Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lurulu/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lurulu

Lurulu (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10 December 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Near identical name of Lurulu, an editor indef blocked for long history of re-creating articles deleted through AfD. Lurulu2 account created 1 day after block of Lurulu, commenced editing same articles. Lurulu's last edit, Lurulu2 edit 2 days later. Lurulu2's first edit was to article frequently edited by Lurulu. Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:51, 10 December 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]
  • While the socking is obvious, I'm concerned that the blocking admin completely forgot to notify the user of the underlying block. Courcelles 06:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dropped a note on Todd's page pointing him here. This is a bit different and thought it better if he were in the loop. Not sure the best handling, nor how likely that the person genuinely didn't understand why or even that they were blocked, and rather than assume, it is better to just get him in the loop at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user was notified of the block here User_talk:Lurulu#Blocked. Of course the person knew he/she was blocked and the reason for it, even if s/he didn't read their talk page. S/he saw a big splash screen clearly explaining that they were blocked for "Disruptive editing: (persistent reposting of AFDed articles)" when s/he went to edit. Toddst1 (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Todd's comment: He did put a block notice, the CU and I just missed it in a sea of other templates. Per his advice, I went and logged in my blocked doppelganger account and have concluded that the Master should have known they were blocked when they tried to edit, as a notice pops up at the top of that page notifying you why you can't edit. Thus, the obvious sock is obviously indef blocked. Learned something new today. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

A past investigation was already made for this user, both of their past accounts are blocked but now they are under the name "HurluGumene". Jennica✿ / talk 00:38, 30 November 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]

  •  Clerk note: This case was originally opened under "HurluGumene" but has been moved here. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case is incredibly obvious. The username matches, articles of interest match, behavior matches, and this account was created shortly after the last sock was blocked. Now, this is an unusual case, in that this sock evaded block for nearly 4 years. I was initially hesitant to block, but in that four years, this user does not seem to have learned. It's been years of edit warring, immaturity, creating pages on non-notable subjects, copyright violations and personal attacks. Sock is blocked indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This editor bears an intense behavioral similarity to the most recent Lurulu sock, HurluGumene (talk · contribs). These editors have the same habits with their edit summaries (ellipses, exclamation points, "oops"), and a complete disinterest in communication. It would appear that the Frenchfolk account was created exclusively to edit certain articles, while most editing was done with the Hurlu account. If you line up their contribution histories, an obvious pattern emerges. Both accounts have no particular preference for a day or time that they edit, but whenever both accounts edit on the same day, the edits are not staggered. There will be a large block of edits from one account, then (often just minutes later) another block of edits from the other account. This account was not obvious at my last investigation because there is no article overlap between them. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 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]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - I'm requesting a checkuser of this account and the Hurlu account as the connection between the two was not obvious. If Lurulu has even more accounts that were made for specific articles or topics, CU seems like the best way to find them. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously the master is stale, but Frenchfolk and HurluGumene are  Likely - same user agent, same ISP. Katietalk 11:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hitting their typical pages, such as "Malicorne (band)", The Who, Rolling Stones, Altan lead singer: Mairéad Ní Mhaonaigh. Adding their other suspected sockpuppet Screwperson since it was not listed but it has since been blocked. The accounts are being abused to add menial details that only a small group of people would be interested, as well as disruptive editing and edit warring. This is the 4th or 5th [suspected] Sockpuppet from this user. Per the investigation archive, the master will be stale but the Frenchfolk and HurluGumene are likely matches. Jennica✿ / talk 17:43, 24 December 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]

Endorsing for CU because of a reasonable possibility of finding new/additional sleepers. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  In progress - Katietalk 13:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed to HurluGumene and archival evidence. Blocked, tagged, closed. Katietalk 13:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hitting a page largely [formerly] edited by all of his socks. Editing and adding bulk unnecessary details, such as overlinking all of these cities diff. and also the master sock, Lurulu and the new sock, Redomatic have both edited on Malicorne 1 And their last sock, Bluecolossus, had "Blue" in their username, so I believe this to be another sock. Requesting check user against past usernames, Bluecolossus and Frenchfolk. Jennica✿ / talk 20:21, 28 December 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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - looks pretty obvious. Endorsing for sleeper check. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Katietalk 12:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed. It's a big range with lots of collateral damage, so we'll be playing whack-a-mole for a while. Blocked, tagged, closed. Katietalk 12:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hitting usual articles. Anything Sting related, including creating a concert tour which I believe was deleted in the past and created by his sock puppet. Editing on Na Mooneys (see history) - an article he edited on with sockpuppet HurluGumene. Checkuser probably will end up stale for Hurulu but will probably be successful for user names: Redomatic and Bluecolossus, his most recent socks. Jennica✿ / talk 05:14, 7 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]

  •  Clerk declined - Based on previous CU results, a new check is unlikely to reveal more accounts or allow for a rangeblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious sock is blocked, articles are nuked under G5. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


07 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Surely another one - created 57th & 9th Tour and Summer 2016 Tour. bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 7 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]

 Blocked and tagged, closing. GABgab 15:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hitting regular pages. Pages that HurluGumene and his most recent sock Trumbastic has hit, such as: Na Mooneys (album), Tell 'Em I'm Gone. I think it's obvious it's him. Again. Inevitably. Jennica✿ / talk 19:14, 10 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]


12 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hitting regular pages. Altan (band), One on One (tour), both of which were edited by their previous sock HurluGurmene. Jennica✿ / talk 00:27, 12 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]

23 April 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same naming scheme, with a period separating words. Editing on Yes band pages, same as their other socks. Jennica✿ / talk 22:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Evidence – @Vanjagenije:
    • Diff 1 – Same username pattern as all their other socks and same kind of edit summary, ending in an explanation mark.
    • Diff 2 – Edit summary ending in explanation, username pattern.
    • Former sock account - Multiple edits on the Yes band tour page.
    • Former sock account - multiple edits on the Yes band tour page.--Jennica✿ / talk 20:05, 24 April 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]

  •  Additional information needed - @Jennica: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note This report should be moved under Lurulu. Sweet.honey and Rough.time all duck blocked by me. White.leader blocked by Laser brain. -- ferret (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Following the same vein as the previous sock puppets, this new one has an identical naming format, with the first and last names separated by a period and not a standard space. More telling is the similar, if not identical, edits. For example, here is the sock Duck.walker attempting to reintroduce the AvP movies to the Alien (franchise) page, while the current suspected sock did the same thing the other day. Though, with such an apparent case, perhaps it's not even prudent to run a check user and simply block the account... DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 18:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

27 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same focus on The Rolling Stones ([1] [2]), popular movie franchises ([3] [4]), Frank Zappa ([5] [6]), and Soft Machine ([7] [8]). Username makes this a WP:DUCK. Sro23 (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

  •  Likely.  Blocked and tagged. ~ Rob13Talk 11:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Filing to refresh the case archive; this account is obvious and I am about to block. Restoring edits of sock Folk.pilgrim (talk · contribs) across a range of frequently targeted articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:07, 8 May 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]

  • Account  Blocked and tagged. Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention for sleepers per activity in the case archive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also note there is one non-stale sock not listed in the archive: Maxwel.Rugby (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This account has similar pages as Lurulu, as well as the most common naming convention for socks. Though the user was blocked today for disruptive editing, I would like to confirm if they are said banned editor, so we may broaden the scope of associated pages. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 16:32, 11 May 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]

  • No need to do anything. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This editor has made nearly identical edits as Lurulu and has made disruptive edits to many of the same pages, including Alien (franchise)(1) and The Beatles' rooftop concert(2). Though there is a the possibility that these may be separate editors with distinctly similar interests in film and music, it is necessary to first investigate. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:43, 3 November 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]

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Master and all socks are  Stale. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: But, they edited today. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing in the archive or the category to compare them to, which means this will need to be behavioural. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I've blocked some 30+ Lurulu socks in the past, under the RandomWord.RandomWord pattern they followed for a long time. There is definitely some article topic area overlap here. This one seems to have been active for quite a while. Reviewing here, I see edits to Rolling Stones, Aliens franchise, Altan, Simple Mind, other assorted Irish folk music, and tours in general, all hallmark areas. I haven't had any reported to me in a while, but I'd say likely. -- ferret (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ferret, if you feel there is enough on to block on based off of the behaviour, I don't have any objections. There was just nothing in the archive to compare to. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Yeah I was about to change "likely" to "extremely" after reviewing some of the past ones again. I've blocked. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I've closed the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 February 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Username convention, style of edit summaries (when provided), edits of questionable value/tone, and similar editing targets to previous socks, including: Simple Minds [9], Altan [10], etc. Fru1tbat (talk) 18:00, 10 February 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]

  •  Blocked and tagged. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lurulu/Archive&oldid=1076209628"