Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Validbanks 34/Archive

Evidence submitted by Terrillja
Carrying on the same arguments as Validbanks 34 on Mac OS X, both known socks are blocked, looking for sleepers and a block of the underlying IP if possible.-- Terrillja talk  04:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Terrillja  talk  04:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * at first glance; might be worth having another CU take a look at it. Behavioral cues still seem to build a case. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

for a second CU opinion, SpitfireTally-ho! 01:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Geographically consistent, and no technical counter-indication. Go by behavior.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Behavior is convincing. Tagged. Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Terrillja
All users have edited Talk:Mac OS X with the same messages, one bombarded my email after being blocked (the second account, MuZemike reblocked with email disabled). Looking for checkuser to see if there is any blockable underlying IP, this is the third sock in two days.-- Terrillja talk  23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Both users have edit-warred on Talk:Mac OS X and User talk:Terrillja. ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes)
 * The actual sockmaster is -- Terrillja talk  23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Validbanks 34, and there are additional accounts that aren't linked to that report that can be found in both the article and talk page history. This has been going on for quite some time under additional usernames. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added another sockpuppet that undid some edits of their own SPI. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   00:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've brought this matter up at Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 03:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to checkuser- I'm not 100% sure that they are a single user, it may be two or more users that are working together, the use of popups by some accounts and not by others is the one thing that is making me unsure that it is just one user, which may explain the mixed technical evidence. They are however making the same content in the edits so there is definitely a link, even if they are using different methods (undo or popups)-- Terrillja talk  04:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Terrillja  talk  23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorsing for CU attention for a block, hardblock if possible on the IP/IP range.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 02:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved comments by other users and evidence submitted by NerdyScienceDude from Sockpuppet investigations/5dkghnfd.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 23:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Some technical evidence suggests they're related and some suggests they are not, but since you're asserting that there are strong behavioural ties, that's not really an issue. There's no range to be blocked, however. --Deskana (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

✅ that the following users are the same: A quick scan didn't reveal any real abuse of multiple accounts from the bottom three, but a clerk should check this a bit more. --Deskana (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Due to strong behavioral similarities as well as usernames between Fdjgndfg4 and the other sock listed, I have blocked all the alternate accounts of Fdjgndfg4 due to abuse created from the socks.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 14:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)