Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wingard/Archive

31 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User has continued for past weeks to create new accounts every single day since their first blocking under the account Wingard. Continuing to ignore their blocking and ignore the claim that they agreed to before their original one-year block to not update episode counts on soap operas until the end of the viewing week, Fridays. They returned from their year's ban and continued to go against this, saying they were not vandalising or breaking any guidelines, which they clearly agreed to here as evidence against the Sockpuppet. This user is obviously unable to work with others in terms of the policies put together on Wikipedia, and is not going to give up re-joining this website every single day.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 16:18, 31 July 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
I recommended an SPI be filed in order to possibly do some form of rangeblock. Daily blocking of random, obvious accounts is becoming ridiculous (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 16:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:


 * . I believe that should solve the problem. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked and tagged; closing Courcelles 18:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

9 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Previous usernames were proven to be the same user, however, the new IP address is suspiciously acting like Wingard used to in terms of episode count updates.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 17:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also added username that matches the "75" that Wingard used prior.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 02:41, 10 August 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * is a ✅ sock. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagging sock and closing.

20 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User is back for their continued abuse. It's becoming quite tiring that this obvious user is unable to accept that they've been blocked from editing, and shows a complete sad choice of character they're choosing to show of themselves. Please tell me there is more we can do! And the IP is far too suspicious to not potentially check into.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 21:45, 20 August 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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardblocked the IP one month and indeffed sock.

1 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User is back AGAIN after months of being blocked. Continues to ignore policy agreed to at WP:SOAPS. Please stop this user. At this point, it is beyond ridiculous that this is continuing to happen. Block their IP or something.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 23:15, 1 October 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

 * ✅. No sleepers found this time around.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

03 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

For the millionth time, this user is back again. They keep bypassing their block and returning every few months, defying WP:SOAPS consensus, which they agreed to!  livelikemusic  my talk page! 14:17, 3 January 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

 * For those of us who haven't been following this situation very closely, could you please explain why you think this user is a sockpuppet? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope this goes here. But user keeps updating soap opera episode counts daily on Days of our Lives, The Bold and the Beautiful and Emmerdale. All follows the same pattern of original and subsequent socks. Plus, the 75 in their name.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the note. Suspected sockpuppet blocked indef per behavior and user talk page admission. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

11 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User continues to go against concensus on updating episode counts on soap operas. User wishes to update themselves, only, every single day. However, conensus at WP:SOAPS was decided they should be updated once per week, once the final episode of that air week has completed airing.


 * Diff 1
 * Diff 2
 * Diff 3
 * Diff 4
 * Diff 5
 * Diff 6
 * Diff 7

Wingard focused on the soaps of Days of Our Lives, The Bold and the Beautiful and Emmerdale. It's quite clear user continues to return, believing their way is the only way to operate things, despite being told repeatedly that consensus disagrees, and believes that they'll change the consensus alone without discussing anything because "they don't agree".  livelikemusic  my talk page! 15:08, 11 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

 * IP blocked 1 month per WP:DUCK.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

05 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Greatdaysfan1975's behaviour mirrors that of Wingard's, where it comes from edit-warring over updating daily episode counts on soap opera articles. Also, name mirrors several past socks (primarily the '75 year). See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wingard for further user-names that also reference the year of 1975. The list of diffs is far too long to list them; compare their edits, where they each update daily episode counts ofThe Bold and the Beautiful, Days of Our Lives and Emmerdale, despite there being a consensus and verifiability template in place, citing that update counts cannot be updated until the end of the week, with a citation supporting said-change, to avoid original research issues.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

I am not a sockpuppet, this is the only account that I have. Greatdaysfan1975 (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me, but I'll leave it for since keeping our CU database refreshed is helpful with a serial socker., I don't really get the problem, though--so what if someone needs to update these numbers? Maybe they have little else going one. Are they correct in their numbers? , I reverted you here since duh, obviously a source that says "7000th appearance" can't verify the 7200th episode. Do you actually watch these shows? Either way, if you're going to sock and all that, please do it correctly. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The update of numbers on a daily basis is against the consensus made by the Soap Opera Project, as well as an AN/I that was closed, which stated that episode count should be cited by a source, which can deem the last-known reliable airdate for episode count. And Greatdaysfan1975 goes against both the consensus and AN/I.  Plus, the user's edit history directly mirrors the original sock's edit history, etc.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 04:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Livelikemusic, I've been here a while--please don't link CITE and CONSENSUS and all that: it's silly and it insults my intelligence. If you want to be helpful, and if you want me to block this editor for disruption, link the consensus and show me where you told the editor about this. You took the time to place warning templates; you could have made that step. I can't be going through all the archives of the SOAPS project: I just looked for update on the main page and the talk page and couldn't find anything. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not meaning to insult your intelligence at all; I just always link to pages, if they're available — in case of someone not knowing of the pages, or wishing to refer to them. Here was when it was decided about updating the counts and times. And then the AN/I decided it should be only if a proper source cites the information, in conjunction with the previously gained consensus of the Soap Project.  And I even added the information in one of the warnings, pointing out the consensus and I believe even touched upon the AN/I discussion (though AN/I might not have been my words from my memory of last night).  livelikemusic  my talk page! 13:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm OK--that's not much of a consensus, but it's better than nothing. It's funny that the master started that discussion. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked the editor for 48 hours for "disruptive editing", which in this case involves editing against consensus, refusal to explain, edit warring, you name it. I hope an SPI person can look into this quickly, but I know they're kind of overworked and underpaid. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Odd, I didn't receive your ping, however this page is on my watchlist. Everything in the archives is of course, but the unique geolocation (which I know from past checks) is a match. I think that, combined with the behavioral evidence, it's definitely enough to tip this into indef block territory.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, yeah, sorry, I saw your ping and failed to respond. Believe it or not I was also actually working. Thanks for your help here. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that is very busy elsewhere dealing with some of the most obnoxious redirects I've ever had the displeasure of viewing, so I've gone ahead and extended the block to indefinite.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

10 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both IPs are editing immediately following previous user's block, providing the same exact edits that the previous socks made, and I do not to get into some kind of edit war over this again. This user is clearly not here to edit appropriately or as a resourceful member of the Wikipedia community.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 00:58, 10 November 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

 * I've semi-protected the target articles. I don't think blocks on the IPs listed would be helpful at this time as the range is dynamic and they will have moved on by now. Let me know if they pop up on a fresh IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)