 | This page is currently inactive and is retained forhistorical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as thevillage pump. |
 | CAUTION Thesuspected sockpuppets page and therequests for CheckUser page have been merged intoSockpuppet investigations (SPI). SPI is designed to make the process of dealing withsockpuppets much easier, by using one central page for all sockpuppet discussion, rather than fragmented discussion betweenSSP andRFCU. SPI is very similar to both of these, so users of these pages should find SPI familiar. In addition to the merging of both pages, theRFCU andSSP shortcuts will also be redirected to the new SPI page and the current processes will be discontinued. The co-ordination page for this is atWikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. |
Refresh the page |
Thesuspected sock puppets page is whereWikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia'spolicy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis ofbehavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go torequests for checkuser.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please seeWikipedia:Sock puppetry.
Administrators please seeWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. for editing here atWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP).
 | Before creating a report atWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:
|
| To start a case report about suspectedsockpuppetry: Cases are created onsubpages ofWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Example: if there were already two cases aboutUser:John Doe, the new case would be titled: After you've saved the report, come back tosee the remaining instructions below this box.
|
Sinofdreams (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
Populated account categories:confirmed
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinofdreams/Archive.
Hero of Time 87 (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
Populated account categories:suspected
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hero of Time 87/Archive.
Aaa41 (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
Populated account categories:suspected
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aaa41/Archive.
Anwellcom (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anwellcom/Archive.
Ansonrosew (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
Populated account categories:suspected
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ansonrosew/Archive.
Korlzor (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korlzor/Archive.
Vr (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vr/Archive.
Fipplet (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
Populated account categories:confirmed
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fipplet/Archive.
131.94.22.74 (talk+ ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·tag ·block user ·block log ·CheckUser)
Alexandrababelove (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
Populated account categories:confirmed
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexandrababelove/Archive.
Lomerezco (talk+ ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·tag ·block user ·block log ·CheckUser)
Vandalism on theRosa Blasi,Jim Finn andLalaine pages identical to previously banned accounts.
Blocked.Cirt (talk)09:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous081222 (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anonymous081222/Archive.
Prspiring (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prspiring/Archive.
96.247.37.61 (talk+ ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·tag ·block user ·block log ·CheckUser)
Pretty self-evidently the same person, but since they're IPs there's no point in blocking them. When they pop up trying to subvert debates or otherwise breaching policy, probably quicker to highlight the issue there and then.GbT/c19:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roy Ward (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
Populated account categories:confirmed
For archived investigations, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roy Ward/Archive.
--Collectonian (talk ·contribs)13:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly blatantly obvious sockpuppetry coming from the Aurora Publishing house which is suddenly using Wikipedia as an advertising formula, creating entries for all of its unnotable series, reverting tagging and clean ups of those new articles, etc. Initial account warned of COI issues and is self-admitted Aurora employee copy/pasting the promo material they wrote here.[5] SeeAurora Publishing history and the numerous articles created by each. AlsoWikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Aurora Publishing review for the alert and discussion at the project about these accounts. There may be other accounts as well and source IP probably needs blocked if they are all the same.
This may be more meatpuppetry then sockpuppetry. But at least we should rule out the sockpuppetry. The thing that concerns me the most is that these accounts limit their editing to the articles related to this one publisher and insert the publisher's name promently into the article leads even when the original Japanese publishers' names are absent. --Farix (Talk)16:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly new as a editor on Wikipedia, just started my account this week. I find it amusing that I would be automatically deemed an employee or a conspirator for Aurora Publishing for submitting entries. All I did basically was try to add references to each title, edited some of the text to make it sound a little better and have it be more informative. I have no idea who the Fujoshi Sisters are. I have no idea it was a crime to be editing the page at the same time as someone else or even to stop at the same time. I'm sure coincidences does occur, but if it relates to this company something is up. I understand the idea of being accurate and factual but I think it's discriminating to this company when as far as I can see looking at other manga publishing wiki pages such as,Yen Press,Go! Comi, andDigital Manga Publishing who all should be deleted because they are more or less constructed the same way. I honestly do not see what is wrong with listing title of the series they published. I'm sure that who ever did list the titles before was just trying to inform those that would look up the company what titles they have released. And really just looking at the publishers I listed probably structure the Aurora Publishing page the same way. (User talk:Mizuki0066) 11:35 PST January 9—Precedingundated comment was added at19:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merged withWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fujoshi sistersOhanaUnitedTalk page06:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spammers now blocked. Any admin is welcome to unblock if the risk can be shown to be removed, but at the moment the accounts do not seem interested in anything other than inappropriate promotional activity, are not showing any signs of heeding the multiple notes that should have raised red flags for them, so blocking is the obvious way to stop it.Guy(Help!)18:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alkclark (talk+ ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·tag ·block user ·block log ·CheckUser)
I believeAlkclark (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log) and64.140.0.3 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log) are the same person, and that the accounts are acting cooperatively in violation ofWP:SOCK.
The two accounts inhabit the same articles dealing with music, in particular specific articles on concert tours, singles, and albums. Their edit summary comment styles are similar, as is their usual aversion to explaining their edits in talk pages. The Alkclark account is used to make initial large-scale edits to articles; if other editors object, the 64.140.0.3 account comes in and makes reversions and/or rude comments in support of the Alkclark edits. One recent example of this involves theViva la Vida Tour article, where Alkclark started making large-scale changeshere ; adminUser:Madchester objected to some of the changes, including a reversion of Alkclarkhere; then 64.140.0.3 was used to revert it backhere, and then 64.140.0.3 was used toleave this rude and harrassing message at Madchester's talk page, using the language "your little pet project". This is an example of the common phrases Alkclark/64.140.0.3 use, see for example Alkclark using "personal pet" inthis edit here regarding an IfD discussion. Another recent example relates to theSoul2Soul II Tour article. Alkclark begins by making widespread changes that remove much of the materialhere. I object, keep some of his/her changes but restore other part of the articlehere, and start a discussion on the talk page. Alkclark refuses to engage on the talk page, but instead has 64.140.0.3 twice revert the article to his/her version withthis edit andthis edit.
That these are the same person is even more evident once you go further back in their histories. There have been many complaints and warnings against 64.140.0.3 that it just removes from its talk page (see all the "Blanked the page" editsin here). More importantly, 64.140.0.3 also been used to delete complaints and warnings fromAlkclark's talk page, see for examplehere andhere. And in the highest violation ofWP:SOCK, 64.140.0.3 has pretended to be a third party in a dispute between Alkclark and another editor, for examplehere andhere, or for a more recent examplehere where 64.140.0.3 not surprisingly "agrees with" a previous talk page post by Alkclark. No amount of "I didn't realize I wasn't logged in" excuses can explain away this long history of improperly acting in concert.
Finally, I'm not convinced that the 64.140.0.3 IP address is shared by multiple users, as itsUser talk:64.140.0.3 banner suggests. The first edits suggesting this were from 64.140.0.3 itself in the middle of an edit dispute, seehere andhere. The banner was then put on by an apparently sincere other editorhere. There definitely aren't "14 current Wiki Editors" at that IP address, as 64.140.0.3's original post suggested; all or almost all the edits from 64.140.0.3 look like they come from this one person.
I am amending this entry to include two additional sockpuppets of Alkclark I have found,User:Dancefloor royalty andUser:KM*hearts*MC.
Evidence that they are the same person can be seen by looking at their last 500 edits,here for Alkclark,here for Dancefloor royalty andhere for KM*hearts*MC. They inhabit the same sets of articles, and all got involved in prolonged disputes overKylieX2008 and various Madonna tour articles. Their edit summaries are very similar, including use of abbreviations such as "addtl", "b/c", "pls" and so forth.
They also use some more specific terms in arguing with other editors in common, such as "vindictive" byDancefloor royalty here andby Alkclark here, and "fluff" byAlkclark here,by Dancefloor royalty here. Both Alkclark and Dancefloor royalty share a misconception of whatWP:COI is about, seehere for Alkclark andhere for Dancefloor royalty. KM*hearts*MC is fond of accusing editors he/she disagrees with as being childish, seehere andhere for just two examples; Dancefloor royalty also uses the childish accusation with similar wording and attitudehere andhere.
Moreover, they all have the unusual tic of looking up IP addresses' providers or origins and adding the{{SharedIP}} or{{ISP}} banner template to talk pages of IP users. Seehere andhere andhere for Dancefloor royalty doing it. Seehere andhere andhere for KM*hearts*MC doing it. Seehere for Alkclark doing it. Seehere for 64.140.0.3 doing it.
As evidence that these accounts are acting in collaboration, looking atthis history, KM*hearts*MC's very first edit ever washere was to "agree" with Alkclark and Dancefloor royalty on a talk page. Two of the three along with 64.140.0.3 posted in agreement with each other onthis AfD. They ganged up onUser:Jwad in disputes over the Madonna tour articles, as witness a number of posts onUser talk:Jwad and inthis Request for Arbitration, in which Alkclark pretended to be a neutral player between Dancefloor royalty and KM*hearts*BC on one side and Jwad on the other. They make appeals to uninvolved editors pretending to be different people, seehere andhere for example. This is all one person, using sockpuppets to abuse process and abuse other editors on these articles.
Firstly, It's my high belief that editor Wasted Time R, is somehow upset because I corrected his/her edits. To first begin, the IP address 64.140.0.3 belongs toLevel 3 Communicationsshown here, an internet provider for the private sector, meaning it is used to businesses and not the common household such as Comcast. Althoughthis site proclaims the address belongs to Colorado Christian University. Upon contacting the phone number provided by Whois (1-877-453-8353), the address belongs to a business center in Denver, CO, further information was not given to me. So I am assuming this could belong to a hotel, apartment building or public place that allows internet access. I have logged into Wiki from work in the past, but I am not sure what that location's IP address is. Additionally, the IP address has been engaged in editing Wikipedia since November 2005. I have not been editing since April 2007, although I've done a few edits here and there in July 2006 to LeAnn Rimes related articles. My account has over 1000 edits while this IP address has barely 500. If an account is used for sock puppetry, history has shown that it is used more often. Another point is all of my edits are music-based. This IP address has edited articles concerning a broad range of subjects, not just one specific area. Additionally, this is a shared IP as shownherehere andhere. Concerning this editor's evidence:
I do admit that I am not perfect and I have ran into problems with other editors but this is utterly ridiculous.I have contributed significantly to Wikipedia and will continue to do so, despite this setback. This user is claiming guilt by association. I'm sure I can pick any IP address and a user name and dig deep enough and find3 similarities. I have no problems expressing my opinions to any editor and do not need to hide behind a mask to do so.Alkclark (talk)05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the submitter's analysis that abuse of multiple accounts is taking place. For your review, check out this analysis of contribution times for three of the above accounts:
This shows almost perfect non-overlap of editing sessions betweenAlkclark, 64.140.0.3 and Dancefloor royalty. Notice all three of these editors warring against Madchester's changes atViva la Vida Tour. If Alkclark does not want to let us know what is really going on, I propose that a checkuser be run.EdJohnston (talk)15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
