Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vantastic2014/Archive

14 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets

2015 Tianjin explosions edits 495656778774 (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This user might not be a sockpuppet, since he made a good faith edit to 2015 Tianjin explosions, and added a decent source to it. 10:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence of this user being a sockpuppet? We must not WP:QUICKSOCK.Genious12345 (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence of this user being a sockpuppet? We must not WP:QUICKSOCK.Genious12345 (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


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



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

This user is probably not a sockpuppet, since he does not blank entire sections; he only edited data out of two articles mentioning censorship.--Andrefalsen (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No idea if I'm doing this right? First time I've been accused of this. I was in fact the person making the edits from 82.11.212.205 which is from my other computer which I was not logged into (simply didn't realise). I felt that the censorship did not belong in Reactions hence undoing your edits. -- Joshakjohn (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ and indeffed Dfnkgne, Andrefalsen, Wilenson, Genious12345 and Jar+edo+wens (Dfnkgne is the oldest among them). Vantastic2014 and Wackykid are technically unrelated to them, but are possibly related to each other - same geolocation, but different PCs. That said, there is a behavioral link between Dfnkgne and Vantastic2014 (there might be others, I haven't looked), which suggests that all the above are related, that the master knew they will be scanned, and knew how to hide their trails in CU logs. Materialscientist (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop opening new investigations for every single sock, while the previous investigations are still open. Just add suspected sock to an already open investigation.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I spun off the confirmed socks towards Sockpuppet investigations/Dfnkgne. I don't find the behavioural link between Dfnkgne and Vantastic2014 to be very solid. Neither Vantastic2014 nor Wackykid have edited since the SPI was opened and it's not implausible that they might be unrelated but in the same geolocation, so for now I'm closing this report off, but feel free to report again if either account starts editing again. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

14 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Behavioral, |here. With previous sockpuppets also adding statements defending each other as in: |here, |here, |here lightly suspected, CheckUser requested.. 495656778774 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

No idea if I'm doing this right? First time I've been accused of this. I was in fact the person making the edits from 82.11.212.205 which is from my other computer which I was not logged into (simply didn't realise). I felt that the censorship did not belong in Reactions hence undoing your edits. -- Joshakjohn (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very reasonable explanation, as I observed this user making a number of useful contributions to the Tianjen article unrelated to the edit warring/suspected socking. I don't think they're one of the socks. Geogene (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the user acknowledged removing 'censorship' related edits from his account and while logged out also, same 'censorship' edits targeted by sockpuppets, during the same short time frame. Page history speaks for itself... 495656778774  (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lets clear some things up shall we. The censorship edit did not belong in the Reactions section. This section is for statements from government officials with regards to offering condolences. This is the reason for myself removing the censorship edits. I don't know their reasons for removing the edits but I do agree with it being removed from that section. If you check the history you will notice that they were then added to a new section under Media Coverage which is a better place for it to be, did I remove it? No. Joshakjohn (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing. Joshakjohn seems to be innocent and caught up in the mix. All the diffs presented in this report relate to accounts that have now been blocked as socks. Yibai afarensis hasn't edited since this SPI was opened and I don't see any specific evidence related to them, so like the alleged master, feel free to report again if the account becomes active. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

20 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Behavior similar to previous socks... 495656778774 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2015 (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

 * Acrossroad, Namelysu, Randomgrande and Chemworker are one person (all are already blocked). Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't tag these; they're blocked already, and there's no specific evidence linking them to the master under which this case was filed (the article they all edited was clearly a high nexus of activity for many, many unrelated editors, understandably). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)