Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Bigshowandkane64

Bigshowandkane64 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 May 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Bigshowandkane64 was blocked for edit-warring yesterday. Soon after deleting the block notice from his talk page, Marionluigi49, who then created MarioandSonic56, was created. The similarity in the name format (<name1>n/and<name2><no.>) is too coincidental given Marionluigi49's subsequent editing. Bigshowandkane64 predominantly edited at Thomas & Friends related articles, mostly undoing edits made by other editors, while Marionluigi49 is editing at Thomas and Friends (series 2) reverting the same editors that Bigshowandkane64 had reverted there. MarioandSonic56 has likely been created as a sleeper for use in the event that Marionluigi49 is blocked. AussieLegend (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2012 (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]

Both  Confirmed and indefinitely blocked. Bigshowandkane64's block has been extended to 2 weeks. --MuZemike 04:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

27 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Consistent similar disruption to Thomas & Friends. Compare [1] and [2]. Alerted by this edit Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2012 (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]
  • information Administrator note IP blocked for another six months. Jafeluv (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11 March 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User has been making disruptive edits to Mike Pollock that are most likely in nature to Supermariokart64 before being blocked. ([3], [4]) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 11 March 2013 (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]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Sleeper check. Seems fairly likely they exist in this case due to prior behavior and obvious intent to disrupt. NativeForeigner Talk 17:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Blocked and tagged sock but want to check for sleepers. NativeForeigner Talk 17:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like all of their accounts are currently blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. NativeForeigner Talk 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence is as follows:

  • Account created three days after FF2's block on 7/16/15
  • Editing same articles as FrozenFan2 - have 16 articles in common, which is an unusually high number with just a few days of editing time (see this list for more)
  • Similar name style: FrozenFan2 all together with a number following, TheSimpsons98 all together with a number following.

Appears to be an obvious WP:DUCK. Request checkuser and look for sleepers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a lot of recent activity by all three on Billy Bletcher. Simpsons and Wikipedia seems to be editing more or less contemporaneously, generally backing one another up. I could do that with a desktop and a laptop. --Drmargi (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Poking through TheSimpsons98's edits, I notice comments like this: "I'm not the user you guy's are looking for, neither is WikipediaGuy01543, but he did want me to let you guy's know he/she is not that user at all, and me neither, but if you look at this edit here that Characterfan876 made ... I can tell it must be FF2 that made that, I revert it back to normal and told him not to remove other users messages, because it's against the rules." If I were a betting man, I'd say that WikipediaGuy01543 and Characterfan876 are two accounts that ya should definitely look into. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a betting man and I'll make that wager! Thanks for pointing that out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied on Favonian's talk page and I already told them I'm not the user they are looking for, I don't even know anything about that user at all. Even WikipediaGuy01543 reply on my talk page and told me he's/she's not that user either, because he/she also got a notice too about a sock puppet invistigation, I think, I'm not sure. But anyways, I'm not the user your looking for at all. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were just trying to make wikipedia a lot better for users and other people when they do research, please don't report us. Were not sock puppets. WikipediaGuy01543 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is a clear DUCK situation: the style, choice of articles & subject matter, the simplistic sophistry of "Hi, I'm a new editor" / "Hey, me too, let's be best friends forever!" [5], everything points to all these accounts being the same editor. It wouldn't be a bad idea to check for any sleepers in case he made some for future use. BMK (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not the same user at all, I'm not any of those users at all. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you guy's still keep thinking were sock puppets. were not at all. WikipediaGuy01543 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, in that case, please close the investigation immediately, the subjects say they're not socks. BMK (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't of huge consequence, but it's a small nail: Simpsons and Wikipedia have a two common spelling errors: guy's (possessive) when they mean guys (plural), which FF also makes. Plural/possessive errors are common as dirt, but to see the same particular, and relatively unusual one from all three of them? They both also spell sockpuppet as two words rather than as a compound word. A spell checker might be responsible for that, but given the other error, I doubt it. Quack, quack, quack. There are other tells in their writing that an experienced eye would catch: I'd go so far as to say they are both adolescent English learners, as is FrozenFan. But really; they seems to be tag-teaming their responses here and on several talk pages -- look at the time differences above. C'mon. This one isn't rocket science. --Drmargi (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big deal about my spelling?, my computer keeps telling me I'm mispelling it. And that why my spelling becomes like that when I correct it, I don't really see the big deal about my write, just saying. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So when their spell check gives them the incorrect spelling, they can't tell when it's wrong? Sounds like maybe competence issues as well. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 03:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible explanations are probably something like siblings/classmates. —Sladen (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See [6] and previous recent history of the page for a link between CharacterFan876 and TheSimpsons98. Optimist on the run (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was messing up the article that way, that why I was trying to put it this way. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk note: Per the discussion above (and for example [7] vs [8] and [9] vs [10]) I've added WikipediaGuy01543 to the list. CharacterFan876 and 73.38.132.31 have both already been blocked as FrozenFan2 socks. TDL (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

User editing same articles in same way as User:FrozenFan2. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 02:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The claim here Talk:Ludwig Von Drake#Corey Burton and Albert Ash removed from article after all these years.21.3F.21 that they are adding sourced info when they clearly are not [11] is a hallmark of FF2's editing [12]. MarnetteD|Talk 02:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

01 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Suspected sock account is reverting edits back to last edits made by blocked User:FrozenFan2 sock, User:TheSimpsons98. WP:DUCK. See contributions here: [13] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I am Jason I am not a sockpuppet, i am reverting those edits back because that blocked user had the right info and it was reverted because he or she was a vandal. I believe that any info that is correct should stay even if it was added by a vandal. Run a checkuser,i guarantee you will find i am not a sockpuppet. Stop reverting good edits from vandals.everyone has a right to have their content stay if its not vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusAlBertson (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no one has a "right" to edit Wikipedia, and edits made by block-evading sockpuppets are subject to removal. If you were a Wikipedian in good standing -- which you are not as of yet -- you could revert and take responsibility for those edits, but seeing as how your account was just created today, and that you are reverting edits that they made, there is no reasonable conclusion that can be drawn except that you are a sock- or meatpuppet of FrozenFan2. BMK (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you are wrong. The whole ocncept of wikipedia is everyone can edit. Just because some is evading a block doesn't mean their edits should be reverted because they are vandals. It's like you're playing favorites. Wikipedia is about getting info ,not about who puts that info in.I am not a puppet of this person. I am a casual observer who saw an injustice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusAlBertson (talk • contribs) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually everyone can edit as long as they add reliable sources when adding info. FrozenFan2 never got that concept and neither have you. This adds to the suspicion that you are one and the same. MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the inability to sign their own posts. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkusAlBertson: You left a message on Winkelvi's talk page. It may come as a surprise to you, but CheckUser data is not the only way we determine who is and isn't a sockpuppet on Wikipedia, so whatever you've done to make it so that your account will look technically different from FrozenFan2 and his socks isn't going to help you as much as you apparent believe it will. (Incidentally, just a tip from a long-time observer here, swearing on your mother's life or your grandfather's grave is a pretty sure tip-off that you're a sockpuppet.) BMK (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the edits you claim that you are defending are old enough that they would not be in the "recent changes" queue when you created your account so the only way you would know about them is that you knew they had been made in the first place. MarnetteD|Talk 23:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does my grammar look like Frozen Fan ok the truth is I look through sockpuppet case pages . I recall the fact that your site falsely blocked over a hundred of suspected 'socks' recently only to be found out to be wrong. This whole site is a witch hunt that hides behind 'duck' nonsense. So many good editors are lost this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusAlBertson (talk • contribs) 23:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, your lack of proper writing ability looks very much like FrozenFan and all of his socks --- very much so. And I note that you have just admitted to lying to make yourself look less suspicious - "I saw the investigation in Recent Changes ... well, ok, the truth is I look through sockpuppet case pages." And why would that be, to pick up tips on how to avoid being spotted as a sock? Besides, as far as I'm aware there's no way to "browse" through cases - you put a name into a search box and it returns the connected pages. Are you saying that you randomly typed in "FrozenFan2", sorta like the 100 monkeys coming up with Hamlet? BMK (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please reopen for a new one, User:TheCrazyGuy6? Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 01:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ebyabe: Open a new investigation, please, this one is in the middle of a debate. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23: I just noticed with what you just hatted, that I had been posting in a section I shouldn't have been. I blindly followed the others posting there, and should have been paying closer attention, but didn't. My sincere apologies. As far as your statement about inappropriate comments - what, specifically, was inappropriate? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I blocked this person indefinitely. He's either that Jared vandal (some person who's been in junior high since 2008, I think), or he's pretending to be. Either way, good riddance. Treat as Jaredgk2008. Please check for sleepers. Block on sight, disable talk page and email. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He admits being jaredgk2008 [14]. Closing this case. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. Well, maybe he's putting on a show, but even then it's still worth it since we're dealing with someone dead-set on disrupting. I got an email saying much of the same stuff. *Yawn* Drmies (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanjagenije I would take that admission with a huge grain of salt. This would not be the first or even the 100th time I have seen one sock claim to be someone that they are not. It would be much better if a user comparison report were run on all three names and if Drmies suggestion of checking for sleepers was finished before closing this report. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarnetteD and Drmies: I've already endorsed a sleepers check here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaredgk2008#02_August_2015. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is inappropriate and disruptive, and some of the users shouldn't even be posting in this section, let alone saying the things they are saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      • Vanjagenije a check of Jaredgk2008 (talk · contribs) edits show zero crossover with FrozenFan or Markus. The checkuser needs to be conducted with FF2 as the sockmaster if it is to be of any use at all. Also this report needs to be reopened before it is archived. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarnetteD: I don't understand your request. What would be the benefit of comparing MarkusAlBertson with FrozenFan2? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanjagenije the benefit would be in getting to the root of who the sock master is. I made the point in my first post that just because Markus claimed to be a sock of Jared does not mean that he is. In my second post I showed that there is no crossover in the pages edited between Jared and Markus. I think that Drmies post of "Yes" means that the check should be done against FrozenFan2. My apologies to D if I am wrong. Is there any reason that a check cannot be run agains both editors? MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarnetteD: Who is the master is not so important. The goal of the SPI is to stop disruption made by sockpuppets, and not necessarily to determinate the master. Anyway, MarkusAlBertson swears and guarantees that he has different IP than FrozenFan2, so even if he is FrozenFan2, he probably changed IP address. This means that Checking him against FrozenFan2 is probably a waste of time. He is indefinitely blocked, and our primary goal is not to investigate who is the master, but to find and block potentially disruptive new socks. That is shy I endorsed a CheckUser based on him. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanjagenije who is the master is important and I am not sure that you are fulfilling your duties as a clerk if that is your starting point. The only way to correctly catch future socks is to get the right sock master. You seem to be ignoring the fact that it does not matter what he swears. Anyone who is socking is not to be trusted and I am amazed those words are what you are hanging you decision on. The user has already been blocked so the goal of this SPI is to make sure that we have the correct sock and master tied to each other. A checkuser takes but a moment or two so it is not a waste of time to check against both users. Since there is no crossover of edits with Jared a checkuser there is just as likely to be a waste of time. Since you seem to think that my concerns are a waste of your time I would request that you ask another clerk to take a look at this. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have agree with MarnetteD here, Vanjagenije. I don't understand why you wouldn't want a CU. To look for sleepers as well as make sure all the "ducks" are in a row (pun intended). The second I read that the sock "admitted" being a longtime sock master with tons of sock accounts, I knew it was a ruse so a CU wouldn't be run. Perhaps it is time for another clerk to take a look at this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@/Winkelvi: I do want the CU to look for sleepers, that is why I endorsed the sleepers check. Why I think the check against FrozenFan2 is not needed is explained in my previous post. I don't understand your reasoning. You say that he admitted being a sock of a different master so to avoid CheckUser. Why would he do that? He got blocked anyway, so why would he avoid CheckUser? That makes no sense. He was blocked anyway, and all accounts that share his IP will be blocked after the sleepers check. And, yes, feel free to ask other clerks to take a look. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because he's not too bright (demonstrated by returning over and again with IPs and sock accounts). He was just trying another tactic. But, yes, you do need to have the account run against FF2. If for nothing else but because there are several of us who believe quite strongly it is FF2. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije you now have two editors and Drmies "yes" to the post about checking for sleepers requesting that action be taken here. Is there some underlying reason as to why you refuse to acknowledge these? MarnetteD|Talk 01:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije It should also be noted that Drmies edit summary blocking Markus that Jared is not mentioned. It would be far better to get this done "right" rather than "quickly" MarnetteD|Talk 01:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: Yes, there are several reasons, and I explained them above. I am not going to endorse a check just because three (or three hundred) editors tell me to do so. I base my decision on certain arguments which I already explained above. I can repeat them: (a) The account is already blocked, so it is not important to know who is the master, it makes no difference; (b) The user explicitly stated several times that he guarantees his IP does not match that of the master, which means that he probably changed the IP address to deceive us (CU can't help in such cases). I didn't see any of those arguments being refuted by anybody here. My duty is to endorse or decline CU requests based on arguments and reasons, and not based on desires of other users. I explained my arguments why I don't think check against FrozenFan2 is needed. You should try to find another clerk who agrees with you rather that try to persuade me to go against my reasoning. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije so you are saying that you are above the community rather than part of it. Nice. BTW in this post Markus says I am Jared - note he does not "swear it" as you claim. Yet in Markus very first post to this page he states "I am Jason". Why have you chosen to believe one and not the other? This sloppiness on your part is troubling to say the lease. BTW the way to get another clerk to look at it is to reopen it so please remove you closure. If you want to do the right thing that is. MarnetteD|Talk 02:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije Would you please show me were WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to SPIs? MarnetteD|Talk 03:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beyond My Ken: Please, do not revert edits made by SPI clerks [15]. See WP:SPI/PROC: "Clerks may remove or refactor (within reason) any material by any user that is not strictly relevant to SPI. This material should not be reinstated by anyone other than Clerks or CheckUsers." I removed your irrelevant quoting [16], so please do not revert it. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Same articles, same edits. A Duck, quacking loudly.

Evidence:

  • See the following for articles in common [17].
  • IP geolocates to same area as other IPs used as socks by this sockmaster -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding account User:Lolololol4567 - account created since this SPI filed and after above named IP stopped editing; editing same articles as IP socks and named sock accounts of FrozenFan2. See contribution history here. Requesting CU and sleeper check. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 16 August 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]

29 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence is as follows:

  • Same articles being edited, same type of edits (addition of unsourced content, infobox changes), edit warring, very similar edit summaries.
  • All accounts above (plus the socks confirmed in previous SPIs) all edit Disney-related/Looney Tunes-related/cartoon-related articles.
  • IPs geolocate to same state and area of the state -- including the IPs confirmed previously as sock IPs of FF2.
  • Reporting per WP:DUCK evidence (behavior, articles in common). Seems pretty obvious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I was only correcting information on articles, because some information on this site is incorrect, and I was fixing them to correct them. 71.232.184.131 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IP comment was initially placed in the wrong section so it has been moved here. The tone of it is a replica of several statements by FF2. MarnetteD|Talk 23:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't. 71.232.184.131 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, MarnetteD. Same tone, same kind of reasoning as FrozenFan2 and all of his socks, "I was only...making it better". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasn't? No I wasn't what, 71? No I wasn't correcting information? Please advise. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 23:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


After yesterdays block of 71.232.184.131 (talk · contribs) this new editor shows up and makes the same edits to several articles including Michael Brandon - IP, R though this one does have a source it is Brandon's own blog wich fails WP:RS. Allan Levine - edit by confirmed sock WikipediaGuy01543 (talk · contribs) and this one by R and various edits to the Bill Farmer article which has been edited by several of FF2's socks. The message on the userpage matches the usual "I am add sources" when, in fact they don't. MarnetteD|Talk 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

Sign.... I've told you already I'm not him, I like to make thing correct in the articles. Your the one causing vandalism in the articles when I'm trying too correcting them. Please stop stocking me so I can edit please. I'm not another user, I'm completely new. Besides I already reported you too an admin. R-TruthFan76 (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was put in the wrong place so it has been moved to the correct spot. Please note the similarity to post in other archived SPIs for this person. MarnetteD|Talk 17:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

06 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


A new weekend and a new IP goes right back to one of FF2's favorite articles Bill Farmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). IP geolocates to the same area as the others. MarnetteD|Talk 00:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Thank you Ponyo. It is possible that filing this SPI caused them to stop editing from this IP. Your protection the article will help as well. MarnetteD|Talk 22:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • They've likely moved on to another IP by now, unfortunately. I've semi'ed the Bill Farmer article.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01 November 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


IP geolocates to New Hampshire as the others have done. Has hit several old favorites like Russi Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Pinto Colvig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Ludwig Von Drake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but has moved on to new articles as well. Continues to add unsourced info to articles as here [18], here [19] and here [20]. The apology here for not adding sources is much like those in the past. This being but one example. To my knowledge this person has only used IPs in the last few months so I don't know if a checkuser would do any good, thus, I have not asked for one MarnetteD|Talk 22:56, 1 November 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]

 Blocked and tagged - Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


See evidence here on my page. Note especially HomerSimpson543's attempt here to remove the most damning evidence. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 8 December 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]

10 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


  • All these have already been checkusered, blocked, and tagged by Ponyo. Filing for the record only. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 10 December 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]

25 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Geolocates to New Hampshire as the other IPs have. Editing many of the same voice actor articles like Russi Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Bill Farmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) although new articles are being hit as well. Still adding details about families without sourcing the year added is not in the ref that was already there. Still adding unsourced items like this. This person seems to only be using IPs so I haven't asked for a checkuser but if anyone else has encountered an editor with a username we can always change that. MarnetteD|Talk 00:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a second IP. Also from NH. Also hit the Russi Taylor article. Looks to have stopped using this IP Dec 19 so mostly listing to keep the record as complete as possible. MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say that these three edit summaries [24], [25], [26] have turned this into a WP:DUCK situation. MarnetteD|Talk 01:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added the attack on my username editor as another duck. Also requested a block at WP:UAA for that one. MarnetteD|Talk 01:34, 25 December 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]

17 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Began editing as the IP and then, when reverted, moved onto the named account. Still hitting the voice actor articles including Frank Welker. The personal attacks are much the same as last time as well. Looks like Acroterion has blocked T6 so this is just a formality to to get the tag changed from suspected to confirmed. MarnetteD|Talk 03:31, 17 January 2016 (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 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Recently created account has gone right back to adding unsourced info to many of the old favorites including Pinto Colvig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Ludwig Von Drake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Phil LaMarr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This version has branched out to some location articles - notably a couple from New Hampshire which is where the bulk of the IP socks have geolocated from. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this banned editor has been so prolific with their sock accounts a checkuser has been requested to check for sleeper accounts. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know what your talking about. I know no such user named Bigshowandkane on here. I've read all the rules on here before I started editing on this site and I didn't saying anything bad to you guy's. I didn't say any swears of say any bad threats too you at all ether. InformationExpertIsRight (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This thread Ludwig Von Drake#Corey Burton and Albert Ash removed from article after all these years.21.3F.21 had Ebyabe requesting sources from an editor and an IP who are socks of B. Now this new version is stating that they were changing it back to the unsourced version. The quacking is getting louder. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes no sense at all. He's been doing his voice for many years, Also, Paul voiced him until his death in 1986 not 1961 to 1967. I do agree that we do need sources, but it just makes no sense when he first removed it. Also, Disney Studios confirmed themselves that he voices him, and Corey's website says it as well. InformationExpertIsRight (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2016 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11 April 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

The IP was making the usual edits to articles adding unsourced info as they did here. It does geolocate to the same area as the previous ones. After they had been found out the Popeye sock was created and started making the same edits while adding edit summaries like this one stating that they don't need to add sourcing. This is a hallmark of this persons attitude to editing articles. This is another repeat of the kind of edit summary of past socks. After the Popeye account was blocked a threat to continue socking was made on their talk page. Then the Thomas account was created and the same edits (including more unsourced BLP info here as the other two commenced. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the threat to create more socks a checkuser would be a good idea but I have forgotten how to add the request after the report has been opened. My apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 11 April 2016 (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]

01 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Occupation and unsourced editting on Joe Alaskey, Phil Hartman, Craig T. Nelson, Alex Borstein, Don Messick and others. ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Adding some more IP's who are all restoring each other's edits and making the same sorts of edits to voice actor articles: [27], [28], [29] Sro23 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note See these edits on commons. Attacks on other wikis have become SOP when one (or more) of their IPs get tracked down here. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that I know that what happens on other wikis cannot be acted on by admins here at WikiP. I only added this as evidence that Bigshowandkane64 is active again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 2600:1000:B021:B22F:3046:508E:4453:701D and 2600:1000:B075:F8BF:6918:BABE:BEAC:7398 have outed themselves by their actions,[30][31] and the other two are really obvious too. All blocked (2600:1000:B021:B22F:3046:508E:4453:701D by another admin). The IPv4s are static, so they get a week. The IPv6s unfortunately aren't closely enough connected for a useful rangeblock. I don't think we're done with this character. :-( Bishonen | talk 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Already blocked. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


02 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Their one edit is as WP:DUCK as it gets. MarnetteD|Talk 03:11, 2 August 2016 (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]

Account blocked. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edits on Grey DeLisle from IP starting with 2600:1000:B ‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 19:29, 2 August 2016 (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]

02 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edits on Grey DeLisle from IP starting with 2600:1000:B, personal attacks ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

He keeps evading his block. Please, we are in desperate need of a rangeblock. Sro23 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was mentioned in the last sock investigation (only closed a few hours ago) that IPv6 ones are harder to rangeblock. Maybe a way could be found around this? It's either that, or indef semi-protecting every page they try to edit, 'cause it's obvious they aren't going to stop anytime soon. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP rangeblocked 1 week by NeilN. Agree semi-protection may be necessary, if you see the page history of frequent BSAK targets, it's obvious this disruption has been happening for so long. Sro23 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ebyabe, that was me talking about blocking IPv6's in the previous report. Actually they're most often easier to block than IPv4 (=the usual kind); a /64 IPv6 range can be blocked for several weeks without a qualm. But I thought the IPv6's in the previous report were in too big a range (/44), with too much risk of collateral damage. I see Neil has blocked the whole /44 range, though. He probably understands these things better than I do. Most people do; with rangeblocks I kind of fly by the seat of my pants. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Added 2600:1000:b02b:4e83:90cd:e3f8:705d:b1f7, an obvious duck. Sro23 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, 2600:1000:B02B:4E83:90CD:E3F8:705D:B1F7 is still editing.[32] So the range still wasn't big enough; it takes a /41.:-( OK, I've blocked 2600:1000:b000::/41 for a week. Pinging @NeilN: Could you take a look? It's presumably all one organisation. I only hope /41 is enough. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Bishonen, I think it's fine. There are a few editors like this but I cannot tell if they're Bigshowandkane64. --NeilN talk to me 20:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I've blocked 2600:1000:b000::/41 for a week, see my comments above. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

22 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th IPs continued to remove the sock-puppet template from the first IP, but first, the fifth IP removed content from Pat Fraley without giving a reason, then came back as the sixth IP and attacked Sro23 for reverting that edit. Woodstop45 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2016 (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]

  • Due to the rapid-cycling IP hopping, the best way to deal with this is through liberal semi-protection. It looks like Widr has done the needy with the relevant articles.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

More of the same: edit warring on Robin Williams, as well as the characteristic legal threat:[33] Sro23 (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2016 (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]

26 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The IPs have the same characteristic legal threats and harassment on Sro23 (talk · contribs) and Ebyabe (talk · contribs) using the 2600:1000 IP range ([34]) as with the previously blocked IPs ([35], [36]) on that page. They are geographically based in Massachusetts, where the user in question has IPs at his disposal, so I think that a range block would be necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Added an IP that attempted to remove another IP from this report. — Gestrid (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been adding IPs as they attempt to remove {{sock}} templates from pages of IPs they've socked from. I'll try to continue this until someone starts looking into this. That way, the admin who looks into this will have as much info as possible for a rangeblock. — Gestrid (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Wiping the talk page of one of Bigshowandkane64's IP socks, User:2600:1000:B01F:C6C2:BCCB:1538:39B6:F18F Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This user appears to hop from IP to IP. Would a range block be possible by any chance if it is confirmed that these are indeed socks? JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just end this sock puppet investigation crap thing. I can remove those tags as many times I want. 2600:1000:B02A:CE6C:A1B5:44FA:7B16:D2DB (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Given the expansive ranges at play we're firmly in RBI territory. Revert their edits on sight and request a block at AIV as they come up (with a pointer to this SPI if it would be helpful). Don't give them the attention they crave. Gestrid please stop adding the sock template to the IP pages; the ranges are too dynamic for the templates to be of any use and it's just giving this individual another project in reverting you.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

31 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See this edit compared to this one. Also this and this. Note how the account made several null edits to become autoconfirmed, similar to what other socks did. Sro23 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • The editor has attempted (7 times so far) to delete this report. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Blocked but awaiting tags This edit pretty much confirmed the puppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged and closing. GABgab 20:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Username+dummy edits to get autoconfirmed ([37], [38])+ edit warring to include "stand-up" ([39] [40]) Sro23 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 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]

 Confirmed and blocked. No tag per WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same type of unproductive editing on Thomas & Friends series articles. Perhaps a range block is in order for the 2601:81 and :82 ranges, since there are a number of other IP addresses that I did not include? ‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 20:47, 19 February 2018 (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]

  • The most recent IP has been blocked, closing. GABgab 21:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Attacks on talk page ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 14:54, 19 March 2018 (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]

  • I see the page has been protected. Closing now. Sro23 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bigshowandkane64/Archive&oldid=1145960674"