Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dude95/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dude95

Dude95 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Cirt [edit]
Disruption at South Park related articles
  1. Use of account, combined with IP, to cause ongoing disruption at South Park related articles.
  2. See main account edit [1], followed by IP, [2]
  3. Note multiple warnings that have gone ignored, both at User talk:Dude95, and at User talk:213.123.2.24
  4. Dude95 = disruptive pattern of removal of templates from South Park articles, see [3]
  5. 213.123.2.24 (talk · contribs) = same exact disruptive pattern of removal of templates from South Park articles, see [4].

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


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

Both user and IP were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. This SPI case page can now be closed. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

26 March 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Is uploading new versions of images the same that Dude95 has and has the same ugly quality. Is also adding non-relevant information as before. GSorby Chat with Me! 11:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I also believe ChrisSmith1995 (talk · contribs) is related. He and Dude95 were both blocked for uploading copyright violations and I notice they edited similar articles. - JuneGloom Talk 14:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

KevinSmith09 is uploading images to Coronation Street and the Cleveland Show and has the same rationales as Dude95 GSσяву Chat with Me! 23:03, 23 April 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]
18 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Very similar articles edited (Coronation Street, American animated shows) and images uploaded. JuneGloom Talk 22:27, 18 May 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]

A  Likely match to KevinSmith09 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 11:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

EllieLucy is editing the same articles as Dude95 and his sockpuppet accounts. S/he is also uploading images in an new filename this time and the images s/he is uploading is the same ugly quality as Dude 95. GSorby - Talk! 12:56, 12 June 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]

A  Likely match to Debbie10 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar username and pattern of behavior to previous accounts. Uploading images to South Park episodes and British soap opera characters minus a rationale. JuneGloom Talk 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • MelHart94 splits pages from list entries for Hollyoaks characters with no notability. MelHart - [5][6][7][8] Like Dude95 sock User:Ellielucy did - [9]
  • MelHart makes edits to a south park episode in quick sucsession with no edit summaries. MelHart - [10] EllieLucy - [11] -
  • All three have uploaded southpark, hollyoaks and coronation street images and recieved numerous warnings. The worst thing is failure to reply to any messages left on the talk pages - which I how I realised they were linked.
  • MelHart94 has revisited [12] this page recently, an article he himself created under the sock of User:ChrisSmith1995.

If you look at the contribs on MelHart with Dude95, ElleieLucy, ChrisSmith1995 - you will notice the pattern of editing - how they edit the same page numerous times in a short time space - with no edits summaries and many image uploads for the same sunjects.RaintheOne BAM 15:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
21 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This user is uploading the same quality of images as Ellielucy did, who is a SP of Dude95. He/she is also editing similar articles. I'm not 100% about this one, but I would be grateful for someone to confirm. Thanks, GSorby – Ping! 16:33, 21 October 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]

The following are  Likely the same:

17 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This user is editing the exact same articles and uploading images with poor rationale the same as Dude95 did. This has got to be the 8th sock puppet at least. I am 99% sure about this one. GSorby – Ping! 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

19 December 2011
Okay, here are some files that make the user obvious:

And comparing the contributions between two users (CartoonGirl96 and Dude95) seem almost indentical. I'm very sure that these two accounts are the same user. GSorby – Ping! 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gsorby, some admins only have the time to press buttons and not look into things. Choose something less obvious, something obscure - like I remember Dude loved to edit a character named Mary Taylor from Coronation Street - ([13][14][15][16][17][18][19] I can go on forever..) - Guess what? Cartoon Girl also likes to edit Mary Taylor - ([20][21][22])

I've always found an obvious link - Dude always edits the same article in quick flow - so builds up a number of minor edits in a ten minute period to complete an update to an article - so in the contribs field a pattern forms where you'll have a block of contribs to the same article - often complimented by an upload log detailed a file upload to be added to their article. CartoonGirl's edit history is a great match. No more diffs needed really - bottom line is both users edit American Dad, Mary Taylor, South park and upload images all the time with similiar titles.RaintheOne BAM 00:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • There were a few sleepers last time, so I'm endorsing for confirmation and to see if there are any other accounts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a diff or two from both the sockmaster and socks showing the similarities in behaviour. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I don't really have time to go diff hunting, and all I can see from your unhelpful "look at the contributions" message is that they're both editing the same kinds of articles. Unless you are proposing that I block everyone who's uploaded an image from that particular TV show, I will actually need the diffs I asked for. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed per several points:
Per the evidence above, a check of the account would be greatly appreciated, to see if there is a link and if so to check for sleepers.
On another note, I concur with Deskana that the filing party would be well advised to please remember to provide such evidence themselves in future, especially if they're requesting checkuser. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. expanding on the point Raintheone makes above, which is a very valid one. This edit from Dude95 shows him blanking the entry for Mary Taylor on the list of Coronation Street characters article, immediately following his creation of a stand-alone page for Mary Taylor: Dude95's edit blanking the entry was almost immediately reverted, but CartoonGirl96 appears to be picking up where he left off with this edit. Cheers, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed –MuZemike 01:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User is editing articles similar to those of Dude95 and many other of his/her socks. Dude95 was a keen editor for American Dad and Family Guy articles and the username states "AmericandadAddict". This user also uploads "newer versions" of Coronation Street images on character articles and they are the same ugly quality and awkward crop. GeorgePing! 18:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This editor has not changed one bit - no doubt that it is him. Aside from the obvious related username, he is displaying the exact same behaviour. Creating a new article with a dummy edit from a list, uploading a screen shot with a poor rationale and then editing in quick flow slapping copy vio quotes from news sources.Rain the 1 15:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the IP 81.155.78.26 is also the same user. They created the Joel Dexter article from a redirect, which AmericandadAddict has been editing. Plus, they have been editing Coronation Street related articles, using the same style displayed there (bare urls, long quotes, etc). - JuneGloom Talk 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get this sorted please as the user is now heavily editing again. Thanks. GeorgePing! 16:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Blocked and tagged both, too many similarities to be coincidence. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing similar articles as previous socks and uploading images with poor rationales [25], [26], [27]. Just re-created the Katy Armstrong article with massive chunks of info and bare urls like their sock, CorrieKid11, did with the Eva Price article. JoeWilliams72 follows the naming pattern of using one or two words and then two numbers. As usual, not a single edit summary has been provided. JuneGloom Talk 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I think this is spot on. Something of interest I noticed was that if you look in the archive for this user - you'll notice that User:GSorby reported Dude95's last sock, User:AmericandadAddict, a few weeks ago. Well they created an article today titled Katy Armstrong - if you look at this edit then you can see that they have copied this information directly from User:GSorby/Katy Armstrong. This is a sandbox of a planned article that User:GSorby was preparing. I'd say this user was disgruntled by GSorby reporting him and to retaliate they have stolen there work for the main space.

Something else I notice comparing the JoeWilliams account to the last known sock AmericandadAddict, is that they both edit articles associated with Coronation Street. Not only that, if you compare their image uploads, you get striking similarities. JoeWilliams uploaded File:KatyCorrie.jpg and AmericandadAddict uploaded File:SolRyanConnor.jpg. In the fair use rationale on each there is informal language, one word summaries and in the "replaceable?" field is the statement reading: "yes if a better image is found" in both cases. That statement contradicts the use of non-free media, but both editors still used it. I can also see other similar editing patterns.Rain the 1 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

information Administrator note Blocked (non-CU block) and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 16:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I am starting to think this user wants to be caught out. They make no effort to hide who they are - and never have done. Time to write out the same old story. Please take a look at TheBigBoss1964's contribs - [28] You will notice they do not use edit the same article quick conssesion, making relatively minor changes without leaving edit summaries. The upload images without placing any spaces between words. They edit subjects attached the to soap opera Hollyoaks which is always a given. But they also edit unique topics such as American Dad and Family Guy. This individual has not yet resisted temptation to edit these two subjects no matter what user they have used. They have created a new article based on a television episode - another signature trick from a Dude95 sock. Lets provide some examples of differences from the Dude95 casebook.

No edit summaries and multiple edits to the same article on a soap character:

Files uploaded for Coronation Street and Hollyoaks related articles:

Always edits articles from the Seth MacFarlane's franchise of cartoons:

There are numerous examples, I just pulled a few out at random. Plus there is peltny more socks in the SPI archive to chose from if you need any more evidence. Finally TheBigBoss1964 has a name followed by a number or date, that is always the first thing that draws my attention to the sockpuppet. I also think you should check User:TVAddict2012 and User:Donna90 out too.Rain the 1 17:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Rain the 1 17:54, 17 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]
  •  Clerk endorsed to confirm socking and check for sleepers.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheBigBoss1964 is  Possible bordering  Likely. I give that result as I know not to fully trust the geolocation for the area. Donna90 is  Unlikely, TVAddict2012 is  Stale. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeffing sock, tagging and closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dude95/Archive&oldid=1142508448"