Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toolscrips/Archive

Report date April 22 2010, 18:21 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This is related to the Jari-Veikko Kauppinen article and the related AFD. The article's history is filled with apparant SPA accounts, but since it was tagged for removal the amount has actually skyrocketed.
 * Evidence submitted by Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs )

The above editors and the two IP's have consistently been removing the AFD template from the article itself. None of the IP's or editors has ever edited anything else before, and their registration dates are all within two days of each other (20 april to 22 april). It is also worth to note that Radioline and Ransu Rapea use the same broken English when they warned two contributes for replacing the AFD template they removed.

Normally i would think this is a WP:DUCK case, but since i created the AFD i rather not act on this myself. I am not certain if these are sock or meat-puppets, but at the very least they are SPA accounts. The history lists more SPA accounts as well, but these aren't active for now so i am not including them here. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

per the addition of two IPs the associated range appears to be (65536 addresses), which apart from being rather a wide range seems to be pretty busy (contribs), so I don't think that blocking it will be feasible. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All accounts tagged and blocked. The IPs haven't edit in days in it looks like their IP changes frequently, so no point in blocking them now. Range is also too big too block and collateral damage looks high, so unfortunately, no blocks there either.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 15:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

24 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck. Dabbled a bit to get autoconfirm, then went straight to creation of Jari Veikko Kauppinen, a re-creation of salted Jari-Veikko Kauppinen. When was this was speedied A7, tried again at JariVeikko Kauppinen. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * New user repeatedly recreating an article that the master (and other socks) repeatedly recreated.   Harry    Let us have speaksundefined 08:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC) (Harry the Dirty Dog added  to the SPI with this comment.)

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
This new account was registered after previous accounts were abandoned. But, still, creating multiple accounts to re-create an article deleted via AfD is certainly WP:ILLEGIT. I'm calling an admin to compare newly re-created article with deleted versions.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, comparing:
 * 23 April 2010 by
 * 20 April 2015 by
 * 25 April 2015 by
 * They are all... different. The Humbrey one is a copypaste of the lede of the OkayRachit one, making it possible they are the same user (or are copying from the same source). These are completely different from the 2010 version (which was the better-sourced of them all, frankly), making it unclear if the two most recent accounts are indeed socks of the older ones. Or we could be dealing with meatpuppets/family members. Humbrey has no other edits, but OkayRachit does (outside of this topic), and they have intertwining edits on April 25th to unrelated topics in similar timeframes so there is no certainty they are socks. I would be inclined to warn OkayRachit and monitor Humbrey to make sure it doesn't become active again. Does that seem fine to you, ? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What about running the CU to compare those accounts?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is sufficient ground to endorse a check of the two most recent accounts, but the latest sock I could find dates from 2010, so we won't be able to link to the suspected master. However, if CU proves the two most recent accounts are by the same user, it is plausible that OkayRachit used Humbrey to try and recreate the above-mentioned article, and when it failed, discarded the sock, which would be an obvious violation of sockpuppetry policy. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - To compare with  because of the recreating of identical article.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * and appear technically ❌.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on this deleted article for their web promotion company, this looks like meatpuppetry. Indeffing puppets and closing.