Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William313/Archive

29 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Account was created right 6 days after the previous one was blocked for vandalism. The edits are very similar to the previous account and use a similar pattern. Both accounts have a simar name. Farine (talk) 00:48, 29 July 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

 * Blocked and tagged the sock per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

28 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is definately a sock puppet of William313 who was suspended for introducing unreferenced subtle vandalism on many Wikipedia articles by making his dubious edits look genuine and serious. The edits of William 313 and William214 are virtually identical. This isn't the first time this user is involved in Sock Puppetry. Another one of his accounts, Willi2313, was blocked last month.= Farine (talk) 03:58, 28 August 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

 * Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK, but I'm adding a checkuser to find sleepers. This latest account was created on August 8, so I'm wondering if there are other accounts that haven't been used. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any others. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

02 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This IP has the same edit patterns has William313. Just as William313, this user has a particular interest for soap operas articles as well as the 2011 in American television article. Just as William 313, this IP leave bogus edits that look genuine, yet are never accompanied with sources. Just as William313, this IP never leaves any comments on the edit summary that could at least justify his otherwise dubious edits. Just as William313, this IP keep on introducing false informations such as pretending that General Hospital will air 9:00am in some markets even though it isn't documented anywhere on magazines or the web. Just as Williams313, this never give any reasons in his unblock request. You'll notice, that whenever Williams313 and his associated accounts, Willi2313 and William214, are not editing on Wikipedia, this IP along with his other associated IP accounts 64.218.107.36 and 66.142.54.72, are editing Wikipedia instead. This bring good evidence that 66.142.238.102 could strongly be William313. This user has probably figured out that he could more easily get away with vandalism by editing with his IP adress instead of a registred account.

This IP has vandalized Wikipedia pages for several weeks now and I think that Wikipedia administrators have been too tolerant by giving mild blocks that barely last a couple of days. I know that IP adresses cannot be blocked indifinately, but I think this IP should be blocked for at least a month for all the troubles he has caused on the articles. Because I'm not gonna keep on fighting this user's vandalism forever knowing that this isn't going anywhere, that I'm just wasting my time and that the administrators on Wikipedia aren't doing much about it. If administrators won't take the proper actions to have this problem permanently solved by taking harder disciplinary methods towards this sockpuppet, I'm just gonna give up this fight and let this user have it his ways with his subtle vandalisms on articles.

By the way (with the exception of the One Life to Live article), I did not revert any of the vandalisms from this user since September 1, because I want his IP account to still be active so that I don't get turned away like the past SPI request I made on August 29, when the administrator answered me that he couldn't do anything about it because the account was already blocked at the time = Farine (talk) 03:57, 2 September 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

 * I've blocked the IP for two weeks on behavioral grounds. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

03 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is again William313 who has rotated his IP adress after finding out that his other IP 66.142.238.102 was been suspended for two weeks yesterday. The edits are the same usual nonsense such as claiming that General Hospital will air at 9:00am in September 2012 or that CBS's defunct soap operas Guiding Light and As the World Turns were revived on the Hulu internet channel. I have gave up on reverting the edits of this vandal as I found this to be a complete waste of time. Instead, I'm bringing this to a higher lever by reporting the sockpuppets this individual uses and by having some articles protected = Farine (talk) 08:44, 3 September 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

 * IP blocked 2 weeks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

12 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both accounts were created after the last sock puppet account was blocked last week. When William215, account is not used, 66.140.75.53 is used and vice versa. Both accounts have the edits same patterns as the old William313 account. Twinkle confirmed that William215 and 66.140.75.53 are used by the same person.

I wouldn't mind about this guy's sock puppetry activities if at least he made constructive edits. But he keeps on terrorizing Wikipedia articles by inserting bogus informations that are never sourced and are never justified on the edit summary. I demand that both William215 and 66.140.75.53 be suspended for sock-puppetry and vandalism. Thank you = Farine (talk) 05:43, 12 September 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
Account blocked and tagged. IP blocked 2 weeks. Elockid  ( Talk ) 23:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

02 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After a nearly a 2 weeks absence, Williams313 is back with a new IP address and its usual subtle vandalism. I first thought it could be someone else since the IP starts by 2 instead of 6 like the others ones. But after analyzing the contributions history of 208.190.203.182, I came to the conclusion that this is William313. The edits are exactly same as some of Williams313 past accounts with the repetition of the same unsourced contents on the same articles. One of these well known edits, is that bogus info about One Life to Live specifically going online on January 16, 2012 even though such info isn't mentionned in on any of our sources provided on the article. This exact same false info was used in the past by three of Williams313 sockpuppet accounts: 66.142.238.102, William215 and 66.140.75.53

Clearly, 208.190.203.182 is Williams313. The only reason the IP starts with 2 instead of 6 is probably due to the fact that he's editing on a different computer. Farine (talk) 05:17, 2 October 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

 * This IP geolocates to the same area as a bunch of the others in the archives. Combined with behavioral evidence I'd say it's a likely match, so I've blocked the IP for 2 weeks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

02 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is the new account user that was created by William313 to vandalize Wikipedia's policy right after the IP 208.190.203.182. In order to continue our in-going fight against this vandal, I demand that he be immediately be blocked for sock puppetry, block evasion and vandalism. Farine (talk) 21:16, 2 October 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

 * Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. I've also protected several articles for a week. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

05 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is the new account used by William313. I don't think it even necessary any longer to go into the details. Just look at the contributions history of this IP and compare with all the sock puppets accounts of William313 and you'll see. Farine (talk) 02:41, 5 October 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

 * Urgh. IP blocked 1 month. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

06 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets



This is the new account by William313. On the case of this particular account, it was already blocked in January 2011 and judging by the edits from earlier this year, the owner of this IP has remained the same today. Since the account was blocked for 2 weeks in January 2011 and that it is still being operated by the same person, I would suggest a block that is more than 2 weeks for this puppet.Farine (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

 * IP blocked 1 month. Note that these IPs keep hopping around, so we can't do any sort of effective rangeblocking. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

09 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is the new account used by William to evade his block instead of giving a valid reason as to why he/she should be unblocked. Talk about originality in the choice of the name. Farine (talk) 06:12, 9 October 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

 * Already blocked by . -- DQ  (t)   (e)  13:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

13 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Despite two edits, this is enough to conclude that it is William313 because both edits are carbon copies of three of William313 recently blocked sockpuppets (64.219.129.122, 65.66.156.187 and 208.190.203.182).

We musn't give up our fight on this block evading sockpuppet. Although the administrators might be discourage with this vandal at times, I do believe that the SPI does bring some slow but encouraging results. Because I've noticed less vandalism and block evasion from this user lately. The SPI does seems to have discouraged this user more than when he was just going to the simple WP:AID procedure. Farine (talk) 00:00, 13 October 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

 * That IP's gone quiet. We can leave it alone for now, but relist if it becomes active. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

20 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

William313 is back. Of course, that ridiculous edit on the Katie (talk show) article about General Hospital airing at 9:00am as of September 2012 was among the vandalisms. Farine (talk) 08:22, 20 October 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
The IP has been blocked by another admin, so I'll mark for close. If more activity occurs, please feel free to refile. TN X Man 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

29 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

William313 is back with his three usual violations: 1)sock puppetry 2)block evasion and of course 3)vandalism.

May I suggest an extended block of 1 month instead of the usual of usual 2 weeks. Thanks Farine (talk) 01:33, 29 October 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

 * IP blocked 1 month. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

01 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

NOTE: THIS IS THE SECOND SPI CASE I AM FILLING FOR THIS SAME IP ADRESS DUE TO A TECHNICAL PROBLEM THAT HAPPENNED WITH THE PREVIOUS REQUEST.

This IP address uses the exact same edits patterns on the 2012 in American television as the previous IP address 76.92.165.89 that was blocked last Friday. This IP adress was used right before 76.92.165.89 came into being and has been used again right after 76.92.165.89 was blocked.

Due to the presence of three violations (sock puppetry, block evasion and persistent nonconstructive editing), I recommend a 1 month block (like the previous account) instead of 2 weeks. Farine (talk) 04:44, 1 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

 * IP blocked 1 month. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

01 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After being block for a month, William313 is back with the same account that was blocked the last time. And judging by his edits, the one month absence didn't do any good to him. Since the last block of this very same account was already of 1 month, I'm now aiming for a block of 6 months. And I don't think that 6 months is unreasonnable because we're dealing with a banned user that should have been history on Wikipedia a year ago and the only reason why he is still around is because he keeps on evading his block. His nonsense has caused an article to be indefinately semi-protected today. Farine (talk) 06:54, 1 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

 * Was William313 community banned? That should be noted somewhere.. Anyway, I've blocked the IP for 3 months. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

16 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

William313 is attempting to block his evasion again. An administrator has already blocked the account, but only for a mere 24 hours. I suggest that we extend this block to 6 months like the other sock of William313, 76.92.165.89, which was blocked last week for a period of 6 months. Farine (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2012 (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

 * IP was not blocked for block evasion though. Can you provide diffs to show that this is William313? Amalthea  12:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

One of William313 most famous edits is that fake information about Guiding Light that will air on TV Land in the future. This is one of William313's most recognizable (and persistent) trademarks.

Let's compare

24.225.31.37:

William313:

The reason why William313 wasn't blocked for block evasion is that another user (not me) reported the IP to AIV without being aware that there is already a SPI about this user. If you need more information from this user, you can refer to HelloAnnyong. He is very well aware about William313. Farine (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's OK. I realize that reporting on this SPI case page has become a routine for you, but for the benefit of any new admin/clerk/CU looking into it it is usually best to always leave a diff and, if necessary and not too WP:BEANSy, a brief explanation why they are the same. So after looking at your diffs I agree with your reasoning. The IP looks stable enough so I have, also as proposed, matched the IP block with an existing block of 76.92.165.89. Amalthea  18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

05 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The IP of William313 just got unblocked today. And it didn't took him long to make the same disruptive edits he has made since 2010. Since the IP is seems stable and the last block was of 6 months, I would now suggest a block of one year. I have also reported the IP to AIV to prevent it from making more making disruptive edits while the SPI case is waiting administration. Thanks. Farine (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I'm generally for giving users another chance every few months, can you point out how these edits are disruptive? Original account removed material and was unresponsive to talk page requests, but those recent changes seem not directly problematic to me. Any chance of turning him into a helpful editor? Amalthea  20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well another admin has blocked the IP for a year. But to answer your question, reastically, there isn't a chance of turning him into a helpful editor. This user has subtly vandalized pages since early 2010 and been giving numerous warnings by numerous editors and blocked multiple times over the last 3 years. None of the changes made today were constructive and were all bogus as usual. And I'm one who always assume good faith and have called out others editors in the past for not doing it.  But I won't assume good faith with this user because he has received a lot of chances in the past and there are limits in giving chances. The fact that William313 never gives any reason in his unblock requests other than using his user names or IP adresses says a lot about his responsiveness to change.  When William313 (or his aliases) start actually communicating in his unblock requests, then we might consider  giving a chance. But until then, there is no reason to believe that his presence won't be detrimental to the encyclopedia. Also let's not forget that evading blocks is itself a Wikipedia violation and a very poor attempt to make a comeback to the community. If evading blocks is the way to being admitted again in Wikipedia, then we may as well just abolish the unblock request template. Farine (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2012 (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

 * IP already blocked. We are done here. T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

16 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

William313 is back deliberately introducing incorrect informations on articles, something he's been doing since 2010. Of course, that persistent bogus info about Guiding Light returning on the channel TV Land was among the dubious edits. .

Another ducking behavior from this user is that obsession about the cartoon Back to the Future: The Animated Series returning on television. This edit was already used in the past by one of William313's socks, William215. 

Since the other IP sock 76.92.165.89 is currently blocked for a year, can we block this one as well for a year. Because 48 hours is really a joke. The blocking administrator and reporting user probably are obviously not aware of this SPI case and must have thought it was just some new vandal. You'll notice that both IPs adresses start with 76.92

Thank you. Farine (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that a moderator has since elevated the block from 48 hours to 1 week after seeing this SPI case. But i still feel this is counter productive to block it for a short period time because the IP will most likely be back next week vandalizing pages again. William313 is so persistent vandal that he has caused in the past several articles to be semi-protected (including one indefinitely) Farine (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2012 (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 IP address is dynamic, it has been used only for a couple of days, and is in the same IP range as at least one other IP address used by the same user. Under these circumstances, it is very unlikely that there is any point in a long block, as the user will simply move to another IP address. I have extended the block to a week, which just may help, and is unlikely to do any harm. A longer block will be justified only if the IP address is used again. I have also placed a 48 hour range block on a range of IP addresses that include two used by this person. Not all the edits from the range are by this person, but no recent edits are constructive, so again it is not likely to do any harm, and it just may help to discourage the vandal. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous IP 76.92.165.89 was used for a year. But I guess, we can try a one week block for this specific IP address. We can always block it for a longer time if it resumes vandalizing next week. Farine (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

26 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As predicted in my last report, this very same IP adress returned to subtly vandalize pages after the block expired.

William313 has historically used dynamic IP adresses that started with the number 6 and that changed from one day to another. But this changed in October 2011 when he shifted to IP addresses that start with "76.92 ...". Since then, the IP adresses have been more stable. In fact, the previous IP adress 76.92.165.89 (that is currently blocked for a year) was used from October 2011 to at least September 2012. So it's fair to say that this current IP, within the same range, will last for a while. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support a one year block for this IP as well and if not possible at least a very long block. Farine (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2012 (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
Based upon an WP:AIV report and the similarity of the edits to the ones before JamesBWatson last blocked, I have blocked the IP for 1 month. I'm uncomfortable going longer personally without knowing more details in the case, but another admin may extend it without consulting me. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with. Marking for close. Jafeluv (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

6 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Seems to be the same user, returning once again and has been blocked several times in the past month or two for the same edits they used to post. Obviously not learning their lesson as of yet. Their spots of target are of the US soap operas, adding underweight materials or no sourcing to an article/not sourcing their beliefs for their statements, and ignoring pure facts otherwise stated within the article(s). And whenever blocked, they just give their username as an excuse to be unblocked.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 23:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding in WilliamT29 as another sock, making the same exact edits as 569. User has been blocked for vandalism, and is making the same edits from their first sock.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 22:21, 29 November 2013 (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

 * Both suspected socks blocked indef per the duck test. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

26 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is the latest activity by William313, a longtime blocked user known for deliberately introducing false infos on article. Let's compare the edits of this IP with some of William313 past incarnations.

Deliberately introducing a bogus info that the soap opera General Hospital expanded to an hour in 1977 despite that the source says 1978. 

Inserting a phony edit that the cartoons Back to the Future or Captain N are returning to the Hub channel. 

And of course, there's that good ole obsession of his about the defunct soap opera, Guiding Light, returning to the TV Land channel. He's been claiming that for years now. Funny this has yet to happen. Farine (talk) 01:33, 26 February 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
The evidence above has convinced me, I've blocked the IP for a month (judging by the edit history, that seems to be about the length of time that William has been using it). --  At am a  頭 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)