Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USEDfan/Archive

Report date July 24 2009, 04:58 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Both of these accounts are editing articles in the area in which UF edits articles, and they share his editing style. Both of these accounts have already been blocked, this SPI is simply to find if a rangeblock is feasible.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I have been monitoring the actions of User:USEDfan and his numerous sock accounts for quite some time now, and am very familiar with his patterns. Only recently have I started to take action. There is no doubt in my mind that Jakers 78 and Little BIG mike 25 are indeed suckpuppets of USEDfan. Only two days after Jakers 78 received a ban, Little BIG mike 25 crawls out of nowhere and performs the EXACT same edits to Artwork (album). USEDfan was known for ignoring any and all: wiki policy, wiki manual of style, comments and warnings from other editors, consensus and even his own ban. He always preferred more of a "my way or the highway" philosophy when it came to editing any article related to The Used, and was well known for his edit wars. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * This banned user is obviously able to evade blocks. This request is to see if a rangeblock is feasible.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * - Tiptoety  talk 14:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * USEDfan is stale, however the four userID's listed above are socks of each other. I've blocked & tagged the two I added. I've also the source IP for a month. -- Versa  geek  18:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Per CU. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 1 2009, 02:37 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Editing pattern very similar to previous USEDfan socks. Edit wars over the inclusion of a song which isn't a single, as a single on various articles, even though told that the single blog which is used as a source isn't reliable. This account is already blocked, this SPI is just to confirm, track, and make sure we can block his newest range.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just added as they tried to recreate the article under a different name once it was deleted, just like the other listed sock did.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

CU is required to see if a rangeblock is feasible. It was last time, not to mention the fact that there may be sleepers, just like there was last time.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

– since the underlying IP's block just recently expired, it's likely that the same disruption has started back up and with new socks. Endorsing to weed out any other sleepers; the underlying IP should be about the same as last time. MuZemike 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ✅ that is Usedfan,  too.  (same IP), + open proxies.   Luk  talk 09:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * looks technically ❌ to me (different country)  Luk  talk 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Tagged and blocked. NW ( Talk ) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 6 2010, 06:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Same MO, which recently has been to repeatedly recreate a article deleted under a deletion discussion, and edit war to have their preferred version of the article, without edit summaries.
 * Evidence submitted by — Dæ dαlus Contribs

CU isn't really need to confirm, in my opinion, this obvious sock. What CU is needed for however, is to find any sleepers, which this user usually creates. There is likely a sockfarm lurking around this user. — Dæ dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 06:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by — <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 06:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

As I am not a clerk, admin, or CU, I will post additional info here:

Check out the history of one of the templates USEDfan has edited under many different socks. In the current history, you will see that he has edit warred to have this edit remain.

You will notice, reviewing the history, that while this sock does some times use edit summaries, he mostly does not. Another MO of USEDfan is to edit war without discussion, something that this suspected sock is seen doing if one simply checks the previously linked history. Edit warring without discussion.

Further, even if that is not enough, they recreated a previously deleted article(which had been deleted many times with under several different names as the socker tried to evade indef protection) as a near perfect copy of the previously deleted versions. This article has since been deleted, so admins will have to check the suspected sock's deleted contributions to see what I refer to. This is what makes me think they are the sock of this user the most.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 04:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * If it is obvious that Kgt4 is a sock, why has it not been blocked as such? --Deskana (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Insufficient behavioral evidence to support a checkuser. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Prior socks of USEDfan had significantly different editing patterns from Kgt4. Without an indication of what led to the suspicion of sockpuppetry, there's really nothing to warrant a checkuser at this time. However, please feel free to add additional evidence to support the claim as you see fit. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not ony was kgt4 around for a number of the previous checks, but the recreation was of an article by an account found to be unrelated. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

17 May 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Similar edits to sock master, edit warring against consensus. Not only that, since I have been active in this case, it appears they were following my specific edits in regards to their favorite articles.
 * Evidence submitted by — <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs

CU is not required to confirm what I, and apparently another(the one who tagged the user page) believe to be an obvious sock. It is to route out any sleepers. — <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 05:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I would also like to nominate User:Mcrxx4xxlife, User:Mcrx4xlife, User:Itsmeamario, User:Fuckthewikipolice and User:Lombax 1982 for investigation. I am familiar with USEDfan and feel that these are clear WP:DUCK cases. I was also the one that tagged most of them as suspected socks. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by — <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 05:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

to check for underlying IP(s) and sleepers. –MuZemike 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All accounts listed are now blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It is that  and  could be related, but I am not sure. I don't know if they are related to the suspected master.

✅ =

Those four are all using open proxies, so I cannot be sure of their relationship to the other listed accounts, or the suspected sockmaster. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 07:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so I can better understand the checkuser and SPI processes, why were Je punk rock 20 and Lombax 1982 only considered possible socks? Fezmar9 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we cannot go into anymore detail than that as it would present privacy/outing issues (against the WMF's privacy policy), not to mention WP:BEANS. –MuZemike 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
Same MO as confirmed sock master. Please block this account.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by — <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC) CU isn't needed to confirm this obvious sock. It's needed to route out the many sleeper accounts this user usually creates.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering he has had sleepers in the past, I am endorsing for CU attention to check if there are any other accounts. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   07:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ =, who is listed in the archive. No other accounts apparent.  Amalthea  10:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

29 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Just as with previous socks, Isle 1989 is exclusively editing articles related to the musical group The Used, the video game Ratchet & Clank, and the TV show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 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
Can you provide more evidence apart from same article preference, like diffs showing they're related? In addition there's no chance for a CU here as all the accounts will be  Alexandria   (talk)  18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Boy, I'd sure have to do some hardcore digging through all the confirmed/suspected sockpuppet's contributions to find some diffs. In the past, the duck test has been sufficient; and I feel that exclusively editing the exact same three unique and unrelated topics screams "quack". I can tell you that USEDfan typically pops up when The Used release a new album, and Isle 1989 created an article for the group's upcoming album. Isle 1989 also tested out his talk page, which at least one of USEDfan's socks tried in a pathetic attempt to appear like a brand new editor. But like I said, I'd have to dig through the contributions of dozens of socks to find a diff and prove that. I probably won't have time to do that until Monday—will this SPI remain open until then? Fezmar9 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I found some time to dig through all his contribs, though I'd like to note that I don't believe all of his sock accounts were properly tagged as such. I found three other socks who tested out their talk pages and invited users to communicate with him. It should also be noted that each of these sock's first edits were approximately 10 test edits to their respective talk pages, effectively creating an "established" editor—something other USEDfan socks were familiar with. Another editor suggested that USEDfan has knowledge of becoming established when he pointed out another sock who made ten edits to random articles that were irrelevant to his favorite three topics which he exclusively edits. The first article Isle1989 edited after performing his ten test edits was to Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One on May 20, 2011, and according to the article's logs it was protected during this time period. A brand new editor would not know how to do this. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of User:USEDfan based on behavioral evidence. –MuZemike 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

31 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Yesterday, was blocked as being a sockpuppet of USEDfan. Many of his edits regarded the article Vulnerable (The Used album). Today, the first edit (and only as of this posting) performed by Ohthatguyok was continuing the edit war that was started by Isle1989. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 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 the sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

02 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Only two days after his last sock was blocked, USEDfan has returned and picked up right where he left off in the edit war on Vulnerable (The Used album). And this time his username is clearly a mimicry of my username. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:36, 2 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

 * 3 reports in less than a week, might as well empty out the drawers Alexandria   (talk)  16:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fezmor9 also blocked and tagged per  Alexandria   (talk)  16:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) And it is, but by the looks of things, everything's already in the laundry basket. WilliamH (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any possibility for an IP block? Alexandria   (talk)  16:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * . WilliamH (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Article in question full protected for the time <font face="comic sans ms"> Alexandria [[User talk:Alexandria|<span style="color:
 * 1) 000080 ">(talk) ]] 16:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

23 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Sock puppets of USEDfan usually pop up around the time of a new album by The Used. While Tampsellie's account was created quite a while ago, activity and disruptive edits were kept to a minimum, and was able to fly under the radar. However, when The Used announced this week that a new album would be out in a couple months, Tampsellie's activity spiked. About 90% of USEDfan's edits pertained to articles related to The Used, and the other 10% were related to Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Captain Underpants and Ratchet & Clank, all of which Tampsellie has edited. USEDfan also likes to taunt me. His last confirmed sock was a mimicry of my username, and despite being reverted by other editors, I'm the only user he is leaving lengthy messages to. Quack. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2014 (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 agree, and technical data matches as well, tagged & blocked. Amalthea 11:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)