Both users are on a driveby tagging/deletion spree, tagging articles created by specific users (explicitly DreamGuy and Cannibaloki) for deletion. After a stern warning given to Wordssuch here (and acknowledged by blanking the page here and here), in come Azviz to continue with the deletion-tagging on specific articles ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and so on as indicated in the edit history), which seems to be wikistalking. MuZemike 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) MuZemike 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I will note that the suspected sockpuppeteer has accused me of sockpuppetry (and harassment) myself here. MuZemike 06:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Clerk declined Insufficient evidence of either serious pattern vandalism or abusive socking to warrant CU Mayalld ( talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delisted There is a gap of nearly a month between Wordssuch's single day editing career, and Azviz registering an account. Wordssuch was not blocked, and even if this is the same user, there is no overlap in account use that could be a block avoiding tactic. At the very most we have a newbie abandoning one account and starting another. Mayalld ( talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Mayalld ( talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that a checkuser on these accounts is in progress and being conducted by
Lucasbfr (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA). This page is formed for paperwork purposes.
PeterSymonds (
talk) 22:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Syn ergy 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
User contribs are identical of that to Esasus with regards to removing {{ prod}} templates at a rapid rate from articles. User has also, in the same manner as the already-blocked socks, made similar remarks at ANI report, again accusing DreamGuy ( talk · contribs) of wikistalking. Also see the following relevant past incidents: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Prodding spree and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive185#User:Esasus removing PROD tags from articles. MuZemike 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The accusation is false and put forward as a form of intimidation. I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and I have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Varbas ( talk) 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I blocked Iwelak indefinitely to prevent abusive sock-puppetry, but did not block Varbas. Assuming good faith, Varbas might have not wanted to edit under Iwelak and stopped and created Varbas. As Nathan said, their editing time frame never overlapped so no need to punish Varbas. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
IP is posting similar reports to ANI as noted at here and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Detailed response by Azviz. This was the IP's first edit, which leads to believe that this is the same person who has been attempting to bait DreamGuy ( talk · contribs) into another block. MuZemike 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added a second IP, new IP address evidently dedicated to reverting edits by DreamGuy. Both IPs are from Shaw Communications. Dougweller ( talk) 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Added two more IPs from the same cluster I noticed reverting my edits for no reason. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Added yet another... someone canvassing to get people whose edits I have removed for various reasons in the past to go complain to ArbCom about me. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding Varbas, as he is most recent of suspected named socks. His behavior has escalated since the last report, that showed it was possible he was a sock of Azviz. Perhaps now there'll be more info that can confirm it. Several people have noted his edits and the IP edits have the same tone and targets, so if any are connected to Azviz they could connect together. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I am also adding User:Granite thump, as he was created around the time when the first Azviz socks were being identified and was part of group told by members of the "article rescue squadron" that their constant delete votes with flimsy rationale was not helpful. The account started on edits to articles but seems to be mainly focused on AFDs now, which fits the demontrated strategy of some of the previous Azviz socks. Of course it could just be a new user too. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot ( talk) 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
-- Luk talk 08:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Contribs indicate that this is another sock of User:Esasus/ User:/Azviz. The first edit is a deprod with rationale similar to those given in the serial deprodding actions by this user. The second edit reverts a removal made by DreamGuy ( talk · contribs). Finally, the IP, just as in the previous SPI case, Geolocates to Calgary. Actions indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 22:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Blocked for a week. PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Signs of similar editing by previous socks (IP and registered) of Esasus ( talk · contribs) as shown [7] as well as making another complaint to ANI accusing the same user of vandalism (see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). IP, as in the others, geolocate to Calgary. Actions again indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Blocked for two weeks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Only edits by IP have been deprodding articles, and IP Geolocates to Calgary as with the other IP socks of User:Esasus. Actions indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 04:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I also note the following:
MuZemike 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Rterrace ( talk) 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Added User:Alfnetwork as it reverted a revert of a prod by the IP address above and is a brand new editor whose only edits concern making sure articles are prodded or tagged as previously deprodded. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Adding in User:Nosehillbranch... I spotted this account yesterday but thought the similarities weren't there yet to add to this list (early edits could have just been to build up an edit history of minor changes to throw off sock investigations), but just in the last day the account has been identified as others as a largely deprod-only account (all of recent edits are such), and User:Beltline is systematically going around adding "previously prodded" templates for Nosehillbranch's deprods. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed a pattern of deprodding on the last day, often at the last minute, by other accounts that seem to be newly created for deprodding: User:Rockyview, User:Rterrace and User:Courtscentre. User:Rterrace, for example, deprodded Autrey Hayes, an utterly unverifiable person, which seems to be way off topic for him, judging by the scientific articles he edited over the last few days. He also recreated an article Jeffrey F. Bell, which predates the creation of his account (I don't know if there is any connection between Azviz and this article). Abductive ( talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what is going on. I have not made any edits to the Nancy LaMott article, and I have been adding the "oldprodfull" tag to the talk pages of all previously deproded articles, and I intend to continue to do so. I have received encouragement on my talk page for taking on that responsibility. And yes, when I come across an article that has been previously deproded I do (properly) remove the restored prod tag with an appropriate edit comment. That is the right thing to do as a prod tag should not be restored after it has been once removed. Beltline ( talk) 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is my intend to add more info to the stub articles at a later time. If an admin will check my edits you will see that the few edits I have made have been constructive. I checked the contribution history of Abductive whose "1st" edit was on May 19, 2009 [19]. Why is this "new" editor involved in only deletion discussions and proposals? Is he really a new editor? Courtscentre ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
With regards to two new registered suspected socks, I am requesting checkuser with reason indicated in the request above. MuZemike 05:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is of my opinion that Alfnetwork (whom I did not add to this SPI), from looking at the contribs, is not a sock of Esasus, but the editing patterns seem to match those described in the Administrators' noticeboard discussion mentioned above.
MuZemike 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I checked the various Bahals recently created; I came across them short page patrolling the other day -tagged them unref'd and now all have references and they seem legit with the possible exception of Bahal, Kenya, however, the place is recognized (not as a city, but as an area) at GEOnames in the place Courtscentre claims, but it has been prodded because those coordinates are in Ethiopia not Kenya, but hardly vandalism as it is verified, although possibly in error (either its exsitence or its location). The others all check out at GEOnames, and with the exception of Bahal, Iran at Google maps as well. I don't know what Google's coverage of Iran is given the embargo, but it apprears FWIW that Courtscentre's edits to create "the Bahals" are defensible. By the way, there's no indication that any of the Bahal are cities rather than villages and so noted in the articles. No comment on who may be a sock of whom, but just commenting on the Bahals as I had flagged them originally. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please sweep for sleeper socks and nail the underlying IPs as there has been harassment. This user should not be editing at all via any means. Jehochman Talk 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed Icestorm815 • Talk 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently available technical evidence indicates the following:
-- Avi ( talk) 05:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Thanks. The confirmed accounts were already blocked/tagged by someone else. A study of the likely and possible accounts listed shows a very clear relationship to Azviz, so with the technical evidence, I have blocked and tagged them all as Azviz. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Question -- What about that IP address? Don't see that listed in conclusions, see no message on the talk page that it was blocked. Was it in or out? DreamGuy ( talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The first one geolocates to Edmonton, but the latter two geolocate to Calgary. All their first edits are reverting DreamGuy's removal of earlier improper deprodding per
WP:BAN. Clearly more quacking. On a side note, are we anywhere close to any feasible rangeblock, at least on the 68-IPs? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MuZemike (
talk •
contribs) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Doing a analysis on the ranges on the 68s and 174s from all the previous SPI cases. For the 68s, while we have all but one of them that falls under the 68.147.0.0/16 range, most of them do fall under the 68.147.192.0/18 range. The two 174s fall under the 174.0.32.0/19 range. MuZemike 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Added 137.186.254.160 due to this edit. IP geolocates to Calgary. Them From Space 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Added 68.147.233.9 and 68.147.248.112. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
More for exact same reasons, will just add them above as they come in. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is actually going to require checkuser assistance. Will need to see how much collateral damage there will be on a rangeblock of the 68.147.2.... block. I certify the basis for a request for checkuser assistance. Enigma msg 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Declined Each of the /16 blocks is are 65K IPs, we are looking at about 500,000 IPs above; those ranges are too large to block at this point, I believe. I recommend anon blocking /24 ranges of WP:DUCK-positive edits for a week or two as needed. If this escalates further, return here. -- Avi ( talk) 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Same similar edits being made again, including random serial deprodding with the exact same types of edit summaries used to the previously-blocked socks as well as other similar minor edits also employed by said socks. The username "Mardaloop" refers to Marda Loop, Calgary (most of the suspected/confirmed socks originate from Calgary). MuZemike 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that Toddst1 looks suspiciously like Gasp2009 and a checkuser will probably show a link. Gasp2009 ( talk) 05:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not invade my privacy. I was ...hernandez but it just got too heated so I quit using that and am using Gasp2009. Satisfied? Checkuser, please remove my name from this. Also note that MuZemike says the socks deprod articles. I have never proded or deproded an article because I don't even know what a deprod is (castration???).
I am not in Canada (MuZemike says the socks are coming from Calgary, in Canada) Also consider running a checkuser on MuZemike and Abductive who could be socks of other people, especially Abductive who admits creating many socks http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AAreas_for_Reform&diff=303825864&oldid=303821914 . After all, it takes a thief to know one. Better yet, I will paypal you, the checkuser $100 if I am Windlake or Marmaloop or you will paypal me $100 if I am not.
Please also see Wikipedia policy which states "It(checkuser) will not be used without good cause, which you must clearly demonstrate." The complainer has failed to show where I deprodded articles or wrote in cahoots with the other users. The complainer is being disruptive and disruption is a reason for them to be blocked. I came today to write an article about scallops but now I am fed up! Gasp2009 ( talk) 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Gasp2009 contacted me and essentially admitted being a sock. He seems to be trying for some sort of rapprochement, although his methods have become ...unsound. Abductive ( talk) 22:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Toddst1 was added to the list of suspects by Gasp2009 as part of a campaign of baiting Toddst1. [21] [22]. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Along with confirming via technical plus behavioral evidence, there are likely other socks in this farm as they have kept coming out consistently within the past three or four months. MuZemike 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I do not know who the Sockmaster is, but this apparently new user (May 20) has made hundreds of edits, particularly rin the last week, with many warnings, see User talk: Inniverse and Special:Contributions/Inniverse. Very odd behavior for a brand new user; I think this is not a newbie. And, apparently disruptive. though not a direct problem for me, other than reverting about six red links. Just worth checking. Montanabw (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
The socks below inni have no contributions whatsoever. Phearson ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
(I'll consider myself involved as far as this is concerned and recuse in clerking capacity, hence my posting in this section.) Looking at the contributions, the user has been doing quite a bit of (nearly) mass-dePRODding and knows quite a bit of WP:PROD from the get-go. In addition, there is quite a bit of wiki-gnoming going on here. I know one person who had similar patterns in the past, and that is serial sockpuppeteer Azviz ( talk · contribs), who had about 40 socks going last year, engaging in harassment and otherwise disruption. – MuZemike 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible; based on the archive, I believe this account geolocates to the same metropolitan area as User:Azviz. We can't be more certain because Azviz's prior socks are Stale. No other current socks found.
I would not have checked this but for the A Nobody request, which turned out to be Unrelated. Remember that CheckUser is not for fishing. Cool Hand Luke 03:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. Incidentally, despite the claim above, I didn't request this checkuser in this report: it was apparently cut-and-pasted from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody.— Kww( talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
All three accounts have been engaging in the same serial de-PRODing as Azviz and socks have done back in 2009. This includes similar edit summaries and now even similar articles. These accounts seem to have a knack of going straight to ANI after disputes with other users in which nothing normally happens. Requesting a CheckUser look into this for a connection (I will not act in an admin capacity as I have been involved in the past in this SPI case as a filer back in 2008 and 2009), as Cool Hand Luke has made a possible connection (but not definitive) in the previous CU request. – MuZemike 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) – MuZemike 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
MuZemike's past allegation that I am a sock of Azviz has already been confuted, and it is demonstrability obvious that I am not Moorsmur. A close look at the edit histories for myself and Moorsmur clearly demonstrates that I have not been operating multiple accounts. There are no common articles between us, and on June 30th both accounts were actively editing during the same time frame - even making edits during the exact same minute! It is not possible for me to have been editing on these two different accounts simultaneously.
It appears to me that I am being persecuted by MuZemike. I can only speculate as to his motives, but I will point out that even after it was demonstrated to the Wikicommunity that I am not Azviz, MuZemike has repeatedly accused me that I am, first here on August 24th where he calls me “Azviz” (at that time I chose to ignore his bait), and now again here, where I was not even notified of this SPI investigation.
MuZemike is aware that due to my editing location in the past I have been identified as a “false positive” match to Azviz, but I hope that now this will be finally put to rest and the persecution will stop. I am not able to edit for a few days, so it is unlikely that I will be able to make a quick response to comments. Inniverse ( talk) 01:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser comments: Likely that the following three accounts are socks of each other, based on checkuser data and behavioural evidence:
I will leave it to checkuser clerks or other administrators to block as they see appropriate. Risker ( talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Per [23], someone should have a chat with GeorgeWilliamHerbert]. I don't know anything that Inniverse could have provided to be so convincing, since, after all, we don't have a real-life ID of Azviz to compare it to. I decided not to raise a fuss at the time.— Kww( talk) 15:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Inniverse blocked and tagged.— Kww( talk) 18:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Ralph Thomas Scurfield is a heavily-biased article related to the Sunshine Village ski resort (the father of the manager), which is currently engaged in covering up an ongoing controversy regarding the dismissal of several ski patrollers.
Based on the number of authors involved in fluffing this article, I am concerned that some or all of them are sock puppets, as is clearly the case at Sunshine Village. My evidence in support of this suspicion is only circumstantial, but I hope that it will nevertheless compel further investigation.
Therefore, I'm concerned that Azviz may be continuing to circumvent the block, and I would like to have the matter investigated. (I'm not sure if I should have added this under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz, but I wasn't sure if that would be noticed and acted upon. Apologies if I've done this wrong; this is new territory for me.) — INTRIGUEBLUE ( talk| contribs) 04:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I have to agree with HelloAnnyong. I mean, it does look like this user is a little too new to be understanding some of the edits already made, but I don't think this fits under Azviz' MO in the slightest. – MuZemike 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Recreation of Jerry Bremner [24] and Chad Harden [25], both were deleted by Kww.
Interested in "Stampede", [26] [27] just like previous suspect. [28] Don't forget the Calgary factor, [29] it also exists within this account.
Contribution history is highly incosistent. Edits from 2010, then one from 2014, resumed editing from 6 April 2015. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Both users are on a driveby tagging/deletion spree, tagging articles created by specific users (explicitly DreamGuy and Cannibaloki) for deletion. After a stern warning given to Wordssuch here (and acknowledged by blanking the page here and here), in come Azviz to continue with the deletion-tagging on specific articles ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and so on as indicated in the edit history), which seems to be wikistalking. MuZemike 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) MuZemike 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I will note that the suspected sockpuppeteer has accused me of sockpuppetry (and harassment) myself here. MuZemike 06:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Clerk declined Insufficient evidence of either serious pattern vandalism or abusive socking to warrant CU Mayalld ( talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delisted There is a gap of nearly a month between Wordssuch's single day editing career, and Azviz registering an account. Wordssuch was not blocked, and even if this is the same user, there is no overlap in account use that could be a block avoiding tactic. At the very most we have a newbie abandoning one account and starting another. Mayalld ( talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Mayalld ( talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that a checkuser on these accounts is in progress and being conducted by
Lucasbfr (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA). This page is formed for paperwork purposes.
PeterSymonds (
talk) 22:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Syn ergy 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
User contribs are identical of that to Esasus with regards to removing {{ prod}} templates at a rapid rate from articles. User has also, in the same manner as the already-blocked socks, made similar remarks at ANI report, again accusing DreamGuy ( talk · contribs) of wikistalking. Also see the following relevant past incidents: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Prodding spree and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive185#User:Esasus removing PROD tags from articles. MuZemike 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The accusation is false and put forward as a form of intimidation. I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and I have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Varbas ( talk) 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I blocked Iwelak indefinitely to prevent abusive sock-puppetry, but did not block Varbas. Assuming good faith, Varbas might have not wanted to edit under Iwelak and stopped and created Varbas. As Nathan said, their editing time frame never overlapped so no need to punish Varbas. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
IP is posting similar reports to ANI as noted at here and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Detailed response by Azviz. This was the IP's first edit, which leads to believe that this is the same person who has been attempting to bait DreamGuy ( talk · contribs) into another block. MuZemike 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added a second IP, new IP address evidently dedicated to reverting edits by DreamGuy. Both IPs are from Shaw Communications. Dougweller ( talk) 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Added two more IPs from the same cluster I noticed reverting my edits for no reason. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Added yet another... someone canvassing to get people whose edits I have removed for various reasons in the past to go complain to ArbCom about me. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding Varbas, as he is most recent of suspected named socks. His behavior has escalated since the last report, that showed it was possible he was a sock of Azviz. Perhaps now there'll be more info that can confirm it. Several people have noted his edits and the IP edits have the same tone and targets, so if any are connected to Azviz they could connect together. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I am also adding User:Granite thump, as he was created around the time when the first Azviz socks were being identified and was part of group told by members of the "article rescue squadron" that their constant delete votes with flimsy rationale was not helpful. The account started on edits to articles but seems to be mainly focused on AFDs now, which fits the demontrated strategy of some of the previous Azviz socks. Of course it could just be a new user too. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot ( talk) 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
-- Luk talk 08:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Contribs indicate that this is another sock of User:Esasus/ User:/Azviz. The first edit is a deprod with rationale similar to those given in the serial deprodding actions by this user. The second edit reverts a removal made by DreamGuy ( talk · contribs). Finally, the IP, just as in the previous SPI case, Geolocates to Calgary. Actions indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 22:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Blocked for a week. PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Signs of similar editing by previous socks (IP and registered) of Esasus ( talk · contribs) as shown [7] as well as making another complaint to ANI accusing the same user of vandalism (see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). IP, as in the others, geolocate to Calgary. Actions again indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Blocked for two weeks. PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Only edits by IP have been deprodding articles, and IP Geolocates to Calgary as with the other IP socks of User:Esasus. Actions indicate WP:DUCK. MuZemike 04:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I also note the following:
MuZemike 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Rterrace ( talk) 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Added User:Alfnetwork as it reverted a revert of a prod by the IP address above and is a brand new editor whose only edits concern making sure articles are prodded or tagged as previously deprodded. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Adding in User:Nosehillbranch... I spotted this account yesterday but thought the similarities weren't there yet to add to this list (early edits could have just been to build up an edit history of minor changes to throw off sock investigations), but just in the last day the account has been identified as others as a largely deprod-only account (all of recent edits are such), and User:Beltline is systematically going around adding "previously prodded" templates for Nosehillbranch's deprods. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed a pattern of deprodding on the last day, often at the last minute, by other accounts that seem to be newly created for deprodding: User:Rockyview, User:Rterrace and User:Courtscentre. User:Rterrace, for example, deprodded Autrey Hayes, an utterly unverifiable person, which seems to be way off topic for him, judging by the scientific articles he edited over the last few days. He also recreated an article Jeffrey F. Bell, which predates the creation of his account (I don't know if there is any connection between Azviz and this article). Abductive ( talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what is going on. I have not made any edits to the Nancy LaMott article, and I have been adding the "oldprodfull" tag to the talk pages of all previously deproded articles, and I intend to continue to do so. I have received encouragement on my talk page for taking on that responsibility. And yes, when I come across an article that has been previously deproded I do (properly) remove the restored prod tag with an appropriate edit comment. That is the right thing to do as a prod tag should not be restored after it has been once removed. Beltline ( talk) 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is my intend to add more info to the stub articles at a later time. If an admin will check my edits you will see that the few edits I have made have been constructive. I checked the contribution history of Abductive whose "1st" edit was on May 19, 2009 [19]. Why is this "new" editor involved in only deletion discussions and proposals? Is he really a new editor? Courtscentre ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
With regards to two new registered suspected socks, I am requesting checkuser with reason indicated in the request above. MuZemike 05:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is of my opinion that Alfnetwork (whom I did not add to this SPI), from looking at the contribs, is not a sock of Esasus, but the editing patterns seem to match those described in the Administrators' noticeboard discussion mentioned above.
MuZemike 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I checked the various Bahals recently created; I came across them short page patrolling the other day -tagged them unref'd and now all have references and they seem legit with the possible exception of Bahal, Kenya, however, the place is recognized (not as a city, but as an area) at GEOnames in the place Courtscentre claims, but it has been prodded because those coordinates are in Ethiopia not Kenya, but hardly vandalism as it is verified, although possibly in error (either its exsitence or its location). The others all check out at GEOnames, and with the exception of Bahal, Iran at Google maps as well. I don't know what Google's coverage of Iran is given the embargo, but it apprears FWIW that Courtscentre's edits to create "the Bahals" are defensible. By the way, there's no indication that any of the Bahal are cities rather than villages and so noted in the articles. No comment on who may be a sock of whom, but just commenting on the Bahals as I had flagged them originally. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please sweep for sleeper socks and nail the underlying IPs as there has been harassment. This user should not be editing at all via any means. Jehochman Talk 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed Icestorm815 • Talk 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently available technical evidence indicates the following:
-- Avi ( talk) 05:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Thanks. The confirmed accounts were already blocked/tagged by someone else. A study of the likely and possible accounts listed shows a very clear relationship to Azviz, so with the technical evidence, I have blocked and tagged them all as Azviz. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Question -- What about that IP address? Don't see that listed in conclusions, see no message on the talk page that it was blocked. Was it in or out? DreamGuy ( talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The first one geolocates to Edmonton, but the latter two geolocate to Calgary. All their first edits are reverting DreamGuy's removal of earlier improper deprodding per
WP:BAN. Clearly more quacking. On a side note, are we anywhere close to any feasible rangeblock, at least on the 68-IPs? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MuZemike (
talk •
contribs) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Doing a analysis on the ranges on the 68s and 174s from all the previous SPI cases. For the 68s, while we have all but one of them that falls under the 68.147.0.0/16 range, most of them do fall under the 68.147.192.0/18 range. The two 174s fall under the 174.0.32.0/19 range. MuZemike 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Added 137.186.254.160 due to this edit. IP geolocates to Calgary. Them From Space 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Added 68.147.233.9 and 68.147.248.112. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
More for exact same reasons, will just add them above as they come in. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is actually going to require checkuser assistance. Will need to see how much collateral damage there will be on a rangeblock of the 68.147.2.... block. I certify the basis for a request for checkuser assistance. Enigma msg 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Declined Each of the /16 blocks is are 65K IPs, we are looking at about 500,000 IPs above; those ranges are too large to block at this point, I believe. I recommend anon blocking /24 ranges of WP:DUCK-positive edits for a week or two as needed. If this escalates further, return here. -- Avi ( talk) 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Same similar edits being made again, including random serial deprodding with the exact same types of edit summaries used to the previously-blocked socks as well as other similar minor edits also employed by said socks. The username "Mardaloop" refers to Marda Loop, Calgary (most of the suspected/confirmed socks originate from Calgary). MuZemike 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that Toddst1 looks suspiciously like Gasp2009 and a checkuser will probably show a link. Gasp2009 ( talk) 05:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not invade my privacy. I was ...hernandez but it just got too heated so I quit using that and am using Gasp2009. Satisfied? Checkuser, please remove my name from this. Also note that MuZemike says the socks deprod articles. I have never proded or deproded an article because I don't even know what a deprod is (castration???).
I am not in Canada (MuZemike says the socks are coming from Calgary, in Canada) Also consider running a checkuser on MuZemike and Abductive who could be socks of other people, especially Abductive who admits creating many socks http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AAreas_for_Reform&diff=303825864&oldid=303821914 . After all, it takes a thief to know one. Better yet, I will paypal you, the checkuser $100 if I am Windlake or Marmaloop or you will paypal me $100 if I am not.
Please also see Wikipedia policy which states "It(checkuser) will not be used without good cause, which you must clearly demonstrate." The complainer has failed to show where I deprodded articles or wrote in cahoots with the other users. The complainer is being disruptive and disruption is a reason for them to be blocked. I came today to write an article about scallops but now I am fed up! Gasp2009 ( talk) 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Gasp2009 contacted me and essentially admitted being a sock. He seems to be trying for some sort of rapprochement, although his methods have become ...unsound. Abductive ( talk) 22:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Toddst1 was added to the list of suspects by Gasp2009 as part of a campaign of baiting Toddst1. [21] [22]. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Along with confirming via technical plus behavioral evidence, there are likely other socks in this farm as they have kept coming out consistently within the past three or four months. MuZemike 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I do not know who the Sockmaster is, but this apparently new user (May 20) has made hundreds of edits, particularly rin the last week, with many warnings, see User talk: Inniverse and Special:Contributions/Inniverse. Very odd behavior for a brand new user; I think this is not a newbie. And, apparently disruptive. though not a direct problem for me, other than reverting about six red links. Just worth checking. Montanabw (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
The socks below inni have no contributions whatsoever. Phearson ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
(I'll consider myself involved as far as this is concerned and recuse in clerking capacity, hence my posting in this section.) Looking at the contributions, the user has been doing quite a bit of (nearly) mass-dePRODding and knows quite a bit of WP:PROD from the get-go. In addition, there is quite a bit of wiki-gnoming going on here. I know one person who had similar patterns in the past, and that is serial sockpuppeteer Azviz ( talk · contribs), who had about 40 socks going last year, engaging in harassment and otherwise disruption. – MuZemike 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible; based on the archive, I believe this account geolocates to the same metropolitan area as User:Azviz. We can't be more certain because Azviz's prior socks are Stale. No other current socks found.
I would not have checked this but for the A Nobody request, which turned out to be Unrelated. Remember that CheckUser is not for fishing. Cool Hand Luke 03:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. Incidentally, despite the claim above, I didn't request this checkuser in this report: it was apparently cut-and-pasted from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody.— Kww( talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
All three accounts have been engaging in the same serial de-PRODing as Azviz and socks have done back in 2009. This includes similar edit summaries and now even similar articles. These accounts seem to have a knack of going straight to ANI after disputes with other users in which nothing normally happens. Requesting a CheckUser look into this for a connection (I will not act in an admin capacity as I have been involved in the past in this SPI case as a filer back in 2008 and 2009), as Cool Hand Luke has made a possible connection (but not definitive) in the previous CU request. – MuZemike 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) – MuZemike 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
MuZemike's past allegation that I am a sock of Azviz has already been confuted, and it is demonstrability obvious that I am not Moorsmur. A close look at the edit histories for myself and Moorsmur clearly demonstrates that I have not been operating multiple accounts. There are no common articles between us, and on June 30th both accounts were actively editing during the same time frame - even making edits during the exact same minute! It is not possible for me to have been editing on these two different accounts simultaneously.
It appears to me that I am being persecuted by MuZemike. I can only speculate as to his motives, but I will point out that even after it was demonstrated to the Wikicommunity that I am not Azviz, MuZemike has repeatedly accused me that I am, first here on August 24th where he calls me “Azviz” (at that time I chose to ignore his bait), and now again here, where I was not even notified of this SPI investigation.
MuZemike is aware that due to my editing location in the past I have been identified as a “false positive” match to Azviz, but I hope that now this will be finally put to rest and the persecution will stop. I am not able to edit for a few days, so it is unlikely that I will be able to make a quick response to comments. Inniverse ( talk) 01:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser comments: Likely that the following three accounts are socks of each other, based on checkuser data and behavioural evidence:
I will leave it to checkuser clerks or other administrators to block as they see appropriate. Risker ( talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Per [23], someone should have a chat with GeorgeWilliamHerbert]. I don't know anything that Inniverse could have provided to be so convincing, since, after all, we don't have a real-life ID of Azviz to compare it to. I decided not to raise a fuss at the time.— Kww( talk) 15:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Inniverse blocked and tagged.— Kww( talk) 18:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Ralph Thomas Scurfield is a heavily-biased article related to the Sunshine Village ski resort (the father of the manager), which is currently engaged in covering up an ongoing controversy regarding the dismissal of several ski patrollers.
Based on the number of authors involved in fluffing this article, I am concerned that some or all of them are sock puppets, as is clearly the case at Sunshine Village. My evidence in support of this suspicion is only circumstantial, but I hope that it will nevertheless compel further investigation.
Therefore, I'm concerned that Azviz may be continuing to circumvent the block, and I would like to have the matter investigated. (I'm not sure if I should have added this under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz, but I wasn't sure if that would be noticed and acted upon. Apologies if I've done this wrong; this is new territory for me.) — INTRIGUEBLUE ( talk| contribs) 04:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I have to agree with HelloAnnyong. I mean, it does look like this user is a little too new to be understanding some of the edits already made, but I don't think this fits under Azviz' MO in the slightest. – MuZemike 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Recreation of Jerry Bremner [24] and Chad Harden [25], both were deleted by Kww.
Interested in "Stampede", [26] [27] just like previous suspect. [28] Don't forget the Calgary factor, [29] it also exists within this account.
Contribution history is highly incosistent. Edits from 2010, then one from 2014, resumed editing from 6 April 2015. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.