Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikAdvisor/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikAdvisor

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


Evidence submitted by OliverTwisted [edit]

Please see the contributions for each user. They all try to introduce exactly the same information about Billy Smith/Billy Amato Smith into the Studio 54 article. In each of the more than two dozen instances, there are the same consistent spelling errors, the same lack of ANY sources to support the information, and a complete lack of cooperation with communicating with other editors in the community. The 67.244.16.228 IP address was just recently blocked for a week for the same disruptive behavior on the Studio 54 article. On the day after the block expired, the user was back using the WIKINYC account, inserting the same information on the same article, with the same lack of any sources. I don't need to list the diffs, because this is obvious to anyone paying attention, if you view each user's contributions. Please check to see if these user accounts and listed IP addresses are sufficient for an indefinite block. Please contact me if you have any further questions. You will notice I have been trying to revert this vandalism for almost a year now. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


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

 Clerk declined All named accounts except for the sockmaster are  Stale for checkuser purposes. For the IPs, it is generally in bad form for a checkuser to release IP information. This case will have to go off of behavioral evidence alone, which (per the filer's comments) appears like it will be sufficient anyway. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment with suggestions for stopping this vandalism. The user was already blocked under one account (an IP address). I have no valid grounds on which to request another block, since I can't prove that WIKINYC is editing from the 67.244.16.228 address without an IP check. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: This doesn't mean the case is declined. It simply means that the decision to make a block will have to go off of behavioral evidence instead. A rangeblock can probably be done if it can be shown that the IPs are related to the editor (or if the IPs are being disruptive in their own right). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the sockpuppet investigation was not the only situation needing an IP check, as this user has decided to make a career out of introducing the same two paragraphs into the same article for 9 months, and if I don't check Wikipedia every single day, timid bureaucrats keep declining to check, block, or ban because the reports are "stale." Someone needs to grow a pair and make the hard call so I don't have to keep checking Wikipedia every single day to stop one user from vandalizing one page for the rest of my life. Food for thought. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: My comment that it was stale was not "bureaucratic". It is a technical mechanism. The data is deleted after 3 months. It is literally impossible to check those users, period. No amount of evidence could change that. This is why it must go off of behavioral evidence instead. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that both WIKINYC and the IP address ending in 228 would not be stale. One was blocked 7 days ago, and the other is editing right now. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Please re-read my initial comment. I noted that all named accounts except the sockmaster were stale. As for the IPs, a checkuser is generally not going to publicly reveal the IP of an editor. This is a privacy issue, and I see no reason to ignore that here. Again, this does not mean your case is declined. It simply means a checkuser won't be run, and probably isn't necessary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I relent on the Checkuser request, and I made a jerk of myself in the process, so let me provide one final piece of evidence. When deciding the merits of this case, please click the following link [1], expand the page to show 500 entries, and then scan for my username. You will notice an entry with my name after each incident by each of the accused account names or IP addresses, especially during the month of January, 2010. This gives a much more clear picture of the "behavior" of this group of users. Other than vandalism reversal, I do not edit on this article. Thanks, and sorry for losing my cool a bit. It's been a long 9 months... --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behavioural evidence looks fairly solid that these users are related. I've blocked all the users and the IP range. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
03 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

After previous IP was blocked, same information was introduced using a different IP address. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.244.16.228 OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:20, 3 August 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]

 Clerk declined,  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. While the IP's are from different ISP's, they geolocate to the same area. The edits are a dead giveaway. The IP is static, so a block of an extended length (a few months at least) might be appropriate measure here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note If there was repeated abuse from the same IP, then maybe a longer block. Until then, a week will do. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25 May 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence includes differences showing repeated, persistent, single purpose vandalism of the Studio 54 article for over 3 years. 90% of the edits of these accounts/IPs involve trying to add information about a "Billy Smith" or "Billy Amato" to various parts of the Studio 54 article, beginning with claiming to have launched the career of Madonna here: [2], as well as being a co-founder of Studio 54: (also using the pages for founders Steve Rubell [3] and Ian Schrager [4]).

He claims to be the founding manager of The Rascals: [5]. He provided limousine service for The Comedy Awards (at the bottom of the page): [6]. He managed a plug for himself on the Peter Allen page: [7], and a plug for his boss/partner in the limousine business on the Phyllis Hyman page: [8] and here too: [9]. He also writes stories, as a close personal friend of Gloria Stavers: [10].

There are never sources for this information, or any attempts at providing references. Once the above articles were vandalized, the user then attempted to create a series of unsuccessful individual Wikipedia articles about himself: (Archived AfD discussion [11]), and his Limousine business [12]. The user at IP address 67.244.17.196 stated that he is Billy (Amato) Smith in an AfD, here: [13], on the Winter Olympics talk page here: [14], and on the Category page for the September 11 attacks here: [15].

On 5/28/2012, within 24 hours of the removal of all references to Billy Amato Smith on the above mentioned articles, anonymous user: 66.65.134.176 went back and re-added the same info on the Studio 54 and The Rascals articles, engaged in an edit war, and ended up being blocked for a 2 week period: [16] OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • If all what the person says it's true, that's a pretty sad story. I hope I have better things to do when I'm 65. BTW, I used to manage Nirvana, but the record company kept that story under wraps. I've semi-protected Studio 54 for six months (I think I worked on that article before--odd that an article on such a great club still needs so much work), since that's the only way to keep this disruption out, and will do the same for The Rascals. If the IP comes back, maybe on the talk page or elsewhere, let me know if you happen to see it and I'll block for much longer: it seems pretty stable. My thanks to OliverTwisted. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the fence in regards to Isajulbesshoch. I am willing to withdraw that user's name from this list, upon reading the contributions further. While this user seems to be intent on adding non-sourced gossip to many of the above mentioned articles, it would appear that none of the entries included attempting to add the specific information on Billy Amato Smith, and this user may have just been trying to undo some of the damage done to the Shrager article by previous vandals, without using sources for much of the gossip. (The "coke in the limousine" statements were unique, but not necessarily conclusive.) My largest concern was making sure that the IP range 67.244 was blocked for a period of longer than 31 hours, as there is no debate that the user in that IP range is the same user as WikAdvisor and WIKINYC. Further, a longer block should be considered for IP 66.65.134.176, since again there seems to be no doubt that this user edits with the same goals and using the same information as the confirmed sockpuppets. With these IPs blocked, and the Studio 54 and The Rascals articles being semi-protected, future activity should be much easier to monitor, including edits for Isajulbesshoch. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 23:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rangeblocking will have a lot of collateral damage, I fear. Drmies has protected the article until November, and I think that is probably the best solution for the IPs, other than the existing blocks. As for Isajulbesshoch, it may just be an amazing coincidence, but as I stated below, the articles line up perfectly, but the edits, style and methods don't. I did indef the other editor, and I agree that the IPs are definitely interesting and very likely the editor in question. I would suggest a close for now, watch the one editor and let protection do its job for future IPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
18 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

[19] adding gossip to the talk page.

[20] same applies here as above.

[21] again the same applies as above. Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 04:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

These are the previous confirmed sockpuppets of WikAdvisor: <removed by DB, they exist in the archive already>


I've added the previous confirmed sockpuppet accounts of sockmaster WikAdvisor, so when the user compare report is generated for this IP address, a very clear picture emerges. I completely agree with Anderson that this IP address is being used to engage in the same activity as previous WikAdvisor sockpuppets. I recommend a more comprehensive block of all accounts involved. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These accounts need to be Indef blocked. Otherwise, This will continue.Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 01:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally we just go to the archive for priors, so copying them over is actually a little confusing once this goes to the archive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
24 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

WikAdvisor targets a specific group of articles: Studio 54, The Rascals, Steve Rubell, Ian Schrager and occasionally Gloria Stavers. If this user's IP is currently blocked from account creation, and the pages being targeted enjoy temporary page protection due to vandalism, the user attempts to introduce the same not sourced gossip on the article talk pages. There is no derivation from this pattern. The paragraph being added is always the same. The record of WikAdvisor's previous sockpuppet investigations can be found here. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Yes, this is another sock puppet of Wikadvisor. the IP has the same edit history as the last IP.--Anderson - what's up? 04:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Checkusers will not draw links to IPs except in rare circumstances. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I neglected to block the master last time, but indef blocked this time around as it is obvious that this a serial offender. 1 week for the dynamic ip, longer for the static. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 11:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
05 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same vandalism on Studio 54 article's talk page as resulting in all previous blocks. Most IPs have been blocked already, but this one has renewed activity. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:14, 5 August 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WikAdvisor/Archive&oldid=1140109858"