Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rasputinfa/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rasputinfa

Rasputinfa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Eeekster (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

(merged from the Sfcamerawork case): All IPs listed have been adding the image File:26 pelican.JPG to various articles. Although Sfcamerawork has not yet made any contributions here, the account of that name on Commons is clearly the same as the user Albianmoonlight who uploaded the image currently being spammed (same camera, similar images). Plus, there's this). All IPs listed are likely proxies, except 69.228.166.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was involved in similar spamming of images (check the WHOIS). See also this thread at ANI and this thread on VPP. This seems as good a place as any to gather the evidence until people decide what to do with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a problem. It's not just that someone -- or even a bunch of socks -- is trying to add images to a lot of articles; it's clearly a campaign to add an image of a single individual to as many articles as possible. Every single one of these images being added by the sock farm, without a single exception, contains this person. He's trying to become the most-often-pictured person on Wikipedia, and there's a lot of participants in this, probably organized on that "Sfcamerawork" website (note that the SF Camerawork name appears on Whois for one of the IPs, and the same name is uploading the images to Commons). Antandrus (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side point, it would be useful to know if there are any other identified Commons uploaders besides Sfcamerawork and Albianmoonlight. I'm not asking for evidence of abuse, here, which could and should be handled on Commons, but just to know whether there are more than two lists of uploaded images requiring watching. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've opened a case over at Commons about this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added 69.114.193.75 (talk · contribs) to the case — he/she also added some of these images to articles Ten Mile River (California) and Mendocino County, California. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Checkuser note: Clarification requested.  Frank  |  talk  13:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk endorsed - It looks like all the editors have been adding pictures from the same set that was uploaded to Commons. If they're not the same editor, they probably know each other or something, so I'm endorsing to clarify. (Also I just merged another case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ozonepbj.) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And where is the abuse we are trying to stop?  Frank  |  talk  13:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That we've got four different accounts displaying virtually identical behavior, making the same sort of disruptive edits. If it's the same person, then they're splitting their edit history, perhaps in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that adding pictures to an article is disruptive; I see no evidence of edit warring. I'm not being obtuse, though; I do agree that with accounts created near in time to each other and editing in closely related areas are a cause for concern. I don't think a check is appropriate but I am content to get out of the way and see if another checkuser feels differently. Based on WP:DUCK, however, you might perfectly well drop a note to the user talk pages about policies. The templates on the talk pages are not especially friendly or informative.  Frank  |  talk  13:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I didn't even notice the sockpuppet tags on the talk pages. (I didn't add them; Eeekster did.) I've removed them and instead put a more gentle message there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all the accounts blocked, and with our policy of not commenting on IPs, I don't see anything to be done here. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking for a sleeper check here. Over the past three days now, accounts have been incrementally added to this case (and others, actually). Something is up, and I was hoping we could figure out what. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a quick look, and there's easily 20 sleepers that I can see, so a check is definitely needed - but I can't check everything because it looks like a complex case, and I want to make sure we get all of them. Needs a more experienced CU than me, sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scrap that: I'll block what I can, but please don't mark this as closed until another CU looks at it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following:
are all  Technically indistinguishable with Superbrightidea (talk · contribs). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn, these IPs are coming from all over the place. Could be some proxying here. Anyway, I've blocked the most recently reported one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think that's all of them. Can we close this one? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
04 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

All of these accounts have uploaded or been directly involved with the same images that Superbrightidea was spamming into the encyclopedia. Please see User_talk:Binksternet#Backside of Beachgoer – a strange little wiki tale for details. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 4 July 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]
  •  In progress - I will handle the commons request as well. Tiptoety talk 15:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, the following are  Stale:
  • The following are  Technically indistinguishable socks of one another:
  • The following are  Technically indistinguishable socks of one another:
06 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Nowa has shown up in the past few days with delighted glee at the fact that we are proposing a formal ban of Mr. Horvitz, claiming to be Mr. Horvitz himself who is behind all of the other socks and disruption. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • My take on Nowa is that he is a valuable editor, and is in real life a person who coincidentally carries the same name as the very bothersome sockpuppeteer. That's why the discussion about banning the socker was amusing to him. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Oddly enough, this account appears Red X Unrelated. I'd encourage action to be taken based on behavioral with regards to this user. It's possible this person is traveling. Tiptoety talk
    • I'm going to go with Binksternet's suggestion in this case if there's further evidence it can be refiled. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
09 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Myavocado... reuploaded the "mood disorder" photo to the commons and both of them added the file to our local article. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:34, 9 July 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 as each other:


11 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Another sock, edited same article as previous socks, sleeper check and maybe an IP block needed. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:07, 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.

  • That username should be blocked as an obvious attempt at impersonation. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's blocked already. Just need to see if there's anything else happening with this new one. Also, wondering if this is just the Dragonron account holder stirring shit otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would be good to find any sleepers, and to block the involved IP(s). Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • The following are  Technically indistinguishable:
06 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Theskullsofsealionscoveringawall uploaded File:Clam Beach County Park.JPG to the Commons, featuring an unknown subject (assumed to be David Horvitz) looking at the horizon on a beach, and then put it on a vaguely related article. The username format also matches previously used account names. There may be more sockpuppets hiding within. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:27, 6 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rasputinfa/Archive&oldid=1079617273"