Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velascobrent189/Archive

07 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

CheckUser completed by see Special:Permalink/602948038. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 7 April 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

 * All blocked and tagged. Closing now Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

13 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Quack. Edits pretty much the same pages; exhibits the same editing behavior. Also note the similarity in the naming scheme to another sock account: Laca michaelat2014 (note the repetition of 2014). This account was created 5 days after the most recent sockpuppet was accused of sockpuppetry. Requesting a sleeper check, and tagging and indef block of the account if it is confirmed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See their editing interactions for more details on the similarities of their behavior. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 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
Blocked and tagged. Elockid  ( Talk ) 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

10 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Quack. The names are nearly identical to 2 other indeffed sock accounts. Edits pretty much the same articles, same behavior. Requesting the indef blocking of both accounts as well as a sleeper check for any hidden accounts. Also requesting an IP block, if there is any recent activity from this sockmaster. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I didn't know that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Darn. I didn't expect him to already be this good at switching ranges. However, in a case of serious or continuous abuse, I am inclined to believe that multiple, separate blocks on each of the abused Ranges could be implemented if necessary (in order to avoid mass collateral damage). LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 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

 * If you're requesting CU, the case needs to be marked as such. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
 * and are ✅ socks. An IP block is not possible at this time as they are editing from multiple dynamic ranges.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

17 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Quack. The name of the 2nd sock is similar to other blocked sockpuppets of this user (note the 14). Editing behavior of both accounts are pretty much the same, and they target the same articles. Requesting admins to tag both accounts and to run a sleeper check in case we missed anything else (since we clearly missed the first listed account). Also requesting the indef blocking of both accounts and maybe separate rangeblocks on the recently used IPs in order to prevent further abuse, as clearly, he's not giving up.

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

 * , please remember that and doesn't work the way you apparently think it does based on your comments here and in the previous SPI. In this case  is.
 * ,, and are ✅ to each other and are   (a connection will need to be based on behavioural evidence). --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked as per above.  you'll need to provide at least one diff showing how each of the other three accounts mentioned above are related to the sockmaster in order for the investigation to proceed. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

30 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Quack quack quack, says the obvious rubber ducky. The username of the listed account is almost exactly the same as one of this guy's most recently blocked socks: User:Tan carl14. This users is still obsessed with polluting TC-related articles (usually through the falsification of data). Check his contributions; he is obviously still continuing his pattern of vandalism. Apparently, he's learned how to use the edit summaries, but a good look at his edits will prove that he is doing anything but the "good" changes that he claims to be implementing. This sockmaster also likes to edit articles within other categories (especially in the area of certain TV shows), so we may need an extra pair of eyes to monitor the articles for his disruptive pattern. Also requesting an extended IP block, due to the history of this sockmaster. A Checkuser should probably run a sleeper check on his IP, as this sockmaster (like another recently blocked one) tends to create socks in clusters. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 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

 * Account blocked and tagged. No sleepers found.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)