sleepers and  were blocked, also straight matches. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Diablo blocked the accounts; I tagged them. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

19 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Like Theunkownnun and their other accounts - this account raised an eyebrow with me and another editor straight away. All edits go to minor children associated with British Soap Operas. This user focuses on editing articles about soap opera children and their BLP counterparts.  Rain the One  BAM 20:11, 19 November 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
Did a check per the quacking and history of abusing multiple accounts. The following are ✅ slepeers of Theunknownnun:

XxEastEndersFanxx is technically ❌ to these, but from my editorial point of view, it's an obvious sock. WilliamH (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

28 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Almost identical username to the last sock that was brought here. They are editing/creating articles about young child actors as per the sockmaster. JuneGloom   Talk  21:48, 28 November 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

 * Per WP:DUCK I've blocked and tagged this sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

15 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets






 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A trademark that comes with a sock from this user is "xx" - Their chosen subject is always soap operas - their favourite sub category is children in soap opera. As ever and matching all previous socks, this user is adding children to infoboxes, editing childrens entries.. If you check them over you'll spot the pattern in a couple of seconds. Isn't there anything else that could be done either? The blocks clearly are not working.  Rain the One  BAM 03:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I think User:Demilealouise may be related. The majority of this user's edits are to British soap opera characters, particularly those who are young or have children, and young actresses. - JuneGloom    Talk  15:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Looks like this might be Sockpuppet investigations/Tomjovanovic, but I also think we might have a breeding spot where i'm wondering if we can connect any accounts with as I see possible socks that did exist that look to match the same behvaoir but are stale. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

on technical evidence, but the editing behaviors make this bloody obvious. –MuZemike 22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * DQ already blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly quacks very loud. As the admin  who first brought  The Unknown Nun issues to  light, I  have been following  these SPIs and monitoring  the articles very  closely. Based on  the user's editing  history, I  suggest  blocking  anyway as a suspected sock, and  to  prevent further disruption. Is it  possible for CUs to  determine  if all the socks'  IPs are within  a range that  can be blocked? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Demilealouise has not bee blocked yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * to see if Demilealouise is connected. I wasn't sure if Muzemike's inconclusive findings included that account. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately also . There is quite a wide range of IPs being used, so it's difficult to get a good idea of what is going on. J.delanoy gabs adds  17:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll close with no action taken, then? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you can. I'll be keeping a close watch on User:Demilealouise's edits and the concerned articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)