Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vitorreid/Archive

19 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Connection to each other:. Connection to Fleetham: also quacking. All blocked per the duck test with the master blocked 3 months, requesting CU for sleepers. The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * SPI was based on this; User:JamesBWatson was the blocker of Fleetham and the original sock (Vitorreid), with the remaining socks continuing a distinct pattern started by Vitorreid. From what I can see these accounts are created to stalk an editor's edits (User:Dave1185) and disrupt the articles he works on - which all of the socks, at least, have absolutely consistently done, using legit-sounding edit summaries to disguise their disruption (i.e., removing the "AH-64A" part of a photo caption saying "A U.S. Army AH-64A helicopter aboard a ship" with the edit summary "no sources and NPOV" .) Fleetham has, from what I see, followed this editor around before, hence his being the putitve master. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * TBH, I was baffled initially at this SPI because Fleetham is editing from Hawaii while the troll was editing under a Mexican IP... didn't really make sense except for his similar edit summary as Fleetham, hence me being smoked. Thanks for clearing this up. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Yes, let's take a look. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Checkuser note: On what basis is Fleetham being included in this? He has precisely one overlapping edit with all of the rest of the accounts, an uncontentious one several days before on a topic that is currently in the news. Unblock him; that doesn't even take a checkuser review to realise that he is not the same editor. Further, I want to see what evidence there is that ANY of these accounts is editing abusively.  Risker (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * , and  are ✅ socks of each other.  and  are ✅ socks of each other. It is  that the two groups of accounts are operated by the same individual, although this is not technically proven.
 * is ❌, and there is no likelihood that he is related to the other accounts. Recommend unblocking him. Risker (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with the assessment of Fleetham, and I've passed along reccomended unblocking to the blocking admin (not wanting to step on any toes). I'll have the rest tagged as socks of the oldest account - behaviorial evidence is pretty strong that the two groups are related. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tagging done. Perhaps this should be moved to a new SPI archive? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Sorry for moving your comments before, I'd not realised you were essentially the patrolling admin in this matter. Thanks.  Risker (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved to /Vitorreid. T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked Fleetham per the CU results. T. Canens (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

25 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same method of cherry picking on my properly sourced and accredited edits on various article pages. Please check for sleepers and block accordingly, thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Concur with Dave - is quacking loudly from my point of view. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ that the following accounts are Vitorreid:


 * AGK [&bull; ] 20:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. Closing, as there's nothing more to be done here. Favonian (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

26 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another let's-hound-Dave account, already blocked for impersonation and disruptiveness. Method of hounding different from the other accounts here (impersonation with nonsense messages on various talk pages - including Jimbo's), but given the underlying MO I think it's worth a look. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 26 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

 * Dave1195 was already blocked. We ran a check less than one day ago, I think it's fine. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

05 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same behavioural pattern of cherry picking on my sourced edits in them article pages, note also the same method of intentionally providing erroneous/misleading edit summary to cover his tracks so as make his edit look legit and logical sounding. Request to check for sleepers and to block accordingly, thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:32, 5 December 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

 * history of socks here Alexandria (chew out) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ matches to previously ✅ socks. Nothing else to report. WilliamH (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * blocked, tagged, closing Alexandria (chew out) 17:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)