Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr42/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dr42

Dr42 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

15 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

1) Obviously similar names. 2) SPA regarding Nicholas Alahverdian. 3) Both redact other editors' posts at WP:BLPN: [1] [2]. 4) Both refer to a list of Wikipedia pages when removing text [3] [4]. 5) Bezeq2 started editing the day after Bezeq1 was warned about h* edits. Sjö (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

No base for this. I have already admitted to being Bezeq1 and "I am Bezeq1 but forget my password." Bezeq2 (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: Closing - no temporal overlap and they've indicated that this is a lost password, so this isn't sockpuppetry. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Appears to be coordinated disruption at Nicholas Alahverdian with Bezeq2 - my suspicion is that since the information they want removed (about the subject's criminal history) isn't getting removed, they're trying to nuke the article. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2020 (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: Already talked to a checkuser about this offwiki, was told that both are using proxies, so behavior-only today. Bezeq1/Bezeq2, as noted in the previous case, are legitimate related accounts, but now we've added a disruptive third account to the mix. Not sure whether this is sock or meat, but the Alahverdian article has enough suspicious activity around it that I'm pretty confident they're working together somehow.  Blocked and tagged Bezeq1 as master (just in case they remember the password after all) and Aroundthebends, Bezeq2 intentionally  Blocked without tags since they're not an illegitimate sock of Bezeq1. Courtesy ping Sjö since you filed the case I closed without action earlier today. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pro forma report. Brand new user created shortly after the blocks from the last SPI that just happened to find their way to the Alahverdian article.  Looks like a duck to me GeneralNotability (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (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]

18 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Referencemachinery and Tortoiseandpigeon are SPAs who have either edited only the Nicholas Alahverdian article (Referencemachinery) or the majority of their edits have been to it (Tortoiseandpigeon). Dr42 and Niro87 are likely connected to the article subject in some way - as shown the the rename logs, both were originally named Rossinicholas, which is Alaverdian's birth name per sources in the article itself: User rename,User rename

Tkfy7cf is the most recent creator of the Alaverdian article, after it had been deleted, repeatedly re-created and re-deleted:

Additionally Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fred newman/Archive may be informative. ♟♙ (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

There's various behavioural patterns that make me convinced at least Dr42, Niro87 and Tkfy7cf are the same person. Referencemachinery is now CU blocked, and given the recent extensive sockpuppetry I think it's not a stretch to assume it's related to this case. The patterns of Dr42 and Niro87 also match some of the Fred newman socks, so maybe these cases should be merged and renamed under the oldest account? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tortoiseandpigeon is now CU blocked too. I thought these were all stale? ♟♙ (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add Norsk81 (talk · contribs) to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added a couple other fairly obvious socks as well. ♟♙ (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also chuck in Bbdyn (talk · contribs) (see talk page for history). Most of their Nicholas promo is now deleted, but still obvious. Also see Commons contribs and logs, most of which are now deleted one way or another, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The only accounts listed that aren't stale have already been checkuser blocked. Running a checkuser here wouldn't return anything useful. Declining CU... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, ST47 - confirmation of Dr42 to Bezeq1 would mean the case moves to Dr42 as the master. Dr42 may be CU blocked, but there's nothing logged about which socks are his. Cabayi (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe this should be merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr42 or even Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fred newman. The commonality is all of them have a focus on the Nicholas Alahverdian article over the years. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting per Cabayi's comment above - can you check the relationship between Dr42 and Bezeq1? GeneralNotability (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GeneralNotability - Dr42 is definitely using a VPN. The user agents are different, too. I'd say  Inconclusive to the master, but  Confirmed to Norsk81. Referencemachinery doesn't appear related to anything. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Surprisingly, that actually is enough proof for me. I'm going to merge Dr42 into this one (since this is the older of the SPIs). Not going to do anything with Fred newman - I agree that they also had a singleminded focus on Alahverdian, but I don't think we'll have much behavioral evidence beyond that interest and frankly I don't think it's worth the time to do a proper behavioral analysis just for the bookkeeping. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    trout Self-trout make that "merge this case into Dr42" since Dr42 is older by far. Merged with attribution. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: *deep breath* Bezeq1 merged into Dr42. Tags applied to the CU-blocked socks from this batch, plus Tkfy7cf (who is globally locked). Lock requested for Referencemachinery. I think that's everything for this batch. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This new account (created Dec. 19) has the same approach to AfD as Dr42 (a rapid string of underresearched nominations, "reads like a resumé or cv"[5][6]). I am also reminded of Fifthavenuebrands (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)'s behaviour at AfD. Please note that all three accounts have been involved with the Nicholas Alahverdian article. I am requesting Checkuser because Dr42 was recently CU-blocked. Cheers, gnu57 15:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • See also the SPI case on Bezeq1 where the socks exhibited similar behaviour (and are, I believe, the same person, so all now 3 of these cases should perhaps be merged). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran across this user's bad AfD nominations and asked them stop. They were quite obliging on their talk page. Looking at their contribs I see nothing nefarious. There is no resemblance with Fifthavenuebrands; that account made a few coherent arguments at AFD about source quality but mostly voter "per nom". This account (Flairpants) asks about resources at the help desk, and nominates bad AfDs but does not !vote on them. I have the strong sense that this is a newbie, but I have been fooled once or twice before. Possibly (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed at loginwiki. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: endorsing after discussion with Tks4fish for sleepers. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's  Possible based on enwiki data but there are limitations. The confirmed result on loginwiki is enough for me to block (no tags yet). Clerks: Before archiving this, please wait for the outcome from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bezeq1 as it will affect what happens here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting, every single edit is done by proxy, so that is what is making this difficult. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with the above;  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation Primefac (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Tagged as suspected based on loginwiki results. Sock is already blocked and locked. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I think this is the same person again: see the removal of the hoax tag from Nicholas Alahverdian here. Cheers, gnu57 06:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

You could have asked me on my talk page. Jumping to calling me sock puppet is a huge leap. There is no evidence here. The article in question seems to have been edited properly and all fluff and undue material has been removed by other editors which I thanked them for. If the article is now cited with reliable sources which were left by the editors who worked so hard on the project how is it appropriate for the article to have a hoax label? That hurts the credibility of the editors and the articles. I checked each source and they are all from reliable news articles. You can’t simply accuse someone of being a sock puppet without any evidence because they support the de-fluffing and removal of undue content which only made the article comply with Wikipedia regs. My edit was not personal or wrong, I reviewed the article, sources, and edit history and everything seems correct after the recent edits. Happy new year. - SHARPER IMAGE (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also as it is noted in the nomination this claim isn’t about IP or account abuse; It’s about an edit. The claim brought without evidence except that I thanked other editors for cleaning up fluff and undue material and made minor edits on an article is not proof that I am a sock puppet. After initially thinking this was a good faith act of vigilance I now consider this to be a bad faith nomination where the editor has lodged a case without evidence of IP or account abuse to prevent their own edits or edits that they may be associated with from being examined. It may very well be the nominator who is making these nominations to protect edits made by alternate accounts. - SHARPER IMAGE (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Just noting, every single edit is done by proxy, so that is what is making this difficult. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with the above;  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation Primefac (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharperimage has been globally locked, but honestly I'm not so sure about this - their editing pattern doesn't align with other socks in this group. AmandaNP, are you saying this particular editor is using a proxy? If so, that would align them somewhat with the Bezeq sock group. Tks4Fish, you globally locked - was there LWCU data involved there? GeneralNotability (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: I won't share much per BEANS, but what I saw made me confident in the relation between the accounts. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 19:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Talked to Tks4Fish on IRC about some of the BEANSy details; I'm willing to go with their judgment here. Tagged Sharperimage, already blocked and locked, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Newly created account instantly restoring sock-added content to Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families, low profile article but one of the main articles this sock likes to edit, and pretty much only this sock edits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, I suspect also a proxy:

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I am not a “sock puppet”. You keep deleting reliably sourced information that belongs in the Encyclopedia. If you don’t agree please take it to the talk page. If I want to edit an article where you keep deleting substantial facts and information that are from reliable local and national news sources then I feel I am doing well on Wikipedia. Morse jd (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are making edits that are true and correct. Why are they being hidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakuza9 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Just noting, every single edit is done by proxy, so that is what is making this difficult. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with the above;  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation Primefac (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That being said,  Confirmed between Kangarooooooooo (below) and Yakuza9. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I'm willing to believe Morse and Yakuza9 are related to this group based on behavior (especially since Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families is a topic closely related to Alahverdian, the main focus of this sock group). Interesting that we actually confirmed a group of them to each other, that represents something of a methodology change from past socks (I suspect meatpuppetry). Will keep under Dr42 for now, but in the future these may need to be split to their own case if they continue to have distinct CU data from Dr42. Already blocked and locked, tagged as suspected, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another newly-created account trying to remove the hoax tag from the Alahverdian article: diff. gnu57 16:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The article is not a hoax. I even let the User:starship.paint know what I did in case be had feed back. Everything has a source and citation. What hoax? The article does not meet The definition of a hoax. Wow. Kangarooooooooo (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed between Kangarooooooooo and Yakuza9 (above). Primefac (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Tagged as suspected per my comment on the above SPI (the one with Morse jd and Yakuza9). Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another obvious sock of the same person. Cheers, gnu57 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added another one User:Staykindnow. [7] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another user:Twixt2. [8]--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I was wondering which sock Staykindnow was. Pahunkat (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Looks like everyone's been checked and blocked. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Please see his contributions on Commons. Cheers, gnu57 18:35, 8 January 2021 (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]

  • no Unnecessary Account has been glocked. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr42/Archive&oldid=999152843"