Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Azviz

[edit]
Azviz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Azviz

Azviz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date April 2 2009, 23:03 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by MuZemike

Both users are on a driveby tagging/deletion spree, tagging articles created by specific users (explicitly DreamGuy and Cannibaloki) for deletion. After a stern warning given to Wordssuch here (and acknowledged by blanking the page here and here), in come Azviz to continue with the deletion-tagging on specific articles ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and so on as indicated in the edit history), which seems to be wikistalking. MuZemike 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) MuZemike 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
I am not a sockpuppet. I have recieved two nasty ""welcome"" messages from users DreamGuy and Cannibaloki[[6]]. I was tagging articles that needed to be tagged. These users then started to wikistalk me. Perhaps they are sockpuppets of each other. I have had no previous interaction with DreamGuy, Cannibaloki or User:Wordssuch. I have done a quick search of complaints, and I have found numerous complaints against DreamGuy and Cannibaloki. Its seems that they are the problem; not I. Azviz (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

I will note that the suspected sockpuppeteer has accused me of sockpuppetry (and harassment) myself here. MuZemike 06:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by MuZemike 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined Insufficient evidence of either serious pattern vandalism or abusive socking to warrant CU Mayalld (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Delisted There is a gap of nearly a month between Wordssuch's single day editing career, and Azviz registering an account. Wordssuch was not blocked, and even if this is the same user, there is no overlap in account use that could be a block avoiding tactic. At the very most we have a newbie abandoning one account and starting another. Mayalld (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]




Report date April 25 2009, 22:33 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PeterSymonds (talk)


I know that a checkuser on these accounts is in progress and being conducted by Lucasbfr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). This page is formed for paperwork purposes. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Thanks PS ;)  Confirmed that Azviz (talk · contribs) == Untick (talk · contribs) == Esasus (talk · contribs) == Wordssuch (talk · contribs) == Unionsoap (talk · contribs) (and they wonder why we don't listen to cries of innocence...) -- lucasbfr talk 22:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked/tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Synergy 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 22 2009, 04:49 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by MuZemike

User contribs are identical of that to Esasus with regards to removing {{prod}} templates at a rapid rate from articles. User has also, in the same manner as the already-blocked socks, made similar remarks at ANI report, again accusing DreamGuy (talk · contribs) of wikistalking. Also see the following relevant past incidents: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Prodding spree and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive185#User:Esasus removing PROD tags from articles. MuZemike 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

The accusation is false and put forward as a form of intimidation. I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and I have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry.Varbas (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by MuZemike 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Oop, didn't see this was already being looked at. I've got some early results, pending Avi's. The following are  Confirmed matches for Azviz:
  1. Wordssuch (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Esasus (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Unionsoap (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Untick (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. 14Ave (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (might bear a second opinion, but I think it's solid)
The following accounts are  Possible matches for Azviz, and  Confirmed matches for each other:
  1. Varbas (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Iwelak (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
– Luna Santin (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Clerk note: I blocked Iwelak indefinitely to prevent abusive sock-puppetry, but did not block Varbas. Assuming good faith, Varbas might have not wanted to edit under Iwelak and stopped and created Varbas. As Nathan said, their editing time frame never overlapped so no need to punish Varbas. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date May 27 2009, 06:15 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by MuZemike

IP is posting similar reports to ANI as noted at here and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Detailed response by Azviz. This was the IP's first edit, which leads to believe that this is the same person who has been attempting to bait DreamGuy (talk · contribs) into another block. MuZemike 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

I've added a second IP, new IP address evidently dedicated to reverting edits by DreamGuy. Both IPs are from Shaw Communications. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They both Geolocate to Calgary, AB and are both registered with Shaw Communications. MuZemike 07:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more IPs from the same cluster I noticed reverting my edits for no reason. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added yet another... someone canvassing to get people whose edits I have removed for various reasons in the past to go complain to ArbCom about me. DreamGuy (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Varbas, as he is most recent of suspected named socks. His behavior has escalated since the last report, that showed it was possible he was a sock of Azviz. Perhaps now there'll be more info that can confirm it. Several people have noted his edits and the IP edits have the same tone and targets, so if any are connected to Azviz they could connect together. DreamGuy (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding User:Granite thump, as he was created around the time when the first Azviz socks were being identified and was part of group told by members of the "article rescue squadron" that their constant delete votes with flimsy rationale was not helpful. The account started on edits to articles but seems to be mainly focused on AFDs now, which fits the demontrated strategy of some of the previous Azviz socks. Of course it could just be a new user too. DreamGuy (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by MuZemike 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed — Jake Wartenberg 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Luk talk 08:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date June 4 2009, 22:36 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by MuZemike

Contribs indicate that this is another sock of User:Esasus/User:/Azviz. The first edit is a deprod with rationale similar to those given in the serial deprodding actions by this user. The second edit reverts a removal made by DreamGuy (talk · contribs). Finally, the IP, just as in the previous SPI case, Geolocates to Calgary. Actions indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 22:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked for a week. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date June 11 2009, 23:32 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by MuZemike

Signs of similar editing by previous socks (IP and registered) of Esasus (talk · contribs) as shown [7] as well as making another complaint to ANI accusing the same user of vandalism (see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). IP, as in the others, geolocate to Calgary. Actions again indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked for two weeks. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date June 18 2009, 04:19 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by MuZemike

Only edits by IP have been deprodding articles, and IP Geolocates to Calgary as with the other IP socks of User:Esasus. Actions indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 04:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have also added Beltline (talk · contribs) to the list above for also very similarly-done edits, including this comment, saying "the deletion of the article is not uncontroversial" – similar in nature as with the other socks. MuZemike 05:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note the following:

  • Alfnetwork, Beltline, Rterrace, and Courtscentre were all created within five days of each other with Nosehillbranch about a week afterwards.
  • The username "Beltline" refers to Beltline, Calgary, the name of the densest and oldest neighborhood.
  • The username "Nosehillbranch" refers to Nose Hill Park, also in Calgary.
  • The username "Rockyview" likely refers to either Rocky View County, Alberta or Rockyview General Hospital in Calgary.
  • The username "Rterrace" likely refers to Regal Terrace, a neighorhood in Calgary (see [13] for verification)
  • The username "Courtscentre" refers to Calgary Courts Centre, a tower in downtown Calgary.

MuZemike 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding User:Cochranerossst as the account creation falls within that window, editing patterns (several edits at the beginning followed by a brief period of inactivity followed by a flurry of editing, compare contribs with Alfnetwork and Courtscentre for instance), and the username contains "Cochrane" which likely stands for Cochrane, Alberta. MuZemike 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did the same analysis, but for Dallas, Texas. This kind of research could find something in common with any major city.
    • Alf network - St, Lewisville, TX (near Dallas)
    • Beltline Road - Dallas
    • Cochrane Library, University of Texas at Dallas
    • Court Justice Center, Carrollton, Texas (near Dallas)
    • Dallas Court Reporting Centre [14]
    • Hill Branch Library, Dallas, Texas
    • Rainbow Terrace Motel, Dallas, Texas, or
    • Rhodes Terrace Bible Fellowship, Dallas, Texas, or
    • Richardson Terrace Elementary School Public School, Dallas Texas,
    • Rocky View Elementary School - Gallup, NM 87301 (nearby in neighboring state)
    • The Courts, Dallas, TX 75254

Rterrace (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by DreamGuy

Added User:Alfnetwork as it reverted a revert of a prod by the IP address above and is a brand new editor whose only edits concern making sure articles are prodded or tagged as previously deprodded. DreamGuy (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on User:Beltline: this new editor has even gone back to make edits to quite obscure articles like Nancy LaMott that Azviz (as Varbas) was personally involved in. Beltline also removed an orphan tag with an edit removing a deletion-related tag at the top of a page, and wiping out all improvement tags as part of a deprod was classic Azvi behavior. Even if Checkuser comes back inconclusive, by actions alone this one is obviously Azviz per WP:DUCK. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in User:Nosehillbranch... I spotted this account yesterday but thought the similarities weren't there yet to add to this list (early edits could have just been to build up an edit history of minor changes to throw off sock investigations), but just in the last day the account has been identified as others as a largely deprod-only account (all of recent edits are such), and User:Beltline is systematically going around adding "previously prodded" templates for Nosehillbranch's deprods. DreamGuy (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Beltline has been systematically adding the template to all de-prods he finds, not just this users. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but why would a new user even conceive of this? Taking on such activity seems out of place for a user unless they previously developed an objection to second prods. If I had created an article, seen it prodded and deprodded, and then missed a second prod which ended with the article being unfairly deleted, I might develop an abiding hatred of second prods. However, Instead of putting {{oldprodfull}} on deprodded pages myself, I would agitate for a bot to do it or something. Abductive (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Beltline did have a couple hundred unrelated edits before their first prod related edit. It is not beyond reason to think he/she may have run across PROD by chance and noticed that the {{Oldprodfull}} templates are not always added by de-prodders. (Of course he/she may also be a sock, only a CU will say for sure.)
Also, completely not relevant to this discussion, but writing a bot to automatically add these templates is on my to do list. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and as this person keeps getting caught making new accounts he's learned to make several minor edits first to build up an edit history before switching exclusively to deprod concerns. The idea that he'd run across a deprod by chance and then stop everything else to do that exclusively for days upon days is naive. That clearly was this account's intent from the start. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No previous sock was known to mostly just add {{oldprodfull}} templates, so I do not at all think it is naive to assume that it is possible that this user is not a sock of Azviz.
Also, it is not uncommon of a person to focus on one area exclusively after they first discover it. I know I personally have done this (fixate on one area for a period) numerous times in a variety of different areas across Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence for this CU request is very thin. Deprodding with the rationale ""the deletion of the article is not uncontroversial" is absolutely legit, I also use that rationale. Deprodding can be done for any, or no, reason. Awaiting the CU result with some interest Power.corrupts (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thin? No, not at all. And, actually, sure, I've said things aren't uncontroversial and deprodded them, but doing so to things that are uncontroversial and for which he offers no attempt at any rationale for why the article would be notable is clear Azviz tactics. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back on June 11, I asked about this at WP:AN [15]. People there were of the opinion that it might be Biaswarrior, and MuZemike suggested waiting at that time. If these accounts are unconnected, then the users accused here can go on deprodding, as is their right, true? Abductive (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info, the entire discussion is here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195#Wholesale deprodding by new account Power.corrupts (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I couldn't figure out how to wikilink that. Abductive (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Abductive

I have noticed a pattern of deprodding on the last day, often at the last minute, by other accounts that seem to be newly created for deprodding: User:Rockyview, User:Rterrace and User:Courtscentre. User:Rterrace, for example, deprodded Autrey Hayes, an utterly unverifiable person, which seems to be way off topic for him, judging by the scientific articles he edited over the last few days. He also recreated an article Jeffrey F. Bell, which predates the creation of his account (I don't know if there is any connection between Azviz and this article). Abductive (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has noticed that User:Courtscentre created a phony geographic location, strongly suggesting bad intent. Abductive (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had noted those users and had them watchlisted and was waiting for them to build up enough questionable edits to mention them here -- glad to see others spotted them as well. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rterrace has Wikistalked my edits and removed all my prod tags, no doubt to "punish" me. I reported this to the Admin Noticeboard. Abductive (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the edit by Beltline [16] to the edit by Rterrace [17] in which both accounts seem to have counted how many prods I made, and worked out the percent of deprodded ones. It may well be a moot point now, but should this user return, this behavior may return with him. Abductive (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't understand what is going on. I have not made any edits to the Nancy LaMott article, and I have been adding the "oldprodfull" tag to the talk pages of all previously deproded articles, and I intend to continue to do so. I have received encouragement on my talk page for taking on that responsibility. And yes, when I come across an article that has been previously deproded I do (properly) remove the restored prod tag with an appropriate edit comment. That is the right thing to do as a prod tag should not be restored after it has been once removed. Beltline (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by Courtscentre. Abductive states above that I "created a phony geographic location, strongly suggesting bad intent". That is crap, as there is an on-line reference for Bahal, Kenya [18] that I relied upon. I created five stub articles. There are:
  • Seniehun
  • Bahal, Iran
  • Bahal, India
  • Bahal, Cambodia
  • Bahal, Kenya - Geocode for Bahal, Kenya: Latitude: 4.05 / Longitude: 40.083333[1].

It is my intend to add more info to the stub articles at a later time. If an admin will check my edits you will see that the few edits I have made have been constructive. I checked the contribution history of Abductive whose "1st" edit was on May 19, 2009 [19]. Why is this "new" editor involved in only deletion discussions and proposals? Is he really a new editor? Courtscentre (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am not a new editor. An old editor attempting to conceal that fact would, I don't know, make uncontroversial "learner" edits for a while before embarking on their real mission. Abductive (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by MuZemike 05:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

With regards to two new registered suspected socks, I am requesting checkuser with reason indicated in the request above. MuZemike 05:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

It is of my opinion that Alfnetwork (whom I did not add to this SPI), from looking at the contribs, is not a sock of Esasus, but the editing patterns seem to match those described in the Administrators' noticeboard discussion mentioned above. MuZemike 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction (I pointed to the wrong account): It is possible that Nosehillbrance may not be a sock of this user, but I still feel that a CU is necessary per the observation I have pointed out above wrt the usernames. MuZemike 19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the various Bahals recently created; I came across them short page patrolling the other day -tagged them unref'd and now all have references and they seem legit with the possible exception of Bahal, Kenya, however, the place is recognized (not as a city, but as an area) at GEOnames in the place Courtscentre claims, but it has been prodded because those coordinates are in Ethiopia not Kenya, but hardly vandalism as it is verified, although possibly in error (either its exsitence or its location). The others all check out at GEOnames, and with the exception of Bahal, Iran at Google maps as well. I don't know what Google's coverage of Iran is given the embargo, but it apprears FWIW that Courtscentre's edits to create "the Bahals" are defensible. By the way, there's no indication that any of the Bahal are cities rather than villages and so noted in the articles. No comment on who may be a sock of whom, but just commenting on the Bahals as I had flagged them originally. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive did not start this -- several editors independently identified various new accounts as following the disruptive pattern of a well-known permanently banned disruptive editor. You can't make the whole thing go away because you make insinuations about one editor. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found Cochranerossst's complaint, which is now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abductive. The listed complaint is that Abductive admits to using several accounts (see link), and that Joey the Mango admits to using using several accounts (see link. My question to Abductive is "Who are all of your other accounts? You seem very shy to say who you truly were/are. Beltline (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have used several accounts, serially. You stand accused of using several accounts simultaneously. I don't understand why you would bother, since if all your edits were combined into one account, your actions would not seem abusive enough to bring about blocking or banning. You might have gotten a few notices on your talk page, at most. Abductive (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He bothers because he was permanently banned earlier -- abuse was already well established. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This SPI against Abductive and DreamGuy was created in retaliation for this SPI, similar in a way to the harrassment/sockpuppetry allegation launched against me in retaliation to when I filed the first SPI against Azviz on my talk page here (note: no SPI against me was launched, but the reactions are similar by syllogism). MuZemike 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Please sweep for sleeper socks and nail the underlying IPs as there has been harassment. This user should not be editing at all via any means. Jehochman Talk 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Icestorm815 • Talk 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Currently available technical evidence indicates the following:

-- Avi (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Thanks. The confirmed accounts were already blocked/tagged by someone else. A study of the likely and possible accounts listed shows a very clear relationship to Azviz, so with the technical evidence, I have blocked and tagged them all as Azviz. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- What about that IP address? Don't see that listed in conclusions, see no message on the talk page that it was blocked. Was it in or out? DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has stopped editing. If it starts up again, let us or another admin know either at AIV or through another case. Syn 02:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report date June 25 2009, 02:46 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by MuZemike


The first one geolocates to Edmonton, but the latter two geolocate to Calgary. All their first edits are reverting DreamGuy's removal of earlier improper deprodding per WP:BAN. Clearly more quacking. On a side note, are we anywhere close to any feasible rangeblock, at least on the 68-IPs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 66.222.232.165, 68.147.236.234, 137.186.254.160, and 68.147.93.192 all geolocate to Calgary. MuZemike 07:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Doing a analysis on the ranges on the 68s and 174s from all the previous SPI cases. For the 68s, while we have all but one of them that falls under the 68.147.0.0/16 range, most of them do fall under the 68.147.192.0/18 range. The two 174s fall under the 174.0.32.0/19 range. MuZemike 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two 68.146.xxx.xxx IPs fall under 68.146.128.0/17. MuZemike 16:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added 137.186.254.160 due to this edit. IP geolocates to Calgary. ThemFromSpace 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added 68.147.93.192 as well due to this. ThemFromSpace 04:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added 68.147.233.9 and 68.147.248.112. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And 68.146.242.25 removed an AFD notice with "take it to AFD", probably mistakenly assumed it was reprodded after his inappropriate deprod. DreamGuy (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More for exact same reasons, will just add them above as they come in. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These three new 174 IPs (174.0.251.254, 174.0.243.31, and 174.0.251.68) fall under 174.0.32.0/19 as with the two above, and these three by themselves are within 174.0.240.0/20. MuZemike 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F  + Unknown (Other reason and unknown code)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Syn 02:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

This is actually going to require checkuser assistance. Will need to see how much collateral damage there will be on a rangeblock of the 68.147.2.... block. I certify the basis for a request for checkuser assistance. Enigmamsg 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

no Declined Each of the /16 blocks is are 65K IPs, we are looking at about 500,000 IPs above; those ranges are too large to block at this point, I believe. I recommend anon blocking /24 ranges of WP:DUCK-positive edits for a week or two as needed. If this escalates further, return here. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date July 27 2009, 22:28 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by MuZemike

Same similar edits being made again, including random serial deprodding with the exact same types of edit summaries used to the previously-blocked socks as well as other similar minor edits also employed by said socks. The username "Mardaloop" refers to Marda Loop, Calgary (most of the suspected/confirmed socks originate from Calgary). MuZemike 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that these accounts fit the modus operandi of the other socks as the first two users both deprod articles on the last day before it expires. MuZemike 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Gasp2009

Note that Toddst1 looks suspiciously like Gasp2009 and a checkuser will probably show a link. Gasp2009 (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Please do not invade my privacy. I was ...hernandez but it just got too heated so I quit using that and am using Gasp2009. Satisfied? Checkuser, please remove my name from this. Also note that MuZemike says the socks deprod articles. I have never proded or deproded an article because I don't even know what a deprod is (castration???).

I am not in Canada (MuZemike says the socks are coming from Calgary, in Canada) Also consider running a checkuser on MuZemike and Abductive who could be socks of other people, especially Abductive who admits creating many socks http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAreas_for_Reform&diff=303825864&oldid=303821914 . After all, it takes a thief to know one. Better yet, I will paypal you, the checkuser $100 if I am Windlake or Marmaloop or you will paypal me $100 if I am not.

Please also see Wikipedia policy which states "It(checkuser) will not be used without good cause, which you must clearly demonstrate." The complainer has failed to show where I deprodded articles or wrote in cahoots with the other users. The complainer is being disruptive and disruption is a reason for them to be blocked. I came today to write an article about scallops but now I am fed up! Gasp2009 (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

User:Gasp2009 contacted me and essentially admitted being a sock. He seems to be trying for some sort of rapprochement, although his methods have become ...unsound. Abductive (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 was added to the list of suspects by Gasp2009 as part of a campaign of baiting Toddst1. [21] [22]. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by MuZemike 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Along with confirming via technical plus behavioral evidence, there are likely other socks in this farm as they have kept coming out consistently within the past three or four months. MuZemike 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Eh.
    1. Mardaloop is IP-Red X Unrelated to any of the others. He geolocates, as surmised, to Calgary.
    2. Windlake is IP-Red X Unrelated to any of the others. He does not geolocate anywhere close to Calgary.
    3. Gasp2009 is IP-Red X Unrelated to any of the others. He does not geolocate anywhere close to Calgary.
    4. No sleepers were found on any of the IPs.
    So you'll need to go by behavior if you think there are connections here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
02 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Montanabw
[edit]

I do not know who the Sockmaster is, but this apparently new user (May 20) has made hundreds of edits, particularly rin the last week, with many warnings, see User talk: Inniverse and Special:Contributions/Inniverse. Very odd behavior for a brand new user; I think this is not a newbie. And, apparently disruptive. though not a direct problem for me, other than reverting about six red links. Just worth checking. Montanabw(talk) 18:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]

The socks below inni have no contributions whatsoever. Phearson (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll consider myself involved as far as this is concerned and recuse in clerking capacity, hence my posting in this section.) Looking at the contributions, the user has been doing quite a bit of (nearly) mass-dePRODding and knows quite a bit of WP:PROD from the get-go. In addition, there is quite a bit of wiki-gnoming going on here. I know one person who had similar patterns in the past, and that is serial sockpuppeteer Azviz (talk · contribs), who had about 40 socks going last year, engaging in harassment and otherwise disruption. –MuZemike 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, CU wouldn't be able to do anything here, as Azviz and all his socks are long stale, which leaves nothing but a fishing request. –MuZemike 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if this report is better posted elsewhere. Just trying to help. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Possible; based on the archive, I believe this account geolocates to the same metropolitan area as User:Azviz. We can't be more certain because Azviz's prior socks are  Stale. No other current socks found.

I would not have checked this but for the A Nobody request, which turned out to be Red X Unrelated. Remember that CheckUser is not for fishing. Cool Hand Luke 03:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. Incidentally, despite the claim above, I didn't request this checkuser in this report: it was apparently cut-and-pasted from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup note - Inniverse identified himself in private after discussions with unblock-en-l and with me directly. I have confirmed his identity with a professional association and website evidence. This meets normal identity confirmation standards for unblock-en-l and I have unblocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


06 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by MuZemike
[edit]

All three accounts have been engaging in the same serial de-PRODing as Azviz and socks have done back in 2009. This includes similar edit summaries and now even similar articles. These accounts seem to have a knack of going straight to ANI after disputes with other users in which nothing normally happens. Requesting a CheckUser look into this for a connection (I will not act in an admin capacity as I have been involved in the past in this SPI case as a filer back in 2008 and 2009), as Cool Hand Luke has made a possible connection (but not definitive) in the previous CU request. –MuZemike 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) –MuZemike 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

MuZemike's past allegation that I am a sock of Azviz has already been confuted, and it is demonstrability obvious that I am not Moorsmur. A close look at the edit histories for myself and Moorsmur clearly demonstrates that I have not been operating multiple accounts. There are no common articles between us, and on June 30th both accounts were actively editing during the same time frame - even making edits during the exact same minute! It is not possible for me to have been editing on these two different accounts simultaneously.

It appears to me that I am being persecuted by MuZemike. I can only speculate as to his motives, but I will point out that even after it was demonstrated to the Wikicommunity that I am not Azviz, MuZemike has repeatedly accused me that I am, first here on August 24th where he calls me “Azviz” (at that time I chose to ignore his bait), and now again here, where I was not even notified of this SPI investigation.

MuZemike is aware that due to my editing location in the past I have been identified as a “false positive” match to Azviz, but I hope that now this will be finally put to rest and the persecution will stop. I am not able to edit for a few days, so it is unlikely that I will be able to make a quick response to comments. Inniverse (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

Checkuser comments:  Likely that the following three accounts are socks of each other, based on checkuser data and behavioural evidence:

I will leave it to checkuser clerks or other administrators to block as they see appropriate. Risker (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: At a minimum, the connection between Moorsmur/Macpl is essentially confirmed. The fact that they are quite clearly intending to deceive leads me to place an indefinite block on them both. However, I note that Inniverse has some interesting history both in the block log and archive of Azviz's SPIs. We need to figure out the history of this before proceeding further. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per [23], someone should have a chat with GeorgeWilliamHerbert]. I don't know anything that Inniverse could have provided to be so convincing, since, after all, we don't have a real-life ID of Azviz to compare it to. I decided not to raise a fuss at the time.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to email him now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long delay, I'd forgotten about this - it's my fault, not George's. Without going into too much detail, George had Inniverse email him from an email address connected with Inniverse's place of work. With some technical mumbo-jumbo (related to but different from pixie dust ;-) ) he was able to confirm that the address - and thus Inniverse's identity - was valid. This doesn't disprove socking, of course, but often this is a way to differentiate accounts on a shared IP address or range. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is to reblock, and I will do so if I don't see significant objection. My reasoning is this: Inniverse was originally blocked as a behavioural and geographic match for Azviz. The argument for unblocking is based on having a confirmed identity for Inniverse, but that's a weak argument: we don't have a confirmed identity for Azviz to compare it to. Now, we have socking going on again, with socks and Inniverse still being good behavioural matches for Azviz, and socking itself is a part of Azviz's behavioural pattern. I'll proceed in a day barring an outcry.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I agree - just because we know who someone is doesn't mean they're not still editing in a way they shouldn't. I've asked GWH to forward the email in question to ArbCom (or check with Inniverse about doing so) so that they have it on record. Definitely wait a day or so, but otherwise I say carry on. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could a checkuser be done between Inniverse and the other new socks? (Sorry if this has been done or if this is a stupid/meaningless comment - just a lowly user here.) - Mgcsinc (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been, and came back as "Likely".—Kww(talk) 14:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the 'likely' was between the two new socks and Azviz? Sorry if I'm off the mark. - Mgcsinc (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Between the three accounts Inniverse, Moorsmur, and Macpl. Inniverse wasn't blocked because there was a history to the SPI that made Shirik uncomfortable with proceeding with the block. That history, in essence, is that I blocked Inniverse as an Azviz sock earlier. After communication with Inniverse, Georgewilliamherbert undid the block. This latest round of socking confirms to me that my original block was correct.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inniverse blocked and tagged.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For such recent activity, "likely" does not equal "confirmed". The time stamps for the different sock edits that Inniverse refers to suggests that Kww's block is incorrect. Also given the apparent bad blood between Inniverse and Kww in the past, I don't think it's constructive for Kww to be the blocking administrator this time. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Ralph Thomas Scurfield is a heavily-biased article related to the Sunshine Village ski resort (the father of the manager), which is currently engaged in covering up an ongoing controversy regarding the dismissal of several ski patrollers.

Based on the number of authors involved in fluffing this article, I am concerned that some or all of them are sock puppets, as is clearly the case at Sunshine Village. My evidence in support of this suspicion is only circumstantial, but I hope that it will nevertheless compel further investigation.

  1. Poahcon is clearly emotionally involved in providing a positive face on this article, as are a majority of other editors (or editor socks), even when popular online opinion swings the other way.
  2. The user apparently has an intimate knowledge of Wikipedia policy (while simultaneously bending the rules), referencing WP:RELIABLE, WP:BURDEN, and WP:AGF despite a total of 10 edits. This is the #1 red flag for me.
  3. The user has never edited any other page.
  4. The creator of the article in its biased glory was him/herself found to be a sock of another user.

Therefore, I'm concerned that Azviz may be continuing to circumvent the block, and I would like to have the matter investigated. (I'm not sure if I should have added this under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz, but I wasn't sure if that would be noticed and acted upon. Apologies if I've done this wrong; this is new territory for me.) —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk note: First, I've moved this case to be under Azviz per the OP's comment. I'm not sure I see the connection to Azviz, though - they share no articles in common. Further, it seems that there are two different issues on that page: several editors who are all adding text about the controversy, and those that are trying to remove it. So which is this case about? In terms of a CU, all of the checkuser data we have on Azviz and his socks is stale, so we can't draw a connection to the master. Are there other accounts that you think may be linked to Poahcon? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The connection with Azviz is the apparent connection with known suck Esasus. I don't know that this user is necessarily a sock of Azviz, but it's pretty apparent to me that the account is a sock of someone. I wish I could be more specific than that. If that's not enough to act on, I understand. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with HelloAnnyong. I mean, it does look like this user is a little too new to be understanding some of the edits already made, but I don't think this fits under Azviz' MO in the slightest. –MuZemike 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 April 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Recreation of Jerry Bremner[24] and Chad Harden[25], both were deleted by Kww.

Interested in "Stampede",[26][27] just like previous suspect.[28] Don't forget the Calgary factor,[29] it also exists within this account.

Contribution history is highly incosistent. Edits from 2010, then one from 2014, resumed editing from 6 April 2015. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Calgary factor" means the heavy relationship with the things related to Calgary. Speaks not only his geolocation but even usernames were related with Calgary. These articles[30][31] and files[32] are also related to Calgary. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After spending so much time in sock puppetry, anyone would know that they should write differently. What happens is that they never stop pushing the same point of view. That was back in 2010 when he had created these articles, today it is 2015, it is obvous that there would be more information about these people today. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.satelliteviews.net/cgi-bin/w.cgi?c=ke&UF=-2242020&UN=-3096293&AF=L_B
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azviz/Archive&oldid=1138667261"