Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Bambifan101

Bambifan101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 3 2009, 04:54 (UTC)[edit]

The list is very long, I am requesting a rangeblock. I'm not sure if I'm going about this the right way, but I believe a rangeblock is in order to stop this ongoing problem, and a combination of analysis of the suspected and confirmed socks of this user, along with some checkuser evidence would probably be the way to determine exactly where to block. These are the suspected, although a great many of them admitted to it, so they are actually confirmed. These are the other confirmed socks, I believe some of them were already investigated with checkuser. As a non-admin, I'm more or less in the dark about exactly how rangeblocks are done, but clearly there is a serious problem here, and there is a definite pattern to the IP addresses used by this banned user. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by Beeblebrox (talk) 04
54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Beeblebrox (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed to evaluate rangeblocks. Mayalld (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Range blocks are out of question. This user uses multiple large ranges from Southbell. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't really get how they work, so I thought I'd ask anyway. Is there anything that can be done, or will we just have to keep blocking these obnoxious socks as they pop up? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will just have to keep blocking for now. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
information Note: Not much to be done here, from a CU pov... The sleeper is blocked. -- lucasbfr talk 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

--Kanonkas :  Talk  19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date April 7 2009, 02:11 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]


To check for additional socks of this user, ban info can be found here. Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bambifan101.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 Clerk note: Please explain why checkuser is needed, provide eveidence that the suspected users seem to be the banned party, and tell us what the "other reason" is (you specified code "F"). Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Should be noted that both the account and the IP have been blocked on behavior... The only remaining reason for a CU would seem to be to find other socks or sleepers. Avruch T 02:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 22 2009, 00:54 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by BencherliteTalk


Latest admitted sockpuppet of banned user; any other accounts lurking / blockable IPs? BencherliteTalk 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP now added above, as it was used to repeat some of Charlotteswebmedia's edits before being blocked by me. BencherliteTalk 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another throwaway account. BencherliteTalk 20:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by BencherliteTalk 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk endorsed valid reason for check, IMHO. ~fl 10:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 9 2009, 21:33 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by --Rrburke(talk)


In this edit, blocked user Madagascar Esape 2 Africa identifies himself as the Disney Vandal. Ofetenview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the {{bannedmeansbanned}} tag from User:Madagascar Esape 2 Africa's talk page. I found it hard to imagine why anyone besides the blocked user himself would remove the tag.

No blocking action required: both users have already been indefinitely block for abusing multiple accounts. I posted here anyway because Black Kite already blocked the four main Bambifan101 IP ranges earlier today (prior to Ofetenview's edit) and I wanted to confirm whether Ofetenview was in fact a Bambifan101 sock.

--Rrburke(talk) 21:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by --Rrburke(talk) 21:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: I think it's quite obvious that these users are socks of bambifan101. The IPs and accounts have already been blocked so I don't think a check is necessary here. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Rrburke clarified that these accounts continued to vandalize after Black Kite used a range block to prevent bambifan101 from continuing to vandalize. I think a check would be appropriate to block the IP at hand and to possibly flush out any sleeper accounts. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed Ofetenview = Madagascar Esape 2 Africa = TWH70. The IP has already been blocked by another CU; looks like a proxy of some sort. Dominic·t 06:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Synergy 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date May 17 2009, 18:05 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Flowerpotman

Bernard the Brave created a hoax Disney article Mickey's Les Miserables and restored the Robin Hood (1973 film) article diff to the last version by Okapi7, who is already blocked as a Bambifan sock. The IP address 69.143.155.84 also partially restored some one of Okapi's edits on the Robin Hood article, and is making unsourced edits to various Disney articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk declined The account and the IP seem to be very obvious, so a checkuser doesn't seem to be necessary. I've blocked the account indef and the IP for a week. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
  •  Clerk note: Looks good. Tagged and archived. — Jake Wartenberg 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date June 5 2009, 00:05 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

Possible Bambifan sock, but may be a copycat. Simple English slapped a rangeblock on the guy and earlier today, I blocked an anon IP which WHOIS said was from a Courtyard by Marriott in South Carolina. Possible range block here as well...?


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk note: Ranges blocked. — Jake Wartenberg 01:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Clerk note: No evidence to indicate that this is Bambifan; it's just page blanking and the like. — Jake Wartenberg 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date June 5 2009, 01:36 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

This is getting really, really tedious having to deal with this individual. I suspect this is a "sleeper" account and an old one at that; he's using it to try and circumvent the blocks I placed against new users on his frequently targeted articles. I have further reason to believe he may be on the go and editing from various IPs in the southern US, possibly during a vacation. The use of CAPITAL LETTERS to emphasize a point on the talk page is suspect as well. Deleted contributions almost all revolve around similarities between Disney movies, another well-known MO.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Icestorm815 • Talk 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed I've added the checkuser request because I believe that's what PMDrive meant to ask for. Endorsing to clear out any further socks and to reblock any possible IPs. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No additional socks apparent, no potential for range blocks, I  IP blocked the two IPs for a bit. --Versageek 02:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date June 5 2009, 21:32 (UTC)[edit]
Bambifan101


75.75.124.218 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Cactusjump

I believe this is a sock of User:Bambifan101 based on the Duck test. In the past, socks of the Disney Vandal have come to my talk page and asked for help with a Disney film article, such as this user. I looked at his contribs and all the edit summaries seem like their written in the same style as DV. His usual targets have all been locked and coincidentally he happened to pick an article that I just started working on and put at the top of my "To Do" list on my user page (since been erased).

Then when asked why he's contributing to an article on a film he's never seen, he brings up Bambifan. Cactusjump (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Cactusjump (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk declined Declined and closed because the IP is already blocked by LVHU as a Bambifan sock. Nathan T 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date June 10 2009, 01:44 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

I've blocked the account since the username was just too similar to previously blocked socks. Given that this guy isn't afraid of creating sockpuppet farms, I'd like to request a check for any sleepers and whether or not the IP had been blocked before because of this individual.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  • Checkuser did not find any other accounts on the IP. — Jake Wartenberg 02:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for doing this so quickly, Jake. Much obliged. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date June 15 2009, 17:10 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Cactusjump

Edit summaries are typical of Bambifan, are his choice of edits. Created a page for Michelle Stacy as well as a local singer in his hometown of Mobile, AL.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I was alerted to this and I've blocked the "Cheetah Dash" account and protected the latest round of target articles. I've protected his "pets" for at least three months; other admins have slapped indef protection on other targets. The IP resolved to a provider in Saskatchewan and had only one bad edit, but I've blocked it for a week just in case. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's time for another rangeblock IMO. Collateral damage would be a shame, but this little scourge simply won't give up. I'm definitely in favor of a formal complaint and I'll gladly offer testimony if it ever happens. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: Everything seems to be set here. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.Syn 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
The case was closed because the sock was blocked and the IP involved was blocked as well. There was not any further evidence to suggest that a check was necessary. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user mentioned a rangeblock, so I presume he wanted to know how much collateral damage there was. In addition, a little digging into the Bambifan101 SPI archive would have shown that CU'ing his IPs have always been helpful in uncovering sleepers. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close is only a suggestion, its not absolute as with the archive feature. I would have tagged this the same way based solely on PMDrives comments. However, is possible he has sleepers so while you're here, can you check it for us? :) I've removed the close tag and will add in the RFCU tag soonish. Syn 01:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid's block only caught two other editors; one has never edited and the other has made one vandal edit, so we seem pretty safe. -- Avi (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Syn 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date July 3 2009, 18:34 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!

Bambifan socks contributions same Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed. Standard check for sleepers/rangeblocks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

-- Avi (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk notes:
    • All confirmed sockpuppets indef blocked;
    • All confirmed sockpuppets tagged;
    • The IP in question is currently serving a two week block;
    • In regards to Gossip--girls-xoxo (talk · contribs) I will leave a note on the blocking admins talk page.

Tiptoety talk 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date July 6 2009, 17:49 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Vicenarian (T · C)

Actions by IP 74.230.35.77 (talk · contribs) in vigorously pursuing Jekyll1886 (talk · contribs) as a Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) sock is in keeping with previously reported Bambifan101 behavior. Jekyll1886 is already blocked as a Bambifan101 sock. CheckUser is requested to confirm 74.230.35.77 = Jekyll1886. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also requesting check for sleeper socks. Vicenarian (T · C) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Vicenarian (T · C) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Some vacation. I checked in for a moment and the IP left word on my page re. the investigation. As usual, it's a Bell South shifting IP and I've blocked it for a year. I think there is more than sufficient reason to initiate a formal complaint to Bell South at this point. Back to attempting to vacation...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed - archives demonstrate that Bambifan activity comes with lots of sleepers, endorsed to check for them and to evaluate whether a 1 year block on a dynamic IP is appropriate. Nathan T 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed, with no specific comment relating IPs and accounts and no obvious sleepers to block; no obvious problem reducing block length on 74.230.35.77, though I'd keep it a hard block, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date July 4 2009, 22:44 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

I've been patrolling some of the User:Bambifan101 target articles and I've found these two accounts editing much the same articles in much the same way. Lots of image copyvios, lots of edits to the article spaces on Disney movies and Australian television, no interaction with other users or acknowledgement of the concerns of others. I don't think it's Bambifan101 but a similar user; BF at least uses edit summaries and talk pages. This individual does not. I hear the unmistakable sound of quacking. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ruled anything in or out, but based on a time analysis, they do not appear to be in even the same continent, let alone the same time zone. MBisanz talk 23:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates MBisanz? Tiptoety talk 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
  • Based on edit times and style, these users do not appear to be the same, of course if a user is refusing to communicate or otherwise violating policy, they may be blocked per WP:BLOCK. MBisanz talk 00:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date July 26 2009, 15:42 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

For those that have been following the OckhamTheFox saga of proxy editing on The Fox and the Hound, this effort to persuade another editor to restore Bambifan101's edits is clear. This account is continuing to edit after an entire /16 was blocked at BellSouth, so a checkuser is required to see what additional blocks need be placed.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added Cody is Awesome! per Collectonian.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after checkuser results: I'm amazed by the finding on Cody is Awesome! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and suggest we bear in mind that checkuser can't prove innocence any more than it can actually prove guilt. Blocking on behavioural evidence may (or may not) be premature, but vigilance is quite justified.—Kww(talk) 23:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed. Standard check for sleepers/rangeblocks. Enigmamsg 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked User:Ableblood369. Enigmamsg 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions


Report date July 27 2009, 02:47 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

This is either yet another Bambifan101 sock or perhaps a Codyfinke sock. Either way, I am very suspicious of this account. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

Looks as if a conclusion had already been reached and this account is unrelated. Sorry about the hassle; please disregard this request. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I'm concerned, the only conclusion that has been reached is that checkuser can't confirm the relationship. If that account had been submitted without a checkuser request, it would have been blocked as a duck in seconds.—Kww(talk) 03:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, quack! Consider it blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

I haven't looked at the contributions fully, but as long as you're willing to take responsibility for your block, this case can be closed. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date August 3 2009, 01:58 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit.[[1]];Evidence submitted by Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 

Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Added 63.3.5.2 which is what he used earlier today. Both hit The Fox and the Hound whose protection had apparently expired. Additional evidence would be his various edit summaries, particularly[2] and, as noted, his various talk page edits. My guess would be that he is traveling again. He's done that before, hitting with a new IP range while purportedly visiting relatives. (per himself, he's at his grandparents[3]) Would also recommend some aggressive page locking for 1-2 weeks to cover the likely time as the IP range is too heavily used to be range blocked like his home range. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: - Endorse, though I don't think that anything will really turn up. Possible sleepers on those two accounts though, so endorsing for CU attention. NW (Talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done but it was no Unnecessary: nothing of interest turned up. Just block and ignore him when he does that. -- Luk talk 08:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be sure to do that for future reincarnations of this guy then. Thank you, NW (Talk) 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date August 3 2009, 19:17 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These IP's are suspected of being used by banned user User:Bambifan101


Evidence submitted by Momusufan


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
  • I've added the latest named and IP socks, more for checkuser aiding and considerations of IP socks. Already confirmed its him from his actions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Momo san Gespräch 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

These IP's are pretty close to one another, needing to see if the /24 range can be blocked for a while.

 Clerk endorsed to check for collateral damage. MuZemike 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 10 August 2009, 22:02 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Cactusjump

Similarly-themed edits are being made on the Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) article.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Clerk note: Blocked and tagged. — Jake Wartenberg 23:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date August 15 2009, 04:27 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by AnmaFinotera

Femalesrule already a confirmed Bambifan101 sock - IPs making edits in a similar style and manner, and making attacks against User:AnmaFinotera and User:Momusufan, seeming to indicate it is the same editor, however new IPs are whoising to Canada so a new checkuser seems appropriate to see if it really is him or a "friend". Does seem to be claiming he is vacationing in Canada[4] but then also claims to be a friend of Bambifan101 later[5] Has also made several references to GRAWP and committed similar style vulgar edits in some of the vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added newest IP and possible new named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: I really don't see how a checkuser would help all that much here. These accounts might be Bambifan or they might not be, but if they are disruptive, they should just be blocked, as is currently happening. Do you want a checkuser to ask if the underlying ranges are blockable, at least temporarily? NW (Talk) 18:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that Black Kite has blocked 64.231.200.0/23 and 69.156.124.0/22 for a while. Does this case still need to be open? NW (Talk) 18:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can add to this, I made a report at ANI about the IP ranges and of course they were blocked. So I would consider this case closed. Momo san Gespräch 18:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined — Jake Wartenberg 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Clerk note: All set, then. — Jake Wartenberg 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date September 6 2009, 00:36 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by AnmaFinotera

Most recent rash of suspected Bambifan101 socks from the edits and reaction to discovery. Self-identified other socks with the Mamasasa socks. Need to confirm these are him and find the underlying IP range as he is again getting around range blocks, as well as find and block any remaining sleepers. Suspect he is now using multiple accounts to appear to be supporting himself and to have some act "good" by stopping his "bad", so then the good is AGFed and allowed more leeway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

All of these accounts, and the IP, are already blocked, and all of the obvious socks that I could see on these ranges are also blocked. I set a rather broad hard range-block to attempt to slow him down a bit, but I don't know how effective it will be. In any case, most of the other ranges either are too large with too little activity to justify rangeblocking at this point, or are just too busy to know whether a rangeblock would even be feasible. J.delanoygabsadds 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date September 7 2009, 02:07 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by SoCalSuperEagle

Per user creation log, I have reason to believe that banned user Bambifan101 may have obtained another account (this time, User:Grouch'sfunland). As indicated by that log, this account was created by User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu. That user had created several other accounts, all of which have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets; most of those sockpuppets were identified as belonging to Bambifan101. I'm now certain that User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu is itself a sockpuppet of Bambifan101, as I have noticed that User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu and User:Lighteningluster (an identified sockpuppet of Bambifan101) have both edited the Nose-picking article; in addition, I have noticed that this edit by User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu at that particular article explicitly made references to multiple Disney animated films. According to the block log, User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu still has account creation privileges even though that account has already been indefinitely blocked for a username policy violation. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • Here is his latest possible IP from yesterday, if it helps: 72.254.166.143 -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: there is nothing in the logs regarding User:Grouch'sfunland. Perhaps the username was misspelled when putting it in? MuZemike 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see it now. Didn't click on the right log page. MuZemike 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • Blocked by NuclearWarfare. Nathan T 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date September 8 2009, 08:34 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Abce2|TalkSign

Same edting pattern. Looks like Bambifan has found a new IP range Abce2|TalkSign 08:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Abce2|TalkSign 08:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk declined: Account is already blocked. Range blocks have not been very useful in the past, no evidence that there are other active accounts. Nathan T 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • Account is indefinitely blocked. NW (Talk) 02:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 24 2009, 18:37 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jamesofur

I decided to file this under Bambifan101 because the contributions by both the user and IP above appear to follow the normal patterns used by that user. That being said I'm not sure a checkuser is required because the IP (currently active) appears to be taking off where Nvadertim7 (currently indef blocked) left off with the exact same edits and would fall under the duck test.Jamesofur (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added another ip (71.136.36.54) above who is doing same activities Jamesofur (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • just another note similar to Dferg's below about the recent Meta vandalism from [[6]] I talked to a couple stewards and admins there about this request. Jamesofur (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
  • Check user may be good to see if he has any more sleepers. He usually makes a bunch at once when he gets going. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent vandalism from this user on eswiki since ~1 week from 68.220.169.54, 68.220.174.230, A big pile of vamdalism and The Rescuers sockpuppet so far. Just FYI. --Dferg (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also FYI, I ran a WHOIS on the IPs, one IP belonged to Time Warner and another belonged to AT&T. Range blocks probably will not work here, but I'll check on any more IPs vandalizing the same page with the same trends. ConCompS (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Likely. No obvious unblocked sleepers. J.delanoygabsadds 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date November 1 2009, 18:24 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)

New editor focusing almost exclusively on Disney articles. Among is first edits was to "helpfully" point out suspected Bambifan101 socks, and to revert supposed edits by the vandal. This is classic Bambifan101 behavior, to try to avoid detection by making multiple socks, one of which "outs" the others to make it seem like he is a "good" editor. Many of hits edits have been to revert/restore his preferred versions of articles, yet again, and he has already made efforts to approach most of the editors known for identifying Bambifan101 to show he is being helpful. Is also stating a preference for known Bambifan101 versions[7][8], while also "talking" to him or referencing him in edit summaries.[9][10][11] Check user needed to confirm both this sock and the ones he outed, and find the new batch of sleepers as he makes a lot at once. The accounts on two other wiki's that he has interwikied on his page are also knew, doing no actual edits there beyond making the user pages for wikilinking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His most recent edit to The Fox and the Hound, copy/pasting one of his preferred versions from one of his blocked IP sock pages[12] pretty much cements it for me. If it walks like a duck...-- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In his unblock request, he confirmed he is Bambifan101[13], so mainly need to find the sleepers. He "self identified" some, but he's falsely identified others before, so check user still needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another possible one that just popped up, recreating Scratte,[14] which appears to have been made by Bambifan101 before, and the name...-- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 05:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to check on User:TimonandPumbaaFan. The MO is slightly different than the normal BambiFan sock and could use a check. Can we also get any results on Theworldrules, Scratte Lover, and the IPs? (Unless we should assume that they're unrelated.) MuZemike 18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to check on another new set acting in tandem, 69.113.136.42 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and Movimationguy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Suddenly appearing editing a variety of Disney articles, including creating some new articles...-- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed.  Looks like a duck to me and blocked. MuZemike 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created articles also deleted per WP:CSD#G5. MuZemike 08:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Just blocked the user for abusing multiple accounts/block evasion. Willking1979 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed:
    • Snehvide og de syv dværge
    • The Fairly OddParents
    • Lil China Town
    • Taylor the Giraffe
    • Bubba the Elephant. Brandon (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Clerk note: Doesn't look like Scratte Lover is related, at least there isn't enough to go by. Marking as closed. MuZemike 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 10 2009, 23:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)

Latest set of named and IP socks; need new checkuser to find any sleepers and evaluate for new IP range block/s. 98.90x seems to be his current primary range. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would check the 98.90.0.0/16 range. --Bsadowski1 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) P.S.: I checked 98.90.0.0/16 with the ContribsRange Gadget and I see many IPs with edits to Disney articles (within the last 3 months).[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All named accounts are already blocked. However, given this user's history, I agree with Collectonian--a sweep is necessary to find any more socks in this guy's hamper. Blueboy96 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All  Confirmed (surprise). I blocked 98.90.0.0/16 for 6 months. Not much else to do here. J.delanoygabsadds 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 26 2009, 03:43 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Rrburke
  • Mostly Disney Channel-related stuff, though the edits themselves are not typical BF101. Confesses on his/her talk page to being a sock, though not to being BF101/Disney vandal. All already blocked, but perhaps checkuser might flush out some sleepers that may have edited from the IP -- and other IPs the logged-in users may have edited from.

--Rrburke(talk) 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
  • Comment since he's jumped IP range, also think a check would be good and see if a new range block would help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He just hit again from 70.146.227.196 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by --Rrburke(talk) 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]


  •  Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers / perform an IP/range block if needed. Tiptoety talk 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Confirmed that the IP is HorseGirl070605, but it doesn't seem related to Bambifan101. It would be safe to give this IP a long-term block, as it is not shared and has been used by this one editor for nearly 2 months. Dominic•t 08:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • Blocked and tagged appropriately. NW (Talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 2 2009, 00:16 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Worth a check, anyways. --Bsadowski1 03:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, he just hit again with IP 70.146.213.173 (added above) and is clearly identifying himself. A range block would really be useful, as he is purposefully vandalizing articles from my contribs just to get attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Definite case of WP:DUCK, but given this individual's proclivity toward filling sock drawers, I feel a CU and possible rangeblock are warranted.


Checkuser request – code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  •  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).

There are no unblocked sleeper socks. J.delanoygabsadds 17:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just blocked 70.146.212.2 as a Bambifan sock too. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 3 2009, 02:05 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

I don't know what it's going to take to get this entire range blocked, but I'm willing to see. This has gone on for years and it has to stop.


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  •  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 02:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if he limits himself to one range. He's using proxies, so the three accounts listed here are all over the 'nets. The IPs being used don't even belong to the same ISPs. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date December 6 2009, 03:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by 5 albert square (talk)

Very similar edits between the two accounts including [[15]], [[16]], [[17]] and [[18]] 5 albert square (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

If it can be done, I propose reblocking 70.146.192.0/18, (see block log). The block on that range expired last month. Momo san Gespräch 04:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by 5 albert square (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk declined; see below. NW (Talk) 04:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • information Administrator note The range Momusufan noted has been reblocked. NW (Talk) 04:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date December 6 2009, 04:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Same edits to same pages, nothing else to really say. CU is required as this user is obviously able to evade their block, hence we need to see if a rangeblock is at all possible.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by TheFeds

Beetlebrox (talk · contribs) uses the same rallying cry: "Teletubbies ATTACK!" on related pages. (Already blocked as vandal.) TheFeds 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by NW (Talk) 04:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]


  •  Clerk declined I reblocked a range (see above), so that possibly could have stopped this. Let us wait and see. NW (Talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 6 2010, 17:29 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

This account was just brought to my attention; it appears to be an old sleeper account given the earliest editing dates. I have reason to believe that Bambifan's IP has shut him down, but there still may be some sleepers lurking about given his tendency toward creating sockpuppet farms. He's probably editing from a relative's home, a school or other public terminal.


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  •  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed - no underlying socks - Alison ❤ 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 16 2010, 17:28 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)

Usual MO of edits, particularly around the Ice Age "4" thing. IP goes back to the same geographical location of other known range for this one. Requesting check user to find next set of sleepers and see if IP range block is possible. For extra fun, apparently he and Bambifan101 are now having sock edit wars over some articles! -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Depending on the relationship of the latter two with Bambifan, this request may need to be moved. -- Avi (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 16 2010, 17:11 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)======

From edits, appears to have found away around the multiple range blocks. Asking CheckUser to find the usual sleepers and new IP range for possibly blocking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

This individual's ongoing pattern of abuse across multiple Wikimedia projects over a period of nearly four years recently resulted in the blocking of three BellSouth IP ranges and a school block for a period of one year. If this account was in fact created via a BellSouth IP or other proxy, the same should be done to this range as well.


Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Duplicate reports merged. Tim Song (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed. I know, I know - Feel free to marvel at my 1337 h4x0r ch3kj00sah skilz :P I didn't find any new sleepers.  IP blocked - blocked some new ranges. J.delanoygabsadds 05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 31 2010, 10:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Lankiveil

User contribs seem to fit the usual modus operandi (make sure to review the deleted contribs, as well). Would just call it a WP:DUCK case, except that this puppetmaster is supposed to be rangeblocked. It's possible of course that there could be more.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed. Let's see if there are other socks in the drawer. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Possible match for Lovesongs41 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). No obvious sleepers for now, but please keep reporting if you find more activity. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 6 2010, 00:46 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)

Next back that needs checking for sleepers and issued ones and to get the underlying IP to see if a range block is possible. He's getting around the previous ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testaid is already self confirmed and blocked.[19] Issued lovely pseudo death threats even.[20] -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed – First off, I'm not 100% certain on Showtooner. If it is confirmed, then a check into underlying IP/ranges would probably be worthwhile. –MuZemike 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 Confirmed. A couple others found. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Clerk note: blocked and tagged, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 19 2010, 04:03 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

Deleted talk page strongly suggests it's another drooling, pimple-pussed adolescent slithering by from ED; Bambifan101 is currently up against four full range blocks for one year plus the year-long block of his school IP. Still, given BF101's determination, I thought it best to report it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed probably found a new IP to edit from (so bear in mind that this may askew the results), would like to see if he has got any sleepers on that address and have it blocked (if sockpuppetry is confirmed), thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 12:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 9 2010, 01:35 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)

Another brand new editor whose only focus is Disney and Teletubbies article. Usual check user to find underlying IP, sleepers, and see about new range block. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the new IPs he's used recently over one of the smaller foreign Wikipedias[21] 70.146.213.65 (talk · contribs), as well as another user name he used there that was spotted and blocked Beverly Hills Chihuahua (talk · contribs). Neither have been spotted here yet, but preemptive block on that user might be a good idea. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHOIS says it is in fact yet another BellSouth IP in Mobile, Alabama. I'll do a 0/16 block like I did the others. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I was just alerted to this and I blocked this latest attempt immediately. A range block is more than warranted. This individual is banned from any and all Wikimedia Foundation projects, at least four BellSouth IP ranges have been blocked for a year as well as his Mobile County (Alabama) school IP. In all the years I have been editing this site, I have never seen a more persistent and destructive vandal as this. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He just reappeared with a new IP: 72.152.191.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and this one from a few days ago seems probably as well 72.152.189.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another named sock: 2010Golf added above. Hopefully check user can come soon and get this range blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 21:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He added some more, joy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Pickbothmanlol; Bambifan101 has an obsession with trying to associate them-self with Pickbothmanlol, CU (so far) says otherwise SpitfireTally-ho! 22:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Jmac3568 blocked and tagged by another admin. –MuZemike 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

-- Avi (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: all already blocked, since Jmac3568 was already blocked based on behavioral evidence there is no need for further action there. All accounts tagged appropriately. Thanks Avraham, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 19 2010, 20:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)

Latest one. Its already blocked but need check user to see if yet another IP range block is possible. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Another user just alerted me to this. I am going to go on record and state that some sort of formal action is long overdue on this. The Foundation needs to get serious or some good users are simply going to drop out of the project. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to reblock all five of his ranges with a 0/24 instead of a 0/16. I'm shutting off most of the state of Alabama because of this brat. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I'm wagering his obsession is such that he just keeps trying to log on until he finds an open range and then he starts in. As I've pointed out, good and useful editors are likely to burn out on this issue, myself included. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed typical MO, if a check could be performed for an under lying IP and sleepers that would be appreciated, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's nothing worth seeing. The only socks I found are already blocked and globally locked. He's got access to an ISP that commands a /9 range, so that's 128 separate blockable and checkable ranges he's got access to. He could have a whole sockfarm on any one of those and I've got a less than 1% chance of finding it with any given check. :-( Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 22 2010, 20:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)

A few more nameds that just popped up. Usual IP check needed to make sure these aren't actually Alexcas11's socks since they also did some fake sequel pages; and, as usual, check for range block possibilities. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added discovered IP that also went undetected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed Auntie E. (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. Didn't find any unblocked socks. Set/renewed some IP blocks. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 1 2010, 01:07 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs)

Yet another round *sigh* Usual check for sleepers and possible range blocks -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Five 0.0/24 rangeblocks, one blocked school IP and still this kid keeps on hitting the site. I would greatly appreciate being apprised of the situation since I have dialogue with Jimbo over this very matter. In fact, if the clerk who runs the CU would forward the info to Jimbo, I would appreciate it. He's agreed to file a formal complaint with BellSouth over this individual. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An /24 block is only 256 IPs - hardly doing much in terms of stopping abuse. Tim Song (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed for sleepers and underlying IP please. I'm assuming that when you said "if the clerk who runs the CU would forward the info to Jimbo, I would appreciate it" you meant the checkuser. Leaving it up to the reviewing checkuser to decide whether that would be appropriate. Also noting that if Wales wants to then he can do the check himself. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that's what I'd like to have done for his convenience. Thanks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

The person uses their iPhone sometimes. Short of blocking pretty much every iPhone, there's not an awful lot to be done. I didn't find anything, either way. If Jimbo needs technical evidence, he can check the accounts himself. There's not an awful lot of data there for him to sift through :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 5 2010, 20:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by The Foxy Lady

King Punisher lists the names of six user accounts, all of them are socks except that three belong to a different family. Not sure if it's a coincidence, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by The Foxy Lady (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Rejected --Deskana (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
29 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Treylander

This AIV report from AnmaFinotera suggests that this is a duck of Bambifan due to this. Treylander 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting CU as from the archive, the last report was April 5th, so this may be a good opportunity for a sleeper check. Treylander 21:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Checkuser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.

 Clerk declined. Fan of the Disney animation already confirmed sock of Alexcas11 with no sleepers found. Elockid (Talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
06 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

A legit user who works on film-related articles alerted me to this AT&T IP out of Key West, Florida. Bambifan edits via AT&T out of Mobile, Alabama, but he's either on vacation or has figured out a way to use proxy servers. I'm reluctant to block the range since again, he may simply be visiting the area, got hold of a computer and started back in. The usual subjects, the usual style, the usual edit summaries. No question it's him.


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined The IP is blocked for a year and there's not a user to check against an IP. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
13 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

Looks like he is either on vacation, or its out other socker, User:Alexcas11 spoofing again. Need usual round up of the sleepers and sorting out which is which. If CU shows any are Alexcas instead, please up their tags for easier -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I have added 76.199.170.159 (talk · contribs) based on

Hope this helps.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Clerk endorsed - To weed out any socks and to check for range blocks. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed 13NationalChampionshipsRTR (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Bambifan101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

Red X Unrelated Filmguy924 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).


I globally locked the confirmed account, and blocked an internet cafe that BF use to create his new account. No sleepers found. J.delanoygabsadds 02:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
14 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 [edit]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

User:AnmaFinotera is a favorite target of this vandal and where one Bambifan sock lies, more are sure to be lying in wait. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk endorsed - Let's see who this is. T. Canens (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive - mobile range. J.delanoygabsadds 05:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
26 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 [edit]

Normally, I would have written this off as just another kid who wandered onto ED and decided to try his hand at socking over here. However, the main account's first edits were to harass User:AnmaFinotera, a favorite Bambifan101 victim. Bambifan is a notorious sockpuppeteer and where there is one, there may well be more. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 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]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined They are already blocked so I don't see why a checkuser is necessary here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
05 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 [edit]

It's painfully obvious that this is the same person, but I have a feeling that this is not Bambifan101. The alternate characters in the usernames tell me it's the drooling mutations from ED who have been doing a bit of research on pesky vandals and are copycatting and using the LTA page as a reference. Wouldn't take a genius to fake a Bambifan account. Bambifan's four BellSouth IPs and his Mobile County School District IP have been blocked for a year. However, if these have originated from BellSouth accounts in Mobile, Alabama - or any IP from the southeastern US - it likely is Bambifan and a rangeblock should be imposed. I should point out that I have one other reason to believe that this is not Bambifan, but I don't want to tip my hand. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Recommend also checking them again User:Alexcas11, as that is one of his pet article/topics as well, and they have been colluding of late. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Spídér's Wéb: A Píg's Tálé 100 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) I think... Dferg (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's him, alright. Check the message another user left on my talk page. I've just blocked the 0/16 range for one year. I am just about to quit this damned project over the inability and unwillingness of the people who run this site to put a halt to this. I took it right to Jimbo and still the crap continues. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, with the two of them emulating each other, it makes the check user even more necessary to sort it all out. It doesn't help that there seems to be a shortage of CUs these days. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sigh" is right. This is why I am just about to slap a "retired" template on my page and concentrate more on some of my personal side projects. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: both the listed accounts have been blocked and tagged. Since there are no apparent sleepers, nothing further to do here. Closing, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 [edit]

This is the last freaking straw. Either he goes or I do, it's that simple. I have blocked four ranges and a school range and now the little son of a bitch is mocking us via a mobile network as was revealed on the last CU. I do not apologize for the obscenity; this ends here and now. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
  • Not even much doubt on it being him or Alexcas11 again. Agree a CU is needed to make sure one way or another and mobile or not, a range block is needed and at this point, we seriously need a username filter to instantly alert to any variation of "Spídér's Wéb: A Píg's Tálé" so they can be blocked before doing anymore damage and, if possible, a filter to block all edits to Disney and Teletubbies articles from Atlanta -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64.134.150.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just popped up restoring a bunch of edits of Bambifan101's that were reverted this week. Not sure if it is Bambifan or Alexcas (or someone else) since it is geolocating to a different area from their usual haunts. Seems way too suspicious and clearly focused to not be one or the other though, especially as it appeared right before Spídér's Wéb: A Píg's Tálé 93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All three suspected sockpuppets are now globally locked. Of course the sockmaster (Bambifan101) are already blocked since two years ago. /HeyMid (contributions) 18:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And? This guy has over 200 known socks. Doing a sleeper check is par for the course at this point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what is that? What does that mean? /HeyMid (contributions) 08:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folks like this who sock a lot generally make multiple sock accounts before one is discovered and blocked. A sleeper check will look for any other sock accounts not yet found and block those as well, and see if a range block is possible on his IP range. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk note: Spídér's Wéb: A Píg's Tálé 94 has been globally locked. Bsadowski1 23:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - In order to check for more ranges that he is active on. (X! · talk)  · @138  ·  02:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that pretty much sums it up. (X! · talk)  · @712  ·  16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of yesterday, these same accounts were running rampant on Simple English. They tend to pooh-pooh any attempts of mine to report him, so I don't. Don't you have admin rights on Simple, B? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do, PMDrive1061. --Bsadowski1 08:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought; I can relax knowing you're on the job.  :) I don't have enough time on Simple to qualify for adminship, sad to say. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, but nothing interesting this time; PMDrive already nailed the IP, and there was nothing else there. (Don't know anything about the one that doesn't have an enwiki account.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Bovineboy2008 [edit]
BOVINEBOY2008 01:44, 30 July 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]
  • Already blocked NW (Talk) 01:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano [edit]

Requested unprot of Disney-related articles at WP:RPP, merely stating that he wished to edit them (a tactic he's attempted in the past). Requesting CU to see if there's any more Heartless hiding. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 01:07, 31 July 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 endorsed - Usual sleeper check. (X! · talk)  · @716  ·  16:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found nothing of note. --Deskana (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Sjones23 [edit]

This user has been deliberately adding false information and unnecessary categories to film articles. (examples are [23], [24], [25]). I already gave him warnings on his talk page for vandalism on articles and I reported it at AIV, but since that is probably a BF101 sock, I decided to post it here per an admin's recommendation. The IP is known to be Bambifan101 based on his constant additions of unneeded categories and incorrect information in the articles. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:33, 8 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]
03 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by LessHeard vanU [edit]

Per this report to ANI by Betty Logan (talk · contribs). A quick review by me of the whois as well as the contrib histories made it apparent that this is BF101. I have enacted 1month softblocks on all reported ip's, but am placing this here so a rangeblock may be considered and to see if there are any accounts not yet blocked. (ps. I don't do many of these reports, so please amend/repair as required) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 3 October 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]

The range would have to be 98.85.5.24/17. There are a couple, I mean a couple good edits coming from this range. But almost a full majority of this range seems to been abusive, edits reverted or disruption within the past month or so. Elockid (Talk) 19:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

08 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Burpelson AFB [edit]

The usual tired crap. See report at AN/I [26] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


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

I've not run a check, but I did re-instate the rangeblock that was placed last time. TNXMan 19:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: The rangeblock covers all these IPs, so there isn't much else to do here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


17 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Anon IP is targeting Disney articles, including those frequented by Bambifan. Edit histories include reverting changes claimed to be Bambifan vandalism (such as this and this), an editor a relatively new anon IP shouldn't know about. IP address geolocates to BellSouth in Mobile, Alabama, the last identifiable city where Bambifan may be located. McDoobAU93 03:08, 17 January 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]
25 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

See also IP 63.3.5.2 who is editing the same article about a book which barely registers as noteable. The IPs are both listed as "shared" and of course it is the same person. 63.3.5.3 became aggressive and rude when I questioned their "plot summaries." I would not have made the connection with Bambifan101, however, without noticing the "next door" 63.3.5.2 had undone my edits reverting 63.3.5.3 and the sockpuppetry case was mentioned on the talk page of 63.3.5.2[27] While the IPs could be used by another user why would they use two IPs linked to a sockpuppeteer? Why not get an account or have one created? Based on the arrogant behaviour and that IP 63.3.5.2 has been used by Bambifan101, I think it is Bambifan101. ALMOST a case of WP:DUCK. Probably thinks I'm too new here and too stupid to dig deeper. Think someone ought to take a look what is happening here anyways. —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 02:29, 25 April 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 - Previously used ranges, see archive. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: 63.3.5.0/24 would be a range to block here, but there'd be collateral damage. Anyway, I don't see any edits from this user in the past week, so I'm closing with no action for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


30 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same types of edits, changing data on the film articles, particularly running times. Has used the 98.85.XXX.XXX range before. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 30 April 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]
06 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same types of edits, changing data on the film articles, particularly running times (see [28] for example). Has used the 98.85.XXX.XXX range many times before. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 6 May 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]
21 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

User has been disruptively editing articles in the same manner as seen in this user's contributions. They are most likely similar edits in nature and I feel that a checkuser is needed to confirm that he is indeed a sockpuppet of BF101 even though he is already blocked as a VOA per the ANI discussion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Additional info ... Soulessnake began undoing edits made by the 69.248 IP noted above. The anon IP noted was also editing Disney articles that are frequent Bambifan targets. I'm concerned that he was testing the defenses with the IP before creating a new account and beginning this latest attack. --McDoobAU93 04:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... or as MarnetteD pointed out in AN/I, was undoing his own work to generate enough edits to auto-confirm his new sock and work around semi-protection and even Level 1 pending changes protection. --McDoobAU93 06:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I think he's using a proxy or something. As far as the account is concerned, Philippe beat me to the block. –MuZemike 07:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add to please scrutinize the account's edits heavily. –MuZemike 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This editor is only editing kids shows which leads me to think that this may be Bambifan. His username also shows that this user is around the same age as Bambifan. Island Monkey talk the talk 17:20, 29 June 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]

While Red X Unrelated to Bambifan101, this does appear to be Frantzedward.cha (talk · contribs), who is blocked. TNXMan 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 September 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same interests, same modus operandi. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:00, 3 September 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]
08 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Editor created account early on 8 October 2011 and first edits were to common BF101 targets The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under. Edits at the latter were primarily to revert the changes of an anon IP, listed above, which matches Bambifan's most recent M.O. of using unblocked IPs to create work for the new sock to revert, thus building up edit count to reach autoconfirmed status and the ability to bypass semi-protection at target articles. -- McDoobAU93 04:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The 68 IP is from California and is unlikely to be Bambifan but the 12 IP that I have just added is from Alabama and has edited in concert with Victorious and this is a hallmark of BF's disruptive editing. MarnetteD | Talk 15:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. There is an LTA case at [29] that is supposed to be linked from any further SPI cases involving BambiFan101. Instructions are that the LTA page needs to be updated when this case is resolved. VanIsaacWScontribs 10:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more: User:Charlotte 2011 and User:Gkdjdkphgipdgh. Victorious fan 2011 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

All accounts blocked, 12.171.79.130 is  Confirmed by autoblock, as well as a global block. No opinion on 68.5.97.233. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 68.x has too varied of an edit history to be Bambifan. They are not at all behavioral matches, hence this looks to be wrapped up. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13 November 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Username is of the Bambi username string. 1966batfan (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • As of right now, this user has just the edits that were apparently associated with the page they attempted to create that was subsequently speedied. No attempts to attack common target articles yet, which is Bambifan's usual M.O. Right now, in my opinion, this one just isn't quacking very loud yet. --McDoobAU93 23:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

no Declined – There needs to be some more evidence besides that the account contains "Bambi" to be a suspected sock of Bambifan101. –MuZemike 07:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Procedural nominations based on the DQB's tag at WP:UAA: [30] [31]. First account's edits (to an Irish cartoon character's page) look potentially legit but the username combination does smell rather strongly of duck. Believe the second account is a false positive but added per the bot's tag for others to assess (could possibly be "establishing an alibi", as it were). The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 29 December 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]
  • Because of where Bambigonzo is editing from, I'd say it's somewhat  Likely that it's Bambifan101. I did not check Bambita because that would be rather fishy. WilliamH (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Bambigonzo bagged and tagged. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Already blocked both. The first due to consistently adding unhelpful edits (per the IPs talk page). The second one would seem to be an obvious WP:DUCK. But since the block log of the first suggests that this is ongoing ban evasion, wanted to note it here, and requesting a checkuser to confirm. jc37 22:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to spitfire - I know, but in some cases, exceptions exist. In this case, in looking over the contrib history, I don't think we're adversely affecting anyone else. Especially since this goes back many years. That said, I don't oppose your suggestion. - jc37 06:47, 12 March 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]
  •  Clerk note: blocking IP addresses indefinitely is generally bad practice. I respectfully recommend that this is reduced to 2-3 years. In the case of the second IP address 6 months or a single year may be better. SpitfireTally-ho! 04:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following on from this suggestion and Jc37's response, I've placed an expiration date on the blocks. If more activity occurs, please refile. TNXMan 14:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
03 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This new user has only made one edit, however the one edit although not to the same articles is along the same lines as the sockpuppeteer, ie making unreferenced changes. That and the fact that a bot reported this to WP:UAA for the names being similar led me to raise this. Requesting checkuser to see if they are related and, given the sheer amount of previous accounts created by the sockpuppeteer, to see if there are any sleepers. 5 albert square (talk) 12:10, 3 June 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]

 Clerk declined per previous CU comments that there needs to be more evidence than the "Bambi" commonality.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP user is targeting Disney film articles, notably The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under. IP geolocates to Mobile, Alabama, last known physical location connected to Bambifan101. McDoobAU93 01:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I don't know... br:Dumbo looks OK and BF101 usually does blatant cross-wiki vandalism. CheckUser can't prove anything since it's an IP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - as checkusers will not relate accounts to IPs. Also, by "targeting" could you explain what is wrong with their editing and why it resembles the master.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a banned editor, Bambifan101 is not permitted to edit any article, even if said edits are considered by some to be constructive. Per Bambifan's M.O., he often goes after Disney movie articles, and The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under are two of his favorite targets. Whenever he finds a way into Wikipedia, he almost always goes after those articles first. While I agree there is no 100% guarantee that an anon IP working out of Mobile, Alabama whose first edits happen to be in articles on Disney movies is Bambifan, the community of editors who have fought Bambifan for years tend to err on the side of caution when edits appear that match that pattern. FWIW, the IP has made no further edits since the report, so hopefully he'll believe that portal into the project is now closed; unfortunately, Bambifan is simply too persistent and too determined to cause a hassle, so I'm sure we'll see him again soon. Also, this could be the first component of his most recent M.O., which is editing from an unblocked IP, then creating a new account through that IP and undoing the edits made by the IP, thus raising the new account to auto-confirmed status quickly and allowing him to circumvent the indefinite semi-protection applied to most (but not all) Disney film articles because of his antics.
Thank you both for your assistance and for taking a look at this. --McDoobAU93 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that excellent description which is very helpful.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

64.28.48.0/20 soft-blocked for one month. Can't see that anything much more can be done.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you all for your assistance, and to Kww for his range-block. I've saved some checkuser data about Bambifan's most recent activity (I do agree this activity is very recently him). I'll archive this thread now. AGK [•] 13:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13 September 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Anon IP (currently blocked for vandalism) near Atlanta making "corrections" to Disney-related articles. Quack! See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101 -- Rrburke (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Quack indeed. However, CheckUser can't do anything connecting account to IP and the IP's existing block should be enough. I don't see anything else that can be done.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't be used to flush out possible sleeper accounts created from this IP, or doesn't work like that? -- Rrburke (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, it can be, but I believe that autoblocking will block anybody on that IP. Much easier to do that, and less of a privacy risk, probably. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 02:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser can't normally connect this IP to any account (since any CU blocking of accounts would lead anyone to conclude that they were using this IP). However, given the fact that this user is de facto globally banned, this may be sufficient for a check.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looked at the range of edits, and this doesn't strike me as Bambifan's handiwork. Is this person a troublemaker? Apparently so, based on the number of blocks, but something about this doesn't scream "Bambifan101" to me. But as I stated the last time he popped up, better to err on the side of caution, and in this case, the project is protected regardless (if this is truly Bambifan or simply another persistent vandal). --McDoobAU93 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Quack quack indeed. Nothing else to report. Note that CheckUsers can retrieve: i) the IPs used by an account, ii) the edits made by an IP or range of IPs, and iii) the users on an IP or range of IPs. We just almost never make the connections between an IP and an account public on wiki due to the privacy policy. In this case of a prolific long-term abuser though, it would be reasonable to do that, but I'm sure it's been done already. WilliamH (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Range is reasonably small, so I have gone ahead and soft-blocked 24.131.32.0/20 for 6 months.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

06 January 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe Redcoyote18 is a sock of Bambifan101, who was banned for using tons of socks almost a year ago.

Redcoyote18 has been inserting false information on film articles for months. He has been changing films' runtime. From the real, sourced runtime, he will reduce that length down for about 5-10 mins to exclude the time credit rolls. Most of edits are small, no change in character count, but the numbers are changed and has been passing unnoticed. The diffs can be found here: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] He has been shortening the length of songs as well. In fact, anything on this contribution pages [38] are pretty much the same thing, although I have only enough knowledge and time to confirm that the edits above are false.

The behavior is consistent with Bambifan101 as reported here [39]. Other similar behavior can be found here [40] especially as reported by Betty Logan, which are similar to the user reported above.

However, I have no knowledge to confirm the accuracy of some edits such as [41] [42] [43] or [44], so I do not know whether the user made good faith but misinformed edits and is a different person, or the same banned user. Kindly consider CheckUser as appropriate. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: I'm told to include this report of Bambifan101 long term abuse: [45]

More info: IP 98.196.49.127 blanked the same article Redcoyote18 visited. The blanking were done in four edits; the total result is here [46]. From previous sockpuppet investigations like [47] and a few investigations onward, 98.196.49.127 falls into the similar range of IP used by Bambifan101. I think it's safe to assume that 98.196.49.127 is another IP used by Bambifan101, but whether this IP is the same is Redcoyote18 might require some looking into.

More info since last entry: Redcoyote18 has replied to the message I left on his talk page [48]. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with his vandalism or talking style, but I'm adding this for consideration. I will ask around for more information.

Update: Since I heard that Redcoyote18 is editing from geographically different location, I've done some homework about the talking style of Bambifan101, and asked whether Redcoyote18's matches. The opinions of users familiar with Bambifan101 can be found here [49] and [50]. I'm adding this for your consideration. Anthonydraco (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
A CU would be useful here; A) because if it's BF we need to IP block, and B) the behavior is subtly different here (other article classes than the "classic" Bambifan101 Disney targets, adding music articles and a new behavior pattern with the running time modifications). Either this is newly linked behavior of BF or it's someone else with another less catastrophically bad problem, in which case an indef block is not the right first response... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this pop up not too long ago, and then decided it was time to register an opinion when Anthonydraco sought out assistance from a fellow "Bambi-hunter", Sjones23. In my opinion, this doesn't strike me as Bambifan101's normal behavior. It's not his normal targets, nor is it the changes he normally makes. Does this editor need some guidance in how things operate? Based on the response Anthonydraco got, I'd definitely say yes. The biggest thing that suggests this isn't BF101 is the geolocation of the IP - it doesn't match with either of Bambifan's last known physical locations (the Mobile, Alabama and Atlanta, Georgia areas). Bambi's folks could certainly have moved again, however. --McDoobAU93 16:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Diffs provided show uncannily similar editing behavior, although what would appear to be a slightly modified MO. I'm reluctant to pass judgment on the IP, but it further indicates something fishy going on. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redcoyote18 is editing from a location far removed from Bambifan's usual location, but the opinion of a checkuser more experienced with this case would be preferred over mine. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's technically Red X Unrelated. I'll let admins more familiar with BF101 evaluate the behavoir, but at first glance I don't think this is a match. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Looking at it, I agree with DQ that this doesn't really look like Bambi*. The IP isn't a shoe-in either. That the IP belongs to Cox isn't meaninful, as that is one of the largest ISPs in the US and geolocated several hundred miles from the most common location used by Bambi*. I will leave open for yet another set of eyes, but I don't see a definitive enough connection to warrant blocking anyone here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as inconclusive. Please feel free to refile if there is more evidence.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless bambi moved and developed a slightly new shtick, I agree the behavioral evidence is inconclusive. The accused's talk page provides some insight into the behavior as well, and doesn't sound like bambi to me either. I'll be archiving in a minute. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20 January 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


IP is editing common BF101 target articles, including The Rescuers and, a recent target, Victorious. IP geolocates to Mobile, Alabama and has been blocked in past as BF101. Warnings from me on this page and two previous BF blocks make for very loud quacking. McDoobAU93 04:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Detailed in this LTA report, I'm thinking that more of his targeted articles need to be semi-protected to keep him from editing. The IP suspected has been blocked as a sock of Bambifan101 before, so  It looks like a duck to me. Hto9950 19:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also should mete out a longer block for 68.17.110.122 for sockpuppetry. Hto9950 18:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
27 April 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Checked an anon IP edit at The Rescuers, a common Bambifan target, on a hunch. Sure enough, this same IP has edits on other Disney film articles and also at Victorious, a new target for Bambifan. IP geolocates to Mobile, Alabama, current believed physical whereabouts of Bambifan. This is a clearly, loudly quacking duck. McDoobAU93 01:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the always eventual self-outing and "gloating". --McDoobAU93 16:41, 27 April 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]
05 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per request made at WP:UAA. — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 20:08, 5 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]
  •  Clerk declined - as insufficient evidence to warrant a check but it wouldn't matter as the data is stale anyway.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Bambi is gone is blocked indef, I'm going to go ahead and close this now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Strange overlap of edits (regarding Et tu, Brute?, Administrators (Wikipedia) and Uiquipedia), plus clear evidence that these accounts are being operated by experienced users (e.g. Uiquipedia's second and third edits show knowledge of template use, FunctionNotationandRules jumped straight into redirects). I'm calling it as Bambifan101 because of this (admins only), but I could be mistaken. Requesting CU for confirmation and sleeper check. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:42, 17 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]

{{endorse}] Self-endorsing for CU. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were a ton of socks floating around, including:
  • I've tagged them and nuked the contributions in most instances. Notification sent to Checkuser-l for cross-wiki check.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: As there has been some disagreement at Checkuser-l with regard to the actual master that these socks are related to, it may be best to take tag them as confirmed socks of MadisonGrundtvig (talk · contribs) as it was Madison's technical data that they were confirmed against. I suppose that this SPI should also be renamed to reflect the connection to the MadisonGrundtvig account? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Admission of the existence of several sockpuppet accounts [51] Drm310 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added another sock I noticed yesterday patrolling RC. — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 19:01, 26 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]
  • Given the admission that they are Bambifan101 could a CU have another look (/discussion on CU-l) please? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


18 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See edit history on user page. Put {{Blockedsock}} template on own user page EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For second and third, both vandalized this page. PasswordIsq has that template on their page as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:30, 19 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 endorsed I've closed the last two now that there is a new report. Can a CU please check this one especially for sleepers. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Extensive history of editing Disney related articles, extensive evidence of editing prior to establishing this account, initial thoughts from other administrators was "Bambifan ?". Currently to be found disrupting RFC on Archive.is . See [52] [53] [54] [55] Nick (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


  • 1st Edit - [56] - For the "getting started tag"
  • 2nd-5th Edits - Altering Accessdate for Disney Frozen soundtrack [57][58][59]
  • Self Nom and GA Pass and updating of talk page by user. [60][61][62][63][64]
  • Minutes later, is caught and declares new-ness despite already being very familiar with the processes.[65]
  • Goes to Featured Article Review for Walt Disney. [66]
  • Has issues with poor prose:[67]
  • Refers to self as "we" and "us"?[68][69]

The user's clearly focused on Disney topics. Deleted references[70], talk page comments,[71][72][73], but also is too-aware of policy for a new account with edits and summaries such as these.[74] An odd one to alter talk page archiving.[75] Repeatedly makes claim of newness.[76] Yet also claims to have been an IP for some time.[77]

  • Editor has an overwhelming desire to reassess and assess Disney articles.[78][79]
  • The editor possesses an unusual combative disposition and a battleground mentality. They also seem to be tracking my edits to some degree to provoke more issues, and specifically reverting my edits and claiming a host of policies.[80][81] Then showing up with the edit summary "WP:CENTed lol".[82] On pages they never were involved with and in a manner irrespective of the past. Mostly just to continue disrupting from the WP:Archive.is RFC 3 matter.
  • The Archive.is matter they've expressed extremely hostile and unusual familiarity with the project from the beginning, this makes me certain this user is not new and may be evading sanctions or blocks, they are so dogged and insist upon replying to everything and everyone that disagrees with them and will respond to themselves if it the conversation goes silent. Not sure if this is Bambifan's MO, but the disruption and repeatedly calling an editor a criminal and to "prepare for jail" is unacceptable. I would have taken this to ANI instead, if not for this.
  • Though I still think this users "reader instructions for verifying source" and reverting the removal of those instructions is just bizarre.[83]

I think the SPI is necessary to figure out if our "Forbidden User" is actually "Forbidden", because their familiarity with all things Wikipedia and constant contradictions, poor prose and combative mentality seem to be hallmarks of many LTA. They seem quite aware of the policies and procedures and take part in Administrator's noticeboard requests for closure, comment on user name and banning policy questions and behave very unusually for someone claiming to be new and goes to point out that they are "in school" and how long they have been on Wikipedia on their userpage. And also make this aware within a week of joining.[84] Anyways. Wonder what turns up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unrelated but this is Bambifan's typical Rescuer III addition - right? Not sure where this came out of the blue from with this editor, but that addition is highly suspect in a bunch of otherwise good edits. Data is stale, but I've removed the offending item and couldn't find anything other than a tumblr blog and a wikia mirroring it. More general stuff exists, like this changing "Wikia" BS outside of our realm.[85] 2015! No wait, new name and style and 2017! But it was first released in 2012, or was it!? Anyways enough from me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

{{endorse}} Admin endorsing request. Nick (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk endorsed per evidence presented by Nick and ChrisGualtieri. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on technical evidence providing an approximate location, it seems this user is  Unlikely to be Bambifan101 unless s/he has relocated. PhilKnight (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Bambifan senses are tingling. IP editor focusing on Disney films and tween/teen TV shows, geolocating to Mobile, Alabama, last known physical whereabouts of BF101. McDoobAU93 13:30, 25 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]
  • I softblocked 69.85.217.0/24 for a month. Mike V • Talk 23:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


31 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


New editor, focusing exclusively on edits to Disney films—note editing of hatnotes, something VERY few new editors would know about—as well as Gordy and tween-oriented TV shows. All are common Bambifan targets; please refer to WP:LTA/BF101 for other details. McDoobAU93 04:27, 31 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]
  • I've blocked the account per duck. Mike V • Talk 04:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined: No need for CU action; suspected sock has been blocked per DUCK, and no clear need for a sleeper check. I've tagged BravesBoy as a suspected sock on his user page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All set for now then. Mike V • Talk 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23 December 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Another editor focusing almost exclusively on family films and now moving into edits at The Rescuers, one of BF101's top targets. Most likely nothing but the quacking is getting noticeable. McDoobAU93 04:02, 23 December 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 will need to be behavioural, CU isn't very helpful - changing to open queue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account fits the behavior of editing Disney articles and providing detailed descriptions. I've blocked the account. Mike V • Talk 02:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

none so far, username smells of socks Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:29, 23 May 2015 (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 fish CheckUser is not for fishing. Until we have some evidence that suggests this user is related to Bambifan we can't perform any checks. Otherwise, it's just a guessing game based upon hunches. Mike V • Talk 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


DonkeyKongLover101 has created the article GoAnimate: The Movie, which was previously created at Go!Animate The Movie and GoAnimate The Movie. The original article was deleted as a hoax and had contributions from a confirmed sock of Bambifan101, User:SouthParkIsCool2014. I'm including LucaElliot2 on this since this was the account that created the Go!Animate version, but was never blocked. Their edit history looks to be similar to Bambifan101's MO in that they liked to edit animation themed articles. I figure that if it's enough of a WP:DUCK scenario it might be worthwhile to block this account even though it's obviously stale, if only to deter attempts to return and use the account. Now the main link with DonkeyKongLover101 is that they recreated this article at GoAnimate: The Movie, which kind of comes across as an attempt to avoid detection- and this would have succeeded if I hadn't stumbled across the AfD and remembered the prior attempts to add this film to the mainspace.

Now when it comes to Anthonyg328 I'm really not entirely sure. Their only link to this is that they created the first version of the article at GoAnimate The Movie, which was an extremely blatant hoax. I wasn't going to name them but I also saw where they liked to edit animation articles similar to Bambifan101's editing style. At the very least I want to hear an explanation as to why they decided to create the article.

This isn't the strongest-strongest evidence to tie these people to Bambifan101, but it's enough to where I think that it'd be better to open up an SPI and doublecheck things in case this is another attempt to evade a block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I knew that I'd seen this at SPI before and it looks like I'd previously opened an SPI last year for User:StevenBInc. They'd created this page under the names Go!Animate: The Movie, GoAnimate: The Movie (2006 film), GoAnimate: The Real Movie, and Go!Animate: The Movie (2006 film). What concerns me is that although it isn't as strong as I'd like it to be, there is a link to Bambifan101 and they do seem to share some similarities. There is an obvious preference for editing books about children's animation, TV shows, and books- and like Bambifan101, StevenBInc openly stated that he would create new sockpuppets. I know that this isn't the strongest evidence and if someone familiar with Bambifan101's sockpatterns says that this isn't them, I'd like this moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StevenBInc. It does look like someone's evading a block here and the question is whether it's a Bambifan101 account or a separate person entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like there is some similarity with usernames since Bambifan101 did use some game-themed usernames like DrRobotnik046. There is an IP that edited the most recent article (GoAnimate: The Movie), so if someone thinks that this is a Bambifan101 deal then this will need to be investigated as well. It tracks back to Sacramento, but I know that some of the past IPs brought up at SPI have come from other states. Mostly just mentioning this so that if this is linked to Bambifan then I'll know to add the IPs from this latest article and maybe the past articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

11 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Those three are confirmed to Bambifan101 by a checkuser (See: [86]). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2015 (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]

06 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK, this. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 20:14, 6 September 2015 (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 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Disney-related hoaxes. May not be BambiFan, though (Lassie? Maelbros? Alexcas?). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:15, 30 August 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]

I've declined the CU request. We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Username is VERY similar. Also created obvious hoax article currently at AFD (Bambifan's LTA says that he creates hoax movie and TV show articles and has a female alter-ego). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is now attempting to impersonate User:Gabriella~four.3-6 by creating a Monster High page. However, (s)he apparently wants help (and, according to the Bambifan LTA, will probably solicit it from a sysop on a non-English wiki). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similar username, similar edits ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:39, 2 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]

  • The technical data of past socks is quite stale. However, using the information available on the CU wiki suggests that these accounts are unrelated to Bambifan101. I can say with certainty that they are Red X Unrelated to each other. it's quite unlikely to be the master account listed, so I'm closing with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 23:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This came up at UAA. Would be worth a check. I've ticked the box for CU as there is currently no behavioural evidence to go by. Zerotalk 11:04, 27 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]

Behavioral evidence must be presented. Also, the data is  Stale. Closing without prejudice.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

WP:DUCK. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:00, 7 October 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]

  • I've found the following accounts to be  Confirmed to each other:
Disney2016 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Joniyapierre (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hack421 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
However, looking at the geolocation of the last known Bambifan101 socks, I'm inclined to say they're Red X Unrelated. Mike V • Talk 17:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I came across this via the article Go!animate the movie, which was one of the movies that Bambifan01 liked to create. They also tried to create it at the salted entry and ended up just making it at Talk:Go!Animate: The Movie. A look at their now deleted article history shows a pattern of creating hoax articles, which is in keeping with this editor. For those who can see deleted article history, you can check this out at The dog tale fan-film, Geo's 1st Movie, and The Dog Tale Story.

This is a pretty obvious sock so I'm more listing this for the record and so there can be a sweep for other accounts, as this guy usually opens multiple accounts at a time. Something to take into consideration is that the user StevenBInc is probably related to Bambifan01, as they share some similarities in editing, namely the focus on the fake Go!Animate movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 30 October 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]

  • Based on the information in the CU wiki, which is admittedly pretty stale, Blakeharris02 is Red X Unrelated to Bambifan. I don't have enough experience yet to determine if this another LTA case but I think it's definitely possible, so I'll leave it open for others to look at. Katietalk 18:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, I think it's unlikely this is Bambifan based on the archives and very old CU log data. The CU wiki data is in some ways more chaotic when it comes to location, so in terms of determining only whether this account is editing from the same location as Bambifan and socks, which is all we can do as everything is stale, it's not very helpful. As for whether this account belongs to another master, that's always possible, but I don't see any I'm familiar with. The account is blocked and probably correctly so based on behavior, so I think we should move on. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Username along with the creation of hoax articles (now deleted) associated with Disney. Username is now User:Bambifan101~enwiki - GB fan 12:49, 4 January 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]

27 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Infamous vandal Bambifan101™ was at it again: 1 2 3 Talk page circumstantial evidences showing he created "The Rescuers (2013 film)"

Good that User:Widr has blocked the world's #1 Wikipedia vandal's sock 11 days ago so I'm filing here for the record. Vitt56 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 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]

25 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Page move vandalism. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:28, 25 December 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]

  • Account now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Jkjk is already globally locked for long-term abuse, should also pass the duck test. This one is mainly about establishing a connection between Kkjj and the master. Kkjj is blocked in two projects but I don't think a CU has ever been run on this account - if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

Kkjj and Jkjk have some strange overlapping in multiple projects. I raised my suspicion when looking at tlwiki's vandalism and found that almost all pages Jkjk vandalized were previously edited by Kkjj. see Jkjk's contribs there. I know Bambifan101 has some weird stalking behavior, but there's something else I found didn't completely make sense to me.

For example in zhwiki, these edits are made 30 minutes apart and both are Disney movies. Note that edits by Jkjk are clearly vandalism.

zh:Special:Diff/47584093
zh:Special:Diff/47584505
zh:Special:Diff/47584146
zh:Special:Diff/47584499

Kkjj has been editing Disney related articles in multiple wikis, but the additions were not always in compliant to the local wikis' formatting standards - e.g. this edit in zhwiki adds a lot of interwiki links (discouraged by zhwiki) and untranslated English names, changing the country parameter from "{{USA}}" (should transclude to something like 美国) to "United States" - this is not helping the project. Why change the name of the country in the infobox from Chinese to English in a Chinese project? The interwiki links were somehow fixed in later revisions, but still not the country name - 1, 2.

Back in enwiki, the overlap between Jkjk and Kkjj is just unbelievable. They are literally editing together.

We can see the edit summaries as well - "temporary undo, for pending changes" - this is most likely Kkjj trying to revert Jkjk's edit and then do another self unto to get the edit accepted automatically.

Also take a quick look at Kkjj's edits in enwiki, a majority are related to Disney movies (just as other projects); Bambifan101's vandalism targes are also Disney movies cross-wiki, many of which are what Kkjj have just edited.

The LTA page states, "Bambifan101 is the Wikipedia alias of a teenager from Mobile, Alabama who is a fan of juvenile-themed movies, books, and TV shows". There is a SPI case regarding Kkjj and the suspected sock is using an Alabama IP address. Also in zhwiki page history of 101忠狗續集：倫敦大冒險, an Alabama user edited the page first, three days later Kkjj edited, and then Jkjk. This kind of doesn't make sense to me, did Kkjj stalk someone in Alabama or what?

I would like a CU to look into this case to see if Kkjj is technically related to Jkjk and/or the master, since I am not entirely confident with my conclusion because Kkjj has been editing for quite a while and never suspected as Bambifan101 sock, especially given the strong overlap at Frozen (2013 film) in enwiki. Also, it is good to check if any of the accounts are using any proxies or VPN. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 07:58, 30 December 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]

Kkjj is  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkjj. @Ajraddatz: Please globally lock the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Account locked. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Whenmoney's behavior looks very similar to Bambifan101, as both had edited the pages on family-friendly movies. On the Portuguese Wikipedia, they replaced information on The Fox and the Hound's article with the CGI film Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale. Bambifan had obsessed over Spider's Web in the past, calling it "the most stupid movie on the face of the Earth". This edit essentially confirms that Whenmoney is Bambifan. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 09:40, 5 January 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]

  •  Blocked and tagged. GABgab 15:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User's edits match the articles that Bambifan101 frequented almost exactly, including Disney films like The Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers Down Under and children's films/properties like Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale (2006 film). And they have just edited the LTA page for a user they theoretically should know nothing about, here. --McDoobAU93 18:17, 31 January 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]

5 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Might have another one. Again, focusing on Disney animated features, usually with minor improvements, enough to reach auto-confirmed status. Similar edit summaries in some cases, as well, such as this one for Tingtangtong and this one for Bambi, the last sock. --McDoobAU93 18:08, 5 February 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]

7 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This one got caught after only two edits, again to a frequent target article. Already indef-blocked, but adding here for record-keeping purposes. --McDoobAU93 15:07, 7 February 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]

14 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Similar user names, highly similar edits at 101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure. I note that the socks themselves previously have been blocked. Also, Tingtangtong~zhwiki is currently making a series of vandal edits.-- Tenebrae (talk) 01:42, 14 February 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]

 Done. I see that the usernames follow the format of accounts that were renamed when unified login was turned on, but they're all much too new. @Sir Sputnik: I've left these untagged since you did the work here and I'm not very familiar with this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Global login is probably how these accounts were created. All three were editing on other projects as far back as eight or nine years ago. Since there all already blocked there's nothing left to do here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

WP:DUCK Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:12, 12 April 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]

Red X Unrelated. @Amaury: Next time, please provide evidence, not just "duck".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Username matches the pattern of this sock, only edit is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Householder&diff=prev&oldid=837716316. WP:DUCK to me. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:7C0B:696A:6261:BCCA (talk) 16:11, 22 April 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]

  • Insufficient evidence. The user's sole edit was to remove vandalism. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Large number of edits on frequent Bambifan targets. Per consensus when dealing with LTA cases, the user has NOT been notified of this. --McDoobAU93 13:14, 6 September 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]

  • @McDoobAU93: In the future, please file reports using the instructions at WP:SPI or Twinkle as you do not know how to file them free-form; this causes work for members of the SPI team.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. @Green Giant: Please globally lock this account.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Done as requested. Green Giant (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This username was flagged by a bot as suspicious, for obvious reasons. It may well be innocuous, and I do not know whether the obvious username similarity by itself is enough to run a check in this case. Normally, I would AGF and not think twice about it, but given the severity of this case, I think I should leave the decision to an SPI clerk either way.  ~~Swarm~~  23:10, 31 January 2019 (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 user shares nothing in common with the master other than the username, which is insufficient to take any action. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07 July 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edits are related to Disney and Bambifans' edits. User is aware of several Wikimedia editings, including Wikidata and previous edits reverted under suspected sockpuppetry[87][88]. The edit summaries remind me to that of Frienshipfan User will not be notified per the long-term abuse listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 02:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting CU as TCS created the account a few days ago and has edited a semi-protected page, so there might be sleepers. Added 104.58.147.208, an IP from Mobile, AL that was blocked for sockpuppetry a few years ago. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 05:38, 7 July 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 endorsed - Normally I would just outright close as the account is locked, but a check for sleepers would be beneficial if the stews haven't already done so. As such, endorsing this request. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stars of the City was already blocked and globally locked, but that's all that I see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edits to Liv and Maddie were exactly the same as the ones Bambifan was trying to do a few years ago under different accounts. And this isn't the first time socks have popped up since. Amaury • 19:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The named account has just outed themselves at Talk:Liv and Maddie#Really?. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 10 August 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]

  • IP has been rangeblocked. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

WP:DUCK. Same edits, same editing pattern. Amaury • 00:07, 16 November 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]

This case is being reviewed by Spicy as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • Yep, see [89]. It looks like the same person has been using this IP for almost 5 years and it's been subject to lengthy blocks in the past, so Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please block the IP (anon only, account creation blocked) for another year. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Materialscientist just blocked it for 2 years, so closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Self-admitted by known IPV6 range. wizzito | say hello! 18:26, 22 February 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]

20 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

targeted articles Will120 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2024 (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]

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - The CheckUser tool cannot be used to publicly connect IP addresses and accounts. As only an IP address is listed in this report, CheckUser cannot be used and as such is declined. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may well be someone evading a block, but I'm not convinced the behavior matches what's described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101 and in the archives. At any rate, the IP hasn't edited since the 19th, so this is now stale. Closing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101/Archive&oldid=1202281971"