Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ventus55/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ventus55

Ventus55 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

17 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Both working on the same promotional article on one of their user pages.[1] One has admitted to paid editing. The other account has not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 17 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]

  •  Confirmed. ~ Rob13Talk 13:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both now indeffed. Retagged and closing. GABgab 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08 February 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The user is blocked as sock of Ventus55 on dewp. Evidence is a complaint which was mentioned on the dewp AN (permanent link) Steinsplitter (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • @Bbb23: The edit pattern is the same (editing biography's of german people), but i cannot provide any diffs which can confirm the sockpuppetry here on this wiki - therfore the request has been filed.. However, there is (not cu) evidence at dewiki that the account is question is a sock. If that is not enough then the request can be cosidered as withdrawn. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There exist a number of complaints about unsolicited emails by the person behind Ventus55 to scientists that offer to write biographical articles upon payment (see [2] for a report by the steward DerHexer, report by Smallbones, other cases are known to the support team). We have now a new ticket in this case which allows to link Phänotyp to the same person. In consequence, Phänotyp has been indef'd at de:wp (see [3]). CU data are obviously stale in this case as Ventus55 and the associated sockpuppet Kipepea have been indef'd in 2017. But the editing pattern is similar to that we have seen before. As within the context of paid editing of Ventus55 and Kipepea, we have in the case of Phänotyp a focus on biographical articles about scientists mainly in the life sciences but with some occasional exceptions: Winfried Rief (psychologist), Günther Deuschl (neurologist), Rupert Martin Bauersachs (angiologist and internist), Karl-Heinz Kogel (biologist), Ruth Berktold (architect). Likewise as before, these articles were firstly created at de:wp and subsequently translated into English for en:wp (just Winfried Rief at de:wp appears to have been created at de:wp by someone else). They include a large number of publications by the described scientists (often done quite sloppily with abbreviated journal titles etc) but are weak in finding independent reliable sources about the scientist ([4], [5]). This echoes previous concerns (1, 2). I ping Doc James here as he is familiar with the Ventus55 case. I am sceptical if CU can be helpful here. I think that this case is best pursued by a global lock or possibly even a WMF ban for continued violations of the terms of use. However, indepedently from this the created articles should be reviewed --AFBorchert (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some older OTRS-Tickets and a recent one, all complaining about identical activities (unsolicited offer to edit articles in return for payment) of the same real person. That person has been identified as user:Ventus55 and has been blocked in english and german wikipedia for sockpuppetry and undeclared paid editing. In the current ticket of February 2020 there are references to an article that User:Phänotyp has worked on intensively, with the same pattern as Ventus55 did formerly. Both users' profiles show a high percentage of edits in articles about scientists and university professors. In each case, the editing included the creation or a considerable expansion of the articles. This is also consistent with the issues raised in the tickets. Due to OTRS policies, I cannot publish the text of the mails or give any names. However, for OTRS agents I can provide some ticket numbers:

--Superbass (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will see if I can get access to these OTRS tickets and look at things thanks User:AFBorchert. I have another multilingual case of concerning undisclosed paid editing. It involves a few accounts at DE and may be related to this. Any DE CUs interested in helping? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, I believe I arranged access. Let me know if it did not work.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles[edit]

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

This case is  Stale. CU declined. Also, Steinsplitter, please present evidence from en.wiki in the form of diffs to support your allegation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: I know this is not the way we normally do things, but given your abilities, do you want to analyze the German evidence? My German is limited to operatic bursts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't really analysis I can offer here, since the relevant evidence on dewiki is not public. The block was based on an email offering paid editing services consistent with Ventus55's MO. I have no reason to doubt it, but I can't confirm anything either. I'm not sure how active Superbass is here, but they should be able to shed some light on the matter. I'll also ping a couple of German speaking stewards (@Schniggendiller: @There'sNoTime:), since it may be preferable to pursue this as a global lock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, we were even discussing a Global Ban against Ventus55 and socks. The editorial behavior is exactly the same to Ventus55 as can be seen from the very first edit of Phänotyp, besides that I can confirm the OTRS evidence. I'm a bit surprised that the CU was declined at the first place despite the, in my opinion, clear evidence for a follow-up check. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We have other accounts at DE such as[7]. That account is also active at EN WP User:Jb4WIKIacc0 recently. And than we have the accounts that uploaded the pictures.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looked at the evidence. Agree with the concerns. Blocked the account. Tagged as probably sock. Moved all the articles to draft and tagged as UDP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to do. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ventus55/Archive&oldid=941205167"