Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | D.H.110


D.H.110

19 March 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

The first three were blocked by Jpgordon as socks of D.H.110. IP address was blocked for commenting on sock master's page after block.

Their half is to troll race and gender related pages. Recent accounts have put something​ about "there are only 2 genders" on their user page. Manning patterns, interest in military aircraft, and trolling all match.

Suspect older sock master but cannot link by evidence (originally thought Mikemikev given geolocation of IP address) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2017 (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


20 March 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Editing on same pages as past socks, inserting disruptive anti-transgender material. E.g., [1] vs [2].

Requesting check user as this vandal had created over a half dozen accounts in a few days. Asking for confirmation on this account and sleeper check EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2017 (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


20 March 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Disruptive editing of transgender and gender-related pages, similar to other suspected socks editing in the same timeframe. Examples: 1, 2 Funcrunch (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Is CheckUser necessary? Hammer them both per WP:DUCK and the policy that politely requests editors don't add hateful vandalism. CityOfSilver 16:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CityOfSilver: Per EvergreenFir's report above, the concern is that this user is continually creating disruptive accounts. I admit I'm not intimately familiar with the CheckUser process but I just want them to stop, and if this will help get a rangeblock or whatever needs to be done then I think it's worth doing. Funcrunch (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Funcrunch: Ah, that makes sense. Thank you. I know they're sensitive about doing CheckUser but I don't remember why. CityOfSilver 17:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

@CityOfSilver: That's easy. Administrators are not appointed to be a CU unless they are innately sensitive people. Did I tell you about my difficult childhood?   --Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I DON'T CARE. Let this forevermore serve as reason never to allow me to be a CheckUser, or to do anything else. CityOfSilver 20:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 April 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Editing on WWI & WWII stuff and "SJW" topics just like master and past socks.

Specific page overlaps

IP address reported in archives is from University of Southampton. D.H.110 edited on a page about that University ([21]). Newest account's name and user page suggest connection to UK.

D.H.110 edited on Brexit ([22])

Requesting check user (1) to confirm this account to master and (2) to check for sleepers due to history and frequency of socking as well as the time lapse between last known sock and the creation of this newest account. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

@Bbb23: This is the third time that has happened... a sleeper check would be very helpful. This account was blocked by ESkog but is still active and is asking for an unblock again after being denied one by Huon and Boing! said Zebedee. That the user keeps getting themselves blocked between the SPI filing and the time a CU actually attends to it should not be a bar to having a CU run to confirm the sockpuppetry generally and to look for sleepers. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I declined the unblock request, I was not aware of this SPI, and as the block was not for sockpuppetry and could be successfully appealed by addressing the actual block reason and current decline reasons (vandalism/disruption/POV-pushing), I think we really could do with a CheckUser check here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit


29 April 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Presented evidence:

Requesting CU again for sleeper check (see if they made more than one account when this one was made) and for confirmation EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Honestly surprised and dubious, but thank you for checking. I'll continue to watch for behavioral evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

The account appears to be   Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

03 June 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


"Heroin123" has made several edits that give me pause.

  • [23] - Restored content that was deleted under consensus at Bill Nye Saves the World
  • [24] - Removed sourced content
  • [25]- Left a harassing message on my talk page regarding the sourced content they removed
  • [26] Talk page content using a single image slid to the right hand side. This was a signature of Pepe.is.great and/or the original, such as this: [[27]]

Heroin123 has also been making POV pushing and invalid edits on An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, most of which have been caught and removed by other editors or an automated vandalism filter. Example: [28], [29]

Based on behavior I am more inclined to believe that they are sockpuppets of either Cdg428 or Pepe.is.great who were engaging in harassing conduct, but given that they jumped in on United Daughters of the Confederacy I have a low suspicion they may be related to RJensen, who has been repeatedly trying to argue that respected, published experts in that field are somehow "false history" without providing any proof except for claiming to have been someone's grad student a long time ago. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Morty C-137 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Since filing of this SPI, Heroin123 have left themselves an eerily insulting message calling me a "communist" [30], as well as vandalized this SPI to change my report and make it look as if I were reporting myself[31]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE 2: within moments of Heroin123 being blocked, an IP address started trying to re-insert inappropriate content at Bill Nye Saves the World: [32]. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2017 (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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.H.110/Archive&oldid=1140227298"