Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IPhonehurricane95

IPhonehurricane95 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Please note that it wasn't known that IPhonehurricane95 was the actual account responsible for much of the sockpuppetry, until June 25, 2013. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. Tropical cyclone pages again, too obvious. HurricaneFan25 14:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Talking of Ducks - TaraLikeYou has also been active on TC articles..Jason Rees (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - most of these accounts were created on dewiki. HurricaneFan25 14:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support a block. Fairly obvious sock. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Two sleepers found:

Also, MariusBlaBlaBla (talk · contribs) looks to be the sockmaster. Elockid (Talk) 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 November 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See de-wiki. Check for sleepers? HurricaneFan25 13:33, 6 November 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]
04 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Handwriting pretty much the same. Editing the same type of articles. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 13:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there was also about 20 IP's (which I think were Typhoonwikihelper's since they were all from Hong Kong) trolling me back in December/January. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 14:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - what do you mean? Bruvtakesover (T|C) 15:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Ok, so I have indefblocked Typhoonwikihelper two days ago for disruptive editing, removed his talk page access for suicides threats (and advised emergency@), and now I have indefblocked two more accounts for evasion, Typhoonwikihelper2 reborn (talk · contribs) and Typhoonwikihelper3 reborn (talk · contribs). If possible, a rangeblock of the underlying IP (something in the range of 116.48.192.134 (talk · contribs)) would be appropriate. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • It's possible. There's a gap in Typhoonwikihelper's edit history that matches Jassaki exactly, but I'm adding a CU to confirm. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the IPs: per the privacy policy, the checkuser won't have any comment on them. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Additional information needed Where is the abuse? WilliamH (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Im not sure i follow: what do you mean by abuse.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mean - how have multiple accounts been abused? Please give evidence ideally supported with diffs, log entries and page histories explaining how these accounts a) belong to the same person and b) are being used abusively. WilliamH (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing:

  • No specific evidence that Jassaki67 was abusing multiple accounts. In particular, Typhoonwikihelper had not been blocked while Jassaki67 was active, and Jassaki67's edits did not seem to evade scrutiny after getting this warning. In addition, despite other obvious socks noted by CharlieEchoTango above, Jassaki67 has not returned.
  • Underlying IP of Typhoonwikihelper is dynamic, a rangeblock would cause some collateral damage, which at this point Typhoonwikihelper's edits would not warrant. If he returns I would recommend to try and educate him: He seems enthusiastic at least, if we can make him understand our policies he might be an asset in the future.

Amalthea 10:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar edits to those by MBB and socks. Note that the username is German - it was a known fact that MBB's native language was German; also, similar edits, but most look legit so far. HF25 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

There's one more "Bla". HF25 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

MariusBlaBla does not appear to be a registered account. TNXMan 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previous accounts are stale. Nonetheless, it's  Likely from what I can piece together. Amalthea 13:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged then. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Another user who has a german username. Also editing same types of articles as MBBB. Has a username almost EXACTLY like the confirmed sock WetterHerten. Jeffrey Gu (Talk to Jeffrey Gu | Edits | Sandbox) 22:38, 18 February 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]

Blocked and tagged, thanks. Amalthea 23:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jason_Rees&diff=next&oldid=479071375

Is there are a way of range blocking the ip addresses so that he isnt contributing, as TWH was blocked after making a fake suicide threat, and spamming peoples pages with bannisters? Jason Rees (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • CUs won't comment on IP addresses for privacy reasons; and no, there's no way to rangeblock, the IPs he uses are very dynamic and all over the place, an effective rangeblock would likely affect a lot of innocent users. In any case, I blocked the reported IP, obvious duck case. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

If Typhoonwikihelper really does use such a wide range of IPs; when/if he returns, then how are we going to stop him? With best regards, 72.197.249.141 (talk) 07:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tracked him, and he has used a wide variety of IPs beginning with the number 2, (and 1 on rare occasions) and has been editing since 2006. He also has created other accounts years ago, which currently remain inactive (and have not been blocked). One of the sockpuppets includes most of his IP "initials", plus C10. That user has been inactive for a very long time; point is, Typhoonwikihelper has been editing for a loooong time (not even I have been editing for that long), and has a history of creating multiple accounts, with many of the oldest ones escaping our notice (especially since they are "inactive"). 72.197.249.141 (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Confirmed block evasion by Buvtakesover (talk · contribs) (I stress that this is a different user than Bruvtakesover). Per last time, unless there is significant disruption I would not want to block any ranges here. Amalthea 11:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
08 June 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

V870 in username, which V stands for Vicky, and similar writing tones. Obvious sock. iPhoneHurricane95 03:58, 8 June 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]
11 June 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

She has created socks with her name in them and they all have similar writing tones. Quack. iPhoneHurricane95 01:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I won't be shocked to see if these two groups of socks are related based on the fact that they edit similar articles and username ends in "DateYou" while the Tara account uses "LoveYou" and "MarryYou". However, these cases are 2 years apart, so it is somewhat unlikely that this is the case. YE Pacific Hurricane
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Blocked and tagged.—Kww(talk) 00:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14 June 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Diff Userpage literally states that they are Vicky870. May just be someone attempting to troll, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, as they say. TKK bark ! 00:19, 14 June 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]

Blocked and tagged.—Kww(talk) 00:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 June 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



See below. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:47, 17 June 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]
​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 June 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The user IPhoneHurricanes95 is notoriously known for vandalism-only and generally disruptive sockpuppetry (along with its previous username Jeffrey Gu) [1]. I believe these new sockpuppets are created after he was banned indefinitely as they belong in the same timeframe. The account OopsIP has been used to vandalize the same pages as previous sockpuppets, such as [2] and [3], which are currently blocked indefinitely. His unblock request reasoning was "i will shoot my dog if you do not unblock me" [4], which was similar to a previous sockpuppet of his, using the reason "im so sorry I vandalize i was only trying to express my hate towards fat filthy american they drop bomb on lovely city nagasaki where I live my greatgrandparent died in the bombing forgive me I will never vandalize again I pinkie promise I will never vandalize again I abuse my dog if not unblock" [5], both using the excuse "will abuse his dog". IPhoneHurricanes95 got banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry on June 16, which also happened be the day CaliforniaHurricane25 joined Wikipedia. The two accounts seem to share a similar style of naming, which is also present in his other previous sockpuppets. From what I could tell, he created several "vandal" puppets for roleplay and used his account to counter-act and revert the "bad guys". The apparent motive seemed to be being rejected for a rollback due to lack of counter-vandal contribs [6] [7]. CaliforniaHurricane25 also seems to be very familiar with Wiki markup, our Wikiproject and already has a elaborated userpage. When asked where he had his previous experience, he replied with "I used my IP before and I received a welcome message". I also to some degree believe the [8] sockpuppet series are related to this sockmaster, due to vandalizing almost identical pages as these socks, but I am not sure. Also, his IP [9] account is vandalism-only and has been blocked, but he seems to be changing IPs very often. The series of socks have persistently creating new accounts to disrupt Wikipedia, even though his account creation is disabled. I believe further confirmation is needed from a CheckUser in order to prevent more chaos associated with hurricane related articles and WP:WPTC users. He has been blocked many times with account creation disabled and even so his number of accounts is multiplying day by day as he is changing IPs. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 22:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I've said earlier, I don't even know who IPhonehurricanes95 is. this identified that this iPhonehurricane guy or something's name was Jeffrey, and my name is Andrew. --CaliforniaHurricane25 23:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not evidence. IPhonehurricanes95 had sockpuppets named Matt and so on. Try make up more convincing arguments. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 23:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I also ask you why your signatures are so similar?
iPhoneHurricane95
CaliforniaHurricane25
I'm part Chinese and part Korean and I live in Orange County. --CaliforniaHurricane25 00:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the signature colors from some guy named TropicalAnalystwx13, and thats how I created my usrpage. --CaliforniaHurricane25 00:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My username was influenced by a blocked user named Hurricanefan25, thats why I put in 25. --CaliforniaHurricane25 00:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This iPhone guy said he had interest in weather since the age of 4, while I became interested at the age of 6 or 7. --CaliforniaHurricane25 00:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are valid evidence. They can be as easily made up. According to [10], it says "Now, I live in Los Angeles", just like you state how you are from Los Angeles on your userpage. Coincidence?

I have compiled a list of highly probable IPhonehurricane95 socks. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that IPhonehurricane95 is the true sockmaster account. I have spent a lot of time today redirecting all of the pages of the other "main socks" to IPhonehurricane95's corresponding pages. I hope that it makes things easier to see and sort. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked and discovered that MariusBlaBlaBla was the first account, registered on August 18, 2011. However, IPhonehurricane95 was the "good hand", and the primary account as well. But from what some of his socks have said (and checking their editing histories as well), it is obvious that he began editing as an IP, with some edits going back as far as 2006. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I've gone ahead and blocked OopsIP as a sock of Vicky870 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and it is apparent to me that IPhoneHurricanes95 is a sock of Vicky870, so once this thing is closed, there will need to be some folding and merging. I've requested checkuser help to help sort out those socks and because while I find the timing, experience level and naming of CaliforniaHurricane25 vs. IpHurricane95 to be quite suspicious, there's no smoking gun: if it's a sock, it's a good-hand/bad-hand situation.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very  Likely and for all extents and purposes  Confirmed:

Blocked a couple of IPs. No comment on the given IP. WilliamH (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamH: Should I undo my block tagging to Vicky870 then? I'm extremely surprised that you didn't find a link between IPhoneHurricane95 and the Vicky870/VickyLoveYou family of socks.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines, what about User:Earth200 and User:Earth101, which have both been blocked as socks of User:Earth100?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've checked, Jeffrey Gu (talk · contribs) and Vicky870 (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed with IPhonehurricane95. Earth101 is  Stale, and Earth100 (talk · contribs) is a very long way away from IPhonehurricane95; a technical connection strikes me as  Unlikely. WilliamH (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - for activity on Commons. Rschen7754 02:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See for the results of the CU on Commons here. Trijnsteltalk 09:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taking this off hold - too tired to sort out the mess but note that Hurricanefan25 in the storm, CaliforniaHurricane25, Jeffrey Gu, Vicky870, Typhoonwikihelper 3 were all locked. --Rschen7754 10:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of sorting this one out, it looks to me like Vicky870 is the first account and this nest of interwoven SPIs should all be consolidated under that name.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this really matters, but FYI, IPhonehurricane95 was the "good" account (and the first one) so all his socks should be on his name IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true: I only scanned the bad hands, not the good hand. —Kww(talk) 16:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, seems User:Perseus, Son of Zeus may be the real master according to the Commons CU (since Hurricane24 was confirmed there). --Rschen7754 00:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persues, Son of Zeus is a completely different person IMO. His writing (under Hurricanefan25) was better than Iphonehurricane95's and stuck to more important storms. Also, there editing hours were a bit different and HF25 stuck to more admin-related areas that Iphonehurricane95 never touched. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: See my statement on my user talk on commons regarding this CU request. Trijnsteltalk 22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case everything's good on our end, so closing. Rschen7754 22:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
04 July 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Username, contributions Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 04:00, 4 July 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]
04 July 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User has same motives, demeanor, and outright states he is the same person. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I suggest a checkuser do a sleeper sweep as well. This seems to be a fairly prolific sockmaster. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - I blanked their talk page of the hateful speech. Requesting CU for a possible range block, assuming they are using a smart phone as their name indicates. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, nothing else to report. WilliamH (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged and closed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
01 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Accounts created within 10 minutes of each other. Tckma (talk) 02:27, 1 August 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]
  • The following are  Confirmed socks of one another:
16 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The usernames are extremely similar and have been left unused since their creation, leading me to believe they may be sleepers of Vicky870/IPhonehurricane95. Their handwriting resembles that of some of their other socks as well. If their IP Address falls under this range, or they happen to be shared by the same IP Addresses, then we have a positive. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 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]
  •  Clerk note: These two accounts are extremely old and highly unlikely to be related. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Duck, requesting sleeper check. This sock was discovered on Commons and wandered over here, so cooperation will probably be needed. Rschen7754 09:44, 26 August 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 Rschen7754 09:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially  Confirmed. No sleepers. Range is already softblocked, leaving it as is for now. Tiptoety talk 00:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more. Rschen7754 00:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
28 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Duck, requesting sleeper check. Compare this guy's Unblock Threat with that of this sock. He acts too much like IPhonehurricane95. This sock also has a very familiar editing pattern that I am beginning to grow weary of. He likes to stick to Tropical cyclone-related articles, just like all of his predecessors. And his vandalizing patterns aren't too different either. I'm also requesting that the IP Address(s) have their account creation blocked, to prevent the creation of new sockpuppets. Blocking account creation of the IP(s) responsible should make things easier.LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this guy have any other sleeper/socks? Because I am growing increasingly concerned that IPhonehurricane95 will be able to continue circumventing his block. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:47, 29 August 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 - Also note another reference to Japan [11], and block on Commons by local CU. Rschen7754 07:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed to IPhonehurricane94.  IP blocked -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be handled. Rschen7754 18:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
01 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Possible sock of User:Typhoonwikihelper, who is a sock of User:IPhonehurricane95 himself. If Jassaki67 is a sock, then he is probably a sleeper. His disruptive edit patterns match that of TWH/IH95, and despite over a 1 1/2 years of inactivity, I fear that if this account is a sock, then it may be used for abusive purposes once again. I request further investigation into the matter.LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jassaki's handwriting is pretty much the same as Typhoonwikihelper (a sock of IPhonehurricane95), and he has vandalized the same type of articles that TWH did. Also, there's a gap in Typhoonwikihelper's edit history that matches Jassaki exactly. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jassaki's style of vandalism is very similar to THW's. Also, the time gap between the edits of Jassaki and THW/IH95's other sock IPs only makes him more suspicious. Although he stopped his disruptive editing after a warning he revieved, a lack of editing doesn't mean that he isn't a sock, or that his account won't be used to vandalize again. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links to some of the edits. Most links are edit specific, while Link 1 provides Jassaki67's entire activity within the article. See 1, 2, 3, 4 (this one's interesting; note the time span between the edit of the sockmaster and the sock), and 5 (note the time span between his edit and that of THW's sock IP (click next to see)). (Compare the style of vandalism with that of the other socks. Although in this case, he just "twists" information into an inaccurate version, or sometimes even damages pages themselves.) I pretty much provided all of Jassaki67's comprehensive history of vandalism. I sure hope this helps. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the edit specific links skip intermediate edits by Jassaki. To see the hidden edits, go the the Revision History page, or click Previous Edit and then Next Edit to undo the skips. Then, you can explore his vandalizing history more in depth if needed. It would help if you could compare editor interactions between Jassaki67 and THW's sock IPs, THW himself, and IPhonehurricane95. (PS, using Check User to compare the IP range of the users listed above wouldn't hurt.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we have an admin check the IP behind Jassaki67, to see if he has any relation to TWH or IH95? That would definitely clear things up. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:52, 5 September 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]
  • Can you point to specific diffs? Typically we're a bit reluctant to block super stale accounts; I can see why we might for this master, but since we can't do a CU, the behavioral evidence has to be very clear. --Rschen7754 00:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I'm sorry, but the entire contribution history of Jassaki67 is (IMO) too small and nondescript to allow any reliable conclusions to be drawn. I would recommend no action at this time. In the event Jassaki67 reappears with a clear pattern of disruptive edits, feel free to submit a new SPI case. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing per Richwales; the account is  Stale so the CUs cannot run a check. Rschen7754 23:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Naming similarties to sock and from what the user page warning shows a difficulty working with others. account created shortly after last confirmed sock. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I know what you are getting at, and I clearly understand the reason to keep and eye out for this notorious sockmaster, but the fact is that other than the similar name, Typhoon2013 isn't exactly displaying the same disruptive tendencies as IPhonehurricane95. If the guy really has returned, then I bet that it would be the user that made only one disruptive edit to 2013 Pacific typhoon season, before dropping off the radar. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: They're not the same, despite key behavioral similarites. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Duck. Naming similarties to other socks from IPhonehurricane95, and extremely similar pattern of vandalism. He is continuing to attack other users (see my talk page revision), and I would like to have him dealt with using a more permanent solution. I had enough of this jerk. Requesting sleeper check and rangeblock and account-creation block of his IP Range(s). Requesting all suspicious user accounts from his IP Range to be checked as well. See a list of IPhonehurricane 95's sockpuppets here (including most of the IPs that he used to vandalize Wikipedia). I suggest that we find a more permanent way to deal with this vandal. I highly recommend a Global block of his IP Range(s). LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that it's at least for a year, because this guy's not giving up. He even stated that he was going to make new sock accounts in 2014, on one of his previous socks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does he have any sleepers or unused accounts out there? If he does, they may pop up and wreck more havoc. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2014 (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 is  Confirmed, of course, and their IP has already been blocked by another CU. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ducks, but I think that it's better if we confirm these, for the record. All of them (with the exceptions of IPhonehurricane90 and Jeffrey Guchu) identify themselves as socks in their talk page revisions. These account edits articles that fall under the same category as the ones that IPhonehurricane95 does. Also, these socks have an extremely similar pattern of vandalism and attacks on other users. Requesting a sleeper check, and a check for any unused accounts that could potentially be sockpuppets. I seriously think that we may have missed something. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sockpuppeteer is also extremely notorious and a big headache to deal with. I think that we need to take this to the Wikimedia Foundation's admins, due to the return of this socker and his persistence in continuing to vandalize articles. I highly suggest that a Global block with an expiry time of 5-10 years is enforced on this sockpuppeteer , and any IP Ranges he may be operating from (indef expiry date at least on all of the registered accounts). Each time he is blocked off, he has always switched to a different IP Range and created new socks, and if he couldn't, he has always waited until the blocks expired before he continued his bombardment of vandalism. Here is a list of all of IPhonehurricane95's known Sockpuppet accounts ( including most of his known IPs). LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is User:Jeffrey Guchu a sleeper of IPhonehurricane95? IpH95 used to operate under the username of Jeffrey Gu, and Jeffrey Guchu was registered on September 15, 2011, during MariusBlaBlaBla's vandalism spree. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2014 (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 - for sleeper check, IP block. Rschen7754 00:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All  Confirmed, all underlying IPs blocked. NativeForeigner Talk 09:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

More ducks. Asking for the usual sleeper checks and IP blocks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2014 (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 - *sigh* Rschen7754 06:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are  Confirmed and no unblocked accounts were seen. These accounts are on a very busy mobile range, so no IP blocks will be possible. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to do here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Should be a duck test based on username but likely this and another sleeper sweep is needed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • information Note: I blocked the above user for being a VoA. --AdmrBoltz 23:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Confirmed with no sleepers, but as I said above, there is little we can do here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Already blocked just adding for the list. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2014 (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]
30 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts have similar editing habits, although they are not nearly as disruptive as the other socks. 2 of the accounts have similar naming schemes compared to other socks. Check their contributions and their editing hours. All of the listed accounts have editing patterns that are similar to that of other socks (with different variations). 2011typhoon in particular is an extremely likely candidate, since he never got along with with other users and frequently got caught in editing wars. Also, his editing history reveals an extremely disruptive pattern of editing. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they haven't edited for 2 years doesn't meant that they aren't sockpuppets of IPhonehurricane 95. Additionally, the current inactivity of these accounts does not guarantee that they won't return to vandalize Wikipedia again, someday in the future. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least have 2011typhoon indef blocked as a WP:VOA of IPhonehurricane95? See his talk page and his contributions for more details. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2014 (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]
  • Closing without further action as all of these accounts are long stale, the most recent one hasn't edited for almost two years. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
04 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I think this may be a sock of this user, is targeting the same group of editors regarding hurricanes. Please do a checkuser for block evasion and sleepers. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2014 (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]
  • All accounts appear to be blocked at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
06 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I know I sound like an idiot, and probably seem paranoid, but this account appears to be a duck. Requesting checkuser confirmation and a sleeper check. I am starting to doubt our ability to contain this vandal without some kind of Rangeblock/ban. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2014 (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]
24 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Sole edits to revert edits made by OopsIP3 (talk · contribs). Requesting sleeper check. Cloudchased (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Having read their comments and interactions, they both appear to be ducks. Also see the naming similarities between some of these accounts and other known socks. Editing behavior pretty much gives it away. Requesting 1-2 month rangeblock to prevent further acts of vandalism, since this user is extremely notorious for changing his IPs. He already has one range blocked for 1 month, through which has has made new socks from January-February this year, so his current IP Range should be Rangeblocked with account creation blocked. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait... Compare this extremely familiar unblock threat... with OopsIP2's and this one from another sockpuppet in January. The old sockpuppet SamsungGalaxyS4hurricane also has another threat concerning Japanese people, similar to OopsIP2's unblock (and racist) threat. And InnateNature seems to be a "good hand" sock, similar to how IPhonehurricane95 was the "good hand" for MariusBlaBlaBla, while the other 2 "OopsIP" socks are the "bad hands." OopsIP2's edit here shows that he is familiar with sockpuppetry investigations, and the section title reveals his relation to the sockmaster. Seems pretty obvious to me that all 3 accounts are sockpuppets of IPhonehurricane95. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, after everything he's done, I think that we need to notify that Wikimedia Stewards about this. He's attracted their attention once during July 3013, and I think that this continued persistence of sockpuppetry and vandalism deserves their personal attention. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is his IP Range blocked off, and are there still any sleeper accounts out there? If his IP Range is still open, he only continue to make more socks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • It appears that LFaraone has already run a check, and all accounts are blocked. Rschen7754 06:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LightandDark2000, I haven't looked at this particular instance, but you have been repeatedly told that his ranges cannot be blocked. In the rare instance that a small range can be blocked, it will be. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
01 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This is NOT a new user. They are a troll quite familiar with the blocking templates and have an interest in User:IPhonehurricane95. Requesting CheckUser to get to the bottom of this. — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2014 (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]
  • This report was filed the wrong way around, This lousy T-shirt - IPh95 should have been the master. Anyway,  Confirmed. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I blocked the IP for a week. Otherwise, the named puppet was taken care of by another administrator before I got here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
05 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack said the WP:DUCK. See User:OopsIP6. Check for any others. — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2014 (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, of course, and no sleepers are apparent.
  • This lousy T-shirt, please pay attention when you file a case, particularly since this one has already been moved to the correct master as noted in the headers above.  Clerk assistance requested: This will need to be moved to IPh95's case page. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
07 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack said the WP:DUCKs. See User:PizzaIP. It might be obvious, but it's better if we confirm these here for the record. Check naming similarities and editing behaviors, especially interactions with other socks. Requesting accounts to get tagged; also requesting a sleeper check. We really need to get rid of this guy. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:IPhonehurricane100 another sock? LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2014 (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]
09 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack said the WP:DUCK. Seriously, I am getting sick of this sockpuppetry. Ignore the fact that he used Google Translate to type a Spanish unblock request, its's obvious that he knows how to type in English, and his editing patterns give him away. Check his contributions and compare the page he edits with his most recent sock activity. Requesting blocking of IP Range if it turns out to be IPhonehurricane 95, for at least a month (if possible). LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His use of checkuser blocking templates (as shown here), and article blanking are awfully suspicious. It matches up too closely to the vandalism of his recent sockpuppets. Additionally, he edits Los Angeles, where he claims to live. Although the IP doesn't originate from that location, it's very possible that this guy is currently on vacation or something. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check this edit here. Too similar to another page blanking event. He also types in Chinese, which may of his other socks have been known to do (especially his June-July 2013 socks). There are also plenty of other examples that I could use to prove this IP's relation to the sockmaster. If this guy really is him, or the editing behaviors confirm his relation, please rangeblock this IP for at least a month (assuming that is even possible). If not, requesting a week-long block, to prevent further damage from this sockmaster. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. I just wish that we could do something about it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • The language is French, not Spanish. The grammar mistakes do make me think it's a really bad speaker of it, or perhaps individual word translation with Google Translate. No comment on its relation to the master.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • IP is already blocked, and since it is a mobile range, nothing else can be done. LightandDark2000, you have already been told multiple times that we cannot rangeblock the mobile networks he uses, so please stop asking for it. Anyway, from the behavior, it is probably him. Closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. See contributions, and similarity in editing behavior to the most recent socks. Requesting a week-long block to prevent further damage from this sockmaster. Also requesting tagging and indef block of the named accounts. Requesting a sleeper check as well, just in case. Nothing may turn up, but you never know your luck. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is there a more effective way to get rid of this guy? Now that he's nearly stopped making new registered accounts, he's resorting to IP socking, just like he did in early 2012, under the name of Typhoonwikihelper. An LTA Report would help, but unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with that kind of stuff. Recently, he's been targeting several select articles. A month-long Semi-Protection of those articles would help, although it probably wouldn't stop the vandalism unless something else is done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting indef block and tagging of all named accounts. Also requesting another sleeper check, as this is getting quite out of hand. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2014 (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]
  • Everyone is blocked. Closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. See contributions, and similarity in editing behavior to the most recent socks. The named account has some run-ins with the editing policy policy, as well as a couple of vandalism attempts that almost mirror some of IPhonehurricane95's socks' vandalistic edits from last year. Some of Xiadol's vandalism is very similar to the vandalism that we are seeing from the current socks, while the others involve tweaking the information in TC articles, as seen here and here. Otherwise, the account could be a "good hand" sock, as the rest of his edits are usually "helpful" yet subtle, and never include any editing summaries. Requesting the usual sleeper check. We need more people to help out on this. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Rangeblock Calculator, this particular Range is 66.87.64.0/18, in case anyone is curious. It seems that this range was blocked twice before, but this time, I highly suggest a 1-2 month block on this IP Range (with account creation disabled of course). LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:DoRD has explained a few times we can't rangeblock. You may want to just WP:DENY but literally almost everytime you ask can someone help out and there isn't anything. Event he LTA won't do much more other then document that the guy is disruptive. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This range has been blocked, and probably could be blocked if need be, but if it won't work, then it really sucks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2014 (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 IP is already blocked and the named account hasn't edited in five months. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. Found 2 sleepers. See their names, and compare to these 3 socks (Google Translate helps): 成田国際空港, 成田国際空港は大きいです, and 空港. Requesting indef blocking and tagging of both accounts. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2014 (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]
  • These accounts were discovered and indeffed an hour before you filed this report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Xtyphooncyclonex's first disruptive edit is ominously similar to the vandalism of many of IPhonehurricane95's 2013 socks. Username is also very similar to the naming scheme of some of his other socks. His editing pattern suggests a "good hand-bad hand" relationship towards the sockmaster's other accounts. The edits of this account indicate a strong interest in tropical cyclone-related articles, just like the other socks. This account was also made on September 19, 2013, not too long after the start of his August 2013–January 2014 Rangeblock, and he disappeared from the radar until this month. The edits of this account also suggests an unusual familiarity with Wikipedia, and all of the edits are mobile-based, similar to the sockmaster's sock names of often editing from an iPhone. (Ex: That iphonehurricane guy, An iPhone5 and a hurricane, etc.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a new sock for the record. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aabbccddeeffgghhiijjkkllmmnnoo was created only 2 minutes after User:Gbfhbfgvjsfajfsf (about 4 minutes before this account and the listed IP were blocked), and its username is comprised of nonsense characters, just like 2 other recent socks. Additionally, Xtyphooncyclonex has a nearly identical normal edit time, compared to the other recent socks. Requesting 1-2 month Rangeblock of 66.87.64.0/18, as all of his most recent socks have originated from this range, and because he's using different IPs in that range to put crap on User's pages and articles alike. This range is quite small and has been blocked before, so I recommend a longer reblock on this particular range. Abuse from this IP Range is likely to continue, but a Rangeblock should at least quiet things down. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2014 (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]
  • As I expected, Xtyphooncyclonex (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated. The two keyboard-pounding usernames are  Confirmed. No sleepers at the moment. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

We have a WP:DUCK, PizzaIP2. Another account's username is comprised of nonsense characters, which is awfully similar to the current trend in his socks. Also, PizzaIP2 and Iigf777777777y were created only a couple of minutes apart. The last account listed is a possible sleeper, as it within an hour of the other accounts. Also requesting another sleeper check. This is growing quite annoying. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPhonehurricane95 is continuing to use his IPs/accounts for vandalism only, and attacking other users. Requesting a 1-2 month Rangeblock of 66.87.64.0/18, since all of his March socks have originated from it, and since it is a rather small range. It seems to be the only way to bar him from editing at this point. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (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]
19 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack said the duck. Nonsense username, which matches the pattern of his most recent socks. Compare username to: Gbfhbfjgvgf, Gfbnbgsfgaj, Gvgfhfgivsf, and Gbfhbfgvjsfajfsf. Requesting that the IP Range 66.87.64.0/18 gets its account creation ability blocked (and quite possibly a rangeblock as well), because his edits are becoming extremely disruptive and irritating to multiple users/article readers. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also requesting a week-long block of the IP given, to prevent further abuse from that Address. Requesting a sleeper check (dating back to March 15) to search for any possible hidden/unused socks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide some examples of those other sockmasters? I know a couple of other sockpuppeteers that use similar naming schemes for their socks, but this account's time of creation, and the wording of its name is just too similar and close to that of his other recent socks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've checked the logs, it appears that IPhonehurricane95 is currently rangeblocked for 2 weeks (through 3 separate blocks), which explains the absence of his vandalistic edits during the past few days. Anyways, that should give us some relief, and hopefully won't be coming back, even after the blocks expire. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added one above, and blocked due to their admission of being a sock - only this time, they're threatening ES&L 15:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more socks that I found recently. He's been threatening/harassing Earth100 and several other users for a while now. Requesting rangeblocks on his IP Range(s) if they haven't been implemented yet. Is there a more lasting way to get rid of this guy? LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2014 (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 Declined. The named account has zero edits. I can't block someone based purely on jumbled letters. There are other socks who use jumbled letters for user names. The IP is probably a sock but hasn't edited in three days - not worth blocking. No sleeper check after a few days have elapsed since the last CU is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Admitted he was User:OopsIP2. Blocked for a month for block evasion.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (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]
03 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack said the ducks. Requesting a 1 month+ reblock on his IP Ranges as well as a sleeper check. Some people just never change. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you please rangeblock his underlying IP Ranges for a longer period? He definitely isn't going to give up anytime soon on disrupting Wikipedia, given his history of vandalism and socking. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we write a WP:LTA report for this sockmaster, given his history of abuse? (It has been proposed at least twice this year.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2014 (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]
  • Already nuked by me. Already informed Stewards/other projects. Elockid (Talk) 02:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Seems to be another sock, just like We HATE Elockid. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I'm not sure how these accounts and TRCG are related; can someone give me the connection? It just doesn't flag to TRCG's regular MO. Nate • (chatter) 01:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He/she is resorting to his/her usual tactic of using proxies and webhosts to try and edit TV pages. He/she is getting very upset because I'm enforcing the community ban placed upon him/her. Elockid (Talk) 02:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it now; the usual digital TV info and E/I info going missing, but I didn't know they were doing "AdminnameSucks" or "Adminname (profanity)" accounts now. Thanks for being on top of it; it seems they've moved away from pages I monitor often. Nate • (chatter) 03:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed some of the socks picking up behaviors of the other sock operators. For example, I recently made an assumption that TDFan2006 was FanforClarl/Unorginal based on significant behavioral evidence, but a CheckUser pointed to a different country. Based on the sudden burst of Cyphoidbomb Sucks accounts and jejune comments on my talk page, I'm now open to the idea that he might be TRCG instead. TRCG is a mystery to me, because had he just been a good mensch, his six month standard offer would have expired twice by now, I think. I'm also wondering if some of the fake Elockid accounts like Trelockidding, Augelockidding were incorrectly attributed to Unorginal, (by me) when they should have been attributed elsewhere. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got another one - [12]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk note: Based on the contributions and the fake user name, I believe this is a sock of User:IPhonehurricane95 (see User:DoRDalternate). I've indeffed and tagged (as confirmed, even without a CU). This will have to be merged, but I'll wait for any comments--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no doubt that's IPhonehurricane95. Elockid (Talk) 02:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Got another one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is the same user who did the exact same thing a week ago (User:DoRD (person)), who was blocked for the same reason as being a sockpuppet of IPH95. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2014 (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: Blocked by Elockid.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. Obvious ducks. He's continuing the pattern of creating accounts with purposely abusive names to harass other users. Requesting the usual sleeper check and a longer rangeblock of his underlying IP in order to prevent further abuse. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. I just hate seeing him harass others. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2014 (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]

Stewards and other CUs have already taken care of this batch. Elockid (Talk) 23:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. Obvious duck. See the naming similarity to the following socks: User:OopsIP, User:PizzaIP, User:PizzaIP2, User:YummyPizzaIP. and User:HamburgerIP. Requesting indef blocking of the listed account, as well as a sleeper check for any remaining unblocked accounts. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that he had recently returned to socking on Wikimedia Commons. He created User:IPhonehurricane93 there on April 18, which was just indef blocked by an admin today. We should warn admins at Commons and other projects in case IPhonehurricane95 tries to vandalize there as well. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2014 (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 Similar username to past socks, but no edits to establish behavioral match. CU can help verify, as well as track any other sleepers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that this account, along with a number of others, was globally locked by a Steward several days ago[13]. Feel free to block it, if you wish. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • User blocked and tagged for convenience: probably others like myself that didnt think to look at the global logs.—Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IPhonehurricane guy: I cannot be certain about this, and I may be doing this incorrectly, but I have very strong suspicion that this is a sockpuppet of IPhonehurricane95. The user hasn't made any edits, but I noticed several other accounts being created at the same time that look like possible sockpuppets of the same user. Dustin (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OopsIP23: Every other user using the name "OopsIP" followed by a number has been a sock puppet of iPhonehurricane. Dustin (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 3G and Chairman Mao: This username is very similar to the account names of several other sock puppets of iPhonehurricane95, which included either a mention of "Chairman Mao" or an iPhone. This account's creation coincides with the creation of multiple other accounts which look like sock puppets. Dustin (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

@DoRD: Okay, I will take that piece of advice to mind; I did not see an option in Twinkle allowing multiple sock puppets to be identified as suspected at once, so I did not attempt to do so. I guess I will have to find out. That is all. Dustin (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Are these three accounts now officially "sockpuppets of IPhonehurricane95?" Sorry if I am taking your time in asking, but I just want to know whether or not there is anything left after this; I haven't participated in sockpuppet investigations prior to this so... Dustin (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I asked so I could find out whether or not I could tag the pages with {{sockpuppet}}. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • @Dustin V. S.: Please combine reports from the same day into one case as I have done above - Twinkle allows for the reporting of multiple accounts at once. Thanks.
  • Yes, these are him. Blocked along with several others. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are  Confirmed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Possible "good-hand" IP sock of User:IPhonehurricane95. The IP can be traced back to Los Angeles, where IPhonehurricane95 claims to live, and the contributions of this IP indicates that the articles he edits are nearly identical in terms of topic to the articles that this sockmaster used to edit. Also, he edits articles about highways in California (which IpH95 was known to do), and he also he edited a Japan-related article (Japan National Route 1), and this user is known to have a very deep hatred towards the Japanese. The IP is less than a year old, so it is highly unlikely that anyone used this IP other than its current operator; his familiarity with Wikipedia after only 7 months (and less than 50 edits) is also very suspicious. With the fact that the contributions experienced a notable burst in activity after IpH95's latest rangeblocks (on May 23), it is very likely that IPhonehurricane95 is using this IP to evade his block. Although no vandalism is apparent from any of this IP's edits, it may very well be a good-hand sock. If this IP turns out to be innocent, I believe that it is still better to be safe than sorry, and as such, I am requesting a Checkuser to investigate this matter. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing time is also awfully similar to IPhonehurricane95's. There are also gaps between this IP's edits and those of IpH95's sockpuppets, especially during periods in which he was rangeblocked. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: User:Mr Wiki Pro and Chairman Mao and User:Hvghhfhvhvgvh should both be tagged as socks of User:Mr Wiki Pro, to help avoid confusion between him and IPhonehurricane95's socks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2014 (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 declined - CU cannot be used to publicly connect accounts and IPs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm pretty confident that this isn't IPh95. This editor has been active in this subject area since last October, and has been editing at roughly the same time that IPh95 has been active, and this IP has never turned up in any of my checks. LightandDark2000, you're grasping at straws here, and I caution you to only make reports here if you have evidence to show abuse. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Every single user I have yet seen with the name prefix of "OopsIP" has been one of his sock puppets. I know that this wouldn't be one of the standard reasons, but I think it is at least reasonably likely. Dustin (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding second account above Merged here by Callanecc

I forgot to do this earlier by mistake, so I am doing it now. The user's behavior was very similar to the behavior of IPhonehurricane95's sock puppets, and while this user has recently been blocked indefinitely, it is still necessary that the user be confirmed as a sock puppet so it's user page may be properly categorized. If you consider reports such as these to be of too little importance, say so and I will no longer make such reports. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Just look for users named "OopsIPXX". I cannot find even one non-vandal/sleeper and non-Checkuser instance whereas the user was not determined to be IPhonehurricane95. Dustin (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • @Dustin: It's not necessary to report them so the tag gets changed unless you want a sleeper check to be carried out. Could you please provide some diffs or further explanation as to why you believe they are related. There isn't enough evidence here at the moment to warrant CU. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU results are  Inconclusive, at best. This could be IPh95 away from home, or it could be someone else. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
03 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same patterns, and still using Japanese for vandalism. Dustin (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2014 (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]
  • This has already been dealt with. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Username is the same up to spacing and capitalization, and only edit is vandalism. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 18 September 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]

29 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

There are two things here that I need a CheckUser for, so I decided to condense all of this into one report. The named accounts, though blocked (and stale), represent a possible case of impersonation of another sockmaster (User:UnderArmourKid), and the IP is a recently active vandal. First of all, all of the 5 named accounts above are bahavioral ducks, based on their editing patterns and the articles targeted. Over here, at UnderArmourKid's SPI, all five accounts were  Confirmed to each other by a CheckUser, but they were never actually linked to any UnderArmourKid accounts, due to the UAK accounts all being stale at the time of the check. However, HeadrushGD claimed to be an IPhonehurricane95 sock here, and the timing of the account activity of HeadrushGD and IPhonehurricane95 in late 2016 leads me to believe that all 5 named accounts are actually socks of IPhonehurricane95, not UnderArmourKid, as the sock tags seem to have mislabeled. As previously discussed here, IPhonehurricane95 and UnderArmourKid are different sockmasters, but UAK's behavior and similarity to IPh95's vandalism in 2014 and 2016 indicate that he is possibly an independent meatpuppet, who admires IPh95. That notwithstanding, the naming pattern and some of the edits of the 5 accounts above appear to be a possible attempt at impersonation. If it helps, IPhonehurricane95 appears to be stationed in the United States or China (in the Summer, and sometimes, in the Winter), while the operator of the UnderArmourKid sock family seems to edit from Chile. A CheckUser should run through the CU logs of both IPhonehurricane95 and UnderArmourKid, in order to determine who actually operated those socks, since it appears to be a case of impersonation either way.

Secondly, the IP has recently vandalized the Hurricane Jose (2017) article recently. IPhonehurricane95 was known for targeting Tropical cyclone articles in the past, and the edit summary of the IP is nearly identical to so many of IPh95's abusive edit summaries previously observed. The vandal IP's edit summary is also very similar to the edit summary of IPh95's last known IP sock, back in March 2017. Also, the IP's behavior and edit summary makes it seem that the IP was attempting to attack someone, and that the editor may have been actively vandalizing elsewhere as well, which is why I would like a CU run to see if there is any possible links between this IP and any of IPhonehurricane95's past accounts or mobile ranges. The IP is similar to some of the mobile IP ranges he has been known to use in the past, and the IP provider is the same as that of a good portion of his mobile IPs, namely Verizon Wireless. The apparent geolocation of the mobile IP also references 2 recent IPhonehurricane95 socks, User:Miamiguy100, and User:Hawaii to Florida. Can a CheckUser please run through the CU logs above, and also run a sleeper check on the IP? It would be nice to know whether or not this IP was a lone case of vandalism, or if there is a more serious abuse behind it. A CU should also check the recent IP ranges of IPh95 and UAK, just to make sure that there aren't any sleepers lying around. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, IPhonehurricane95 was a much worse vandal than UnderArmourKid ever was. If you ask a number of editors at WikiProject Tropical cyclones, I'm sure that the more experienced editors would agree with me on this one. IPh95's edits displayed much more mastery and were more personally targeted against a number of other users, while UnderArmourKid's vandalism so far failed exceeded a cheap imitation of the vandalism and the 9/11 imagery attacks we've observed from IPh95 socks in 2014 and 2016, not to mention being much more amateurish. It is a relief that IPh95 has not returned to vandalize Wikipedia for a while (as far as we know), but that still doesn't change the fact that his vandalism was much more severe. While UAK has been the more active sockmaster more recently (and more prolific), and also appears to be more obsessed with 9/11 and Under Armour related vandalism than IPh95 ever was, I still believe that should IPh95 return to vandalize, he would still be much more troublesome than UAK. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:17, 29 October 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]

  • CU won't publicly connect IP's to named accounts. Closing this case.

I know impersonation can cause a lot of confusion, but it's actually not uncommon among sockmasters. Let's not worry about who's who; to be honest, I don't think it really matters. I don't know if these more recent UAK socks are actually IPH95, but what I do know is that UAK is a block-evading vandal. When you see an UnderArmourKid sock, I recommend reporting to WP:AIV with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/UnderArmourKid as the reason, since SPI is so much slower. Sro23 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edits are either vandalism or disruptive in nature. The technical data of the IPs listed (as far as I can tell from IP lookup websites linked) match the service providers of some of the mobile IP ranges previously abused by IPhonehurricane95. The vandalism from the 2nd IP came only days after the the last act of vandalism from the 1st IP. They are also on the same IP range: 2600:1013:b000::/44, and both IPs geolocate to Hawaii, which IPhonehurricane95 has previously mentioned and expressed interest in moving to one day, via one of his socks (Miamiguy100). The vandalism also matches some of those previously observed from IPhonehurricane95, especially this personal attack (similar to his previous attacks calling people n*gg*rs), and plunking in random disruptive crap like this edit. All articles vandalized are tropical cyclone articles, which fits this user's editing interests and patterns. The IPs are probably operated by the same person, given the technical data and the range they're based on. Requesting a CheckUser, because at this point, it's difficult to tell whether or not this is an unrelated vandal or truly IPh95. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:29, 7 November 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]

  •  Clerk declined CU won't publicly connect IP's to named accounts. Sro23 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both IP's now inactive. Closing case. Sro23 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Both brand new accounts that seem to be obvious socks of IPhonehurricane95. Accounts were editing articles such as Hurricane Patricia, Typhoon Tip, and 1979 Pacific typhoon season and the edits were quickly reverted by other users. United States Man (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2023 (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/IPhonehurricane95/Archive&oldid=1159704865"