Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante8/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dante8

Dante8 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
22 August 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Schrandit
[edit]

So I am normally fairly conservative about these things. From the edit history these first four are all pretty clearly the same person, Dante appears/appeared to be a newish user so I thought it possible that they were editing from multiple locations and just forgot to sign on so I took it to ANI for an explanation. After a few days no explanation from the user was forthcoming, a few more ips popped up and some of the editors who commented at ANI thought that Dante and her IPs bore a uncanny similarity to the banned user SkagitRiverQueen (here SPI here) and suggested I filed a SPI over the matter. These users have made contested edits to controversial pages at the same time. I think CU is necessary to see if this is SRQ trying to evade a ban and if there are any other socks floating around. - Schrandit (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
  • Comment - While the characteristic condescending "tone" of SRQ is absent, the topics being edited (plus the socking) have me more than slightly concerned. There's certainly nothing wrong with being a self-proclaimed lesbian ordained minister who edits articles related to Judaism (and has sockpuppets) - but I've only met one on WP so far. I think a CU could hopefully prove whether or not this is SRQ; but behavior is everything when a banned editor is both determined to sock and determined to alter his/her chances of getting caught (she's gotten a few "tips" on how to do it). I will add any evidence as I find it. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, 72.78.224.46 is "related"[1] to Dante8, and has picked up where Dante left off. Even though the IP reverts Dante8[2] here[3]: this is merely "copy-editing", as demonstrated when the IP "expands and adjusts" Dante's work[4][5]. Here's the IP reintroducing[6] an image that was put in by Dante8[7]. No response from any of the accused, of course. The last two IPs listed don't seem related in this case, and should be excluded here. This one should be fun to watch... :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Clerk note: I am leaning towards a decline on this CU per privacy policy and 24.189.97.251 has already been blocked once for circumventing a block. Also while running the wikistalk check here and looking at the contribs, I see some small time overlaps, and only a few of the articles hit most of those IPs. Plus with the IPs in the list is a (what looks to be) a solid internet line, not just these mobile phone ranges. I would like another clerk to comment though before I do anything. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Additional information needed - Can someone substantiate the alleged Dante8-SRQ connection with diffs? Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Hey, Tim! This is certainly no quacking duck, and while a clear link to SRQ can't be established without CU at this time: there does appear to be a solid behavioral connection between Dante8 and 1-3 of the IPs. This report shouldn't be hinged or judged on SRQ involvement alone, but rather on whether Dante8 is socking. As far as SRQ's recent possible activity goes... I'm still working on it, and may want to e-mail you if "privacy policy" is a concern here. User:Sabra2 and User:UrbanCowboy12 (interestingly, both with numbers after their names, much like Dante8) were proven to be the same user, despite using a gazillion IP socks in the interim. If Dante8 is not conceivably shown to be related to these two through CU - SRQ involvement in this case is most likely "inconclusive" (or at least "stymied"). I'm not 100% convinced that this is SRQ, but I am extremely suspicious that it actually could be. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me elaborate a bit: I can't endorse a checkuser to look between Dante8 and the IPs, per the privacy policy; CUs do not link accounts to IPs except in cases of egregious abuse. So the only way I'll endorse a CU is if there's a well-founded suspicion (not necessarily DUCK but definitely more than a hunch) that Dante8 == SRQ, and for that I need to see some diffs that support such a suspicion. Timotheus Canens (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • By "these two", I meant a relation between the two "named" SRQ socks and Dante8 - but I understand that this case is about Dante8 and the reported IPs here. I probably wouldn't have filed this under the CU request, myself. No diffs I can find so far would go beyond a hunch, though this is a Harvard grad Quasimodo compared to a mere "feeling". SRQ is only caught when she messes up, and she has learned not to get caught better after each time. If she's learned to stay away from articles she's previously edited, but still "rewrites" large portions of articles she is known to be interested in... (sigh). You know best what to do here, Tim. Cheers, and thank you :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So first flag was that these folks have all edited the same (very low volume) articles in the same period of time.
  • The next was that they all edited from the same POV.
  • They use the same poor citation style, mostly hitting up google books and leaving bare URLs at the end of sentences Dante, ip
  • Usually don't leave edit summary's but when they do they use the same grammar and syntax Dante, ip 1, ip 2
  • Most damningly - one hand undoes the reversion of the other hand's edits
I hope this is sufficient, if not I can probably dig up some more. - Schrandit (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this will make a difference or not but the Dante 8 contributions surprised me because the account is set up on July 2010 with 187 edits but during this short time it's started 9 articles and has put in multiple images. This is not something someone new can do when they first start editing this project. Images alone are difficult to do never mind setting up an article properly. The articles set up look a lot like the ones that SRQ set up prior to her banning. I just thought this might be of interest if missed. It sure took me by surprise, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but from where I'm standing this is enough to call it a Duck. Thoughts? - Schrandit (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to SRQ, I'm not sure yet (and I am the expert). User:ILuvAMRadio was a classic SRQ duck recently detected: Dante8 is slightly more... sophisticated. That doesn't mean it can't be her, but it's not conclusive right now. CU for this report was declined because of the IPs, and the SRQ SPI will be expanded in time. I still think Dante8 is socking, and the report should focus on that alone (& the last two IPs removed, again). Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about SRQ to know if it is her but I know enough about socks to know that this is one and should be stopped before it causes any more damage. - Schrandit (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And, "ignoring" sock accusations entirely[8] is never a good sign... Doc9871 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what are we going to do about this sock? - Schrandit (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

04 January 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


IP 173.49.71.114 has been contributing to Wiki since 24 November 2015 specifically contributing to the genre of women. User:JaneSwifty has been contributing to Wiki since 1 January 2016 and has a user page that has a statement of "My interest in editing Wikipedia is in creating articles about notable women." On 3 January 2016, User:JaneSwifty created the article Constance Forsyth, to which User:Hermera34 placed a {{notability}} template. On three separate occasions, the IP 173.49.71.114 has removed this template without discussions in the talk page or by communicating with the originator of the template, User:Hermera34. Each time, User:Hermera34 placed a warning on User talk:173.49.71.114 regarding removal of these maintenance templates, including the {{uw-tdel4}} final warning. Furthermore, this was the second instance that this IP site removed maintenance templates, specifically the {{copyvio}} template on 3 December 2015 and warned by User:CAPTAIN RAJU for the Vicki Garvin article. Based upon this, it appears that this IP address recently created a user to create articles, logging out to indicate that someone other than the user found an article notable and removes maintenance tags while logged out, logging back it to make further edits. Hermera34 (talk) 14:02, 4 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]

29 June 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I have a history with Dante8, and I didn't notice that JaneSwifty is Dante8 until very recently because it has been years since I interacted with/tried interacting with Dante8, and because JaneSwifty mainly stayed away from the articles I watch or edit (like the Bisexuality article). And when I did see JaneSwifty at an article like Caitlyn Jenner, I didn't think anything of it because it was minor, small or something else that didn't send up red flags. I also don't pay attention to articles like Caitlyn Jenner as much as I pay attention to other types of articles (like the Bisexuality article). But, recently, after I had to revert JaneSwifty for a second time at the Lesbian article, everything clicked for me since I never forget editing patterns, which are like the personalities of editors here.

The Dante8 and JaneSwifty accounts both love "history of" and "timeline" articles when it comes to LGBT topics. One article they both love is the History of bisexuality article. In fact, Dante created that article. Dante would often edit that article as IP 173.49.70.205, and with other IPs. Dante8 hardly ever wrote content. Instead, Dante8 usually copied and pasted content from other articles. You can see here and here that Dante copied the content from elsewhere. Dante wrote none of it. Take this edit, for example, where the "2000" addition has a "2013-10-14" date, and yet Dante is adding the content on March 15, 2014. This type of thing is easily seen with just about all other content Dante8 added to the article. JaneSwifty recently made this small edit to that article, but JaneSwifty is also editing as this IP -- IP 71.224.248.90. The IP quite clearly states, "Attribution: content on Freud and Jung was copied from gender identity on June 8, 2018. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." You can see the same exact "attribution" style with JaneSwifty's edits, such as this one, where JaneSwifty states, "Attribution: content on Danica Roem was copied from that page on June 27, 2018. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." JaneSwifty is also editing with IP 98.115.186.210. Now why is JaneSwifty stating attribution stuff in the edit summary? We will get to that in a moment.

Dante was warned about editing while logged out in problematic ways or in ways that might be problematic, and about copyright violations, multiple times. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

JaneSwifty was warned about editing while logged out in problematic ways or in ways that might be problematic, and was warned about copyright violations multiple times. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. After the warnings about copying within Wikipedia, JaneSwifty then started the "Attribution: content on [so and so] was copied from" edit summaries.

Like Dante8, JaneSwifty hardly ever writes content. JaneSwifty's content is usually copied from other Wikipedia articles, as seen, for example, here, here, here, and here.

Dante8 often added bare URLs, which editors complained about, as seen here, here, here and here. JaneSwifty uses bare URLs as well, as seen here. The difference is that, just like with the copying within Wikipedia matter Dante8 finally learned to follow as JaneSwifty, Dante8 also learned to fix the reference issue as JaneSwifty. Seen here and here, for example, JaneSwifty now uses the WP:REFLINKS tool to fill in references. So does IP 98.115.186.210, which, as noted above, is an IP JaneSwifty is using. The IP edits alongside the JaneSwifty account and uses the same attribution edit summary.

Dante8 (usually) did not communicate, and was blocked both for copyright violations and a lack of communication. If Dante8 did communicate, it was almost always via edit summaries. JaneSwifty barely communicates, except for rare instances like this one after the socking matter. If JaneSwifty does communicate, it is almost always via edit summaries.

Edit summary style

Now since the Dante 8 and JaneSwifty accounts (usually) do not communicate (and their main communication comes in the form of occasional edit summaries), I don't have much to compare in the way of communication style. But when they do talk, they like to use words like "Ok"; for example, this and this by Dante8 compared to this by JaneSwifty. And with this and this, you can see that they have a lack of punctuation when they comment via the edit summary, and justify edits with "so I'll do this" type of reasoning. Another example of "so" reasoning is here. They also use "added info" or some other use of "info." Compare Dante8 here and here to JaneSwifty here and here. As seen here, here, here, here, here and here, Dante8 often used semi-colons in his edit summaries if he did talk at all. As seen, here, here, here and here, so does JaneSwifty.

Interest in creating "history of" and "timeline of" articles for women and LGBT topics. See here for the number of articles Dante8 created in this regard. Examples include Timeline of women in science in the United States, Timeline of women's sports, Timeline of women in warfare and the military in the United States, 2000–2010, History of gay men in the United States and History of transgender people in the United States. Likewise, JaneSwifty has created Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting), History of women's magazines, Timeline of women in religion, Timeline of women in library science in the United States, Timeline of LGBT Jewish history, Timeline of asexual history, Timeline of pansexual history and so on. It appears that Dante8 also created the Timeline of feminism article (as seen in this link); it was deleted and later recreated, and JaneSwifty has unsurprisingly taken an interest in editing it as well.

Both are also interested in Jewish and Islamic topics. Compare, for example, Dante8 here, here, here, here and here to edits by JaneSwifty here here, here, here and here.

Editor Interaction Analyser: Compare the huge article interest overlap.

I confronted JaneSwifty with the fact that she (?) used to edit as Dante8. She didn't respond. No denial. No anything. She just continued keeping on, as expected.

There are more similarities I could have noted, but I decided to mainly focus on the big ones, and I decided against looking through more and more of the accounts' edit histories when they hardly talk, especially on the talk page. I also thought about looking at the times that both accounts have edited Wikipedia, but, again, I didn't want to spend more time on the matter; I feel that the above is sufficient behavioral evidence. I requested CheckUser because even though it's stale, it can likely confirm that both accounts have edited from the same area. It might also be that JaneSwifty is using another registered account. Someone might also want to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JaneSwifty with this case once it's all over.

Pinging Binksternet, Doug Weller, MER-C and Sphilbrick, who have dealt with this person in one of their forms and might want to look over the evidence and weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Editor Interaction Analyzer shows both accounts using the exact same edit summaries at the exact same articles. (For instance, see this timeline.) If this is a coincidence, it's one in a billion. The overlap of articles both have edited is also extremely unlikely to be a coincidence; among the many on the list are some dealing with rather esoteric topics. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

CU declined. Not only is the case  Stale, as the filer acknowledges, but there is no CU log for Dante8 as the user was never checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced and have JaneSwifty.  Blocked and tagged Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JaneSwifty/Archive exists and needs to be merged. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Doug Weller talk 16:06, 31 August 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]

CU confirmed with JaneSwifty.  Blocked and tagged Doug Weller talk 16:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01 February 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


CU is stale. But the editor engages in the same behavior I outlined before, now seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante8/Archive#29 June 2018. More copyright issues, as seen by this warning. After repeated warnings about copying within Wikipedia, still adds "attribution" edit summaries when copying content; currently shortened to "copied from [so and so]"; see, for example, here and here. Hardly ever writes content. Content is usually copied from other Wikipedia articles; see, for example, here and here. Uses WP:REFLINKS tool to fill in references; see, for example, here and here. Usually does not communicate, even when being confronted as a sock. Interested in creating or adding to "history of" and "timeline of" articles for women, bisexuality and/or LGBT topics, and has a focus on women and LGBT topics in general; see, for example, here, here, here, here and here.

Looking for a WP:Duck block. Just like last time, pinging Binksternet, Doug Weller, MER-C and Sphilbrick. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Copying within Wikipedia articles is fine as long as attribution is given. I do hope there is other evidence as the "copied from" is not copyright infringement. If this was the case then we have millions of examples of Wikipedia content being used in the real world by reputable source who just say "from Wikipedia" Victuallers (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Oh and what brought me here? I found out that my addition of a photograph to a Wikipedia article was being deleted because its use was in article by Dante8. Victuallers (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

I'm going to wait a few more hours for comments and failing anything that suggests otherwise will block as WP:DUCK. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked and tagged It's also pretty telling that they stopped editing when challenged. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14 October 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account recreating G5'd article Dina (film), also per the norm for this master the account uploaded a clear copyvio at File:JudyTallwingMcCarthey.jpg. Editing history either shows a very quick learner or someone that has been here for a while. Kb03 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Clerk note: Comparing the current version of Dina (film) to the deleted December 2017 version, there are a suspicious number of similarities between the two (as if they were written from the same outline or paraphrased from each other). I believe this is enough to connect BeadleSneadle to Dante8.  Blocked and tagged, but enough other editors have touched the article that I am not comfortable applying G5. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same behavior and interests, as described here in the archives. Has issues with copyright (see user talk page), as does Dante8, and uses a tool to fill in references [9] as does Dante8. Geolocates to Philadelphia (I always use "alternate" as I find it to be more accurate), as does this IP which was CU blocked [10] and which added the same material as them [11][12] (note how e.g. the Canada material is identical). Other IPs mentioned in the archives as them and that also geolocate to the Philadelphia area are these: [13][14][15] Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Based on behavioural evidence, I agree this looks exactly like Dante8. IP blocked, closing. GirthSummit (blether) 14:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

BandofSisters is  Likely  Confirmed to CobblersChildren (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who is already blocked as a confirmed sock of SesameStreetCred. They are also doing a good bit of IP socking while logged out.  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

31 December 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same habit of hitting the ground running and copying between articles with no justification besides some version of "copied from [article] today". Same interests in BDSM. See these two nearly identical diffs [16][17] (both in content and edit summary). If you need more evidence to run CU just ask. Crossroads -talk- 04:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the Dante8 sock case is the same person. Unless I misremembered how long the CU data lasts, this account from that case should be recent enough to check if they are the same. Here is some evidence justifying that check: This new account [18] and known SesameStreetCred socks [19][20] use a tool and separate edit summary to fill in reference templates, as do Dante8 socks. [21][22][23] Both sets of accounts have overlapping interests in sexuality and gender and never use edit summaries except for the Reflink/reFill and "copied from [article] today" ones (see contribs and archives of both). Both sets engage in a great deal of WP:LOUTSOCKing (see archives of both). Let me know if more info is needed. Crossroads -talk- 05:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I just found another account in another case that I believe to be the same person. This account edited in October. It won't be stale will it? Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads - Nope, October should be fine. Go ahead and list it in this SPI and I'll take a look. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: It's this one. My reasoning that the two case files are one person is presented in my 2nd paragraph, above. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads - Sure, no problem. See my results below. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah - can you block JanusChick? Whether or not the clerk merges the cases they are a Dante8 sock. I want to roll them back. Crossroads -talk- 23:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah - why isn't JanusChick blocked? They are confirmed as a block evading sockpuppet, on top of the behavioral evidence I gave. Crossroads -talk- 06:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads - I've just now blocked the account. Sorry for the delay! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 06:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller - what do you think of my behavioral evidence that SesameStreetCred and Dante8 were always the same person all along? Crossroads -talk- 19:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that happen before at SPI... It's definitely plausible... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Doug Weller - Did this occur after I ran the check? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: before. Doug Weller talk 21:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller - I believe that I did see that, but I didn't go any further. Why? What's going on? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: I was just wondering if this shouldn't be filed as a Dante8 case. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads: damn, I knew there was something else I had to do today. I can't spend time now but will tomorrow, I just need to look at it again to confirm my first impressions which is that they are. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller - We might need to examine that possibility... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah:, not only am I convinced that these are all Dante8, both from similarity in edits and geolocation, but the socking is still continuing. I don't have time but I can see GlorfindelFrodo, Okboomerboomerok, PrincessPairing, MickeySacramento on the 3rd of January and one of the IPs continuing to try to login to Janus Chick. I'll add them to the case but I hope you can follow up. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New acct created articles that were G5'd such as Mary Jean Collins, in addition, the account is using refill which has been seen in previous socks.  Looks like a duck to me Kb03 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Kb03, want to change it to request CheckUser? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SesameStreetCred is seemingly confirmed as being the same user (they just haven't merged the cases yet) and contains accounts new enough to check. Crossroads -talk- 06:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This already looks like Dante8 in my opinion, as well. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah any comment pertaining to Crossroads' concern? Kb03 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kb03, I discussed this at the other case file. I think we just have to wait for the clerks to block the remaining accounts at both and merge the cases. Crossroads -talk- 07:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Kb03 - I haven't checked. If there's concerns that this is related to another master, let's create an SPI report and I can take a look... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16 January 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Restoring exact same material as the last sock. [24][25] Crossroads -talk- 04:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 March 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP socking again; same habits of no edit summaries except "copied from [x] today" and same interests. The smoking gun is the block log indicating a previous 3 month block for block evasion from the 20 December 2020 report from the archives. Crossroads -talk- 05:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Girth Summit, the admin from last time. Crossroads -talk- 05:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just added 173.15.179.229; this IP is editing mostly the same pages (e.g. [26][27][28]), has the same edit summary habit, and geolocates to the same area, Greater Philadelphia. Crossroads -talk-

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]

31 October 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I have gone over the editing history at Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting). I am very disturbed by this but it appears the same user has been editing this page for over 4 years mostly without detection, they now use an IP address. They have been blocked on several IPs but an account they have used was not blocked which I listed above is MauveCricket. They were blocked on the account DoesWhateverASpiderCant.

The same thing is happening at Timeline of reproductive rights legislation, Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) in the 20th century and many other articles related to feminism or women's rights. This user has now abandoned accounts and is using an IP address. I am not sure if we are supposed to link IP addresses here but if you check the main edits on the articles I list above you can see what IP they are using which traces to the same area as all the other IPs cited on the SPI archive.

If you check the history of Women in the United States Air Force the same long-term block evasion is appearing, as at Timeline of reproductive rights legislation. This IP was blocked [29] for block evasion. It is all the same user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history of Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) in the 19th century, the exact same thing is happening with the accounts and IPs. I just went through the history of Timeline of reproductive rights legislation. This user has used about 10 IPs and many accounts. The worst I have seen so far is Timeline of women in warfare and the military in the United States from 2011–present, the article has been edited by Dante8 on at least 20 IPs addresses going back to 2016 at the minimum starting on their blocked account JaneSwifty. As of October 24 they were still editing this article on an IP. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles where this long-term abuse (at least 3-4 years of block evasion is happening) Timeline of disability rights outside the United States, Feminism in the United Kingdom, Women in the United States Army, Women in the United States Marine Corps, Women in the United States Navy, Women in warfare and the military (2000–present). Also see List of LGBT firsts by year and Timeline of LGBT history, 21st century (which is being edited recently by this user). This is the worst case of long-term block-evasion I have ever seen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Prescience may have been an account created by Dante8. The reason I say this is because of the editing interests and creation of the article Women in the United States Army which has been edited by Dante8 on 3 blocked accounts and about 12 IP addresses. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2022 (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]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please block 72.94.88.14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for 6 months (anon-only, account creation blocked). The IP geolocates to the same place as previously blocked IP socks (e.g. [30]) and is a clear match based on behaviour. They have been editing (very prolifically) on that IP since July. I am also requesting that MauveCricket be indefinitely blocked as a suspected sock. I don't normally request to block stale accounts but I am doing so in this case because the sockmaster has been active for a long period and has a history of copyright issues, including an open CCI - a sock block would be helpful in ensuring the CCI is updated and that any copyright violations are dealt with. It is pretty easy to identify these socks based on the article overlap, extensive WP:CWW editing and use of ReFill. I am not convinced that the other two unblocked accounts are related, and they have been inactive for many years anyway. The other IP is too old for a block. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07 February 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As explained in the previous SPI report. Dante8 has been editing Timeline of disability rights in the United States, Timeline of transgender history, List of LGBT firsts by year, Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting) on many accounts and hundreds of IPs going back years. I have never seen anything quite like this on Wikipedia. WizardWonderWeaver is their newest account. When they are blocked they come back to edit the same articles usually on IPs first (they often use the 2600:1002 range). I am surprised the articles are not being protected (maybe this should be the next step).

If you check some of these articles they were previously reverted for block evasion by an admin EvergreenFir in December 2022. Dante8 was previously using this IP [31] in December but has since been using many others. They were using this IP before that one [32]. It is all the same person editing the same articles time and time again with the same editing behaviour. It is almost impossible to keep up with how many IPS they have had. I have traced their socking back to more than a decade. It is always these same articles being edited, i.e. content related to feminism and lists about transgender history or women's rights.

An example of this is also happening at the Timeline of disability rights outside the United States, Timeline of women in warfare and the military in the United States from 2011–present, Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) (I left a comment on the talk-page on that one). It is all the same user. This is long term abuse. WizardWonderWeaver is their latest account but they use many IPs as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give one more disturbing example about how serious this block evasion is. If you check Timeline of women in warfare and the military in the United States from 2011–present. Dante8 has been editing that article every year since 2015. In total I counted over 40 IP addresses they have been using and 5 or 6 blocked accounts. One of their earlier accounts was JaneSwifty [33]. Based on Timeline of disability rights in the United States I have traced this user back to 2012. In total they must have used over 60 IP addresses just on that single article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:42, 7 February 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]

03 April 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Two more Dante8 alts have likely been found. This time, again, relating to LGBT topics/timelines. Like other Dante8 alts, such as WizardWonderWeaver, Sotavino and Kennardleone focus extensively on articles surrounding LGBT topics/timelines. (Kennardleone, here; Sotavino, here.) Both Sotavino and Kennardleone are also heavily fascinated with indigenous societies (Sotavino, here; Kennardleone, here.) Both editors also routinely edit around the same time as previous Dante8 alternative accounts and with each other. (See here and here. Compare to here. Almost always around 7:00 UTC.)

Additionally, Sotovino also made an edit on the same-sex marriage page (12:24, 8 February 2023 UTC) inserting this statement: Some social activists worry that same-sex marriage will make the "gay lifestyle" more attractive to young people. I've noticed since late 2022 that near-verbatim wording has occurred in other LGBT-related articles.

I'm requesting a checkuser — as like other accounts by Dante8, these are almost certainly throwaways — and believe that we're at the point where a WP:LONGTERM section is justified.

Per @Psychologist Guy:: As explained in the previous SPI report. Dante8 has been editing Timeline of disability rights in the United States, Timeline of transgender history, List of LGBT firsts by year, Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting) on many accounts and hundreds of IPs going back years. I have never seen anything quite like this on Wikipedia. WizardWonderWeaver is their newest account. When they are blocked they come back to edit the same articles usually on IPs first (they often use the 2600:1002 range). I am surprised the articles are not being protected (maybe this should be the next step). Unfortunately, I'm also now suggesting that some of the articles routinely edited by him should go to WP:ECP. I've never seen a case this bad; this is utterly out of control.

There's almost certainly more alternative accounts of Dante8 than legitmate users on many of these articles. KlayCax (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I agree, these accounts are definitely Dante8, you can see that Sotavino takes over [36] from their blocked account ‎WizardWonderWeaver a day after it had been blocked. This user's behaviour is to sometimes create throwaway accounts then make between 20-50 edits and then open a new account and do the same over and over. Other than that, they use many IPs. I have traced this users sock-puppeting back to 2012 but it probably pre-dates that.

This users favourite targets Timeline of disability rights in the United States, Timeline of transgender history, Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting), Timeline of women in warfare and the military in the United States from 2011–present etc have now all been protected so Dante8 is targeting other pages.

Dante8 was previously blocked using the 2600 range [37]. One page that was not locked List of LGBT firsts by year I suspect that they still edit on IPs. This is likely to be Dante8 yesterday using a different range [38].

It seems Dante8 is not only doing sock-puppetry they have also added lots of copyvio onto articles [39]. The user has caused serious disruption to the project for over a decade. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, these also appear to be alternative accounts of Dante8. (I'd restate the evidence they're Dante8. But there's no need to and it would just be a big waste of time for everyone.)
Additionally, I've noticed that Cucthanh — a suspected sockpuppet of MiG29VN — appears to have the same exact behavior and interests that Dante8 does. (And posts right after his confirmed/suspected alternative accounts.) Which makes me think that MiG29VN and Dante8 are the same sockpuppet. I'll note that a new habit of the user seems to be linking the notion of LGBT issues to "grooming" or "promoting" homosexuality. (In reference to the original post.) References to "grooming" or "promoting homosexuality" now appear in several LGBT articles.
It's overwhelmingly likely (90%+) that many LGBT-related articles are being edited exclusively by Dante8 alts. @Psychologist Guy: KlayCax (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good find. I would agree that some of those accounts are Dante8. In an old SPI I also listed old accounts used by Dante8 but as the admin noted it would be a waste of time to block them or go through them all because they are just throwaway accounts and the IP data is likely stale. I have just managed to find a Dante8's recent account [40] active 5 days ago and their latest IP editing today [41]. There is no doubt this is Dante8 because the IP traces to the others they were using in the area of Pennsylvania. Their latest targets are International Women's Day, Women's boxing (amongst many others). It is the same editing interests and no doubt the same user.
If you look at Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame which they edited recently on 100.11.62.250, they have been editing that article for years on many IPs for example [42] (on this IP in 2019), [43] (on this IP in 2016), 71.175.26.106 (on this IP in 2014) which all trace to Pennsylvania, that is excluding about 10 other IPs they were using and that is only one article. I agree that they have written most of these articles on dozens of accounts and IPs. I have not seen a case of long-term abuse as bad as this before. I think the only thing to do is to protect some of the main articles they have edited, an admin has already done that. It might be worth doing the same to Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame and International Women's Day. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoseForEmilyGrierson is obvious Dante8 block evasion if you just look at Timeline of women in religion in the United States [44]. The article has been edited by Dante8 on at least 4 blocked accounts and many IPs since they created it in 2014. They have also heavily edited Women in dentistry. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women's boxing is another issue. Nearly all of the accounts and IP/s that have edited that article going back years are all Dante8. On International Women's Day [45], LMivak has added copvio and is making exactly the same edit summaries as 100.11.62.250 and RoseForEmilyGrierson. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just spent some time going over this and a mistake has been made, we are confusing another socks accounts with Dante8. Dante8 is definitely RoseForEmilyGrierson, 100.11.62.250 and LMivak but not the others. Unfortunately there is a different sock-puppet who also edits some LGBT articles that has been confused with Dante8 here. Some of those other accounts are using a mobile IP, this is behaviour that Dante8 does not do. It is a different sock-puppet. When I have some time later tonight, I will list the behavioural evidence for RoseForEmilyGrierson. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • @Bbb23: Sorry I missed LMivak initially. I've had another look and found the following:
Sotavino and Kennardleone are Red X Unrelated to each other and to any of the accounts below.
RoseForEmilyGrierson and LMivak are  Confirmed to each other and to WizardWonderWeaver which is blocked as a suspected sock of Dante8.
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dante8/Archive&oldid=1149725382"