Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/US40AL-01/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * Adding User hike395 suspicion:
 * Adding User hike395 suspicion:
 * Adding User hike395 suspicion:
 * Adding User hike395 suspicion:
 * Adding User hike395 suspicion:
 * Adding User hike395 suspicion:
 * Adding User hike395 suspicion:

Evidence submitted by Chris.urs-o
Seems to me that the experienced IP needs to show us how clever and powerfull it is. As the dimensions seem to be big, it seems wise to see if these IPs/ Usernames are involved. If there are more IPs/ Usernames involved. If this thing is dreadful big or just a kid's stuff. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The action seems to harass editors. Experience use of templates, categories and WP abbreviations. Althouth User:Killiondude praised 71.219.172.174, this kind of editing has the advantage of not needing research. Some highlights:
 * 71.219.177.7, live since 14 June 2010,
 * quote: "vandalous User:Vsmith" (admin Vsmith is live since 7 July 2004)
 * 71.219.172.174, live since 7 June 2010,
 * quote: "vandalizing User:CL" (live since 21 March 2008)
 * 71.219.172.174,
 * quote: "Removed vandalization by User:Look2See1" (live since 10 January 2010)
 * 71.219.184.69, live since 15 June 2010
 * quote: "vandal User:Look2See1's"
 * 71.219.169.105, live since 14 June 2010
 * 174.24.34.102, live since 10 May 2010
 * quote: "Restored valid disambiguation by User:US40AL-01"
 * harassment of User GreenGlass1972 (live since 7 June 2008), Qfl247 (live since 25 January 2008) and Shannon1 (live since 17 June 2008) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Don't see User:Look2See1 as involved. Further info avaiable on my talk, see and  Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note nature of unblock request and comments at User talk:71.219.184.69 - ip was blocked for 24 hr for harassment. Vsmith (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On 10 May US40AL-01 moved content of Tule Valley making it a dab page with a cut and paste move to Tule Valley, Utah then edit warred to keep the change, once as US40AL-01 and twice as ip 174.24.34.102 page history. This only stopped when the page was semi-protected. Vsmith (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On 10 June Owens River was edit protected due to edit warring by ip 71.219.172.174 and another user article history. On 11 June user:US40AL-01 shows up with a lengthy defense of the ip and basically an attack on User:Shannon1.
 * The ips are rather obviously the same person using different ip addresses for different sessions - common amongst anon editors and of itself not problematic. (Although the edit summary attacks are problematic) However, the similarities of editing style and article interests by user:US40AL-01 along with that users attempted defense of the ip does present problems - as the user appears to be logging out to make questionable edits and then logging in to defend the ip edits. Vsmith (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if the IP wasn't engaging in sockpuppetry, this person demonstrates a severe lack of good faith and often resorts to calling other users vandals and discredits any rationale you try to give him (her). He refuses to compromise or listen to sense or even respond to one's comments on his talk page. In my view, he shouldn't get away with such an attitude. Pardon if I'm biased, but he's incredibly frustrating. CL (T · C) — 16:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

IP range appears to be. seems to have been taking an active part in reverting the edits made by the IP, could you please explain what leads you to believe they may be the IP user? SpitfireTally-ho! 10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Same way of endless talking, a experienced Troll seems to be believe it's very clever. Look2See1 said he can't open a SPI (ó.0). It is a suspicion, somebody wants to fool us. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * - IPs and US40AL-01 are obviously the same person, no CU necessary. Insufficient evidence to justify a check on Look2See1, let alone a block. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * rangeblocked 2 weeks, account indef'd T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to /US40AL-01 per usual practice. T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Good Olfactory
I have been approached by several editors who are concerned that User:Hike796 and/or User:Mmcannis may be sockpuppets of the permanently blocked User:US40AL-01. I'm not overly familiar with any of the 3 users, but my understanding is that all 3 have focused their edits on a very specific topic—watersheds in Nevada and the Western U.S., focusing on use of USGS terminology. There have been suggestions that they all use similar language to express themselves. What makes this kind of weird is that User:Hike796 and User:Mmcannis have recently disruptively edit warred against each other (e.g.), which could suggest a very intricate sockpuppeting scheme, or it could simply mean that one is a sock and the other is not (or neither are). I have asked both users and both deny having ever used any other account. The duck test isn't quite sufficient for me in this case to know what to do. I think I know, but the complexity is making me question, so I feel this needs to be resolved via CU one way or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I noticed some odd categories being added to several articles. Like some of the categories created by User:US40AL-01 they frequently did not have a main article and were trying to use the category name space for information that should be in articles. An example by User:US40AL-01 is in this edit. For a similar one for User:Hike796 try this edit. An example for User:Mmcannis is here. While many of the edits are specific to USGS unit there are other areas with odd edits like the example I provided for Hike796. Many of the added categories and maybe articles have names that only exist on this wiki. So something is rather odd with this mess. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing really new to add but want to second the comment above, I also noticed the using category space to create pseudo articles. Kmusser (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Category spaces are probably being used as sandbox or something, I've seen some of the cats' content being moved to article space (such as, I think, Walker River Basin. By the way, that one has been edited by both Hike796 and Mmcannis. If an article has been edited by one it's most likely it's been edited by the other. Does this discussion really need to take place? It's all too obvious this is multi accounting, although admittedly I don't see him abusing multiple accounts very much.) Shannon  talk   contribs  00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, look at history of Searchlight Triple Divide Point, top 2 edits. Shannon  talk   contribs  00:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the ones I found… here it goes. Articles - Walker River Basin, Little Smoky-Newark Watershed, Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed, Dry Creek Watershed, Searchlight Triple Divide Point,


 * Categories - Lahontan regions, Oregon closed basin, Humboldt River Basin, Great Salt Lake regions, Tulare-Buena Vista region, Northern Mojave-Mono Lake region, Central Nevada Desert Basins, Sevier Basin, Black Rock region, Carson River Basin, Honey-Eagle Watershed, Truckee basin, Great Basin section, Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed, Mono-Owens region, Categories named after valleys, Lower Colorado-Lake Mead…


 * There's a lot more. I'm not a robot so I can't find everything. G'night for now... Shannon  talk   contribs  05:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Just to point out, all the data on this user is stale, so CU wouldn't compare it to the original anyway. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - As I said, the data is stale - so this'll have to be on behavioral evidence. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we at least check if the two users are the same? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. We only keep logs of user activity for several months, so if an editor hasn't edited in that time (and we don't have logs) then we can't check their IP against a newer one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my comment was ambiguous. Can't we check if User:Hike796 and User:Mmcannis are emanating from the same IP? They are both active editors as of the past few days. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * - Olfactory does bring up a valid point. The suspected socks may be the same person based on edits, so I guess a CU would help to clear that up - even if we can't tie them to the master that way. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hike796 and Mmcannis are ❌. –MuZemike 03:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Even so, their edit patterns strongly suggest they are the same person – i.e. if I was for some reason going to use a sockpuppet, this is the sort of thing I'd do. Shannon  talk   contribs  04:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)