Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory/Archive

31 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is an obvious attempt by a globally blocked user account to avoid the block. The new account popped into existence a few days after the old account was blocked for long-term abuse. The edits immediately fell into the pattern of disruptive editing: [|this edit] inserted inaccurate original research in front of citations for other details; in [|this edit] the user was actually boasting that by the account holder's standards, the original research was accurate, introducing unncessary cruft into the information box, a favourite pastime of UnbiasedVictory. Also concentrates on US/Canadian military topic, as did UnbiasedVictory. Even on a bare dozen edits, the behaviour easily passes the duck test. HLGallon (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * [|this edit] by UnbiasedVictory: places the Eastern Atlantic Ocean in the Southern United States. The user made a storm of similar edits which took some effort to clean up.
 * [|this edit] gives some idea of the level of UnbiasedVictory's scholarship; wrong British commander, no idea from what source, and missed one of the best known officers in the history of the U.S. Navy;
 * [|this edit] is absolutely unsourced and contradicts all printed sources;
 * [|this edit] UnbiasedVictory inserting SYN in front of citation;
 * [|this edit] Editing Net repeating the same SYN;
 * [|this edit] by Editing Net; unfounded SYN;
 * [|this edit] trumpets Editing Net's discovery that the crew of a U.S. Navy vessel consists of sailors and marines, a favourite hobby horse of UnbiasedVictory.

The two users share similar degrees of incompetence and wilful disregard of all Wikipedia's core principles. This is why I believe that Editing Net's edits pass the duck test easily. However, [|this edit] by Editing Net might make comparisons unnecessary. HLGallon (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Back again as an IP from Toronto with Rogers cable. Same type of edits as all other accounts eg1 - eg.2

Is there a way to stop all this? The guy will just keep trying. -- Moxy (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a place where the processes is faster? Editor in-question still editing at will. -- Moxy (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Still editing guess work 99.233.100.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Admin needed to move this case tp Sockpuppet investigations/Light2Shadow.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , can you present diffs of both and  (or earlier socks), so to illustrate their similarities.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  13:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So, we have admitting being globally locked user. UnbiasedVictory is globally locked for "long-term abuse". But, as much as I know, UnbiasedVictory was never proven to be a sock of Light2Shadow, although he was accused several times. I don't really know what kind of "long-term abuse" is he locked for. An admin is needed to deal with this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think they are the same person ..but UnbiasedVictory has had a problem with editing (as indicated by the block log) . Not many edit summaries or sources for all the changes with some edit summaries referring to other Wiki articles as the source. We spend lots of time cleaning up after this editor. We have tried many many many times to explain the problems but to no avail..just blanking ( no interest in working collaboratively). If need be I will file a separate report on UnbiasedVictory if all think that is best. That said user 99.233.100.189 is Light2Shadow same edits some even coped from over 4 years ago. -- Moxy (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you "dont think they are the same person" although he admits being the same? Why would he do that?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What i am saying is that UnbiasedVictory is  not Light2Shadow.  UnbiasedVictory has had edit wars with  Light2Shadow and  Light2Shadow's other names and IP's.in the past. Both editors have the same type of edits but they are not the same person in my opinion. They both are guessing at what they are doing and not adding sources...but they are different people. Lets be honest here...we will never stop them...both have been at this for years. At WP:Canada we just try and fix what we can when we see it...but they both edit any military article. Sometimes UnbiasedVictory  catches his own mistakes and fixs it as seen here...this is not so for Light2Shadow and his/her socks. Both editors are a problem but I think UnbiasedVictory a young man will learn more as he goes  and in the end could be an asset to the projects. We just need UnbiasedVictory to stop getting info from Wikipedia and websites over scholarly publications (no guess work)  -- Moxy (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think it was a mistake to have moved this investigation to that into that of User:Light2Shadow. That was a complex investigation and on the basis of past behaviour, User:UnbiasedVictory was included in it. Of course, when exonerated from Light2Shadow's activities, UnbiasedVictory crowed that he had never engaged in sockpuppetry, despite having been found guilty of it on indisputable evidence on two occasions. I would suggest moving the investigation back to focus on UnbiasedVictory, where the issues are very clear-cut. HLGallon (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we could focus on UnbiasedVictory..but the fact is Editing Net is still editing ask we talk this out ....more guess work this needs to stop ASAP. 99.233.100.189 also still editwaring all over. Is there an a place were this process of blocking shocks does not take a week...I dont like spending all my time reverting..then reporting then reverting then reporting. - Moxy (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * An admin is needed to block because he admits being globally lovcked user . This SPI needs to be split into new case titled "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory".  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IS there any stronger evidence against except  and ?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  09:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes lots as seen here more guess work (not even the right war "Capture of the USS Chesapeake happen during the war of 1812). here they added Soviet Union (again wrong conflict no outside  involvement ).  its the exact same pattern of changing info box info with no knowledge of the topics.  They have to go wasting so much of our time. -- That said I have actually been thinking its best to know what IP they are editing from...as a block wont change things they will just get new IP edit for a few  days before found again. May be best to just leave as is so the 7 of us working to  fixing all this will know hes next set of edits. -- Moxy (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's in the same range as the previously reported and currently blocked IP Special:Contributions/99.233.25.49. JohnInDC (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * March 31st case histsplit to Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory (originally filed under Sockpuppet investigations/Light2Shadow) . 99.233.100.189 per evasion of 99.233.25.49 -- if the user continually switches to new IPs, a rangeblock might be explored. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

13 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Capture of HMS Penguin User UnbiasedVictory: 28 edits, all to the lead and information box, such as this one; User Amerijuanican: 31 edits, almost all to the lead, such as this one.

War of 1812 User UnbiasedVictory: 48+ edits, such as this one; User Amerijuanican: 26 edits such as this one.

The editor is currently blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and 3RR. However, the editor's changes are clearly that of the previous editor through the duck test in: the articles on which the editor concentrates; concentration on leads or info. boxes, without any evidence of having read the sources for the article; refusal to acknowledge WP:V and WP:NOR (copypasting sentences with ref tags from body of an article into the lead, or even the lead of other articles, does not constitute proper research); use of Wikipedia as a source; repeated disruptive reversals when an edit is challenged. HLGallon (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I concur, and a bit of research turns up instances like these two edits - One and Two, wherein both editors make essentially the same edit to the same article. JohnInDC (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Amerijuanican tagged and blocked indef per behavioral evidence. Closing case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

21 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Siege of Fort Erie: this edit by User:C 1 J 1 7 L 9 4, blocked as sockpuppet of UnbiasedVictory/Amerijuanican

these edits by anon. IP 75.177.161.215

this edit by User:Nacho wifi

See also the edit histories of Capture of HMS Penguin and Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant

See also these edits to User talk:Nacho wifi, subsequently blanked, in which the editor frankly admits to being User:C 1 J 1 7 L 9 4, and claims also to have been blocked only because the editor lives in the same apartment block as UnbiasedVictory/Amerijuanican. The User:Nacho wifi account popped into existence within hours of User:C 1 J 1 7 L 9 4 being blocked and instantly resumed the previous incarnations' edit warring. HLGallon (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The duck test ✅ self identified as Christopher on old user page  has made the  mistake of naming himself  on his new user page before changing it to James-- Moxy (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Nacho wifi tagged and blocked indef per behavioral evidence. I've blocked the IP for one week and semi-protected a few of his targets for a month. Closing case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

24 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

(Supplying text from editor who reported this latest sock:) Editor is back ....did the extant same edit that go them here last time edit by Amerijuanican (ban)....then we have this edit by Drugsby....they just cant hide...very easy to identify. -- Moxy (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC) JohnInDC (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' New user created shortly after block of previous sock, heads straight to articles edited by previous sock and begins to make the same changes. It's not subtle! JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - please, compare him to previous socks .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I've blocked and tagged Drugsby and retagged the other three.
 * . Some of these accounts are globally locked and some not. Could you please look into whether there's a reason why some aren't, and if there is none, can you request a global lock at wikimedia? I'll leave this on hold until you sort out the global locks. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for global locks, as they have no edits to other projects. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  02:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged Drugsby and retagged the other three.
 * . Some of these accounts are globally locked and some not. Could you please look into whether there's a reason why some aren't, and if there is none, can you request a global lock at wikimedia? I'll leave this on hold until you sort out the global locks. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for global locks, as they have no edits to other projects. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  02:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for global locks, as they have no edits to other projects. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  02:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

13 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

example article Capture of HMS Penguin :
 * these edits by User:UnbiasedVictory
 * these edits by User:Amerijuanican, blocked sock of UnbiasedVictory
 * this edit by User:C 1 J 1 7 L 9 4, blocked sock of UnbiasedVictory
 * this edit by anon. IP 75.177.161.215, blocked sock of UnbiasedVictory
 * this edit by User:Nacho wifi, blocked sock of UnbiasedVictory
 * this edit by User:C-3PO, HCR, blocked sock of UnbiasedVictory
 * this edit by User:SombreroSpaceman, blocked sock of UnbiasedVictory

and finally... this edit by User:Ameriwikipedian

This is a truly monomaniacal editor; he has created three sock accounts in the last five days for the sole purpose of edit-warring on three or four accounts. HLGallon (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I've added SombreroSpaceman to the list of possible puppets, because that account is not in fact blocked (though it should be). JohnInDC (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * I have blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. The only reason I haven't tagged them is that based on the last check I did a couple of months ago, this group of accounts appears to be editing from a different location. However, given the number of administrators who have tagged the blocked accounts as belonging to UnbiasedVictory, coupled with the behavior, I would not be uncomfortable tagging them as confirmed or at least proven. I'll leave it to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged as confirmed. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. The only reason I haven't tagged them is that based on the last check I did a couple of months ago, this group of accounts appears to be editing from a different location. However, given the number of administrators who have tagged the blocked accounts as belonging to UnbiasedVictory, coupled with the behavior, I would not be uncomfortable tagging them as confirmed or at least proven. I'll leave it to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged as confirmed. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. The only reason I haven't tagged them is that based on the last check I did a couple of months ago, this group of accounts appears to be editing from a different location. However, given the number of administrators who have tagged the blocked accounts as belonging to UnbiasedVictory, coupled with the behavior, I would not be uncomfortable tagging them as confirmed or at least proven. I'll leave it to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged as confirmed. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the unblocked accounts without tags. The only reason I haven't tagged them is that based on the last check I did a couple of months ago, this group of accounts appears to be editing from a different location. However, given the number of administrators who have tagged the blocked accounts as belonging to UnbiasedVictory, coupled with the behavior, I would not be uncomfortable tagging them as confirmed or at least proven. I'll leave it to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged as confirmed. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged as confirmed. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

14 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Account was created twelve hours after the last puppets were blocked; proclaims the same typographical vigilance as at least two prior socks (one, two) and his very first edits were at Talk:Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant, where he stepped in on the side of the blocked puppet - also just like a prior sock. It's not much - but it's not subtle! Requesting CU to check for sleepers. JohnInDC (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2016 (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

 * The account is ✅ to, among others. Blocked and tagged. . Please don't ask for a sleeper check when a check was done so recently (yesterday). Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

16 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A few hours after the block of the most recent sock, this IP appeared and picked up where another prior UnbiasedVictory sock left off - compare this editor's (as of now) single edit with those of confirmed sock Ameriwikipedian. JohnInDC (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2016 (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

 * Just one edit, and claims to be a "spectator" which is possible. I'm closing this with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

16 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Account created immediately on heels of block of prior sock BrixtonBox; proceeded to pages of interest to puppet master to make identical edits as prior socks, e.g.:
 * Ameriwikipedian / subject
 * Ameriwikipedian / subject. JohnInDC (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2016 (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

 * Wowser Bowser is ❌. Mike V • Talk 01:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

21 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I previously reported this user on based behavioral and circumstantial grounds, namely, time of creation and apparent subject matter interests. The report was processed without action when a CU (which I did not request) came back showing no relation. After the passage of a week or so the behavioral evidence is clearer and I am again reporting this user as a puppet of UnbiasedVictory. Evidence:
 * User:BrixtonBox, a confirmed sock of UnbiasedVictory, was blocked at 23:54 (my time) on February 14. Wowser Bowser was created 24 hours later, at 23:26 on February 15.  Several prior confirmed socks of UnbiasedVictory were created in the short hours following a prior block - see the archive.
 * Wowser Bowser soon created a user page wherein he described himself as an advocate of "good grammar".  Prior socks have expressed similar sentiments - BrixtonBox joined the Wikipedia typo team, see link; Ameriwikipedian indicated the intention to ferret out punctuation, spelling & grammar mistakes; Nacho wifi said he had joined Wikipedia to "ensure accuracy and detail" in Wikipedia articles; and as Sombrero Spaceman he complained of false and/or insufficient information that characterized Wikipedia.
 * Wowser Bowser - ostensibly a brand new editor with no connection to UnbiasedVictory or his interests - immediately proceeds to make substantive edits identical or extremely similar to confirmed UBV socks, e.g.,
 * Ameriwikipedian / Wowser Bowser
 * Ameriwikipedian / Wowser Bowser; and again with the same edit today
 * In addition to the foregoing, there is this illustrative, not exhaustive, list:
 * Battle of New Orleans - has been edited by WowserBowser as well as socks Detectionist, Drugsby, Amerijuanican, and Editing Net.
 * (NB the substantive overlap as well - Dectionist vs. Wowser Bowser)
 * Battle of Romanovka - WowserBowser, Amerijuanican, UnbiasedVictory.
 * Confederate States Marine Corps - WowserBowser, Amerijuanican
 * - not to mention substantively similar edits: Amerijuanican, Wowser Bowser
 * Battle of Fallen Timbers - WowserBowser, Amerijuanican
 * - where Wowser Bowser fleshes out an edit originally made by Amerijuanican.
 * In the same fashion as 3 prior socks before him, (Drugsby, Ameriwikipedian and BrixtonBox), Wowser Bowser has, in the guise of a newly-minted and just-trying-to-behelpful user, opened discussions at Talk:Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant advocating acceptance of one of the edits repeatedly inserted by UBV puppets.

I haven't done the math but probably 75% of the edits made by WowserBowser are to pages that have been editing by one or more UBV socks. The timing of this account's creation, the expression of similar interests on this user's user page, and the extremely high correlation between pages edited by this user and pages edited by prior, confirmed socks leaves no room for simple coincidence or misunderstanding. This is yet another sock of UnbiasedVictory. Finally, any lack of a CU matchup is neither surprising nor conclusive, inasmuch as BrixtonBox, complaining about the unjustness of his block, insisted that the CU results could not be correct inasmuch as he edits from his phone and has no fixed IP, see this edit. Wowser Bowser has just done a better job of covering his tracks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2016 (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

 * The current technical data and reading the evidence together make this pretty much ✅. Blocked/tagged. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

23 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This two-day-old account has picked up and is continuing the arguments made by UnbiasedVictory and a succession of various socks, first at his own Talk page and now (evidently having accumulated the necessary 10 edits) at the Talk page where the dispute is found. Indeed the editor admits on his Talk page to being the same person as the just-blocked puppet Wowser Bowser (see first link above) though the reference to a March 24 end to an indef block is a bit puzzling. JohnInDC (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2016 (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

 * ✅ Also;




 * Possibly other sleeper accounts. I'll keep watch- A l is o n  ❤ 23:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tagged and  as socks and blocked them indef per CU findings. Closing case for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

20 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

New editor with some suspicious activity. On Capture of HMS Penguin:. Compare this to edits by other socks:. On Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant: Sock vs. Suspect. Requesting CU to confirm. GABHello! 01:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * More evidence: They overlap on the following (other) articles:


 * Battle of Derne
 * Battle of Umm Qasr
 * First Barbary War
 * Battle of Fallen Timbers
 * Battle of Puerto Plata Harbor
 * Northwest Indian War
 * List of wars involving the United States
 * Battle of Romanovka
 * Invasion of Curaçao (1800)
 * In other words, practically everywhere they edit, another sock has gone, too. GABHello! 01:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

I agree completely with this assessment. CU will be very useful for sleepers as well. JohnInDC (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Duck Test passed easily. The user's glib claims that their IP was recently unblocked does not constitute formal unblocking, and is also an admission of sockpuppetry .HLGallon (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ - rangeblock already in place. No other socks that I can see - A l is o n  ❤ 03:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

27 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Created on heels on block of last sock. Makes same edits as prior blocked socks - e.g. this editor, blocked sock Wowser Bowser. Every article edited by this ostensibly rookie editor has been previously edited by a sock:
 * List of wars involving the United States
 * Battle of Derne
 * Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant
 * Capture of HMS Penguin
 * Capture of East India Company ship Nautilus.

JohnInDC (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC) JohnInDC (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Please note that even though some of my edits took place on the same articles as the user, I did not support his or her information. Stateless editor (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Other than a slew of edits to churn the editor's home page and presumably earn auto-confirmed status, the editor went straight for the articles most repeatedly subjected to personal opinion and original research by User:UnbiasedVictory and all that user's subsequent sockpuppets, and reinstated UnbiasedVictory's edits, albeit in sneaky fashion. HLGallon (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If I supported the user's previous edits I'd understand your suspicion. But I didn't, so I don't. The fact that a user edits an unrelated section of the same article as a blocked user is hardly sufficient evidence for a sockpuppet-based accusation or block. Stateless editor (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A week or so ago, Stateless editor - ostensibly a newly minted user - was asking what it means to "patrol" a page, and "is that good or bad" (link); and professing confusion over HTML markup. But today he is sufficiently well-versed in the nuances of sock puppetry to be able to discuss with conviction the adequacy of evidence in an SSI investigation.  Which is he, a naif or an experienced user?


 * It is, in fact, one of UBV's tells to portray new socks as a naive user just trying to get his bearings in the difficult and confusing world of Wikipedia, see for example Nacho_wifi's User page, Drugsby user page - then immediately launching into sophisticated and purposeful editing, on the same pages as prior socks. This is a textbook example.  UBV is just getting a little bit subtler in his deception, by not instantly duplicating his prior edits.


 * Oh incidentally for what it's worth - both this user and at least one prior sock have (presumably tongue-in-cheek) explained an edit as the product of their obsessive-compulsive disorder: BrixtonBox; Stateless editor.


 * It's ridiculous to suppose - and insulting to contend - that Stateless editor is just some poor unfortunate soul who decided Wikipedia might be a good way to pass the time, created an account, and is being unjustly accused of puppetry solely by reason of his own idiosyncratic editing interests, which by the most striking of coincidences happen to overlap almost perfectly with the pages that have been victimized by a series of UBV sock puppets. JohnInDC (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly you seem to like using the term "ostensibly". Doesn't make you appear any more or less intelligent, unfortunately, so let's pull that one back a tad, shall we? Thanks. Secondly if it were, in fact, a fact, I'd already be blocked indefinitely instead of assisting in the expansion of this thread via pointless bickering with you. So for the sake of both of us, please drop your bottomless accusation so we can be done with this. As bad as you'd apparently like to see it happen, it doesn't matter who you call or what you do, nothing will connect me to any of the aforementioned users. Sorry. Stateless editor (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Prior, confirmed UBV socks have offered nearly identical denials - "brand new user, just happened to make edits like that other fellow, the evidence here is quite insufficient, this is persecution":
 * Nacho_wifi - "I seem to be the only one missing this vivid, image-creating pile of evidence."


 * Ameriwikipedian - "I just created this account with less than ten edits under my belt. What behavioral evidence could I have possibly created out of curiosity? I should have the right to be presented with this evidence - not be provided a link that shows no connection between me and the other accounts and expect me to accept that."


 * Detectionist - "I haven't had an account long enough to commit annything block-worthy so I feel there's been a mistake. Thanks for reading."


 * BrixtonBox - "I've yet to see this drowning, definitive evidence to tie me to that title. You've essentially pointed your finger at me and had me blocked with nothing more than a, 'he's a sock', because you're a trusted administrator and I'm new to the site - making you automatically favored when the actual tyrant is you."
 * JohnInDC (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please compare with previous socks, per provided diffs  and pattern of similarities (e.g. similar denials of socking from previous socks). A sleeper check might be helpful, but the last CU was done only a few weeks ago. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 13:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

25 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Made the same edit as a previous sock did:. Capture of HMS Penguin is infested with sockpuppets, all of them obsessed with the photo caption. They also overlap on Irish and German Mercenary Soldiers' Revolt: Note the use of semicolons in the edit summary, which is unusual. GABgab 14:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

I agree - this account bears all the marks of a UBV sock puppet. JohnInDC (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

A friendly IP was kind enough to tell me about this. Off we go:
 * Exhibit A: Rio de Janeiro Affair. Overlaps with other socks: (note  the similarity of edits 1/3.)
 * Exhibit B: Bombardment of Greytown. Overlaps once again: . The same "town/protectorate destroyed" thing, plus the fact that UBV is absolutely obsessed with adding in details of Marine involvement.
 * Exhibit C: Canadian Army. Yup, overlaps, and editing the same area:.
 * Exhibit D: Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69). Overlaps, edit similarities:.
 * Exhibit E: Invasion of Curaçao (1800). More of the same:.
 * Exhibit F: Northwest Indian War. Overlaps:.
 * Exhibit G: Battle of Shimonoseki Straits -.
 * Exhibit H: List of wars involving the United States - . GABgab 00:07, 20 July 2016 (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

 * ✅ Courcelles (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These two new accounts were created within days of one another. Both immediately created blank User & User Talk pages, as well as blank Sandbox pages. The immediate creation of a user and / or user talk page is characteristic of UBV socks – see (by way of partial listing):


 * Amerijuanican
 * Nacho wifi
 * Ameriwikipedian
 * SomebreroSpaceman
 * C-3PO, HCR
 * CP3O, HCR
 * Detectionist

The user name “ChrisInNC” may have been chosen to tweak me, inasmuch as I’ve reported half a dozen or more UBV socks.

As for substantive overlap, User:Wikimikimotion has edited 11 unique pages. Six of those have been visited by UBV or a prior sock (most often, User:Amerijuanican). The pages are,


 * War of 1812
 * Capture of HMS Penguin
 * Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes
 * List of wars involving the United States
 * Formosa Expedition
 * North Russia Intervention

This is just by eyeballing – it’s possible I missed a couple. Furthermore, at Formosa Expedition, there is plain overlap between edits by Wikimikimotion and confirmed sock Space man J.

Similarly, User:ChrisInNC has edited 7 unique pages. My manual review revealed that five have previously been visited by UBV or socks:


 * Pakistan–United States skirmishes
 * List of wars involving Canada
 * Easter Offensive
 * Second Battle of Vailele
 * Mexican–American War

So combined – 18 unique pages, 11 previously edited by UBV or socks. As with all the prior UBV socks, it is highly unlikely that an innocent editor, new to the project and with merely a generalized interest in military matters would, within hours of creating their account, zero in on the very articles favored by UBV and begin editing significantly there. Double this unlikelihood by reason of the second editor here, created within days of the first, and the circumstantial evidence becomes overwhelming.

I’m requesting CU to check for sleepers. JohnInDC (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2016 (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

 * - As per behavioral evidence. He was clearly waiting for the CU data to expire before account creation, but can we compare these accounts to one another (and, if possible, to previously CU-blocked socks)? GABgab 01:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 02:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * These accounts are ✅ to each other and behaviorally to the master:


 * Unfortunately, the technical data for the master and the other socks is . If you can get me something older, I'll take a look. Good news is that he seems to have been on this range for a while and I'm about to whack it as well as the socks. Katietalk 02:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify what you mean by "something older?" Unsure what exactly you mean by that. Thanks, GABgab 22:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Older than these three confirmed accounts. Katietalk 22:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , I might have something for comparison. Let me take a look...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks like a match based on ISP and geolocation.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing. GABgab 04:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

2606:A000:4A04:1100:41B8:E436:75C3:111D reinserted edits of previous sockpuppets

Used 97.32.129.158 to edit-war with User:Hmains. Keiiri (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Classic UBV behavior. Also I'm not sure whether it's significant, but the 97.32 IP included here is in the same range as a prior IP suspected of having been a UBV sock but (on account of but a single edit) processed without action. JohnInDC (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC) ''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The IPs haven't edited in a few days. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

ToneCarbone continued the same edit-war of his two IP socks with User:Hmains. Created after last sockpuppet accounts were blocked.

97.32.130.246 makes the same edits as previous sockpuppets on Formosa Expedition. Also in the same IP range as 97.32.129.158. Keiiri (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Here is a diff of one of the IP edits at List of wars involving the United States for comparison to edits made by the sock. These edits, the tone of the edit summaries, and the behavioral features of this account (a ton of User page edits, then heading straight for the military articles) are all characteristic of UBV. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obvious sock blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

It seems every new user on Capture of HMS Penguin is UnbiasedVictory. Returning to the same pages, see vs,  vs ,  vs , etc. Sro23 (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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

See also Engagements on Lake Ontario; unsourced claims in lede which contradict sourced information in the body of the text; claims to have "clearly referenced information", which was nevertheless not cited. This editing pattern matches that of User:UnbiasedVictory and all that's users incarnations. HLGallon (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Poking through the diffs show a few behavioral quirks in common with the master, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)