Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CubeSat4U

CubeSat4U ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

10 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

It's clear that these two accounts are the same, but I'm guessing that they're probably connected to something longer-term. SockPuppy has welcomed several other users who have no contribs (and at least one explicit username), so I'm guessing there may be other new accounts. Home Lander ( talk) 03:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The above two users did vandalism edits that SockPuppy immediately reverted. See below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

@ Home Lander: Did you found any diffs that are connected behavioral based at long-term abuser list, e.g. like SGK or Royer2356? SA 13 Bro ( talk) 06:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The one thing the two users have in common is that they revert vandalism almost immediately after it has been done. The pattern of reversions by SockPuppy is more like an established user with a long watch-list than a new user, either that or someone who is doing the vandalism themself. (I bolded ShockPuppet to show that he/she conforms to the pattern.) I suggest that if a check user is done then the vandals also be included in the check.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

  Looks like a duck to me based on being created just after CubeSat4U was blocked, and the pattern of editing involving quite a lot of reFill and lots of "undo" reverts without user warnings. It just seems a bit familiar to me, and the timing is quite convenient. Probably worth a CU to be sure about it. Murph9000 ( talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

information Note: CubeSat4U has claimed ownership of this new suspect on User talk:CubeSat4U, see message there. Murph9000 ( talk) 05:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
information Note: Al Legorhythm placed a sock blocked notice onto User talk:Al Legorhythm, confirming this case. Murph9000 ( talk) 05:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


I am posting this here mostly for record-keeping purposes, as the archived case is listed under CubeSat4U and does not mention Piano410. The Piano410 account (per its edit count was created 10 October 2011. Per its its edit count the CubeSat4U account was created in April 2017, so this case should be moved to Piano410.

What appears to have happened was that in the course of discussing their block Cubesat4U said here on 8 November 2017 that Piano410 was also their account. That same day they apparently edited from an IP and wrote this at the Piano410 TP which also linked the two accounts, and there was a bunch of drama at both pages.

Anyway on 9 Nov User:TonyBallioni blocked Piano410 as sock per the block log and TP notice, which does not refer to this case. That was obviously as part of this case.

Along with this case being renamed, the sock tags at Piano410 should be updated and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_CubeSat4U should be renamed as well.

I just want to also note that in the edit series the IP made in this diff, the edit note said: Note: I do NOT have access to Murph9000 and the content includes

Having done all of this meant that I, Piano410 might be extremely guilty for undertaking such behavior, but I got what I truly wanted. I was able master the art of conducting my very own investigation without every using the checkuser ability, & rather assisted the checkuser in real time as I have done for the Age of Empires & Candy Crush Wiki. However, since sockpuppetry is considered very serious, I was very afraid in returning to Wikipedia having received all the negative stigma & reputation for undertaking this behavior.

Fortunately, Murph9000 played a very important role in helping me find ways to redeem myself, which is to write an appeal to lift the block for this account. I’m not only writing an appeal for lifting this block, but also lifting a possible block imposed on Piano410. The reason for doing so, is simple. Neither Piano410 or CubeSat4U have concrete evidence of engaging in long term vandalism or destructive behavior using alterative accounts. These FAKE accounts were simply created to help Piano410 learn more about the critical role a Checkuser should play in Wikipedia: that is, to minimize long term vandal/trolling abuse as well as blocking abusive admins.

That made me stop and wonder if Murph9000 is another sock account of this user. But I looked at their writing styles as well as what each has done, and in my view they are different people. Very different. If I thought there was a reasonable chance that Murph9000 was another sock I would have listed it but I can't do that in good conscience. But I wanted to note this here in case anybody else looks at this and thinks about and to have others take a look and see if they come to the same conclusion. Jytdog ( talk) 18:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Blocked and tagged, per above. I blocked as a DUCK and didn't see the need to file the SPI because it was so obvious. Note they also admitted it in this unblock request, so I'm tagging as proven. Closing. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CubeSat4U/Archive&oldid=1144905769"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CubeSat4U

CubeSat4U ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

10 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

It's clear that these two accounts are the same, but I'm guessing that they're probably connected to something longer-term. SockPuppy has welcomed several other users who have no contribs (and at least one explicit username), so I'm guessing there may be other new accounts. Home Lander ( talk) 03:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The above two users did vandalism edits that SockPuppy immediately reverted. See below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

@ Home Lander: Did you found any diffs that are connected behavioral based at long-term abuser list, e.g. like SGK or Royer2356? SA 13 Bro ( talk) 06:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The one thing the two users have in common is that they revert vandalism almost immediately after it has been done. The pattern of reversions by SockPuppy is more like an established user with a long watch-list than a new user, either that or someone who is doing the vandalism themself. (I bolded ShockPuppet to show that he/she conforms to the pattern.) I suggest that if a check user is done then the vandals also be included in the check.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

  Looks like a duck to me based on being created just after CubeSat4U was blocked, and the pattern of editing involving quite a lot of reFill and lots of "undo" reverts without user warnings. It just seems a bit familiar to me, and the timing is quite convenient. Probably worth a CU to be sure about it. Murph9000 ( talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

information Note: CubeSat4U has claimed ownership of this new suspect on User talk:CubeSat4U, see message there. Murph9000 ( talk) 05:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
information Note: Al Legorhythm placed a sock blocked notice onto User talk:Al Legorhythm, confirming this case. Murph9000 ( talk) 05:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


I am posting this here mostly for record-keeping purposes, as the archived case is listed under CubeSat4U and does not mention Piano410. The Piano410 account (per its edit count was created 10 October 2011. Per its its edit count the CubeSat4U account was created in April 2017, so this case should be moved to Piano410.

What appears to have happened was that in the course of discussing their block Cubesat4U said here on 8 November 2017 that Piano410 was also their account. That same day they apparently edited from an IP and wrote this at the Piano410 TP which also linked the two accounts, and there was a bunch of drama at both pages.

Anyway on 9 Nov User:TonyBallioni blocked Piano410 as sock per the block log and TP notice, which does not refer to this case. That was obviously as part of this case.

Along with this case being renamed, the sock tags at Piano410 should be updated and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_CubeSat4U should be renamed as well.

I just want to also note that in the edit series the IP made in this diff, the edit note said: Note: I do NOT have access to Murph9000 and the content includes

Having done all of this meant that I, Piano410 might be extremely guilty for undertaking such behavior, but I got what I truly wanted. I was able master the art of conducting my very own investigation without every using the checkuser ability, & rather assisted the checkuser in real time as I have done for the Age of Empires & Candy Crush Wiki. However, since sockpuppetry is considered very serious, I was very afraid in returning to Wikipedia having received all the negative stigma & reputation for undertaking this behavior.

Fortunately, Murph9000 played a very important role in helping me find ways to redeem myself, which is to write an appeal to lift the block for this account. I’m not only writing an appeal for lifting this block, but also lifting a possible block imposed on Piano410. The reason for doing so, is simple. Neither Piano410 or CubeSat4U have concrete evidence of engaging in long term vandalism or destructive behavior using alterative accounts. These FAKE accounts were simply created to help Piano410 learn more about the critical role a Checkuser should play in Wikipedia: that is, to minimize long term vandal/trolling abuse as well as blocking abusive admins.

That made me stop and wonder if Murph9000 is another sock account of this user. But I looked at their writing styles as well as what each has done, and in my view they are different people. Very different. If I thought there was a reasonable chance that Murph9000 was another sock I would have listed it but I can't do that in good conscience. But I wanted to note this here in case anybody else looks at this and thinks about and to have others take a look and see if they come to the same conclusion. Jytdog ( talk) 18:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Blocked and tagged, per above. I blocked as a DUCK and didn't see the need to file the SPI because it was so obvious. Note they also admitted it in this unblock request, so I'm tagging as proven. Closing. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CubeSat4U/Archive&oldid=1144905769"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE